So we will ask everyone else to be on mute.
We've got 51 here so far.
And Andrew, has Stephen explained to you
what you're expecting or Stephen,
you want to introduce Andrew?
I've heard of Andrew, many of us have.
Stephen, over here.
So Andrew, he's a medical doctor.
He's a forensic psychiatrist.
I'm not quite sure Andrew,
how long you practice psychiatry,
whether you're still doing it now or?
Well, I'm not practicing psychiatry
in the traditional manner, but about 10 years.
I see, yeah, okay.
And yes, so Andrew knows about the Nuremberg Code
and the Hippocratic oath.
And I was watching you today,
you were battling with Wolfgang Wodarg.
I suppose, yes.
It struck me that, you know,
I wasn't really taking sides at the beginning,
but then I noticed that you were cut off
by all three of them after your opening statements.
Yes.
The three central pillars.
And that for some reason,
they wanted to go to Stefan Lanker.
I don't know whether you'd suggested that,
but it looked really, it looked like,
it looked like they'd planned it.
But anyway, perhaps-
Well, Stefan was originally going to really just follow up
on what I said, but talk about some details
and his experiments that he conducted.
And then it was kind of derailed when he got cut off
and then they bombarded him with questions.
And so it's unfortunate the way that it happened.
But I'm hopeful that this will be a different type
of experience where we can just have an open
and honest discourse and, you know,
kind of leave the emotional attachments out of it
because to just look at this as, you know,
a scientific question and how do we use evidence
and reason to answer it?
Yes, and that would be really helpful.
I saw you discussing,
not sure whether you were doing a monologue,
you were discussing exactly that with a medical doctor,
but I've forgotten the name of that medical doctor now.
Was it medical doctor?
Can't remember, I'm sorry.
But so I've seen little bits over the weekend and,
but I must admit, Andrew,
you are very impressive as a witness
and David Martin is the other one who comes to mind.
Yes, we both are very analytical
and it's interesting that we have looked at this material
with a total different evidence base.
Like he looked at patents and legal documents, right?
Whereas I looked at scientific papers,
but we ultimately reached the same conclusion.
Sure, yeah.
Do you differ on anything?
I did ask you in an email, but maybe you didn't see it.
Yeah, well, I mean, I haven't, you know,
had a in-depth conversation with him lately,
but based on his presentations at the Red Pill Expo
and the Weston A. Price Foundation, which were in October,
I was also at the Weston A. Price actually.
I think we're pretty much in agreement
about the major.
I think I'm gonna show you, thank you.
Sorry, there's some, okay, sorry.
That's okay. Pretty much.
Yeah, I noticed he was, forgive me if I'm wrong,
but I think you've said that the spike protein
is an invention too, is that right?
Yes, I've kind of tracked that down
to the original papers in the 60s.
Brilliant, but David Martin was taking,
I think he was talking at one point
as if the spike protein was an entity.
So I thought-
Well, he found a, right.
He found a patent with the sequence for the spike protein
that matched what was used in the current mRNA injections
that was issued well before the pandemic.
Yeah, very interesting.
So the spike protein in the eyes of many
is the fear weapon for the scientists, if you like.
So do you think they deliberately
manufactured that story or?
Well, I mean, it's clear to me
that whatever the spike protein is,
it doesn't come from nature.
So it's never been purified from a source in nature
and there's never been a sequencing of an intact gene
for the spike protein from nature.
There have been fragments that have been put together
by various procedures, even pre-PCR,
they used in situ colony hybridization
to do a similar job of PCR, but much less powerful tool.
And so what I believe the spike protein is,
is that it's an engineered protein
that is engineered to have a certain degree of toxicity
or some other effects.
It may cause infertility, it's hard to tell,
but that's my best guess as to what it is
without seeing the lab notebooks from Wuhan and other places.
Yeah, and I wonder whether you might be able to mention
at some point.
So maybe it was wishful thinking,
but I think you dismissed shedding at some point.
Well, I think it's certainly theoretically possible.
We don't have any direct evidence of spike protein
in bodily fluids.
No one's, unless someone's done it recently,
no one's even looked at that or published a paper
except one small study looking only at blood from Canada
using a very questionable assay procedure.
So, we can't tell from that respect
if there's something in the fluids, we just don't know.
There was some survey research of about 30,000 respondents
that some people actually who did market research
and had that survey expertise teamed up
with a couple of medical people to try and use their
techniques to look at this question.
And we had this large data set.
So there were, like I said, about 30,000 people
who had symptoms, who had exposure vicariously
to people who were jabbed, right?
So indirect exposure, none of them were injected.
And there was not really any signal
except possibly among intimate partners.
But also anecdotally, we haven't heard of any people
with Guillain-Barre syndrome, with myocarditis,
with clotting and bleeding disorders
who have not been directly injected,
or at least I'm not aware of any evidence like that.
So even if there is some kind of shedding transmission
of something, it doesn't seem to cause
the serious disability and death that we see
from people who are recipients of the injections.
Yeah, I see.
All right, Stephen, so let's get into this.
Andrew, I presume you've prepared a presentation.
Everyone's desperately keen to hear your presentation.
And then we'll have Q&A afterwards
for those of you who wish to ask a question.
You know the process under the Reactions tab
at the bottom of your screen.
You put your hand up, we'll deal with the questions in order
after Stephen has the first write of questions
after you finish.
So if you tell us about yourself
and we look forward to hearing
what you're going to share with us.
Welcome to Stephen Frost's Doctors for COVID Ethics
and the 62 or 61 rest of us that are here.
All right, well, I'll just introduce myself a little bit
for those who may not know anything about me.
But while I'm doing that, if you would mind
enabling my screen share, because I have a slideshow
to present to everyone.
Yep.
So I'm Dr. Andrew Kaufman.
Okay, thank you.
So I come from a background of doing
scientific investigation in various ways.
I did public health research for the CDC
in New York City Health Department
related to AIDS surveillance.
I've done molecular biology and chemistry
like molecular modeling, especially researched at MIT
where I was an undergrad.
I worked in the biotech industry at Genzyme and Biogen
in R&D and manufacturing.
And then later on, I went back to medical school.
Well, actually, first I was a physician assistant
and I worked in hematology and oncology
as a faculty member at the Medical University
of South Carolina.
So I did bone marrow transplants, inpatient hematology,
malignant and non malignant and learned a lot
about hardcore medicine because I had shuffling patients
back and forth through the ICU,
doing a lot of procedures and a lot of end of life counseling.
And then when I went to medical school
at the same university,
I just decided to specialize in psychiatry
because it was really fascinating to me.
And I realized that it was the end of life relationships
that I had with my cancer patients
that was really what was rewarding to me.
And I felt the same kind of experience in psychiatry.
So when I found out about forensic psychiatry later on,
that was really attractive because I like to debate
and think about things critically
and interested in law as well.
So I went to Duke for my general psychiatry residency
and did a little bit of research there
and then went to upstate medical university in Syracuse
where I'm at now to do my fellowship
to study with James Knoll, who is a very well-known expert
and a prolific author on various topics.
And he trained me very well to be an expert witness
and to study case law related to mental health,
civil commitment, insanity defense, things like that,
informed consent, actually.
I can talk about Canterbury v. Spence,
the DC Court of Appeals presiding case
in the United States about that
and how it's being violated
in addition to the Nuremberg Code.
And then I just became disenchanted with academic medicine
because of the politics and the backstabbing nature
of things and the financial pressures that were going on.
So I just was working as a consultant
and I was very skeptical of psychiatry.
I didn't see people get better for medications.
I saw the toxic effects.
I began learning different things
and I was exposed to Kelly Brogan's book,
A Mind of Your Own, where she really debunked
much of psychotropic treatment
and then introduced a nutritional way of healing.
And when I tried that with myself and a colleague
for the first time, I had, for the first time,
seen someone be cured of anxiety.
And so that kind of led me down a path of discovery,
studying natural healing.
And I've learned that actually people can heal completely
from all of these chronic diseases
that I was told were incurable
and you had to manage with lifelong medications.
And part of that came from looking critically
at the outcomes of allopathic medical procedure
and realizing that even by their own standards,
at a minimum, the third leading cause of death
is from medical care in the United States.
And I had just begun to look at some
of the early germ theory research
from Béchamp, Pasteur, Bernard, and Robert Koch
from the turn of the century that led to the whole kind
of germ theory paradigm that we're in,
just a month or two before the pandemic was announced.
And I read Nancy Turner Banks' book,
AIDS, Opium, Diamonds, and Empire.
She's a physician of that era.
Who was skeptical of the HIV virus.
And since then, actually we've become friends,
although she's in her late years
and kind of wants to stay out of the spotlight right now.
And I ended up looking at the virus issue
because I just wanted to figure out what was going on,
why there were people wearing masks in February of 2020
in the California airports.
So I started at the beginning.
Let me read the papers that discover the virus
and start there and work all the way up to the highest level.
And I was just kind of really surprised
at what I was discovering because it didn't make sense
what they were doing, how they could say
that they found something.
And then that led me down the rabbit hole
that brought me here today.
So I'm just gonna give kind of an overview of,
and I'm assuming that most, if not perhaps all of you,
have never really looked at how scientists,
specifically virologists discover viruses
and how they show that they exist.
It's certainly not something they teach in medical school
and not even probably in grad school
unless you're specifically in virology
or at least microbiology.
And so it's maybe unfamiliar
and you might have to think about it a bit
and I'm sure you'll have good questions,
but I hope you'll just be open-minded.
Andrew, to give you a bit of a heads up,
there are doctors here, there are lawyers,
there are dentists, there are scientists,
there are physicists, there are business people,
there are, it says really, you know, I would-
Okay.
So it's just a broad mix.
All right, well, I'm glad you told me that
because I do have a couple of more introductory slides
that I was planning to skip,
but I'll make sure I review those
for any of the non-medical, non-scientific
or non-biological scientific people, so thank you.
All right, so I'm gonna take that opportunity
to share my screen here.
All right, hopefully everyone can see that okay.
So the new pandemic paradigm of virus simulation.
Okay, so in my opinion, this is the most important question
because everything else is based upon it.
Carl Sagan said extraordinary claims
require extraordinary evidence.
And in this situation, we have the claim
that there is a microscopic particle
that is very dangerous and disrupting the entire virus.
And that's what I'm trying to do.
I'm trying to make it clear that I'm not proposing a theory
and I'm not making a claim, I'm refuting this claim.
And, you know, according to Carl Sagan,
it requires extraordinary evidence.
Now here's another principle of reasoning
called Hitchens' Razor for Modern Philosophy.
What can be asserted without evidence
can be dismissed without evidence.
And that's what I'm attempting to do.
Most of the time when I get into a discussion
or a debate about this issue,
the other side uses logical fallacies
rather than arguing the point directly.
And so here's a list of some common ones.
And I'm sure that we'll avoid these traps
in our discussion later.
But it's good to learn about these
just for reasoning purposes to help with discernment
because you can read a lot of debates
going on about various issues.
And obviously the official sources
are not telling the truth about things.
So we have to be very careful in how we figure out
what is legitimate and what's not.
So the most common logic fallacy used against me
has been ad hominem.
And that can be a direct insult.
It could be someone questioning
whether I was really a doctor
or saying that I'm not a virologist
so I'm not qualified to talk about the science of virology.
In my opinion, everyone is qualified to learn any subject.
And if they can speak about it intelligently,
then they have a right certainly
to share their ideas and opinions.
In fact, I look at it as a responsibility
if it's an important issue.
So I wanna remind everyone of Professor Ioannidis'
famous article, one of the most widely cited articles
in the published literature,
why most published research findings are false,
where he said that it could be proven
that most, meaning more than half,
of all the published research findings are actually false.
And so when it comes to virology,
this is which part they're in.
Okay, so just to review the reason to look at this issue
is because every single thing that we're facing
that is causing us harm in the world
and why we're all gathered here
is a result of the allegation of this virus.
If we continue to believe in this false notion also,
then we will be unable to learn the true causes
of illnesses and possible cures.
And we'll be vulnerable to other false narratives.
Some of them we could talk about here,
you might still think are true,
like pathogenic priming,
also known as antibody-dependent enhancement,
also that there is a contagious bioweapon
that has been released.
Okay, so as was pointed out earlier
on my interview on the Corona Committee,
I mentioned that there were three pillars
to how viruses are claimed to exist.
And so we're gonna look at the first pillar here,
the isolation question.
Okay, and so here is a little animation
of how you would do a proper isolation
or purification procedure
where you take the discovered organism
or a proposed virus directly from a biological host.
And this is the way that all other organisms
or particles of this size have been discovered and purified,
like the bacteriophages in the culture.
Now, some have criticized
that that happened in a culture, in a laboratory,
but what they did was grow bacteria in the laboratory
and bacteria are the source of bacteriophages.
So it would be like growing humans in the laboratory
and then taking tissue from humans to isolate viruses,
which would probably be a little bit overkill,
but it would be the right approach logically.
So the point is that the way that the model proposes
that viruses actually exist is that
there are particles that come from the outside,
they get into the body,
and then they find the tissue that they prefer to be in
and they replicate using the host's machinery.
So that's where you should be able to find
the highest concentration of these particles
if that's in fact what happens.
So you need to take it directly from there, from nature,
not from some other source
that is under unnatural conditions, okay?
If you look at how any other creature was discovered,
it was always taken directly from nature
and viruses are the only exception
to this scientific approach.
So you can see that you would take the fluid or tissue
from the person, you would filter it
to get rid of larger cells and particles,
then you would purify it by some means
like density gradient ultra centrifugation,
that's the time-honored test,
but with respect to the exosome research,
there have been many modern methods
that have been used to purify exosomes
directly from biological tissues
such as affinity, chromatography, and other physical means.
Okay, I was, I...
Sorry, I just wanna set this up.
So the purification, so we've seen that
virology has a different meaning for isolation.
They're talking about putting it in a cell culture,
I'm gonna explain exactly how they do it in a moment,
but purification is a word that has not been corrupted.
So that means to take a mixture of things, right?
Some source of the virus and then purify out just the virus.
So in this clip, Luc Montagnier, who as I'm sure you know,
was awarded the Nobel Prize for allegedly discovering
the HIV virus along with Bob Gallo
and is one of the top virologists in the world,
is from France, and he was asked in this interview,
why is it important to purify viruses?
So I'll just play it again.
Okay, I think I was taught wrong now.
I was taught that the purification...
Can everybody hear that?
Yep.
Okay, fantastic.
deutlich
It doesn't say....
I was taught wrong, I was taught that the purification part
was to get all the proteins from the virus.
No.
What was the purpose of the purification then?
Well, to make sure
You have a real virus, I know.
So we see how important that is, that you know what he said, why do we purify to show
that we have a real virus.
Now we know from many sources that SARS-CoV-2 has never been purified.
That's been published in an article by Torsten Engelbrecht where he showed email correspondence
with the authors of the principal isolation papers.
And also through Christine Massey's work, who is a statistician or former statistician from Canada
who has been submitting Freedom of Information Act requests to governments and agencies
and universities around the world asking for evidence of purified SARS-CoV-2
and everyone has come up with no evidence.
Now of course, as with all scientific experiments, it's important to conduct a control experiment
to isolate the variables and show that the experimental procedure itself did not produce the results
so that you don't misinterpret them.
And in that case, you might take the lung fluid from a healthy individual
or perhaps even from someone with a lung disease that was not the same,
so like someone with lung cancer or with bacterial pneumonia,
and you would do the same exact procedure, filter it, purify, find a band of particles
and then look at them under the microscope and then you would see essentially a blank.
And that would confirm that whatever your findings were in the previous screen,
the purified bacteriophages, that they were real and not,
that they were only associated with the illness and not found in other subjects.
And of course you should do this with a number of subjects to make sure that there are consistent results,
so maybe 50 subjects and 50 controls.
When these were done for SARS-CoV-2, they were done with less than 10 subjects
and some of the experiments only with a single subject, and no controls were performed.
But we'll get to that.
So this is how they do the procedure, very different from what I described.
They call this virus isolation. It's really a tissue culture experiment.
And they take the fluid from the sick person that they suspect has a virus, viral disease.
They filter it very coarsely.
Sometimes they do a basic centrifugation. This is not purification.
It's just to remove debris that forms a pellet, but it doesn't even remove all the cells.
And then they do a tissue culture, but they vary the conditions of the cells.
They usually use foreign cells like monkey kidney cells.
They may use other foreign cells. Occasionally they use human cells.
They also use fetal cells on occasion.
But they don't continue the normal culture conditions.
Instead they reduce the nutrition to 10 percent, generally speaking, sometimes lower of the normal amount.
Then they use a modified nutrition, which is less nutrient dense.
And then what they do is they add fetal calf serum.
And that, because it's from a fetal animal, it has some factors in there that improve the survival of the cells in the culture.
And it also is a source of protein nutrition.
But of course it's a foreign material, a blood product.
So if there are such a thing as viral particles, it would certainly be a source of contamination.
It's also been shown in the literature to be a source of contamination for any downstream genetic testing.
So if they were to do a PCR test, for example, on the culture fluid, the results would be contaminated by the fetal bovine or fetal calf serum.
There are papers that looked at that that basically say that the genetic testing would be worthless if you add this constituent.
Then they add the antibiotics and they do these at higher than normal concentrations, usually two or three times the normal concentration.
They often pick antibiotics with nephrotoxicity like gentamicin, amino glycosides, amfrotericin and streptomycin when they're using kidney cells.
And under these conditions, they observe the culture and they find what they call cytopathic effects.
As you can see, there is some changes in the morphology.
There are these plaques that form and this is a sign of the cells are in the dying process.
And this is what's put forth as the proof that there was a virus way back in the original sample of the lung fluid, even though it's not known what else was in that lung fluid.
They sometimes do some molecular testing to rule out certain known bacteria and viruses.
But there are flaws because many of those tests are not validated.
But they really don't do a compositional analysis and say what's everything that's in there.
And of course, there's no control experiment.
So it's really erroneous to interpret it this way.
So back to the issue of control experiments, were any control experiments ever performed?
So this is a paper by John Enders and this is the original paper where this method was developed, the tissue culture isolation experiments.
And Enders won the Nobel Prize related to the polio vaccine for developing this procedure.
But it was developed as a manufacturing procedure of vaccines.
So they used to think you could only, you know, quote unquote culture viruses using the type of cells that it infects.
So for polio using spinal cord or nerve cells, as some of you may know, those are very difficult to culture in a laboratory.
So he had the idea to use some kind of fetal cells, which were much easier to grow.
They're practically immortal in the laboratory.
And he mixed in the toxic ground up spinal cord from people who died of polio in with the fetal cell culture and was able to use that to manufacture the polio vaccine.
And I think he helped either Salk or Sabin.
I don't remember for sure.
But nonetheless, in this paper, which is about measles, he used the same procedure with a different cell line.
But it wasn't necessarily for the purpose of manufacturing a vaccine in this case, or at least it wasn't published.
It was for investigation.
You know, they talked about propagation in the tissue cultures.
But in this experiment where they did, you know, essentially what I just described, except they added a few other things like milk to the sample.
They did the procedure without a source of measles and got the same exact results, the cytopathic effects.
And they, you know, wrote in here that that could either be from another virus from the kidney cells, unknown, of course, always blame a virus, or it could be from unknown factors.
Right? But never consider that it was the tissue culture conditions themselves that could have been the cause, even though that is the purpose of doing a control experiment.
And in the conclusion of this paper, by the way, it doesn't say that it proves the existence of a virus, the cytopathic effects.
And it also says specifically that what they found in vitro does not necessarily correlate with anything that happens in the patient with measles.
It was only after this publication and after the Nobel Prize was awarded that virologists began adapting this procedure suddenly to prove the existence of viruses rather than to study viruses or manufacture vaccines.
It seems to me an eerie parallel with the PCR test, which is also a manufacturing procedure to make, you know, genetic material of specified sequences has now been turned into something different.
You know, so-called tests, which of course is an invalid test.
Now, in the last year, Dr. Stefan Lanka, who is a real virologist who's no longer in the academic world, but earlier in his career as I believe a postdoc or grad student, he actually discovered a virus that lives in sea algae, so-called giant viruses.
And he used the same procedures I outlined in the proper type of experiment to purify those particles.
And then he was able to do a characterization where he could actually say what they're made of because he had the whole thing, right, just the thing in a test tube.
So everything in there was from that thing.
So when he processed it, he knew that that's where the things came from.
So he could look at a genome sequence and say, you know, characterize the proteins or lipids or whatever materials that went to make up the particle.
And it was when he discovered how they don't do that in the so-called disease causing viruses is when he ended up leaving his post and, you know, doing the kind of speaking out that he's been doing for a while.
But he gathered up the funds and worked with a partner in academic lab to actually conduct another control experiment similar to Anders' control experiment.
But in this experiment, you know, partly because of the difficulty of obtaining, of using human subjects or biological subjects and having it to be need to be approved, decided not to use the same methods.
So in other words, he conducted the tissue culture but didn't add any fluid from any organism.
So not from a sick person or a healthy person or anything else.
So in other words, there's no possible source of a dangerous virus in this experiment.
He just conducted the cell culture using in his case, he actually used the cell culture to conduct the biological culture.
He just conducted the cell culture using in his case, he actually used lung epithelial cells, which was done in one of the SARS-CoV-2 isolation experiments, except they were taken from a cancer patient.
So they must have had cancer cells in there.
But his was from a commercial cell line.
And he did the same reduction in nutrition, added the same antibiotics at the same concentrations and used the same fetal calf serum.
And he also got the same outcome, the cytopathic effects.
So in other words, he proved there was a virus when there was no virus in the experiment.
Here are the slides from his samples.
And I've changed the labels a little bit to for a lay audience, but you'll get the point.
So the top row are the cell cultures before the experiment began.
The first column all the way on the left is the control of the control experiment, where he continued the full culture medium.
The second one is partially reduced nutrition.
The third column is the full reduced nutrition plus antibiotics.
And in the last column, he also added yeast RNA, and that was for the purpose of conducting genome experiments to have a source of genetic material that was pure and commercially obtained.
But as you can see, it actually increased the cytopathic effects.
So that's just purified RNA from yeast and just the RNA itself, as you can see, increased the cytopathic effects.
I thought that was a quite interesting finding because certainly we have lots of RNA in the lung fluid used in the tissue culture experiments because that's the same fluid that's the source of RNA for the genome experiments.
So now we get to the second pillar, which is after they do those tissue culture samples rather than trying to purify any particles out of there.
They just take culture fluid and they process it for electron microscopy.
Now, if any of you are unfamiliar how tissue is prepared for electron microscopy, I strongly encourage you to look at the work of Harold Hillman because you'll see that what you're seeing in these images is not biological material at all.
In fact, the electron microscope can only see heavy metals.
So essentially all the biological material has been replaced with metals through the staining process, shooting it with an electron beam, freezing it at very low temperatures, et cetera.
But nonetheless, without getting into the artifacts of electron microscopy, we have here two separate micrographs with particles of the same size with the characteristic nodules on the outside called the spikes, except that one of these is actually not the alleged coronavirus known as SARS-CoV-2.
But in looking, can you tell the difference?
So on the left, we have kidney biopsy from patients in the pre-COVID era with renal failure.
And on the right, we have the alleged SARS coronavirus.
Now, I could show you dozens of images like this where essentially what you see are extracellular vesicles or sometimes they're intracellular.
Sometimes they're in these vesicles where they have multiple of the particles in a larger vacuole or vesicle inside the cell.
Sometimes they're undergoing a process on the cell membrane that you can't tell if it's exocytosis or not.
Because it's just a still image. It's not a video. This is not living.
Okay, but you see basically cells and particles, but they're from totally different things and they look identical.
So you can see that the cell membrane is not living.
Okay, but you see basically cells and particles, but they're from totally different things and they look identical.
And so this was published in Kidney 360 the summer before last.
And there are many other articles like this. I'm only bringing up this one particular one to illustrate.
But you could see that the authors, quote here, if I can just move myself out of the way.
Sorry, inadvertently did that.
So the potential for confusion of coronavirus particles with normal cellular components was in fact highlighted in a detailed ultra structural study by the CDC for the 2003 SARS outbreak.
So in other words, the CDC already knows this issue. This is referencing a prior paper.
And in that time, the authors recommended the viral nature of inclusion should be confirmed by immunoelectron microscopy for viral antigens or ultra structural viral RNA inside to hybridization.
Now, of course, to develop antibodies or stains for those procedures, you'd have to first have the virus purified so that you could test those things for validity for those measures.
So and there are no papers that I'm aware of where they use those procedures in an isolation experiment or in anything that's said to prove the existence of the virus.
So they're not following their own advice.
So once you understand that there's no virus that's been shown to exist, and I don't mean shown to cause disease because you can't do an experiment to see if something causes disease if you haven't first shown it to be real and have it in your hand.
So you can do the experiment.
So of course, these are the corollaries of their not being a virus that there can't be variants. There can't be a test. You can't study it in any way.
Kind of makes the answer to everything that's been said.
So I want to now move into the third pillar, which is the most complex to understand.
And I believe or my opinion is that in the future of this science, if it this fraud is not exposed, that this will become a very complex thing.
So I want to now move into the third pillar, which is the most complex to understand.
And I believe or my opinion is that in the future of this science, if it this fraud is not exposed, that this will become all the proof that they will need for their own purposes.
And it will be used directly to manufacture a vaccine.
So looking at the historical parallels, Ender's procedure was to manufacture a vaccine and then also became the proof of the existence of viruses, which is very convenient to kill two birds with one stone.
It's a great business model.
So we have now the vaccine technology has changed to a genetic technology.
So that paves the way for using the same procedure to develop the gene therapy vaccine to also be put up as proof of the existence of a virus now.
So that's what I'm going to discuss.
And let me just give a go back to a few basics here to give you the context.
So these are the four bases or nucleic acids that make up DNA and RNA.
There's one slight difference, but we don't have to worry about that detail.
There are four of them.
As you can see, there are their names.
They're just known by A, T, G and C to make it simple.
And they make up a sequence just like letters of the alphabet make up words.
And that sequence is said to determine the individual characteristics of a particular species and even a particular individual species.
And even a particular individual to some degree.
And that some of those sequences are said to make genes, which are codes for proteins and proteins of the molecules that do all the function in biological organisms.
So this double helix and then the double zipper there, that's the double stranded DNA.
RNA is the same thing, but in a single strand.
And here we have the central dogma of biology, which says that DNA, which is what's in the nucleus of ourselves and gets passed from parent to offspring, that that functions by containing the code.
And then that is transcribed into a single strand of RNA inside the nucleus.
And then that single strand of RNA leaves the nucleus.
Somehow that hasn't been worked out at all.
They say it's from nuclear pores, but it doesn't really make too much sense.
And then it goes into the cytoplasm and in the cytoplasm, it finds a ribosome, which is the machine that makes the proteins.
And it gets translated from that RNA, which is known as messenger RNA, into the protein.
And you could see the image on the bottom with that blue blob.
That's supposed to be the ribosome.
And in there, the pieces of tRNA or transfer RNA are those puzzle piece weird looking things.
And they are in groups of three called codons that code for a single amino acid.
And you could see those little colored balls on the end of them.
Those are the amino acids.
And those are the building blocks of proteins.
And of course, they also have one letter code.
But a bigger alphabet.
So DNA and RNA alphabet is four letters only.
And this is how it's said to work.
So what is the genome?
The genome is the entire sequence of genetic material in an organism.
So for humans, it would be all of the DNA that's in our nucleus.
That's in 23 chromosomes, which are just very long pieces, because our genome is so long that it can't even be in one single piece.
So how have they historically sequenced the genome like the human genome?
Well, they started with a human.
Not a mixture of humans and other organisms.
They took the genetic material in the form of chromosomes directly from the human cells.
And then they took that DNA and they did chemistry on it to determine the sequence.
And the first or the standard gold standard method is known as Sanger sequencing.
But since then, other very good procedures that work a little faster have come along, such as micropore sequencing and even some really shortcut procedures, which I'll tell you about like next generation sequencing.
But essentially, you start with the organism you're sequencing.
You just take the genetic material from them only.
And then you use some kind of chemistry to determine the sequence of bases.
So of course, that's not what they do with viruses because they have special science for viruses only.
So how do they do it with viruses?
They create an in silico genome.
So this is different from a genome in reality.
It is essentially put together in a computer only.
So the overall they do two different procedures to do genome sequencing of viruses.
None of them are like I described.
The one is called deep metagenomic sequencing, which is what I'm going to describe in this presentation.
And that's when they have a previously undiscovered virus and they basically compare what they find with the genomes of known viruses and try to map it somewhere and use that to guide them to what it is.
Now, once they have discovered a virus and then they want to see if other organisms contain that known virus, then they do a different procedure just called whole genome sequencing and where they use the index known sequence as a template to make primers.
In fact, they can't the primers contain up to 10 or 11 percent of the total genomic genetic material or the of the total genome.
But essentially, it's a targeted way.
They're look they know what they're looking for so they can see if they find it in the exit in the sample.
So back to deep metagenomic, that's what I'm going to describe here.
Now, next generation sequencing, I'll tell you what that is.
During this process, but you can see from the flow chart on the left, this comes from a company that sells kits that can do this entire procedure.
And this is their published protocol.
So you start with a clinical sample that would be like the lung fluid or nasopharyngeal fluid from a sick individual.
And then if you look on the left in the green pathway, it says ultra centrifugation dentistry gradient, like I was describing, and then pure virus particles.
Now, that would be the correct way to do this.
Then they put an alternative pathway on the on the right side, right, which is to semi purify or enrich the virus particles.
OK, so that's the two pathways that this manufacturer recommends.
Neither of those are done in the published studies.
They do essentially no purification.
They just do a very preliminary preparation.
Now, the next thing is to extract the genetic material in the case of coronaviruses.
They're only looking at RNA.
So they didn't do a study where they looked also at DNA and say, can we construct a DNA viral genome?
They only look for RNA because they already knew they were looking for a SARS like virus because they identified the patients that they did this.
And by the way, they did this sequencing before any virus was isolated.
They only identified the patient by a PCR test, which the primers and probes of the PCR test were designed from the 2003 SARS 1 virus, which was sequenced the exact same procedure that I'm describing.
So we have here a circular reasoning like a tautology where they define the case based on the presumed presence of a SARS like virus.
Then they looked for sequences that were similar to a SARS like virus.
And then they constructed an in silico genome of a SARS like virus and said that it confirmed originally what they thought that it was a SARS like virus.
So back to the flow chart.
So we could see that we extract the genetic material, then we amplify it.
And that's usually done by PCR these days.
It can be done non-specifically with random primers so that every sequence that's in the sample is amplified.
And then what they don't mention here is that this procedure of the actual sequencing that said sequencing on NGS, that's next generation sequencing platform, that they can only use small strands or oligonucleotides, generally 150 base pairs or less.
Now, this is because of the capacity of throughput of this machine that does this, because what it does is it takes all of these separate strands at once, anchors them onto a two dimensional array, which is like a solid substrate.
So they're kind of, you know, attached like by one end, like little strings sticking up off of this 2D sheet, like a sheet of paper.
And they're all sequenced simultaneously.
So in parallel.
And because of the complexity of the operation, they have to be short.
So 150 or less, some papers even do shorter strands.
And that's important because the longer strands give you more certainty that the sequence came from one source.
Right. And 150 is nowhere even near enough to represent a single gene.
So in other words, there's no possibility of even a single gene being intact in the specimens that you're going to sequence because they'd have to be too short to qualify for this procedure.
So then all of those short sequences are determined through this process.
And then you have basically, they call it the reads.
So all of the sequenced short strands are called reads.
And then the reads are put into this process called alignment.
First, they put them in a software to make them into longer strands.
And then they compare them with reference standards and search the genomic database.
And I'll show you this, how it was done specifically with SARS-CoV-2.
So here's the paper from Nature that I was describing with the first genome sequence reported even before the virus was falsely isolated.
So this is the procedure.
They just had one single patient.
They were defined as having COVID from the faulty PCR test.
The RNA was extracted from their lung fluid.
But of course, that is a messy sample.
It includes many sources of RNA, bacteria, fungi, whatever was in the air sample, human, parasite, etc.
Then the RNA was analyzed for how much there was and how long the strands were.
Then they separated out the short strands.
They made the amplified library like I described, or maybe I didn't describe it, but it's essentially a cDNA library, which just makes it easier.
Then they did the sequencing with only short strands.
Then they trimmed the sequences, which is by an undescribed process that the researchers used.
And they got over 56 million individual reads.
So each one of those represents one separate RNA strand from the sample of 150 bases or less.
Quite a large number.
So how do they go from over 56 million little reads to a genome?
So I'm going to use an analogy here.
And I'm going to not use any technical jargon.
So we're going to talk about a book.
So let's just make this analogy that a book is like a viral genome.
And the entire sequence of letters in the book is equivalent to the sequence of nucleotides in a genome.
But what if you don't know that a book exists and you want to discover it, but you don't have the intact genome?
So we'll take this analogy that lets us imagine that you hear about this science fiction book that's never been discovered.
It's rumored to exist. You go to this library in the basement.
They may have it, but all the books they have are torn to shreds.
They have like a couple of hundred volumes of books, but none of them are intact.
So you get all these shreds that have short sequences of words on it or letters.
And you try to reconstruct the book.
So you take all the pieces and you look for overlapping letters that match.
And you put them together by the overlaps into complete sentences.
Now, as you can see, depending on how many letters overlap, you can make different sentences.
Now, let me just say that this is not quite a fair analogy because book words have an alphabet with 26 letters, much more than the DNA code.
So that's actually easier to do this because there's more unique individual sequences of a shorter length.
I hope that is clear to everyone mathematically.
So you can put together sentences.
And here's another way.
The analogy is unfair because we have grammar with language, so we know if a sentence makes sense.
Right. So this sentence, I was home at that hour writing in kindergarten and first grade.
That sentence is a little bit more complicated.
So I was home at that hour writing in kindergarten and first grade.
That sentence may technically work, but we know from semantics and grammar that it's not a correct sentence.
But when it comes to genetic sequences, there's no way we could know if it's correct or not.
It's a brand new undiscovered organism, so they could have any sequence.
Here's another sentence.
Once again, is this an accurate sentence?
So if we look at what I chose some sentence fragments from science fiction books, and you can see that these are in fact from separate novels.
And of course, I had to include George Orwell's 1984 in this example.
So how do we know we have the right sequence when we put them together by this method?
But nonetheless, we persist in putting them together.
So what we did is out of those 56 and a half million, we were able to put together an entire sequence that could be the lost book.
But was it the lost book?
So back to the SARS-CoV-2 genome, they took the 56 and a half million reads and put them into not one, but two separate software programs,
requiring a lot of computational power to do that overlapping and put them into longer and longer contigs.
Now, one of the software programs was Megahit, and that created almost 400,000 different contigs that range from 200 base pairs long to a little over 30,000.
Trinity, on the other hand, created more, over a million, 1.3 million different contigs that range from 201 up to 11,760.
Now, according to the reasoning of doing this process, any one of those 1.7 million contigs could actually represent the genome of an organism.
So how do you know which one to pick that is the one that's right for the organism you're looking for?
Obviously, it's pretty ridiculous.
And also, why would you need two different programs to find it, other than to be able to cherry pick one that gives you the results you want,
rather than a program that gives you the results that reflect reality?
So since the prevailing knowledge told them that the genome length should be around 30,000 base pairs,
they had to toss out all the data from Trinity because they simply weren't long enough.
And they just picked the longest strand from Megahit.
Now, what about the second longest strand? It was also 30,000 bases long. Why wasn't that chosen?
It's really, there's kind of no real rhyme or reason to this.
Now, when they took the longest contig, then they searched it in a genome database and found that it was 89%
similar to a SARS-like bat coronavirus.
And they were already, remember, looking for a SARS-like coronavirus, and they already was talk, I believe, at this time about bats.
So, or maybe it came from this paper, I'm not sure.
But nonetheless, 89% is not very similar.
We're talking about something that is the same genus and species, right?
We're talking about the difference, really, from cousins, right?
Like the difference between a black cat and a white cat in terms of genetics here.
Now, if you look at humans and chimpanzees, we're said to be 98% similar.
And our genome is many orders of magnitude longer than 30,000 bases.
So how could we have that degree of homology with another animal that is so different from us in its behavior and its anatomy?
Of course, there are similarities.
But we're not the same species or genus, I believe, to chimpanzees.
Or maybe we're the same genus, but we're definitely not the same species.
So how could they say that these, which have a much shorter genome that are less than 90% similar, are both SARS-like coronaviruses?
It doesn't really make sense.
Now, you know, we're also, humans are also said to be about 88% similar to house cats.
That's about the difference we're talking about.
So we're saying here that they're like a human and a house cat, but they're the same thing.
Now, let me continue.
So then later on, after they did some further processing and alignment procedures, they said that the actual length of the viral genome was 29,903.
So that leaves out 578 bases from the contig.
So what happened to those?
Were they there by mistake?
Now, this whole purported genome was assembled from just over 123,000 reads.
Now, that's out of 56 million.
So we're talking about 10,000 of a percent of the total reads were used to make this genome.
So how did the computer know which one of those were from a virus?
If it was only a few 10,000 of a percent, like it would have to pick out a needle in a haystack to get the right one.
So there is so much error and speculation here.
I'll just review the problem.
So how do they know which reads were correct, meaning they were from a virus?
How do they know this genome is real since they have no valid genome to compare to, like where they had a pure virus particle and took the genome right out of it and sequenced it from end to end in one piece?
How do they know the origin of any sequence that was part of this genome?
How much error is at each step of this process that's compounded with each success step?
And can the results be replicated?
So just to compare and contrast the in silico genome to the real genome like I described earlier, the in silico genome comes from a mixture of unknown sources.
It cannot be reproduced without error and it is completely theoretical.
Now when they try to reproduce this experiment and they don't get exactly the same results, instead of saying our results must be faulty because we can't repeat the experiment and get the same results,
they instead say that it's a variant or a mutant.
And this is an old image of the all of the variants that were purported.
But now I understand it's been over seven million times that they have repeated this genome sequencing.
But using the index sequence I described as a template and a target for all of the PCR primers.
And even with all of that bias to find it, they still can't match the sequence.
So they say since it's different that it's a variant.
But none of these things actually exist.
And I'll tell you that they take things a step further.
I wanted to see how they designate a variant as being dangerous or of concern.
So I went to the CDC website and the World Health Organization also does this designation.
And I wanted to see how they tested and discover these clinical characteristics.
So what I found out is that, of course, they only identify it from one of these faulty genome sequencing experiments.
But in order to discover its clinical properties, they create pseudo viruses.
So this was directly referenced from the CDC website.
And you can see I'm going to move my image here to if I can.
So we created VSV is an animal virus, allegedly, based SARS-78-CoV-2 pseudoviruses.
That contain each of the individual mutations as well as one with all eight mutations of the B.1.1.7.
That's the Delta variant or the UK Delta 8 variant and another with all nine mutations, blah, blah, blah.
So in other words, since they don't actually have a real virus to study, what they did was created a laboratory manufactured pseudovirus.
Now, this is almost the same technology that is in the Johnson & Johnson vaccine,
where they take some kind of particle and they empty it out or somehow or somehow are able to put things inside of it.
OK, so some kind of breakdown particle from cell debris that is the VSV virus particle.
That's what they call it. And somehow they put a laboratory synthesized genetic sequence in there.
So they took like the spike protein sequence from the bogus genome sequencing experiment,
used a laboratory RNA synthesizer to make it chemically.
Then they put that in some kind of vector to express it and put it in these particles.
And then they added it to a foreign cell culture, just like the tissue culture experiments.
And then they took fluid from that culture and mixed it with antibodies that have not been validated.
And based on how it binded the antibodies, like, you know, the supposed neutralizing antibody or other antibodies,
they inferred the clinical characteristics of how a disease with that alleged virus would manifest.
So this is, you know, like five or six degrees separated from reality.
So why would they go to the great lengths of manufacturing a pseudovirus if the real virus was actually in existence?
It's befuddling.
So at the time I wrote the slides and I'm not aware of any attempts since then,
they have not tried to use their tissue culture isolation experiment on any of the variants.
Although I did see one picture that was alleged to be of a variant, but there was no reference of a paper that it came from.
So I'm not sure if they did this experiment with it.
Variants were discovered only by the in silico genome sequencing.
Their clinical properties have only been studied by creating pseudoviruses,
studying them with monoclonal antibodies and using computer modeling.
And there has never been any clinical tests, even under emergency use authorization, available for a variant.
So when the news reports that there's an outbreak due to a variant, they have no idea.
They're just making it up.
So this is really where the variant articles should be published.
And any of you scientists probably are aware of the Ig Nobel prizes and know this journal.
I'm getting near the end. If you guys are getting a little fatigued.
So I'm going to skip this part because I think everybody knows a bit about the vaccine.
But I just want to kind of go over my whole proposition here,
which is that the first generation of viral proof is virus isolation or tissue culture experiments.
Vaccines are manufactured from this process and FDA approval takes a minimum generally of 10 years.
Now we have the covid generation where the new proof of a virus is the in silico genome sequence.
The vaccines are essentially a genetic therapy using genes from the virus.
And if a pandemic or emergency is declared, they can use emergency use authorization,
avoid any liability and get their product on the market in record time without pesky having to prove that it's safe and effective.
Just some summary points and then I'll be ready to take questions.
So genome is the full sequence of the genetic code of an organism.
And in silico genome is a theoretical construct.
And the new paradigm of virus pandemic creation is mimic the symptoms of another disease,
perform the soon to be obsolete isolation experiments,
create the in silico genome,
and design a molecular diagnostic test to define cases based upon the faulty science.
All right. Thanks, everyone, for your attention during that.
OK, well, Andrew, what a beautiful set of slides.
Thank you so much.
There's a lovely comment made in the chat.
So most impressive now, Andrew, the process here and for the newcomers is that Stephen Frost started this group.
He gets the priority questions until I tell him he's had enough questions.
And then we'll go to John Storrs.
So I'm going to go to the next question.
Andrew, you can see the questions.
How long have we got you for?
Just that I can manage.
Well, if I can have a one minute bathroom break, I could certainly last longer.
But I'd say I'm probably good until six.
Beautiful.
That's 40 seconds.
So I'm going to go to the next question.
How long have you got me for?
Just that I can manage.
But I'd say I'm probably good until six.
Beautiful.
That's 40 minutes.
Do you want to go to the bathroom, Andrew?
If you don't mind, I will have one right nearby.
So I'll just turn myself off for a moment.
OK, thanks.
Great, great, great.
OK, well, Stephen, how did that was fascinating?
How you got Andrew?
But while everyone's here, I wonder whether Sam Dubay can give us a quick one minute update on Canada Truck Contest.
Sure I can.
I just got to warn you, I'm sick.
Yeah, Ken's laughing. OK.
So there were a lot more people this weekend than last weekend.
And I had a team come down from Toronto, but I couldn't I couldn't join them.
But basically, it's peaceful and it's like a big celebration, national unity.
And once again, do not listen to anything the mainstream Canadian media is putting out.
They're very much trying to discredit and claim that the convoy is a group of white supremacists, Islamophobic, racist, homophobic individuals.
And it is so far from the truth.
It's not even funny.
It's reprehensible.
Our prime minister is standing firm.
Again, not wishing to meet with them, claiming that they are inciting hate speech and violence and that the Confederate flag and the Nazi symbol are deplorable and he can't condone those.
And I mean, it's just an excuse not to engage.
Right.
So in the meantime, the official opposition ousted their their leader tool, the Conservative Party, and they have an interim leader who was the deputy leader.
And she's she's good.
So she she she took it right to the deputy prime minister, Freeland, who's a WEF graduate as well.
And I witnessed the brief question period and Krista Freeland, the deputy prime minister, and speaking for the Liberal government, would not address the question about are you in fact, do you have a plan to start dismantling the mandates?
And she just focused on the alleged racism.
And then Candice Bergen asked again.
And then she focused again on the Confederate flag and the Nazi symbol.
I mean, it's we have evidence that there are plants here and there was there was talk of a big counter protest that was going to show up this weekend as well.
But apparently they didn't show because the truckers and supporters showed up in reinforcement, a huge reinforcement.
So I went down during the week and trucks had lined the side streets as well downtown of the downtown core.
The downtown core is basically a parking lot right now.
And the trucks are parked three trucks thick in some places, pretty much the entire length of Wellington to the Parkway all the way down Rideau Street up to Vannier.
And I mean, that's a couple of kilometers stretch right there.
So there's there's a few hundred trucks there.
And and I have reports and I've seen video of trucks in the hundreds parked in parking lots throughout Ottawa and on the outskirts as well.
And with tents and amenities set up for the truckers, as you know, GoFundMe dissolved the account a few days ago.
And initially they said that they were going to disperse the remaining nine million of funds, Canadian to credible charities.
And this got a huge backlash because they had released a million in Canadian funds when the the organizers had apparently provided appropriate documentation of what would be done with the money.
But then GoFundMe stated that now the convoy was in violation of their terms and conditions, that it was no longer a protest and that it was a considered it was an occupation.
And the fact that our Mayor Watson here, who's a reprehensible individual and the chief of police have called this have termed it the convoy a criminal activity now they've officially called it a criminal activity.
And so yes, Andrew back now.
Would you like me to finish?
Well, just just just come to it, Sam.
I just want to people who can be here for Andrew and then we can have a little quick review, Sam.
But just just before just give us a quick.
Well, just to say GoFundMe backtracked on what they said and now now they're officially refunding all the remaining nine million.
And the governor of Florida got their attorney general to investigate and the same with Texas for the GoFundMe.
So GoFundMe is now called GoFMe and they're in pretty serious trouble.
And Give, Send, Go have stood up and said we will now raise funds.
So they've raised two million in a couple of days for the truckers and it's improving as I speak.
So there you go. Beautiful. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Sam, because I know we're all interested in this.
Andrew, that was a Sam is in Ottawa just for your information.
OK, Stephen, you're first on the questions of Andrew's wonderful presentation and propositions.
Yeah, that was a brilliant presentation, Andrew.
I just wanted to ask you about Luke Montagne.
He showed a film of him and he was asked famously by Kerry Mullis.
So Luke Montagne won the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 2008.
I think it was Kerry Mullis asked him a question, I think, at a conference in Paris.
He'd been mulling this over.
The HIV virus is the probable cause of AIDS.
And apparently Luke Montagne was unable to give a credible reference for that statement.
What did you did? Did you know that?
I did. I actually heard about Kerry Mullis when I was researching climate change science.
And he was out.
There were actually several Nobel laureates outspoken on that issue, which are never publicized.
You know, and I was just doing some research and found him.
And then by accident, there was another video where he had questioned HIV and he was telling that exact story.
And I thought that that was really fascinating at the time.
But I kind of put it on the back shelf because I was really looking into different science.
So it's funny that, of course, I remembered it very quickly when, you know, everything started to happen at the end of 2019.
But the really sad thing is that so Kerry Mullis was absolutely brilliant, won the Nobel Prize in chemistry for the his discovery in 1983 of the PCR technique.
So he won it in 1993 for chemistry.
And he was, shall we say, iconoclastic, a bit like you.
And he went around annoying people, as far as I could see, with his brilliance.
And then there was another thing that Kerry Mullis said, PCR technique is a research tool and should never be used as a diagnostic tool for a viral illness.
So that came from the inventor of the technique.
So it's a research tool and should never be used as a diagnostic tool for a viral illness.
But from a medical doctor's point of view, since when did we diagnose a viral illness or indeed any illness with a test when the patient hasn't been seen?
I mean, it's just incredible. So the last that's an observation.
So and I wanted to ask you about Oh, you mentioned Gallo.
I thought the Gallo he's an American, I believe, if I remember correctly, I thought Gallo was not he didn't win the Nobel Prize.
I don't think he was trying to win it.
And and I think that Fouchi was pushing him.
You know, it's quite yeah, it's quite possible that he wasn't officially named.
But, you know, in generally speaking, he is considered the code discoverer.
But actually, he stole a sample from Montagnier's lab and then, you know, did some experiments and claimed that then to discover the virus himself.
And he initially called it HTLV three.
And he is also the one who developed the HIV antibody test, which is another, you know, invalid test.
And I would actually really say that the AIDS and HIV set the precedent for the PCR, because the first time I ever heard of a PCR clinical test was the HIV viral load.
And, you know, for those of you who are not doctors, any test that's a viral load, that's a PCR test.
It's just used in a quantitative way instead of saying yes or no.
The virus is present.
It gives you a number of copies of the virus, which is really copies of a piece of genetic material that you don't know what it's from.
So there and that was also the precedent for the asymptomatic disease and asymptomatic transmission.
You know, so the first time really that you were tested for something when you weren't sick and even before you were tested, you were tested for something that you weren't sick.
And even though you weren't sick, you were still said to have it and require treatment as as now.
Well, and get killed, actually, as seems to be the case.
Yeah, absolutely.
In the hospital.
I mean, you know, in the physician's desk reference, which is no longer in publication.
But if you look back at earlier copies, AZT, right, the drug, the main drug initially used for HIV and I believe is still used listed AIDS as a side effect.
Yeah.
Interestingly, well, very sadly, Kerry Mullis died in August 2019.
And the timing is remarkably suspicious, isn't it?
I mean, Kerry Mullis would have been shouting from every rooftop.
So I think that he either had to die or he had to be killed.
And I don't know which it was.
But the death certificate very suspiciously just says pneumonia apparently as the cause of death.
Well, everybody dies of pneumonia or a large number of people anyway.
The last thing is, is it possible?
So I'm just asking you this.
Is it possible that Big Pharma hijacked the world of biology to create the false consensus because they saw huge profits in the world of biology?
Well, you know, of course, I don't have direct evidence, but, you know, there's plenty of circumstantial evidence of collusion going on.
I mean, look at the work of Marsha Angel, you know, the former editor of the New York Times.
Former editor in chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, who, you know, was somewhat of a pharmaceutical whistleblower and, you know, who made a statement that actually she doesn't feel it's possible to trust the integrity of any clinical research currently done in this modern era.
So, you know, there are obviously the circumstances I described, right, where the virus isolation procedure was a vaccine manufacturing procedure.
And it was obviously a very important commercial interest, and it was given as a very important scientific contribution, hence the Nobel Prize.
The Nobel Prize comes up a lot in this story.
So it would stand to reason, and if I were an investigative journalist, I would look into this.
And if someone does have that interest, this would be a great topic to go find source material, you know, because it was after the Nobel Prize was awarded, like not after the publication of that measles paper, but it was like gone back to, and then that was put forth now as the way to, you know, prove viruses.
And it would stand to reason that there was some backdoor relationship that went on, you know, gosh, you won the Nobel Prize.
How do you like to, you know, have millions of dollars too?
And, you know, all you have to do is just, you know, fudge this just a little bit.
Just give the impression that this proves the existence of a virus, and then we'll get the other scientists to take up the, you know, the mantle after that.
So something like that could have very well, you know, happened behind closed doors, or even perhaps there may be, you know, information in the record about it.
And, you know, I think a lot of things happen like that is when someone may have some integrity, but then when all of the, you know, spotlights come on and all of the, you know, big wigs come out that you can be manipulated if you're naive in that situation.
And, you know, it's too tempting to, you know, kind of do something that maybe you think, oh, it's not such a big deal.
But it's interesting, isn't it? The Fouchi's been there for 35 years, apparently, or 37, is it? A lot, a lot of years anyway.
And he's controlled all this money, huge amounts of money.
So he could, he was in a position to actually poison, and actually you could say that the whole HIV AIDS thing was a trial run for what's going on now.
Absolutely.
So, I don't know what the truth is.
Let's go to the thing that's very good. And investigative journalists, Andrew, I wonder whether you've come across John Rappaport with no more fake news.
I consider him to do some wonderful work and raise some wonderful questions. So any other recommendations you have for investigative journalists to read? But Rappaport's been doing it for a long time.
Yes, so I he's a very, you know, important figure and we've been in communication and, you know, he's very supportive.
Yeah. Okay. John Stone first. John Stone, please. Your question, comment.
Yeah, well, this is probably an idiot question, but we have all these laboratories with sophisticated techniques for, for instance, what happens, you've got people engaged in what is apparently termed gain of function research or more previously been called biological warfare, perhaps.
And if actually the materials that they're working with are as indefinable as those that you've described, what are they working with?
Well, I think they actually basically making those pseudo viruses, like I described that they put forth as, you know, some way to study reality, because that's, you know, the same technology that's in the various vaccine products.
And I think they were chain, you know, experimenting with different sequences of proteins and and then measuring their toxicological properties and trying to put them in different vehicles and see how those vehicles maybe are distributed in the body.
And, you know, preparing for some kind of injectable type of biological weapon.
I mean that but, you know, like I said, I don't I haven't been shown the laboratory notebooks, you know, and have the inside. I don't I don't have any high level security clearance, unfortunately.
Although I at one point I was invited out to lunch by the CIA, but I didn't go.
I mean, just a sort of clarification. I know, I think that we know that a lot of medical people just don't want to go here.
And a lot of them are possibly suspicious and they realize that there's some huge gap. They think that there is some sort of identifiable pathology associated with this thing, which is, of course, questionable.
But, you know, we I, you know, almost nobody, nobody has the nerve to call their bluff.
And it's obviously you do.
Fascinating. Thank you. I mean, it's been wonderfully clear. I've never understood anything better.
Well, thank you so much. And, you know, for me, the answer to that question comes down to one, you know, simple observation that if there was some top secret biological weapon that was released into the world, I think we'd have pretty clear evidence of the devastation that it would leave in its wake.
Yeah.
Follow on question. So we what we did have, and this is a, I suppose, we have in the past, you know, we've had very distinctive diseases. We have the childhood diseases.
We have the childhood diseases. You know, I remember going through measles and rubella and mumps and chickenpox. And they were sort of apparently identifiable identifiably different diseases, which and recognized as such.
What? What? Why is it that, you know, we like it sort of went around every virtually every child in the country and we just assumed that they caught this thing.
And
and eventually they would get over it. I mean, you know, I remember when my
son's got chickenpox.
It was, it was very distinct and very, and really rather horrible and something you want to avoid. But exactly
what these manifestations are, which are, which are distinct, but which may
may occur without there being any identifiable germ.
It seems to me a question.
Yeah, well, you know, there certainly are a lot of interesting things about that. And it's a common thing that people bring up. And I think it's important. One is to, you know, just separate clearly the questions that you're asking. So, you know, there's one question is, you know, do viruses cause diseases? Yes or no.
And then there's the follow up question, which is if no, well, then what does and we don't have a lot of research as to what does because all of the research was funded to look at germs and viruses for the last century.
But I think we can still learn quite a bit from the evidence that's available. So, for example, it is interesting that many of diseases have essentially disappeared over the last 100 years or so. Right. Scarlet fever, rheumatic fever, diphtheria, measles, chickenpox.
Right. And I'm sure I left out a few. Now, we don't have direct evidence of viruses for any of these things. It's basically the same research like I described during my presentation.
But we're all told, at least, you know, I'm sure all of us have been told many times in our life and more so if we went through medical training that all those diseases disappeared because of vaccines.
Now, of course, you'd have to just on the surface say that that's not possible because some of those diseases I mentioned don't even have a vaccine like scarlet fever.
Now, the other ones we we can simply just look at the epidemiologic evidence. Now, it's important when you look at epidemiology that it doesn't tell you what the cause of a disease is.
And epidemiology is, you know, just looking at people dying or living, how long they live. If there's an outbreak of sickness, they would go investigate and look for common factors to try and come up with ideas about what might have caused it.
But it doesn't prove anything directly. But if we look at the incidence, which is, you know, how many new cases of a disease as reported over time.
And then look at when the vaccine for a certain illness was introduced. And then, by the way, when it first gets discovered, then it gets approved, then it actually goes on the market.
And then there's time for the ramp up of actual giving it to a large portion of the population. That takes generally seven several years.
So when we look at these illnesses, what we see is that the incidence went down in most cases almost to the current levels, like almost completely gone, sometimes down to maybe 20% or 10% of its numbers before that.
And that occurs before the vaccine is even discovered or approved. And then we see the date of the vaccine approval. And then we see it, you know, it goes down further until it reaches the current baseline.
Now for the chickenpox vaccine, there's actually data on the number of vaccinations administered since the time it was first approved.
So you can see the two graphs, the incidence of chickenpox go down, and then the vaccine is invented and then it ramps up and the two things cross at the bottom.
And you see that there's no way any of these vaccines could have been responsible for ending those diseases because it was only introduced after the ending was well in sight.
So then you would say, well, okay, what is happening in those diseases? Now with chickenpox, it is somewhat distinctive because you get the pox, right, which are vesicles that pop up from the bottom.
And you get the pox from the skin layers separate and fluid fills there. But there are other diseases that have vesicles too. Herpes has vesicles, shingles has vesicles, and other illnesses that are considered to be autoimmune even like pamphigus.
So it's not a unique symptom and then you wonder are these diseases actually related or not? But you know, what I've come to learn is that sometimes just using common sense helps you understand things.
And when you get fluid coming out of the skin, that by my common sense means the body is trying to get rid of whatever is in that fluid.
When you have a runny nose, the body is trying to get rid of what's in your nose. When you cough, the body is trying to get rid of what's in your throat and lungs.
When you have diarrhea, the body is trying to get, right, you get the idea, right? Even fevers really, the body is trying to denature things by heating them, dissolve them in the blood so they can be removed as well and removed through the sweat pores.
So all of these symptoms are the body is trying to get rid of something that is not good to have inside of it. And you know, it could be toxins, it could be other things.
We could actually study that fluid with an open mind and say what's every constituent in there? Do we find aluminum in there? Do we find glyphosate? You know, do we find E. coli toxin?
Right? So all those things would point us in a direction of what could have caused this. And then also our thinking about what's a disease and what's a normal biological cycle is also, you know, I mean in my opinion when we're experiencing the symptoms of an acute illness or even a chronic illness, those are evidence that our body is trying to heal itself.
And it may be unpleasant and maybe that is supposed to be information that we need to change something we're doing just like when you're at the beach and you stand on the hot sand in a 95 degree Florida sunshine, your feet hurt because they're telling you if you stay standing on the stand, you're going to burn right through your feet.
And you better do something different. So it could be that those other symptoms also tell us we should clean up our lifestyle. We should stop drinking so much. We should stop smoking. We should stop eating processed food. We should drink more water. Right? We should exercise all of these things. We should stop putting, you know, poison makeup or underarm antiperspirant, you know, all these kinds of things. And we need to do a lot more research, but there's a lot of things that we need to do.
There's already a lot of research out there. I mean, do you know that that 400 different chemicals come out of your lungs with every breath? And I'm not talking about metabolic products your body created. I'm talking about synthetic manmade chemicals.
So you got to think that those things are going to cause some problems in our body and modern medicine just doesn't acknowledge this at all.
All right. Thank you.
I hope that's a satisfactory answer.
Just John, just one of our do so each question. Could you please tell Andrew what you what your profession is or your background? And John, just just remind and or just tell Andrew what you're back what you engaged in.
Yeah, well, I suppose what I am is a parent advocate or possibly a web journalist.
I'm concerned about I got to this through the injury to my son from the DPT vaccine many years ago.
I gradually I only got to the view that this had to be this was the this was the cause quite slowly. I became sort of prolific correspondence in BMJ rapid responses.
And I wrote articles, not not scholarly articles for Age of Autism. I now work for the can CHD, the Kennedy Organization.
And so I I have been without having any formal training years and I have a whole host of different perspectives, which and kinds of knowledge which I built up over the decades.
And that I guess is where I come from.
John John, that was beautiful. And that gives Andrew a context assignment assignment next because I know we're on a tight time frame for Andrew Simon and tell tell Andrew where you come from or what your background is.
I come from Belgium. Yeah.
Thank you. I've been to Antwerp before.
Now in Australia, as David I called me a much assist for that. But I have to agree on that one.
Well, it's a bit like New York here. If you can make it here, you can make it anywhere.
Yeah, very nice. Also the last points here on the we shouldn't call it disease. We should call it healing. I'm in healing, which is really nice. My background is in first degree was materials engineering and then after that filmmaking and then a PhD in Imperial College.
Not proud of Imperial College, but on data research, research and especially creative thoughts and how to cross knowledge from one domain to the other kind of I'm not smart, but the world is very smart.
How can I see who has solved my problem?
So have you met Neil Ferguson then?
Neil Ferguson. Yes.
Isn't he the guy from Imperial College with all the predictions? Yes.
There's a few and there is also Victoria Mel there was promoting the vaccine in pregnancy and this is and they're very much in the WEF.
It's nothing to be proud of. It's an exponential not so good place.
So first of all, your slides are fantastic. She should be in moviemaking, I think, or maybe you're all in the movie making.
I'm not sure. I think it's a bit of a
I had my world premiere of my movie Terrain last night, actually.
Oh, wow. Oh, I'm gonna go.
But my question was the following. The Belgians in the time have given polio vaccine in town in Africa at the time.
Actually, where the money came for Antwerp where you were, I think the whole station there is built on the Africans.
But they they had in that in that town 20,000 polio vaccines, also the first 20,000 cases of AIDS.
We talked about the AIDS link also smallpox vaccine.
We talked about the link to the hepatitis also to gay people at the time.
And now Montagnier is saying allegedly at least in online tonight saying, oh, those that had three doses should go and get the AIDS test and go into their government.
So my question there, because then if you see if it's coming from vaccines, not AIDS, it's autoimmune disease because not from an external source.
Can you comment on that? Are we looking at worldwide AIDS pandemic or?
No, no, no. I mean, I'm not entirely positive what he was commenting, but I know that there were some clinical trials in Australia and I'm not sure which vaccine candidate this was for.
I don't think it was Pfizer. And they noticed that several of the study participants who received the experimental injection were converting to HIV positive antibody tests.
So this is very different from having AIDS. In other words, they weren't at least I haven't heard of any clinical cases where people had immunosuppression like severe immunosuppression.
But this is something you see, by the way, routinely with chemotherapy.
I mean, there are many, many chemotherapy patients that you could easily diagnose with AIDS if you didn't know they had chemotherapy.
Right. It's the same same condition. In fact, all of the conditions that are associated with AIDS were already known prior to that, like pneumocystis carinii pneumonia, for example, which was an AIDS qualifying condition.
That was well known among transplant recipients of kidney transplants who were taking a medicine similar in chemical properties to what the homosexual population was using.
And I'm talking about amyl nitrate or skin poppers. But you had different situations.
So one thing is the antibody test. If what you're talking about is based on just converting to the positive antibody test, it's been demonstrated that over 60 different clinical conditions give you a false positive HIV antibody test.
And that includes things like being pregnant for the second or third time.
It includes getting a hepatitis vaccine and many other common conditions.
So it in other words, it's not specific. And and also the the test is not standardized.
So there are different protocols used anywhere you go around the world.
It's not FDA approved test, just like the PCR test is not approved.
So it's pretty meaningless.
You know, anytime you inject foreign material into an organism, they're going to produce lots of antibodies because those are the molecules that you use to identify and label foreign material for processing.
You know, like foreign things aren't supposed to get in the body, but it does happen.
Like, you know, you get a cut, you step on a thorn or you get an injection right where it's kind of on purpose.
Your body reacts to that and you're just really detecting that reaction to a foreign material.
It's not really specific or validated as being specific.
Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you, Simon Daria.
Daria is a retired neurosurgeon.
Andrew, that'll save the intro, Daria.
Dr. Obvious here.
Andrew, so nice to see you again.
I had the Beamer booth.
There's a Beamer right there, guys.
Yes.
Yes, I was at the Red Pill Expo at Jekyll Island.
Your talk was probably one of the most talked about presentations at my booth afterwards.
Really?
For the whole two days.
Absolutely. You just blew everybody away.
And I only got to peek in the door.
I was just outside the door, so I peek in and I catch part of your presentation.
Then I have to run back to my table.
So I missed it.
I missed it.
But thanks for presenting here again.
I think you've given us quite a clear view.
Although somebody posted a question at the beginning of the chat, and I wanted to share it because it was something that was bothering me as well.
Are you familiar with Sabine Hazen, the gastroenterology physician and her gene test?
I know that in Dr. Mercola's recent article where he claimed viruses really do exist, he referenced one of her genome studies.
But that's the only piece of her work that I know.
OK, yeah, because she explained this to me in a separate webinar I had about a week ago as well.
And she actually got kind of testy trying to discuss how she makes this diagnosis because she was challenged in this group before.
And she repeated what this person wrote in the chat earlier.
I'm sorry, I don't have your name here where I copied it.
But that there's thousands of if there's a sick patient, she does a stool sample and sends it for genetic sequencing,
quantifying the amount of genetic strands that are identical and match them up to a database of known genetic strands,
which it's beginning to sound from hearing you that those are fabricated in the first place.
Is that right? Or am I reading that wrong?
So, well, I mean, if we're better in those go away.
And that's how you went when she retests them.
Sorry, we say that last part again. You cut out for a second.
Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, basically.
So she identifies some kind of pathogen or these genetic strands in a high quantity in the sick patient treats the patient patients gets better.
She gets a new stool sample and those genetic strands are gone and therefore almost a presumptuous is that whatever that genetic sequence was that she was able to match to a database was the cause of the illness.
It's sort of a sort of a backwards way of.
So do you think that that that information speaks to causality?
Well, it's more of a what would you call it?
Correlation potentially, but not a cause.
Gotcha. So let me give you another correlation.
Okay, so you're sick, right?
And then you have a fever and your temperature goes up.
So did the higher temperature cause the illness?
It goes back down when you're not sick and it goes up when you are sick, just like you're talking about.
Right. So why don't we say that the temperature or the heat caused the illness?
So also inflammatory markers, right?
You have a flare up of rheumatoid arthritis and you know, your your said rate goes up.
You're you know, I'm not thinking of one of those inflammatory markers, but whatever they are, there's lots of them.
They go up and then you recover and they go back down.
So do those molecules cause the disease or the flare up?
No, right. So she just has here now a covariate.
But it has no explanation of what it means.
You know, this this is the classic error of correlation and causation in the 70s.
There was a famous heat wave in New York City and an article, I believe it was in the Daily News came out saying ice cream causes violence.
And what happened is that you had record ice cream sales that summer with the heat wave and you had record assaults because people were uncomfortable and they got on each other's nerves.
And because both of those things were highly correlated, they presumed that the ice cream caused the violence.
But we know that that's ridiculous.
It was the heat that caused both.
So when we have a correlation with variables, we have to then do further research to say, OK, is there is this represent a causative relationship?
And also, but here we have a different problem, too, because what we have is a surrogate marker in the first place that we're looking at the genetic strands that that she's measuring in the stool.
How do you know what they're from?
In the first place, but even if even if you said that they were from one thing, well, how do you know that they represent that thing?
In the sample, they could represent just a portion of that thing, like how they know that thing is doing anything.
So, you know, it's just really several degrees from reality.
There has to be an initial validation that says this sequence only comes from this one thing.
And we know this thing is real because here we have it and we took it apart and we dissected it and we looked at it and we sequenced it and measured it, et cetera.
Once you do that, well, then you can develop your surrogate markers and those can be useful if they correlate really well.
But even in that case, you still have to always be careful and go back to the gold standard and check your work to make sure that what your findings are represent a real finding and not just misinterpretation or false interpretation.
So if I were to have a discussion with her, I would go back to, you know, how do you know those sequences come from a virus?
And how do you know that this correlation has a causal relationship?
So she's basically trusting in that genetic library database. Is that what you're saying? And maybe not questioning that enough?
And then I should say none of the scientists that I know question any of the things that I do.
They don't really think about do the experiments, you know, prove what they say. These are just the standard experiments.
They learned how to do them as sort of an apprentice model, and then they just carry them out. They get grants.
They get they get approved for publication. So why would they think there's anything to think about or question?
You know, if they do question it like the one in a million example, like Stefan Lanko, what happens?
He gets pushed out of the field. Right? Because why? You know, like, listen, this is our turf. This is our way of making a living.
Right? I mean, this is also why it's hard for physicians to question this stuff, because the more you question it, then you're like, I can't practice medicine anymore.
What am I going to do? What about my student loans? What about my mortgage? You know, all these things.
So, you know, it's that that's what I think is everybody gets wrapped up in rather than just saying, hey, how do you know that sequences from the virus?
Have you looked at the initial experiments? Do you think that really proves it's from the virus? You sure about that? Have you read it?
Let's go over it together. You know, I wish someone in the field would give me that opportunity instead of just, you know, either saying, oh, why would I talk to him?
He's not even a virologist or, you know, gosh, you know, he doesn't even know what causes colds. Don't listen to him.
You know, that kind of thing. Like, let's just have an honest discussion.
All right, Darya. Darya, why don't you set up a conversation between Andrew and Sabine? I'd like to see that.
Oh, that would be interesting. Oh, yeah, I know Georgia Eade as well.
She's another psychiatrist who's a big fan of the nutritional approach. I don't know if you know her or not. E-D-E is her last name.
She's a member of the ancestral physicians group. So you're not a Harvard psychiatrist.
There's a good suggestion for you, Darya. We're going to move because we're going to lose Andrew shortly.
Invite all of us, Darya, if you do get that. That's right. Get all of us there, too, Darya.
Well, that would be a big thing if that were to happen. But you can certainly talk to me about it.
And I'll stay for a few minutes because, you know, this is I could tell you guys are really curious and I can my appetite can wait a little longer.
Thank you. Thank you very much. Darya, can we work together to set that up? That'd be fantastic.
Yeah. Well, you want to have a celebrity death match?
Well, Sabine is self-opinionated. She's unbelievably self-opinionated.
And Andrew is, shall we say, he doesn't give up easily.
Like you said, even in this separate webinar, she was very, very touchy and actually got angry.
I'm going to explain this to people, you know, and it's just like, OK, I get what you're saying.
But like you're the point you're making here is he's putting her trust in something that hasn't really been vetted as thoroughly as it should be.
It's just like medicine has descended into nothingness compared to what I was told.
I feel like it's been all market tested for decades now and the whole thing's planned out.
It's been corrupted. Come on. We're going to keep moving.
OK, Ariana. Thank you.
Thank you. Just turn my video on. Hi, Dr. Kaufman. Thanks.
Hi. Thanks for the excellent presentation. I wanted to bring up a couple of things.
I've been reading through the patents, through the COVID-19 vaccine patents and learning what the ingredients are.
I mean, we're talking the Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, AstraZeneca, et cetera, all of the major ones.
Now, this this spike protein, right, that everyone's talking about in the the US Army's latest vaccine, it's a ferritin spike nanoparticle vaccine is what they call it.
And this is a glycoprotein S. So it is engineered and the patent proves that what you were saying.
Also, in all of the other patents, I haven't found any viruses mentioned.
It's only E. coli. Yeah, genetic sequences, cDNA, right.
They're coding, but also the E. coli. But it's mycoplasma. It's an extraction.
It's part of the DNA that replicates. You're talking about the vector that they're using.
The main vector is the lentiviral vector. OK, they use other vectors, too.
But that's the main one. It's in all of these except for the Novavax.
Now, that lentiviral vector, right, it's MERS, SARS, HIV, one to three and then SRV one.
These are all chimeric bio weapons.
So they're all chimeric proteins that have E. coli as a base, mycoplasmas and other plasmids.
And then they even use fungi and stuff.
And then they use the DNA to make these chimeric proteins.
They're also using the DNA of like species D, which is a chimpanzee human clone.
So it's a hybrid species. And they're using the DNA for that and then other animals as well.
Now, these were patented and developed in Wuhan.
And it's listed in this US Army ferritin spike nanoparticle vaccine.
It says that the glycoprotein S was created in Wuhan and same with the lentiviral vector.
And then a recent my latest article, by the way, I'm a grassroots journalist and an activist and also a second generation naturopathic doctor.
I've actually been on your website before.
So and I appreciate the work that you've been doing.
Thank you. You're welcome.
The latest article that I wrote, it was about the WHO and CDC website, also Thermo Fisher.
They admit that the variants are caused by gene deletion and mutations.
And I was wondering if you are if you are aware that these patents all talk about, well, I know you know about the complementary DNA,
but did you know about the gene knockout?
Because all the patents are listing complete gene knockout.
So deletion of genes.
Right. And that's the essentially the CRISPR technology.
Yeah. Yeah. So I mean, look, you can definitely work up quite a sweat and quite a bit of fear doing that kind of patent research.
Because there are so many nefarious technologies that you'll find.
And so I've looked at a lot of them in the nanotech world for biological applications, especially things with graphene oxide.
And, you know, it's really scary what you can find in there.
And of course, there's lots of evidence of planning for all these things.
And, you know, what I think you're really describing some of the details of what I was saying before about what I think the gain of function research is, you know, that they are, you know, doing genetic tinkering with all kinds of especially microorganisms.
And I think that, you know, they're trying to make various genetic toxins.
But I'm sure that there's also this genetic replacement technology.
I mean, this is, you know, there's in addition to the CRISPR Cas9.
So this is a, you know, an exploited enzyme system from a microorganism, ironically.
And what it can do is selectively edit your genes and your body.
And not only that, but it could be passed on to the next generation through additional technology.
Right. And they could pick anything they want in your entire genome, pop it out and or replace it with something else.
Now, of course, they talk about this as in the terms of, you know, healing and curing disease, like you have the CFTR mutated gene and cystic fibrosis.
And it could take out the mutated part and put in the correct working sequence and people would be cured.
But that's I don't believe the real purpose, because we would see that reflected, you know, in the intellectual property landscape.
So it's really important to keep abreast of these things.
And but it's also very, very difficult to know exactly which of these technologies is being used and deployed.
And part of the the benefit to these companies of using the emergency use authorization, aside from not having to prove that their thing is effective,
and safe in any way, is that they can alter the ingredients and there's not much scrutiny on what's in there.
So they can take experimental things and put it in there under the radar and look at the results.
And as long as, you know, it's not like 100,000 people die in one place who got it, it sort of won't be noticed.
You know, we see like, for example, the lot number or batch number studies and several people have looked into this.
In fact, I mirrored one of the analysis on my video platforms where we see it's a very small, you know, that there's such a variety from from lot to lot that it couldn't be explained as different dose.
It because of the difference in the toxic expression or the amount of side effects.
So there are clearly different ingredients in different batch numbers and they have different effects.
So they could be taking this, you know, patented technologies and experimenting on them by, you know, knowing which lot it's in, where it's distributed to.
And then looking at the outcomes in that area or those recipients, you know, by covert means.
So, you know, I don't have sort of direct evidence of what they're doing.
But, you know, I did work in quality control and biotech before.
Right. And we made recombinant proteins for injection.
And there is no way I mean, because, you know, all these manufacturing plants from these big pharma companies, you know, they the people that work there,
it's ingrained, you know, GMPs, GMPs, GMPs.
It's the culture. Right. That means good manufacturing procedures.
And that means they have standard operating protocols every single step of the way to assure the quality of what they're manufacturing.
And if they rush to production and took a few shortcuts, yes, it might not be perfect.
It might not be as good as always.
But to get that degree of variance, it's impossible unless it was intentional.
So, you know, here's where the future may reveal what's what exactly.
Maybe somebody gets lucky doing some of the analytical chemistry on the vaccine constituents.
But, you know, we know far enough to stay as far away as possible from letting those things near us.
Thank you. By the way, have you ever tried pine needle tea?
You know, when when it is blossoming the trees and pollinating, it has the most delicious flavor.
Yes, I love the smell of it. I I do sometimes grab needles off a spruce plant with the new growth and munch on those.
They're also really tasty. So I'll have to try that.
I'll send you my recipe.
All right. Awesome. Thank you. Thank you, Arianna.
Now, can I point out to everybody before we go to Stephen Coughlin that we're talking about the complexity of the human body now.
I'm a golf nut. I love golf.
And and the experts can't agree on what a good golf swing is and how to solve someone's problem is 100 in the in the in the golf rankings.
He wants to be in the top 10. They just don't on a golf swing.
So hello, everybody. You know, we're talking incredibly complex stuff here.
So that's the mindset. Stephen Coughlin.
Dr. Thank you. This is a extremely interesting, very informative briefing.
And I love the fact that it's so scientifically grounded.
That doesn't mean anything. I want that to be anything other than I'm in awe of the briefing.
I didn't think you were calling me boring.
But, you know, you know, back in March 2020, I wrote a I wrote a memo that actually got to the National Security Council warning that the narrative to enforce covid was severable from covid and made the strong argument.
It followed what's called a mass line enforcement narrative. If you get into the language of political warfare.
And I don't want to go into details of that, but it's when people talk about PSI ops and information operations, the term of art today is active measures because the Soviets did so well.
But so the question I'm asking is because I think the science is cutting clearly.
I had a meeting with my doctor the other day. He says, well, there's competing scientific theories.
And I'm starting to come to the point in my mind as a non-scientist, but an attorney and someone who did a lot of high level intelligence operations.
I'll just leave it at that. That the science is settling decisively on one side of this argument.
And there are some details that people can haggle about. And if I'm wrong about that, please correct me.
But that the question to me becomes, and I'm asking you about this is at what point does the the medical explanations for why this is wrong begin to have to share time with the fact that the motivations behind it might be as important.
And what I'm getting at is the fact that this was used to completely suppress populations to simply suppress their civil liberties, their freedoms.
And at what point does that come into an analysis of how you're looking at it?
I mean, not in terms of how you do the scientific analysis that's pure and needs to stay that way, but where you start to say this is not really about that anymore.
With that, I'll be quiet.
I appreciate that question and also your perspective from your background.
I'd love to pick your brain sometime, but I've actually been looking at that issue from the beginning and I've talked about it a lot.
And you're right. It is you approach it from a different perspective, although there is actually science in there.
And what I'm talking about is psychology.
So there there there's a lot of, you know, whoever is calling the show and running the operation of what we're going through now.
And obviously it is centrally organized because otherwise you wouldn't see all of the nations doing things exactly the same, at least at the beginning, you know, being all different sovereign nations.
So there's been a, you know, over the last century, exploitation of this certain knowledge in psychology.
And most of it has been for, you know, what's called public relations, which is just a PR word for propaganda.
And, you know, Edward Bernays is one of the central figures in developing this strategy, which really is scientifically based.
And he happened to be a relative of Sigmund Freud, interestingly.
So there have been several people talking more in depth about this, including the other psychiatrist, Mark McDonald, who is also in my film, as well as Matthias Desmet, a psychology professor in Europe.
And there's also been some books written by a psychiatrist who came of age in Berlin in the Nazi era and was even interrogated by Nazi soldiers before he escaped to New York.
And his name is Dr. Just Merleau.
And they've all written about this mass delusion, mass psychosis.
And I even had the opportunity to interview a hip hypnotist.
And I know that, you know, hypnosis is a powerful procedure because my the mother of my children actually used hypnosis during childbirth and had no experience of pain or discomfort at all as a result.
And the children were born very healthy.
And he analyzed a video produced by the Los Angeles Unified School District to, you know, prepare the students to return to school under COVID restrictions and was able to point out the specific hypnotic suggestion techniques and reframing that was used.
So this is really kind of a science and a technology that's been used to create certain behaviors.
And part of it is sort of we've been primed and prepared our entire life.
And if you've been in the military, you know exactly how this works, because that's what they do in basic training.
Right. Is they basically change you in your behavior and your thinking into a way that where you're going to be following orders, where everything you do is going to be identical to the way all the other fellow soldiers do it.
So there's no individuality. There's no independent thinking.
Right. And obviously in a military situation, there are reasons to be like that, at least for the men to be like that on a temporary basis.
But we've been exposed to similar kind of training throughout our life, mostly through the public school indoctrination camps.
And that has kind of primed us to be able to be manipulated through the use of fear.
So, you know, Neil Ferguson, who I mentioned before, was one of the instrumental figures in creating the appearance of something scary that could provoke the fear response.
And then you have like the CPBG or something CPIB, the Committee of Influenza, something behavior panel in the UK government.
And they're basically commissioned by the government, their CDC or NIH equivalent to study, hey, what psychological techniques will increase compliance to restrictive government measures like lockdowns?
And then, oh, they say, well, fear. OK, how do we create maximum fear?
And they use the science of psychology, the experimental results, right?
Like we've seen in those famous experiments like the Milgram experiment where people will deliver a deadly shock to someone else just because someone told them to do it.
And they use those techniques to, you know, create the mass delusion or formation about the belief in the scary boogeyman and to create the compliance, which is a resolution to the fear of the boogeyman.
And the way it's been described is that there is a sort of nonspecific anxiety or fear that people have, which is, you know, the dragging on of the factory or the nine to five office cubicle job that you can't wait to be done with.
So you could just get home and like escape by, you know, drinking or watching sports, video games, pornography, anything to not be like real and present with other people doing, you know, what men and women were created to do on this earth.
And that all of that angst and lack of identity and meaning and direction in life was focused on the scary target of this, you know, dangerous made up virus.
And then there was the relief of that fear that, oh, just stay in your weeks for, you know, two weeks to flatten the curve.
Just wear a mask for now. You know, just stay six feet away from people. Just take a jab, et cetera, et cetera.
I understand what you're saying. And I don't disagree with any of it. You know, I've been skeptical about mass, mass psychosis, not because I don't think that you see something like that.
It's that when you get to the point where you basically say you have the lockstep article from 2010, I'm sure you're familiar with that.
And you have the event 201 and you have what we'll call just generically predictive programming. You ask yourself, yeah, that looks like psychosis, but it also looks like people spent 10 years creating a reality.
And that's the logical response to people. And I think the response of people being reduced on a mass scale to Walter Mitty's, if you will, you know, I've also said, you know, well,
Nietzsche is the top psychologist for the Walter Mitty's kind of, but, you know, everybody wants to be their own Uberman.
But that's but my question is going back to the mass psychosis, I don't really push back on the effects of it, but is that what concerns me about it is that in
characterizing it that way, people may tend to lose sight of the fact that an enormous effort to include all control of all media outlets, really, if you think of it, an effort to shut everything down was used over a longer period that I think we're prepared to recognize to get people to that point.
I just reflect on those Netflix movies leading up to all the end of the world. Your friends got a disease, Dave Wakrum kind of thing.
Well, you know, I mean, certainly that just using the word psychosis in any context is problematic because, you know, what the heck do you mean by it? It has a lot of different connotations.
Some people even confuse it with psychopathy or psychopaths.
But what you know, when I was talking about priming before it kind of speaks to this because you have to get people in a state where they don't trust their own senses and their own observations and their own conclusions.
They only trust information when it comes from an authority figure.
And so you can use that once that is ingrained, right? That, oh, I don't, you know, if I look up and see something in the sky, I look to an authority figure to tell me what it is.
I don't try to figure it out myself. And if it doesn't, I don't, I don't think I don't try to compare my thinking to what the authority figure tells me.
I just accept what they tell me no matter what. Right.
And that happens over and over and over in our lives leading up to this moment.
And then when we're told there's a scary, deadly virus and we're told that, you know, even though never before in our lives when we had respiratory viruses, did masks help or staying away from people now in this situation, suddenly it does.
So the the instinct to use common sense or just question something right off the bat is gone.
Nobody says, hey, why why didn't we use masks before? Why not for the flu? We had bad flus. We had swine flu.
How come they never said to wear masks? Staying away from people? What?
Like we, you know, this quarantine thing, that's when someone's sick. They stay away. Right.
Not everybody stays away from everybody. But our instinct to even question that wasn't even there.
And then what about just looking around and seeing what's going on with other people like in the Spanish flu in 1918?
And there was, you know, you can see some video interviews of some survivors when they were still alive.
There may still be a couple alive and they describe, you know, having to help their neighbors bury their family in their backyard because the cemeteries were full.
Now, if you if that's your day to day life, you know, there's a deadly illness.
You don't need the media or an authority figure to tell you and you'd be so scared, you know, you probably just avoid everyone.
Be like, I'm just staying home. You know, listen, I love you, but stay the heck away from me. Right.
And no one would have to tell you that. But here we have a situation where no one's had that experience.
You know, even the doctors in the hospitals haven't had that experience. They've had empty hospitals.
So, you know, where is the ability of people to just say, hey, right in front of me, I don't see what you're talking about.
What the hell is going on? We got to stop this.
Only a very few people, you know, have that ability.
And I think, you know, it's probably everyone in this audience.
But that that is the psychosis that I'm talking about is the inability to, you know, trust the reality that you observe as the real reality and instead get the real reality from some other source.
And there is actually a Soviet defector from the 1980s who cut, who went through the whole process of how you reduce a population to the point almost to quote you or your paraphrase.
His lectures.
To get people to question the reality when they know it's true right in front of them.
It's how about bring out your dead from Monty Python.
Absolutely.
Thank you. Great, great stuff. And Andrew, great comment.
We got two comments, two questions to go. Andrew, you like it two more?
All right, I'll stick for two more, but that's definitely all that I have the energy for.
Excellent. Thank you. Thank you, Stephen and Glenn.
Hi, my name is Glenn Macco and I'm a retired software engineer.
My background was in developing communication software that got used worldwide.
A couple examples were with Boeing aircraft for manufacturing and with the.
Sorry, wrong button. Unmute. Sorry.
We heard last was the software for the Boeing aircraft.
Yeah, and as well as US Air Force Space Command in Cheyenne Mountain.
So I for the past year, I've been an activist for pro health and initially working very actively with the early treatment doctors and now the concerns with the vaccine.
In October, I was a lead person in trying to encourage the public to get involved and to submit comments to the FDA.
We grew the typical number from 100 to over 100,000.
And we're doing that again for the current one. So I just put in the chat a pointer for anyone that's here.
Please take a chance. Take an opportunity. It usually takes only 10 minutes to go ahead and give comments.
In your overview, Dr. Corbin, you talked about your part of your interest in your evolution to allopathic activities.
And I was wondering if you think what's going on now in the in the awareness, are we likely to get a a reawakening and an enlightenment with a public can move toward allopathic and functional medicine rather than the historic of just following the pharma industry and taking drugs for symptom suppression?
Yes, excellent question. And let me just clarify the allopathic system is the current system dominated by the farm, the pharmacologic industry.
When there was something called the Flexner report in the early nineteen hundreds, which was a study commissioned by Rockefeller and I believe JP Morgan to study medical education.
And it was at that time that chiropractic and naturopathic and osteopathic were the predominant forms of medicine in the United States.
And allopathic, which is using what I call of the trio of cut, burn, poison or surgery, pharmaceuticals and radiation, was a small minority.
And the results of this report, which were highly influential, was that essentially all the other stuff are quacks and allopathic medicine is the only real one.
And all of the colleges or universities that were going to accredit and they formed the American Medical Association to do this initially are going to be allopathic schools.
So the number of medical schools in the country went way down. The ones that were allopathic stayed open.
They were very expensive. Only wealthy people could really attend them at that time because there were no student loans or any public financing of education like we had now.
And then that became the dominant system.
Now at the present time, and I don't know what the future holds of course, but all my efforts are really geared towards trying to bring about this paradigm shift out of this toxic medicine, which really, in my opinion, and no one has studied this directly,
but there are lots of studies that speak to different parts of it. My belief or my opinion is actually that the medical care is the leading cause of death.
So we have, you know, from the Journal of the American Medical Association, we know around 150,000 deaths a year occur from pharmaceuticals taken as directed, not including chemotherapy or vaccines.
We know from Johns Hopkins study that 250,000 people a year die of medical errors. So if we combine those two numbers, we are already at the CDC third leading cause of death.
And of course, that doesn't include other things. So there needs to be a shift. Now, because of the changes in the health care system, I mean, not just the fraud of the pandemic,
but also like shutting down all the health care, making access harder, requiring testing and masks, not allowing people to visit their family members.
That's kept many, many people, including the fear of COVID, by the way, has kept many, many people away from the health care system. And it's become very restrictive.
I mean, they even, you know, take people off transplant lists now if they don't get jabbed, right? So it's becoming more exclusive, less friendly, and people are looking at alternatives.
And even people who aren't fully awake about the plandemic are still considering alternative health care much more than I've ever witnessed.
And so I'm trying to first of all, like I do natural healing consultations. I've studied it for several years. I feel like I have enough enough expertise to teach people various ways they could help their, you know, bodies, minds and souls heal from whatever ails them.
But I'm also developing a repository of information and hosting what I call True Medicine University, where we feature scientists and practitioners with this knowledge to give.
I mean, the same kind of rigor that I presented with tonight, that's what I expect from anybody that comes on my platform. We're trying to make it, you know, as high quality information that can help bring about this new healing paradigm.
And then I've just about to announce that I'm actually taking on my first, you might call apprentice or we're going to call him a fellow, who is a medical doctor who just finished his residency and he doesn't want to practice allopathic medicine.
And so we're going to retrain him. And I'm I hope there are going to be many more. And I'm not the only person, you know, pursuing these kind of things because I want to try and bring about this new healing paradigm.
And it's going to be different because it's going to require more responsibility from individual men and women to care for their own health and to learn the knowledge of how to do that.
But it's going to be, you know, it could be so much better because people will be so much healthier and it'll be so inexpensive.
I mean, when people, just to give you an idea, you know, when people work with me as a consultant, it's very different from a doctor patient relationship. I'm not taking care of them.
I'm not curing them of anything. I don't even lay hands on people. In fact, I don't even work with people in my own area.
You know, I work with people all over the world, even if they are local. I'd still do a virtual consultation with them because even though I like being with people in person and I will meet them in person if they insist, it's not necessary because I'm not doing anything for them.
I'm giving them information so they, I help them figure out what's the root cause of their problems.
And then I say, here are two or three ways that you could change your life or you could do this kind of protocol where you could bring about healing from these conditions.
But you have to get the supplies. You have to read the materials that I give you to read. You have to plan it out. You have to every day decide what you're going to eat and drink.
You're going to do an enema. You're not going to do an enema. You're going to take milk thistle, not take milk thistle. Right?
You say, I don't like milk thistle. I'm going to instead I'm going to do coffee enemas. Like, you know, whatever. Or screw Dr. Kaufman. He doesn't know what he's talking about.
I'm going to go to the regular doctor. Right? And that's the, the, what it really takes from people to empower themselves to say, I want to learn this.
I think this guy knows something, so I'll learn from him and then we'll see what happens if I use his information. Do I really get better?
Right? And if not, I'm going to tell everyone, stay away from Dr. Kaufman. He doesn't know what he's talking about.
And then, then you'll know, like, okay, do I know what I'm talking about or not? Let, let those people, you know, and of course, God forbid anything bad should happen.
But nothing that I teach is poison or, you know, or cutting you open or radiating you. Right? It's all just how do you eat? How do you drink? How do you detox?
You write support the body's natural functions. And so, you know, so a change is happening. You know, I can't, I mean, I have, I'm, I, I right now, and I know that my name's out there a lot, but not everybody knows I even do this.
But it's hidden on my website that I even do any consultations. I never advertise it. And yet I have like a three month waiting list. Right?
And that it's not because I'm so special. It's because people are desperate. They want to heal. They want this knowledge and they don't trust that mainstream medical system anymore.
Yeah. Thank you. Very inspiring. Inspirational for a brighter future.
Thank you. Thank you, Glenn. And last, last question. Andrew from Jim.
Hey, Andrew. Thanks very much. Jim Thomas. I'm a former Navy flight surgeon.
MD, University of Pennsylvania, MBA, Wharton School of Business. And, and we met until what else? Yeah. When you're here, I'll send you a text to just remind you who I am.
Oh, I think I remember you, Jim, actually. You sent me a few texts and got me in on some secret meetings, haven't you?
Maybe.
Thank you for that. I appreciate it.
Okay. So the question that this is a spike protein is engineered. I think there's no doubt about it. And thank you very much for saying that.
And the people who engineered it made it so perhaps it won't affect them.
And what may be coming is another spike protein also that won't affect them or won't affect them as much, especially if they prophylax with certain medications.
And that will have a maybe a higher death rate. The next one to say, I told you so. And this and so because they have to push us into push us into more lockdowns and taking the vaccines.
Because the vaccines are much more than just a therapy, as you've said. So how do we fight this if it's being orchestrated?
Let's assume that this is an engineered spike and that the people who are engineering are our intelligence agencies. Let's assume that. And it's six eyes, you know, Rainbow Six.
And it's and that's why all the Australia, New Zealand, Canada, United States, England are all the ones who have the highest death rates. Let's say let's assume that.
How do we stop our intelligence agencies who are lying to us? Lie to tumbling bullet theory of JFK? How do we stop our intelligence agencies that have this as a confidential or classified program?
Well, yeah, so interesting question. And, you know, I'm really not sure how to directly influence, you know, those corrupt intelligence agencies.
And I think there's a lot more going on there than than most people know for sure. But, you know, we just have to educate people to stay away from these injections, because, you know, that's the only way to deploy these engineered spike proteins.
And I do agree with you because they are developing a second round that I've heard some preliminary information of, you know, injections that they say can, you know, protect against these so-called fake variants.
And with the, you know, Omicron variant, by the way, they said there were a large number of mutations in the spike protein gene.
Now, of course, of course, this is all made up. But nonetheless, that leads the way for reengineering the, you know, spike protein in the in the genetic vaccines.
So it could very well have significantly different qualities and cause different effects if there are new, you know, spike sequences that get EUA and then are put on the market.
So, you know, the biggest thing is just, you know, do what everybody has been doing is, you know, put out as much information about the toxicity of the vaccine.
And it's really difficult to watch people continue to take it and take booster shots.
But, you know, it's there's only so much you can do if people have to make their own decision.
I mean, for me, one of the most compelling pieces of evidence that could be shared with someone who is, you know, believes the government or the drug companies are only, you know, beneficent is to look at the Pfizer postclinical data that was only released through a lawsuit because they tried to, you know, convince the FDA to keep it sealed for like 55 years.
And the court said no, sorry. And it contains the first two and a half months of postclinical data for the Pfizer injection.
And you could see that it's it's incredibly morbid.
I mean, over 1200 deaths, which is, you know, just way, way more 20 times as many as completely pulled the swine flu vaccine from the market in the 70s.
And there is in that documented a sequence of eight pages that lists alphabetically all of the medical complications that were observed in the trial.
And it's it's like, you know, incredibly disturbing reading this list because almost every condition listed is life threatening or at least disabling.
And it's just one after the other, after the other, after the other.
So if, you know, a person who was thought the vaccine was all well, well and good, if they read that and it says, you know, it's Pfizer's own document for internal purposes and they see that data and they still want to take an injection, then there's no way you're going to be able to have any rational discourse with that individual.
All right. Thank you, Andrew.
Steven, would you like to thank, well, on behalf of the group, I thank you.
But, Steven, as the as the organizer of this group, Andrew, it's your dinner time.
You've been here for 43 minutes longer than you said you would.
But, Steven, would you thank Andrew?
Yes. Thank you very much, Andrew, for giving this presentation and answering so many questions.
Well, you know, I always appreciate the opportunity to share these, you know, this scientific evidence and my opinions with people who may not have looked at this in detail.
And I certainly hope that there, you know, are some doctors and scientists who may be very skeptical or afraid of looking at this, you know, particular issue who maybe will take a look at, you know, those actual studies at which I discussed and give it a little thought.
You know, there have been a few who have done that, and everyone who's done it that I know of has actually changed their mind and ended up agreeing that there are no viruses.
And even though it's very challenging to take that position.
So, you know, I look forward to further discussions and really do appreciate everyone's attention and excellent questions.
Andrew, I think just one second with what we'll do, Steven, if we can send Andrew the chat or Andrew, you should save the chat actually because there's some wonderful feedback for you.
There are people of different views.
But I think, I think really with the with the work that you are doing, I think you should understand a lot of people thoroughly appreciate certainly your courage in speaking your truth and I urge all of us to be willing to do that.
And Andrew, you are you are an inspiration because of your willingness to take on the establishment.
I think of Galileo when I think of you and you've all saved people or Ignat Semmelweis is I'm from a Hungarian origin Semmelweis was, you know, sent to an asylum because he did know narrative now they've got statutes for it statues, not statutes statues for.
Well, I expect to be carted off to an insane asylum at any day now.
So perhaps there'll be a statue of me someday.
But no, seriously, that's very nice of you to say.
And of course, I don't feel I deserve the comparison, but I certainly don't mind it.
So thank you once again and be well, everyone and search for your own truth.
And Andrew, can I ask you just one question?
Have you ever pursued something like this before and found yourself on your own?
You mean like had a different from the mainstream questioning and then suddenly realizing well actually everything.
I mean, is there a previous history for taking line?
Absolutely, absolutely.
Okay.
You must be hard to teach.
Well, you know, I could learn most things on my own and then just come in and you know, take the test.
So in that sense, you're right.
But I, I did ask some challenging questions from time to time.
Yes, Wolfgang Wood was struggling with me.
Well, you'd be better off asking him about his experience.
I have several.
Andrew Kaufman, Empty.com is my main website.
You might want to look at Terrain, the film.com since it premiered yesterday and part two will premiere next Saturday.
We'll be having a replay later in the week.
So if you just register on the website, you'll get notifications if you want to watch the movie.
And of course, you can own a copy, but I'm not here to sell anything.
I just want you guys to be able to see it if you want.
And you can watch it for free later in the week.
And I also have true medicine university dot com, which is where I feature those lectures.
And our next host will be or presenter will be Amanda Volmer talking about DMSO and true medicine library dot com,
which is where all of my information is archived.
Lots of scholarly articles, protocols, recipes, that kind of information.
And there's also that there's a free version of that that you can check out as well.
Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you.
Where can we find the Pfizer post clinical data?
Because I haven't seen that.
Well, if you email me, I can probably send you the link.
But it's you should.
Celia Farber wrote an article about it.
The group is something like it's similar name to Doctors for COVID Ethics or something like for, you know,
medical disclosure or free medical information like Doctors for Freedom Medical Information Freedom.
They're the ones that filed the court cases.
So if you put in a search term like, you know, just a leaked Pfizer document or Pfizer, you know,
F.O.I. 55 years, I guarantee you'll find it.
You'll find an article about it. And then there should be a link to the actual document.
If you can't find it, email me and I'll send it to you.
Very good.
Go to have your dinner.
All right. Thank you so much. Good night, everyone.
Good night. Good night.
Thank you, Andrew. God bless.
Yeah, I do think thanks for the light.
He has he's got a building.
Yes, yes, yes. All right.
OK. Now, Stephen, since he's now way past my time frame, we've gone to three quarter hours.
Stephen, I am now making you the host.
I'm making you the co-host.
And Sam, we're not going to make you the co-host.
And now, everybody, that's the formalities of the meeting.
So, Stephen, over to you because I have to go to my 1030 meeting we started 11 minutes ago.
But you are all of you. You can stay here for the next five hours.
And I'm going to stay logged in so I get the benefit of the chapter.
I have to commend you on interesting ideas and the links in the in the chat.
It's such a valuable resource, everybody. So make sure you save it.