1
0:00:00 --> 0:00:08
of an inquest going through on a guy by the name of Roy Butler who died, you may have

2
0:00:08 --> 0:00:15
seen it, it's been all over the place, who died five days after getting a vaccine.

3
0:00:15 --> 0:00:21
I was in contact with the family and we set up a meeting for me to go down to Exford to

4
0:00:21 --> 0:00:22
meet the family.

5
0:00:22 --> 0:00:26
I suggested that they bring their solicitors along because it would only be fair because

6
0:00:26 --> 0:00:29
they were being represented by a legal team.

7
0:00:29 --> 0:00:34
Within a day or two, or rather the day before I had the meeting set up, I got a message

8
0:00:34 --> 0:00:39
from my contact within the family, the brother, saying that the meeting was off, they didn't

9
0:00:39 --> 0:00:40
want to meet me.

10
0:00:40 --> 0:00:41
I said, why?

11
0:00:41 --> 0:00:44
He said, well, we just don't want to meet you.

12
0:00:44 --> 0:00:49
So I said, well, what I'll do is I'll send on the information that I got from Professor

13
0:00:49 --> 0:00:54
Bakhti and I did that.

14
0:00:54 --> 0:00:57
And then I rang him a couple of times and he wouldn't take my phone, he wouldn't take

15
0:00:57 --> 0:00:58
my calls.

16
0:00:58 --> 0:00:59
Who wouldn't?

17
0:00:59 --> 0:01:02
He said he'd instantly took my calls.

18
0:01:02 --> 0:01:08
So I firmly believe that the legal team warned them off me.

19
0:01:08 --> 0:01:09
Now, what did they say?

20
0:01:09 --> 0:01:13
Probably that I was a loose cannon and I was, I caused trouble and I'd only make things

21
0:01:13 --> 0:01:15
worse for them.

22
0:01:15 --> 0:01:19
Anyway, it appears now that the inquest has gone to return an open verdict in spite of

23
0:01:19 --> 0:01:23
the fact that he died five days after the vaccine.

24
0:01:23 --> 0:01:28
So it'll be very interesting because he kind of thought they were going to get some sort

25
0:01:28 --> 0:01:29
of compensation.

26
0:01:29 --> 0:01:32
I thought between the lines, I thought that there was an idea that there was going to

27
0:01:32 --> 0:01:34
be some compensation or that.

28
0:01:34 --> 0:01:41
It'll be very interesting now to see if in effect the, you know, whether what the verdict

29
0:01:41 --> 0:01:42
is.

30
0:01:42 --> 0:01:44
Yes, we're going to go.

31
0:01:44 --> 0:01:45
Jerry, stop.

32
0:01:45 --> 0:01:46
We'll talk some more about that.

33
0:01:46 --> 0:01:52
Jerry, I would say that the open verdict is actually better than the other one that they

34
0:01:52 --> 0:01:55
could have got natural causes because that's what they gave to.

35
0:01:55 --> 0:01:59
Oh, no, it was suicide in the case of David Kelly, but he should have had an open verdict,

36
0:01:59 --> 0:02:00
of course.

37
0:02:00 --> 0:02:06
And so I don't know about you, your perception in Ireland, but open verdict in the UK is

38
0:02:06 --> 0:02:07
OK.

39
0:02:07 --> 0:02:10
I think I don't know enough about it to say.

40
0:02:10 --> 0:02:11
Let's go.

41
0:02:11 --> 0:02:12
Come on.

42
0:02:12 --> 0:02:13
On we go.

43
0:02:13 --> 0:02:14
Thank you, Jerry, for that.

44
0:02:14 --> 0:02:16
But there's those inquests are so important.

45
0:02:16 --> 0:02:22
And the transcript, as we've talked about of the UK inquiry into Covid response.

46
0:02:22 --> 0:02:27
So everybody, welcome to Medical Doctors for Covid Ethics International.

47
0:02:27 --> 0:02:33
I'm very excited because this is the last week of 5am starts and our guest today, Philip

48
0:02:33 --> 0:02:38
Altman, Dr Philip Altman, he's got a 5am start as well because he's in Australia.

49
0:02:38 --> 0:02:40
But Philip starts normally at 5am, Stephen.

50
0:02:40 --> 0:02:42
So he's a good man.

51
0:02:42 --> 0:02:43
And I'd rather be in bed.

52
0:02:43 --> 0:02:46
But anyway, here I am with all of you lot.

53
0:02:46 --> 0:02:51
If I'd been in the last week, Stephen, I could have waited until next week.

54
0:02:52 --> 0:02:54
I started 6am next week.

55
0:02:54 --> 0:02:55
Woohoo!

56
0:02:55 --> 0:02:56
How exciting.

57
0:02:56 --> 0:02:59
Anyway, so welcome to the end of October 7am.

58
0:02:59 --> 0:03:00
Yes.

59
0:03:00 --> 0:03:06
And somebody pointed out to me that New Zealand Daylight Saving started this weekend.

60
0:03:06 --> 0:03:08
So they're one week ahead of Australia.

61
0:03:08 --> 0:03:10
Oh, I didn't know that.

62
0:03:10 --> 0:03:12
I didn't want that either.

63
0:03:12 --> 0:03:13
So there you are.

64
0:03:13 --> 0:03:14
Is that correct?

65
0:03:14 --> 0:03:15
Yeah.

66
0:03:15 --> 0:03:16
OK.

67
0:03:16 --> 0:03:17
All right.

68
0:03:17 --> 0:03:18
So welcome to today's discussion.

69
0:03:18 --> 0:03:21
The New Zealand Daylight Saving Group was founded by Dr Stephen Frost over three years

70
0:03:21 --> 0:03:25
ago with a desire to pursue truth, ethics, justice, freedom and health.

71
0:03:25 --> 0:03:29
Stephen has stood up against government and power over the years and has been a whistleblower

72
0:03:29 --> 0:03:30
and activist.

73
0:03:30 --> 0:03:31
His medical specialty is radiology.

74
0:03:31 --> 0:03:38
At this time, we remember Rainer Formick, German US lawyer who's currently incarcerated

75
0:03:38 --> 0:03:44
in Germany, undergoing a show trial, has been in jail for almost a year after an illegal

76
0:03:44 --> 0:03:49
criminal kidnapping through collusion of the Mexican government and German government.

77
0:03:49 --> 0:03:51
I call out those two governments.

78
0:03:51 --> 0:03:54
I call on him to be released as we all do here.

79
0:03:54 --> 0:03:58
The show trial is a disgrace on any legal principles.

80
0:03:58 --> 0:04:04
And Ryan Formick is a man who has fought for truth, ethics, justice, freedom and health.

81
0:04:04 --> 0:04:08
If anyone has any updates on his situation, please put them into the chat.

82
0:04:08 --> 0:04:10
I'm Charles Corvus, the moderator of this group.

83
0:04:10 --> 0:04:13
I'm Australasia's passion provocateur.

84
0:04:13 --> 0:04:16
And we love passionate people in these meetings.

85
0:04:16 --> 0:04:21
I practiced law for 20 years before changing career 31 years ago.

86
0:04:21 --> 0:04:24
And over the last 14 years, I've helped parents and lawyers to strategize remedies for vaccine

87
0:04:24 --> 0:04:28
damage and damage from bad medical advice.

88
0:04:28 --> 0:04:33
Bad medical advice is now the number one killer in America.

89
0:04:33 --> 0:04:34
Bad medical advice.

90
0:04:34 --> 0:04:40
I'm also the CEO of an industrial hemp company and industrial hemp is going to be a lifesaver

91
0:04:41 --> 0:04:47
for us as humanity against the globalists who want to destroy humanity.

92
0:04:47 --> 0:04:51
We comprise lots of professions here and we're from all around the world.

93
0:04:51 --> 0:04:52
Many of us thought that vaccines were okay.

94
0:04:52 --> 0:04:57
Now, many of us proudly say, yes, we are passionate anti-vaxxers.

95
0:04:57 --> 0:05:02
And I will keep saying that Stanley Plotkin in the last couple of months published an

96
0:05:02 --> 0:05:10
article, he the godfather, the alleged godfather of children's vaccines in America.

97
0:05:10 --> 0:05:16
Now in his eighties, having been deposed by Aaron Ciri through the informed consent action

98
0:05:16 --> 0:05:22
network orchestrated by Del Bigtree of the high wire, full credit to Del Bigtree and

99
0:05:22 --> 0:05:23
his team.

100
0:05:23 --> 0:05:31
Stanley Plotkin has now acknowledged in his article that no childhood vaccine in history

101
0:05:31 --> 0:05:35
ever has been properly tested for safety and efficacy.

102
0:05:35 --> 0:05:40
And anybody who tells you the contrary is deliberately ignorant.

103
0:05:41 --> 0:05:47
If this is your first time, sorry, in other words, no vaccines for children.

104
0:05:47 --> 0:05:54
Putting vaccines into children is essentially saying that God is a failure.

105
0:05:56 --> 0:05:56
Correct.

106
0:05:56 --> 0:06:00
If this is your first time here, welcome and feel free to introduce yourself in the chat

107
0:06:00 --> 0:06:01
and where you're from.

108
0:06:01 --> 0:06:06
If you publish a newsletter or podcast or you have a radio or TV show or you've written

109
0:06:06 --> 0:06:09
a book, put the links into the chat so we can follow you, promote you and find you.

110
0:06:09 --> 0:06:13
Philip Altman, put your sub stack link into the chat, please, so that people can easily

111
0:06:13 --> 0:06:14
get it.

112
0:06:15 --> 0:06:19
Most of us understand we're in the middle of World War III and that the medical science

113
0:06:19 --> 0:06:21
battle is only one of 12 battle fronts.

114
0:06:21 --> 0:06:26
Today, Philip Altman is going to be talking about the cunning stunts that governments

115
0:06:26 --> 0:06:29
use on the legal battlefront.

116
0:06:30 --> 0:06:32
No time to be tired.

117
0:06:32 --> 0:06:34
We're four and a half years into a seven year war.

118
0:06:34 --> 0:06:37
I assess we've got a lot of work to do everybody.

119
0:06:37 --> 0:06:38
So look after yourself.

120
0:06:39 --> 0:06:40
Do what needs to be done.

121
0:06:40 --> 0:06:42
So you are in magnificent health.

122
0:06:43 --> 0:06:48
Most of us understand the development of science and the science is never settled.

123
0:06:48 --> 0:06:52
This meeting runs for two and a half hours after which for those with the time Tom Rodman

124
0:06:52 --> 0:06:53
runs a video telegram meeting.

125
0:06:53 --> 0:06:55
Tom puts the links into the chat.

126
0:06:55 --> 0:06:59
If you are able to join, we will listen to our guest presenter, Dr. Philip Altman, for

127
0:06:59 --> 0:07:00
as long as Philip wishes to speak.

128
0:07:00 --> 0:07:02
And then we have Q&A.

129
0:07:03 --> 0:07:07
Philip is going to be wonderful on Q&A with his background, which I will tell you about

130
0:07:07 --> 0:07:07
in a moment.

131
0:07:08 --> 0:07:12
Stephen Frost, by long established tradition, asks the first questions for 15 minutes.

132
0:07:13 --> 0:07:16
This is a free speech environment with appropriate moderating.

133
0:07:16 --> 0:07:20
Free speech is crucially important in a fight to preserve our human freedoms.

134
0:07:20 --> 0:07:26
And in Australia, a new misinformation disinformation bill has been brought in to

135
0:07:26 --> 0:07:30
literally ban anybody saying anything the government doesn't approve of.

136
0:07:30 --> 0:07:36
So it is full attack on free speech in Australia.

137
0:07:36 --> 0:07:42
And as most Australians would say to the government, they are talking bullshit.

138
0:07:43 --> 0:07:45
However, we must fight against it.

139
0:07:45 --> 0:07:47
If you're offended by anything, be offended.

140
0:07:47 --> 0:07:49
We are lovingly not interested.

141
0:07:49 --> 0:07:55
We reject the offense industry that requires nobody to say anything that may offend another.

142
0:07:55 --> 0:08:00
Be ready with your responses when somebody says, Stephen, I'm offended by what you said.

143
0:08:00 --> 0:08:03
And I have nine standard responses if you want that.

144
0:08:03 --> 0:08:05
In fact, I'll put it into the chat.

145
0:08:05 --> 0:08:06
Nine standard responses.

146
0:08:06 --> 0:08:07
Be ready.

147
0:08:07 --> 0:08:10
One of my standard responses when someone says they're offended by what I said,

148
0:08:11 --> 0:08:14
I say, well, I'm offended that you dare tell me that you're offended.

149
0:08:14 --> 0:08:16
So now we're both offended.

150
0:08:18 --> 0:08:19
Happens all the time to me, Charles.

151
0:08:20 --> 0:08:22
And what's your standard response, Stephen?

152
0:08:23 --> 0:08:25
People saying I'm no, I'm joking.

153
0:08:27 --> 0:08:30
And we also reject the triggering industry, the triggered industry.

154
0:08:30 --> 0:08:37
Don't say something you might trigger somebody that is a BS industry as well designed to suppress

155
0:08:37 --> 0:08:37
free speech.

156
0:08:39 --> 0:08:43
We come with an attitude and perspective of love, not fear.

157
0:08:43 --> 0:08:44
Fear is the opposite of love.

158
0:08:44 --> 0:08:47
Fear squashes you and enslaves you.

159
0:08:47 --> 0:08:50
Love, on the other hand, expands you, liberates you.

160
0:08:51 --> 0:08:53
These twice weekly meetings are not just talkfests.

161
0:08:53 --> 0:08:58
An extraordinary range of actions and initiatives have been generated from linkages made by

162
0:08:58 --> 0:09:00
attendees in these meetings.

163
0:09:00 --> 0:09:05
One, for example, is Albert Benavides and his VAERS database.

164
0:09:05 --> 0:09:10
It was Jerry Waters in these meetings who helped to finance the establishment of that

165
0:09:10 --> 0:09:17
excellent database that enables Albert to properly show the true state of carnage of

166
0:09:17 --> 0:09:19
these COVID jabs and indeed any jabs.

167
0:09:21 --> 0:09:24
If you have a solution or a product or links or resources that will help people put the

168
0:09:24 --> 0:09:28
details into the chat, the meeting is recorded, is uploaded onto the Rumble channel.

169
0:09:28 --> 0:09:31
And now welcome to our guest presenter, Dr Philip Altman.

170
0:09:31 --> 0:09:35
Thank you so much, Philip, for giving us your time, wisdom and insights.

171
0:09:35 --> 0:09:40
And for the purposes of the recording, I'm going to read your abbreviated curriculum

172
0:09:40 --> 0:09:41
BTA.

173
0:09:42 --> 0:09:47
Philip has expertise in the areas of clinical medical research and pharmaceutical drug

174
0:09:47 --> 0:09:48
regulatory affairs in Australia.

175
0:09:48 --> 0:09:53
For the past four years, he has shone a light on the many failures of governments and regulators

176
0:09:53 --> 0:09:57
holding the degrees of bachelor of pharmacy, honors a master of science and doctor of

177
0:09:57 --> 0:09:58
philosophy.

178
0:09:58 --> 0:10:04
Philip's doctorate concerned the development of new cardiotonic drugs with lower intrinsic

179
0:10:04 --> 0:10:09
toxicity compared to existing drugs, including the chemical synthesis and testing in various

180
0:10:09 --> 0:10:11
animal models.

181
0:10:11 --> 0:10:15
Philip has worked primarily within the Australian pharmaceutical industry since 1974.

182
0:10:16 --> 0:10:22
So that's your 50th anniversary here, Philip, in relation to clinical trial design,

183
0:10:22 --> 0:10:25
management and reporting in relation to planning new drug approvals, dealing with the secretary

184
0:10:25 --> 0:10:28
of the Department of Health and the Therapeutic Goods Administration.

185
0:10:29 --> 0:10:34
After many years of working within Big Pharma, Philip later became a senior industry

186
0:10:34 --> 0:10:39
pharmaceutical consultant through his contract research company, which provides both clinical

187
0:10:39 --> 0:10:43
trial and regulatory consultant services to pharmaceutical industry.

188
0:10:44 --> 0:10:48
And that focused his experience in critically evaluating clinical trial safety and efficacy

189
0:10:48 --> 0:10:54
data as submitted in complex new drug dossiers for international regulatory purposes.

190
0:10:54 --> 0:10:58
This work saw Philip consulted by more than half of the multinational pharmaceutical companies

191
0:10:58 --> 0:11:03
in Australia in various capacities with a focus on drug regulatory affairs.

192
0:11:03 --> 0:11:07
Philip founded the Association of Regulatory and Clinical Scientists, which includes more than

193
0:11:07 --> 0:11:12
2000 scientists, clinicians and associated health professionals involved in both clinical

194
0:11:12 --> 0:11:18
trial and regulatory affairs in Australia and New Zealand, where that association continues

195
0:11:18 --> 0:11:23
to be the foremost educational forum for both industry and government, including the TGA

196
0:11:23 --> 0:11:26
personnel involved in clinical trials and regulatory affairs.

197
0:11:27 --> 0:11:34
Philip's experience involves more than 100 clinical trials and lots more, lots more.

198
0:11:34 --> 0:11:39
And he, Philip, in association with the TGA on behalf of pharmaceutical companies,

199
0:11:39 --> 0:11:43
directed two major drug withdrawals in relation to public safety.

200
0:11:44 --> 0:11:50
So Philip has a popular substack for four years. He has shone a light, as I said at the start,

201
0:11:50 --> 0:12:01
on what we've been facing. And his topic today is that prior to COVID, it was against the law to

202
0:12:01 --> 0:12:09
say any therapeutic was safe. The government said the COVID jabs were safe. How did the government

203
0:12:09 --> 0:12:16
get around the law? So Philip, thank you for being willing to speak to us again. Philip has spoken,

204
0:12:16 --> 0:12:22
I think, on two previous occasions. And thank you, Stephen Frost, again, for organizing this group

205
0:12:22 --> 0:12:30
and for us, Stephen and I, for organizing Philip and getting him off his desk and talking to us.

206
0:12:30 --> 0:12:36
Welcome, Philip. Thank you very much for having me.

207
0:12:36 --> 0:12:42
And good morning. It's 5 a.m. It's still dark here.

208
0:12:42 --> 0:12:43
Wow.

209
0:12:43 --> 0:12:55
So I guess I can start with that topic. How did the Australian government say

210
0:12:56 --> 0:13:02
in an unqualified way that the COVID-19 vaccines were safe?

211
0:13:06 --> 0:13:19
When this all started, I was certainly on a big learning curve like everyone else,

212
0:13:19 --> 0:13:30
because this was completely new. And when I heard the chief medical officer and other

213
0:13:30 --> 0:13:40
senior bureaucrats in Australia start to say in an unqualified way that the COVID vaccines were

214
0:13:41 --> 0:13:54
safe and effective, I knew that that couldn't be right. It basically couldn't be right

215
0:13:55 --> 0:14:06
for two main reasons on its surface without even digging at any data.

216
0:14:10 --> 0:14:21
The first reason was that the COVID-19 vaccines were provisionally approved

217
0:14:22 --> 0:14:29
provisionally approved. Now that was a new regulatory pathway

218
0:14:30 --> 0:14:37
for therapeutic goods in Australia. So as opposed to getting full approval

219
0:14:39 --> 0:14:47
for drugs that following the submission of quality, safety, and efficacy data,

220
0:14:48 --> 0:15:02
a drug was either rejected or fully approved. However, from 2018, a new regulatory pathway

221
0:15:02 --> 0:15:11
was introduced. And that was the provisional approval where a company could submit partial

222
0:15:11 --> 0:15:19
quality, safety, and efficacy data. And they could receive provisional approval

223
0:15:21 --> 0:15:29
pending the supply of the outstanding data up to six years after the fact. Now

224
0:15:33 --> 0:15:36
I always thought in the beginning when that was done

225
0:15:36 --> 0:15:49
that that would apply to very few drugs. And it would normally apply by logic because of the

226
0:15:49 --> 0:16:00
safety risk to special circumstances where there was no alternative or it was a potentially

227
0:16:01 --> 0:16:08
life-saving drug that showed promise. And the potential recipient, the prospects were not

228
0:16:08 --> 0:16:13
very good. It could have been new drugs for cancer or something like that.

229
0:16:16 --> 0:16:18
But this was a provisionally approved drug.

230
0:16:18 --> 0:16:26
And it was advocated either in the beginning or shortly thereafter

231
0:16:29 --> 0:16:33
for everyone, not only for desperately

232
0:16:33 --> 0:16:42
ill people, but for healthy people, for pregnant women, for breastfeeding women,

233
0:16:44 --> 0:16:51
for children, and then for the elderly. And it was a provisionally approved drug.

234
0:16:52 --> 0:16:58
And that didn't seem right to me. So that's the first point. And up until

235
0:16:59 --> 0:17:06
even now, I don't think that's the first point. And I think that's the first point.

236
0:17:07 --> 0:17:21
And that didn't seem right to me. So that's the first point. And up until even now

237
0:17:23 --> 0:17:32
in Australia, for young children, the COVID vaccines are still provisionally approved. They,

238
0:17:33 --> 0:17:38
in more recent times, approved the COVID vaccines for adults.

239
0:17:40 --> 0:17:51
So that was the first reason that I was surprised at. The second reason was that I was

240
0:17:51 --> 0:18:04
was well-trained within the industry. And later on in my career, I had to sign off on

241
0:18:07 --> 0:18:16
marketing advertising for drugs that were sold by the company that I worked for.

242
0:18:16 --> 0:18:25
And they had to get medical approval for any advertisement. So I knew something about the

243
0:18:25 --> 0:18:33
Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code, things that you could say and you couldn't say by law. So

244
0:18:33 --> 0:18:44
there is a Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code in Australia. And that code specifically said

245
0:18:45 --> 0:18:54
you could not claim a drug or a therapeutic was safe, safe in an unqualified way.

246
0:18:56 --> 0:19:08
And yet the Chief Medical Officer of Australia was saying repeatedly ad nauseam that these COVID-19

247
0:19:08 --> 0:19:14
vaccines, these provisionally, they called them approved and they weren't approved.

248
0:19:14 --> 0:19:17
They were provisionally approved. And there's a huge difference.

249
0:19:19 --> 0:19:28
They said that these approved drugs were safe. And that, at that time, was against the law.

250
0:19:29 --> 0:19:40
So I've actually been involved in a number of legal cases for

251
0:19:43 --> 0:19:48
for individuals who were fighting the vaccine mandates and

252
0:19:49 --> 0:20:00
and involved in larger companies, larger suits with the federal court here and

253
0:20:02 --> 0:20:10
with the High Court of Australia. So I've been keeping touch with many lawyers. And

254
0:20:10 --> 0:20:18
and one of the lawyers that I was working with when I commented that it was against the law

255
0:20:19 --> 0:20:24
to say that these things were safe, he pricked up his ears and he said,

256
0:20:27 --> 0:20:33
why do you say that? Where is that? And I said, well, it's in the Therapeutic Goods Advertising

257
0:20:33 --> 0:20:42
Code. And I didn't have it at my fingertips at the time. But he dug around and pulled up the

258
0:20:42 --> 0:20:53
advertising code. And to his credit, he actually found how they were able to get around it.

259
0:20:53 --> 0:21:04
This lawyer is Jaden Beal. Very, very good. He's involved in a very important case in Queensland.

260
0:21:07 --> 0:21:09
So Jaden sent me the

261
0:21:09 --> 0:21:11
the

262
0:21:13 --> 0:21:21
the amendment to the Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code word for word. And

263
0:21:23 --> 0:21:33
John Scare, who is head of the TGA, in I believe it was June 2021,

264
0:21:33 --> 0:21:43
single handedly just changed the advertising code to exempt COVID-19 vaccines from the

265
0:21:44 --> 0:21:48
regulation that said you cannot claim a drug was safe.

266
0:21:51 --> 0:21:58
So that really, really surprised me. Now that sets a huge precedent where

267
0:21:59 --> 0:22:10
where a drug or a therapeutic, any therapeutic that does not is not supported

268
0:22:12 --> 0:22:18
by the normal safety, efficacy and quality control information required

269
0:22:20 --> 0:22:25
to support the approval of the drug could be put on the market.

270
0:22:26 --> 0:22:36
And the claim can be made, the legal claim can be made that it's safe. And the public were told

271
0:22:37 --> 0:22:41
it was safe. So the public

272
0:22:43 --> 0:22:47
trust the TGA, the Therapeutic Goods Administration, at least they did then.

273
0:22:47 --> 0:22:57
I did too. I was really surprised that TGA here

274
0:22:59 --> 0:23:05
has standards equivalent to the US FDA and is one of the, has been

275
0:23:07 --> 0:23:14
known as one of the best drug regulators in the world. And I knew a lot of the people

276
0:23:15 --> 0:23:25
personally within the TGA. And they generally do a very good job. Yeah, I've had disputes with them.

277
0:23:25 --> 0:23:34
I've gone to bat for multinationals to appeal decisions that were made by the TGA. And I know

278
0:23:36 --> 0:23:39
from years of experience that

279
0:23:39 --> 0:23:49
they're very good at what they do. They know what they're doing. And when I heard that

280
0:23:51 --> 0:23:59
the chief medical officer, other bureaucrats, state health officers, chief health officers

281
0:23:59 --> 0:24:07
in each state were saying and repeating the mantra, the COVID vaccines were safe and

282
0:24:07 --> 0:24:15
effective without qualification, I was shocked, absolutely shocked. So

283
0:24:18 --> 0:24:28
in a nutshell, that's how they did it. And to this day, I think most Australians and most

284
0:24:28 --> 0:24:38
most Americans heard the same mantra. And they trust their drug regulators to keep them safe.

285
0:24:39 --> 0:24:52
Well, after almost four years now, with the huge amount of information that we now know,

286
0:24:52 --> 0:25:05
it is astounding that this mantra can continue to be repeated. Absolutely astounding.

287
0:25:06 --> 0:25:14
Let me tell you that having worked in the industry for a long time, and I've been involved in a lot

288
0:25:14 --> 0:25:31
of interesting cases, the drug regulators here and the US FDA have an incredible capacity to

289
0:25:32 --> 0:25:41
keep abreast of the world literature. They have huge resources. They have people dedicated to do

290
0:25:41 --> 0:25:54
this. And if I or anyone else launched an application, say a bibliographic application,

291
0:25:54 --> 0:26:04
which is one type of application, usually applying to older drugs, where you rely on the literature

292
0:26:04 --> 0:26:17
to support an application. If you don't present the full literature, that is the good, the bad,

293
0:26:17 --> 0:26:25
and the ugly, and mention that and review that in your application, you are in trouble, because they

294
0:26:25 --> 0:26:34
do their own research and they can pull up all the literature. And if you don't present

295
0:26:35 --> 0:26:43
papers and literature that maybe does not support your application, you don't comment on that and

296
0:26:43 --> 0:26:52
you hide it, you lose all credibility. So they know. And I've been involved in

297
0:26:55 --> 0:27:08
cases where a single paper, even not a clinical type paper, but a laboratory-based paper,

298
0:27:08 --> 0:27:18
suggested a toxicity which was new or unusual could cause a firestorm within the TGA and would

299
0:27:18 --> 0:27:28
prompt them to contact the company with a please explain letter. We're talking here about four years

300
0:27:28 --> 0:27:40
and thousands and thousands of papers and reports and literally millions of adverse drug reaction

301
0:27:40 --> 0:27:48
reports and hundreds of thousands of reported deaths in association with the administration

302
0:27:48 --> 0:28:01
of these vaccines that it is unparalleled in history and yet it has not prompted

303
0:28:02 --> 0:28:11
the Australian TGA or the US FDA to send a letter to the company's concern or pick up the phone

304
0:28:12 --> 0:28:19
and say please explain. You have 30 days or you have 60 days or 90 days.

305
0:28:19 --> 0:28:27
Things like the rubbery white clots that have been reported all around the world

306
0:28:27 --> 0:28:34
by embalmers, we all know about this. In the past, before COVID,

307
0:28:34 --> 0:28:45
a single report like that would have normally triggered a drug regulator to make an inquiry.

308
0:28:46 --> 0:28:53
We don't have single reports. We have hundreds and hundreds of reports. We have autopsies. It's all

309
0:28:54 --> 0:29:03
published, this video. And yet the drug regulator would have been

310
0:29:04 --> 0:29:13
a drug regulator. It's not asked a question about that. The recommendation now is

311
0:29:14 --> 0:29:23
that people get their ninth booster. It seems incredible to me. So basically, Charles,

312
0:29:24 --> 0:29:26
that covers all of them.

313
0:29:32 --> 0:29:35
There's only about 10 bombshells in what you just shared over the last half hour.

314
0:29:38 --> 0:29:45
So that is like, I don't know where to start with this outrageous attack on this industry that you

315
0:29:45 --> 0:29:52
loved, that you thought was properly regulated, that you've spent 50 years in this industry.

316
0:29:53 --> 0:29:58
So as you know, Stephen goes first while Stephen's collecting his thoughts. Are you there Stephen?

317
0:30:00 --> 0:30:03
Oh yeah, sorry. I'm here. We just can't see you.

318
0:30:03 --> 0:30:10
It's just that I've got the, that's it. That's great. So just before you, just to gather your

319
0:30:10 --> 0:30:18
thoughts, Philip, I have a question for you. Can you tell everybody John Skerritt's current

320
0:30:18 --> 0:30:28
position having retired from TGA? Well, right. So John Skerritt, who was

321
0:30:29 --> 0:30:36
up until recently the head of the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration, has now joined

322
0:30:36 --> 0:30:49
the peak, basically lobbying body in Australia. It was called, when I was

323
0:30:50 --> 0:30:57
practicing and had my business years ago, was called the Australian Pharmaceutical Manufacturers

324
0:30:57 --> 0:31:05
Association, the ATMA. Now it's called Medicines Australia. So he's representing

325
0:31:08 --> 0:31:16
at a senior level the pharmaceutical industry in Australia. So he's on, he's a director of,

326
0:31:16 --> 0:31:22
he's on the board of directors of Medicines Australia, the peak body representing the

327
0:31:22 --> 0:31:30
interest of pharmaceutical companies. Yeah. And really it was, it's the first case.

328
0:31:31 --> 0:31:38
We've all heard of the revolving door in the US where the commissioners are,

329
0:31:40 --> 0:31:49
for the FDA, join industry. They're on fairly small salaries as commissioners to the FDA.

330
0:31:49 --> 0:31:57
And then there's a decision made by the FDA for a company, they get their drug approved. And

331
0:31:57 --> 0:32:05
shortly after that, these people pop up on boards of directors of those companies

332
0:32:06 --> 0:32:13
that own the drug. And that was commonly called, and we all know it, as the revolving door. And

333
0:32:14 --> 0:32:26
it's a real problem because there's a lot of money to be made. And these companies can afford to pay

334
0:32:26 --> 0:32:37
huge salaries to these ex-commissioners who know people within the FDA who have good connections.

335
0:32:37 --> 0:32:48
This seems to be routine. To my mind, it shouldn't be allowed. But the move by John Skerritt

336
0:32:50 --> 0:33:02
was the first such move in Australia. And it actually doesn't surprise me because the way the

337
0:33:02 --> 0:33:08
TGA was behaving, it's not the same TGA that I knew. In fact, up until COVID came along,

338
0:33:11 --> 0:33:17
I didn't have a problem with the TGA. I held them in high regard.

339
0:33:17 --> 0:33:25
I worked very closely with them over the years, some very, very difficult files,

340
0:33:26 --> 0:33:35
lots of interactions, lots of submissions, countless submissions, and I was very happy

341
0:33:35 --> 0:33:42
to be able to work with them. And I was very happy to be able to work with them.

342
0:33:42 --> 0:33:50
Lots of interactions, lots of submissions, countless submissions. They were very, very good.

343
0:33:51 --> 0:34:00
I mean, the requirements were really, really tough to prove quality, safety, and efficacy.

344
0:34:01 --> 0:34:07
The requirements in Australia were really tough. Let me give you a simple example.

345
0:34:07 --> 0:34:21
So, if you had a, just a simple example, say you had a sustained release tablet

346
0:34:21 --> 0:34:41
for blood pressure, say, that the application was to take the tablet once a day to lower

347
0:34:41 --> 0:34:51
your blood pressure, and that was approved. And the company then wanted to submit an application

348
0:34:54 --> 0:35:05
to give half a tablet once a day to lower the dose. Well, you couldn't just apply for that.

349
0:35:06 --> 0:35:11
Well, you could apply for it, but the TGA would come back and say,

350
0:35:11 --> 0:35:19
oh, you want to break the tablet in two? Right. Demonstrate to us that the sustained release

351
0:35:19 --> 0:35:25
characteristics from the matrix of that tablet, when you change the geometry of that tablet,

352
0:35:25 --> 0:35:36
are the same within 5% or 10%. I forget the limits of the whole tablet. And you're giving

353
0:35:36 --> 0:35:43
half the dose. Right? I mean, that is the fine detail that they drilled down to in terms of

354
0:35:43 --> 0:35:53
quality. And I respect them for that. It's a good question. Why would you change the geometry of a

355
0:35:53 --> 0:35:59
tablet that has a matrix and a coding around the tablet, just breaking it in half? Is it going to

356
0:35:59 --> 0:36:06
behave the same? No, you have to prove that. The burden of proof is on the company.

357
0:36:10 --> 0:36:18
So, that's a very simple example, a small example. But there are guidelines. And I must say that

358
0:36:18 --> 0:36:26
when dealing with drug regulators, the regulators don't have rules.

359
0:36:27 --> 0:36:34
They work to guidelines. And there are international guidelines. There's what's called

360
0:36:34 --> 0:36:41
the International Conference on Harmonization. You can look that up online. Huge organization.

361
0:36:41 --> 0:36:47
Thousands of people from companies all around the world contribute to the various committees. And

362
0:36:48 --> 0:36:56
it takes years to develop guidelines for specific topics. And there's basically hundreds of topics.

363
0:36:57 --> 0:37:06
And companies work to these guidelines. In Australia, we work to these guidelines. In the

364
0:37:06 --> 0:37:13
U.S., the U.K., everywhere in Canada, you work to these guidelines. These guidelines are amended

365
0:37:14 --> 0:37:25
from time to time in light of new knowledge. And this is why it would normally take something like

366
0:37:25 --> 0:37:35
it would normally take something like seven to ten years to bring a new drug to the market

367
0:37:36 --> 0:37:44
and cost billions and billions of dollars to conduct all the research to actually do it.

368
0:37:45 --> 0:37:54
Well, that was good for me because I was a consultant, right? And the harder the regulations

369
0:37:54 --> 0:38:01
became, the more important my job became. And a lot of companies came to me. In fact, I consulted

370
0:38:01 --> 0:38:07
for probably more than half of the multinationals in Australia for one reason or the other.

371
0:38:11 --> 0:38:20
So when this provisional approval system came about, and now it's being applied to many,

372
0:38:20 --> 0:38:26
many drugs, it's been a mechanism to get lots of drugs. I don't know what the statistics are

373
0:38:27 --> 0:38:34
right now in terms of the number of drugs that have adopted to choose that pathway.

374
0:38:35 --> 0:38:43
But it's a huge percentage of the applications are now going down the provisional approval pathway.

375
0:38:43 --> 0:38:50
And that is dangerous. That is very, very dangerous. There has to be a very good reason

376
0:38:50 --> 0:38:58
to do it. Now, I realized in the beginning, everyone was petrified. The propaganda about

377
0:38:58 --> 0:39:06
COVID-19 was everywhere. It was well organized and people were living in fear. And

378
0:39:06 --> 0:39:16
I could sort of appreciate how they used the provisional approval system for the COVID-19

379
0:39:16 --> 0:39:26
vaccines, but to claim that they were safe and efficacious when the data simply was not there.

380
0:39:26 --> 0:39:32
And any data that they submitted was really deficient, as we now know.

381
0:39:32 --> 0:39:40
Data was hidden. It's still being hidden. It was incomplete. And there have been serious,

382
0:39:40 --> 0:40:00
serious accusations of fraud, which we all know about. Given all that now, for the

383
0:40:00 --> 0:40:08
TGA here to not reflect and conduct an inquiry as to what's happened. And the government here

384
0:40:08 --> 0:40:13
promised a royal commission before they came to power. They promised a royal commission

385
0:40:15 --> 0:40:21
into COVID and the policies and everything else. Because we were one of the

386
0:40:22 --> 0:40:32
worst treated countries in the world. Daniel Andrews, whose statue will be going up shortly

387
0:40:32 --> 0:40:39
in Victoria, was responsible, the premier of the state of Victoria, for the longest lockdown

388
0:40:40 --> 0:40:47
in history. It was brutal. I mean, people were being shot at close range with a rubber gun.

389
0:40:47 --> 0:40:51
I mean, people were being shot at close range with rubber bullets.

390
0:40:55 --> 0:41:02
There were people in demonstrations that were hit with directed energy weapons that I had never

391
0:41:02 --> 0:41:10
seen the likes of before by a military in black uniforms without name tags. I mean,

392
0:41:11 --> 0:41:20
this came as a huge shock. So, you know, before COVID, I was quite a happy guy playing tennis

393
0:41:20 --> 0:41:30
and going out in my little boat. And the world was a great place. And it's just

394
0:41:30 --> 0:41:41
it's just turned my world upside down. I cannot believe what's happened. And you have to appreciate

395
0:41:44 --> 0:41:54
my perspective because to the average guy in the street, who now is seeing how wrong

396
0:41:54 --> 0:42:05
things are going, they have their perspective. But when you really know what should have been done

397
0:42:05 --> 0:42:11
like myself, and now I know what's been done and what's been going on in terms of the adverse

398
0:42:11 --> 0:42:22
drug reactions that have been reported around the world, you can imagine it's hit me like a cement

399
0:42:22 --> 0:42:35
truck. Yeah, I find it hard to believe. And it has to make me think that

400
0:42:39 --> 0:42:50
how could this happen? And did this happen by incompetence? And I thought in the beginning,

401
0:42:51 --> 0:43:01
maybe it was just fear and incompetence that was responsible for the mess that we're in.

402
0:43:02 --> 0:43:15
And I was thinking like that for, I don't recall exactly now, but maybe the first six months or

403
0:43:16 --> 0:43:21
seven months, I was just thinking, how could they be doing it? How could they be so incompetent?

404
0:43:25 --> 0:43:28
But now it's not incompetence.

405
0:43:31 --> 0:43:41
It's not incompetence because the facts are clear. And that is

406
0:43:41 --> 0:43:54
what has really upset me and depressed me. And it is really hard to come to grips with, Charles.

407
0:43:54 --> 0:44:01
It's just an unbelievable situation. Well, Philip, thank you so much for sharing

408
0:44:02 --> 0:44:08
what this impact has had on you. You have had a storied career and thank you for speaking honestly

409
0:44:08 --> 0:44:18
to us. Stephen, next 15 minutes is all yours. So I remember when you were last on Philip,

410
0:44:18 --> 0:44:28
that was about 18 months ago, was it? From memory? November 2022, I think. Yeah. Yeah. So nearly two

411
0:44:28 --> 0:44:38
years. So the way you deliver, I think you were less calm then almost two years ago than you are

412
0:44:38 --> 0:44:45
today. But the calm delivery actually is a good lesson for me that I need to kind of take some

413
0:44:45 --> 0:44:57
lessons from you. I agree with you about so the more outraged you are, the more likely you're

414
0:44:57 --> 0:45:04
kind of to raise your voice and, you know, start saying the usual things, everything's outrageous

415
0:45:04 --> 0:45:09
because actually you're lost for words. I understand what you're saying. So for me,

416
0:45:09 --> 0:45:14
everything was turned upside down in 2020, just as you've brilliantly described now.

417
0:45:16 --> 0:45:24
But I think that so I was telling someone only yesterday that I now and I've never said this

418
0:45:24 --> 0:45:32
before that I had been realizing that I was thinking of things prior to the spring of 2020,

419
0:45:32 --> 0:45:40
you know, so pre-COVID and post-COVID. So I've been dividing that without actually saying that

420
0:45:40 --> 0:45:46
to and yesterday I said it for the first time to a friend that I think of everything in terms of

421
0:45:46 --> 0:45:51
was it before 2020 or was it after? It's like the birth of Christ, you know,

422
0:45:52 --> 0:46:00
and that's how big it was for me what happened in 2020. So I think that people have been

423
0:46:02 --> 0:46:08
really affected by what happened in 2020. And so there are a lot of most people are,

424
0:46:09 --> 0:46:14
how shall I say, they're just reacting to events they don't understand and to some extent they

425
0:46:14 --> 0:46:20
don't care. But I'm thinking as a medical doctor have been thinking for a long time

426
0:46:20 --> 0:46:25
of the possibilities and so a medical doctor has to hypothesize what could be happening.

427
0:46:27 --> 0:46:32
You know, even in the realm of public health and my biggest concern, as far as public health is

428
0:46:32 --> 0:46:38
concerned, is after all this psychological torture, propaganda, intense propaganda,

429
0:46:38 --> 0:46:46
and censorship, people are not going to be normal after all this, even if it lasted for a few weeks,

430
0:46:46 --> 0:46:53
but it's been going on for four years now. And I think that you and I, for example,

431
0:46:54 --> 0:46:59
we knew that we had to do something. So we were very upset by what had happened,

432
0:46:59 --> 0:47:04
but we weren't upset in the same way as people who didn't understand. So I, for one, I don't know

433
0:47:04 --> 0:47:12
about you, Philip, but I thought that for a long time, I thought I was immune to the psychological

434
0:47:12 --> 0:47:19
torture from which everyone was suffering because I understood it. But actually, I didn't quite

435
0:47:19 --> 0:47:26
understand it as usual as human being, because I now realize that I was very driven about what I

436
0:47:26 --> 0:47:32
needed to do. I knew I had to do something. I didn't know what to do. And so I was very

437
0:47:32 --> 0:47:41
in a similar position. It took a while to take it in, the enormity of what we were seeing

438
0:47:41 --> 0:47:53
and the disbelief. But eventually, we realized that actually it was true. The whole world had

439
0:47:53 --> 0:48:01
been turned upside down, and they had the audacity to do what they did do. But I mentioned this

440
0:48:01 --> 0:48:10
because these videos are seen later, after this live meeting. So I think it's important to say,

441
0:48:11 --> 0:48:18
to create a record of our thoughts, and that's what we've done. So I knew I had to form a group.

442
0:48:18 --> 0:48:26
I didn't know why. I had no idea. But I now realize that we unwittingly, if you like,

443
0:48:26 --> 0:48:30
created a record. We haven't made too many mistakes. We haven't got a website,

444
0:48:30 --> 0:48:39
so nobody knows what we're doing. And that has its advantages. But we've got a wonderful

445
0:48:39 --> 0:48:45
understanding worldwide of what's been going on. I think now we're very privileged to have that

446
0:48:45 --> 0:48:54
understanding. And all the people on this group tonight are here twice a week. Some come and go,

447
0:48:55 --> 0:49:04
but I thank them for coming, because had they not come, then we wouldn't have created this platform.

448
0:49:04 --> 0:49:10
But anyway, the point is, Philip, I think your testimony is very, very powerful,

449
0:49:11 --> 0:49:18
not just about the regulatory authorities, the pharmaceutical. I just wanted to ask you,

450
0:49:18 --> 0:49:26
why do you think that it wasn't so much about why would they ruin their reputation? You know,

451
0:49:31 --> 0:49:39
the TGA in Australia and the FDA in America, why would these bodies ruin their reputations? Or

452
0:49:39 --> 0:49:45
is the point that they wanted to ruin the reputations of these bodies so they could

453
0:49:45 --> 0:49:49
drive anything through, for example, all the mRNA vaccines that they're now pushing through

454
0:49:50 --> 0:49:56
everywhere and nobody can keep track of at all? Do you think that the idea was to destroy the

455
0:49:56 --> 0:50:04
regulatory system? So we're wondering why they did it. How could they possibly do it? All those

456
0:50:04 --> 0:50:14
people that you know personally at the TGA, why were they doing all this? You're thinking to say,

457
0:50:14 --> 0:50:23
very confusing for you. But actually, unknown to each one of those, there was an agenda to destroy

458
0:50:23 --> 0:50:30
the regulatory agencies. That was the agenda. So in the UK at the moment, the parallel thing,

459
0:50:30 --> 0:50:37
you know, an analogy is that in the UK at the moment, nothing makes sense. And so you think

460
0:50:37 --> 0:50:41
to yourself, you're trying to find an explanation for why a socialist, allegedly socialist prime

461
0:50:41 --> 0:50:50
minister like Keir Starmer should come in. And the first thing he does is take the winter fuel

462
0:50:50 --> 0:50:56
allowance from pensioners. It just doesn't make sense. But that's the point. It doesn't make sense

463
0:50:56 --> 0:51:05
what the TGA did and the FDA. But that is what disturbs people, human beings, the very fact they're

464
0:51:05 --> 0:51:10
destabilizing human beings. That's the agenda. Destabilize so that nothing makes sense.

465
0:51:11 --> 0:51:16
So that they can control these people by destroying their humanity. That's what I think they're doing.

466
0:51:18 --> 0:51:34
Yeah, it's a good question. And I have thought about that. And I it's a question I don't think

467
0:51:34 --> 0:51:44
I can give you an answer for. And I'm very reluctant to pontificate about, you know,

468
0:51:45 --> 0:51:54
how people were thinking because you can't ever really determine or know how people were thinking.

469
0:51:55 --> 0:52:04
I mean, people said to me in the very beginning, and as we now know, this was a man-made virus.

470
0:52:04 --> 0:52:13
So 100% of the data supports that. Anyone that says that it's not doesn't know what they're

471
0:52:13 --> 0:52:19
talking about. There's actually not a scarik of data to say this came from a natural source.

472
0:52:20 --> 0:52:29
And people said, we're asking me, especially in the first year, well, you know, what was this

473
0:52:29 --> 0:52:40
man-made virus released on purpose? Well, I couldn't answer that because I just don't know.

474
0:52:40 --> 0:52:48
And my answer to them at the time and still is now is that I don't know. But what I do know

475
0:52:51 --> 0:53:02
is that they know the dangers of the virus. They know what is happening. And they know

476
0:53:02 --> 0:53:15
that they know the dangers of the virus. They know what has happened. And whether it was released

477
0:53:16 --> 0:53:23
by an individual or a laboratory as a planned release or just by mistake really

478
0:53:23 --> 0:53:36
almost doesn't matter now. What matters now is the damage that's being done. Let's focus on that.

479
0:53:42 --> 0:53:49
But it does matter a bit, Philip, because we need to know the motive to know how far they were

480
0:53:49 --> 0:53:53
prepared to go and how far they're still prepared to go. So they're pushing the next pandemic.

481
0:53:54 --> 0:54:01
So we need to hypothesize. So I can understand why you say, you know, you don't want to say this

482
0:54:01 --> 0:54:07
because there's no scientific proof or, you know, you can't prove it beyond reasonable doubt or

483
0:54:07 --> 0:54:13
beyond the balance of probabilities. But actually, we do need to think as human beings and trust our

484
0:54:13 --> 0:54:20
instincts and people like you and me and others on this call tonight, we really need to trust

485
0:54:20 --> 0:54:26
our instincts and we don't need proof before we start to investigate possibilities.

486
0:54:27 --> 0:54:35
Yeah. Well, this virus was produced by gain of function research.

487
0:54:35 --> 0:54:40
Well, we don't. I'm not convinced that that's true narrative. I think that could be

488
0:54:40 --> 0:54:55
a limited hangout. But anyway, go ahead. Okay. Well, that's my belief. And that type of research

489
0:54:55 --> 0:55:08
was outlawed under Obama. They got around it from what I've read. And that gain of function research

490
0:55:08 --> 0:55:18
is now the basis for the development of SARS-CoV-2. And that research

491
0:55:21 --> 0:55:28
is still ongoing in many parts of the world, including Australia. Knowing what we know,

492
0:55:28 --> 0:55:34
knowing that the huge disaster that this has produced, it's still ongoing.

493
0:55:34 --> 0:55:39
But Philip, we learned at medical school and I happen to remember it, although all the people

494
0:55:39 --> 0:55:44
I qualified with haven't remembered it apart from me. I just can't believe it. I remember

495
0:55:44 --> 0:55:50
a professor of immunology telling us that the deadly virus kills its host. Chris Witty at the

496
0:55:50 --> 0:55:57
COVID inquiry, Chris Witty is the chief medical officer of England still, I think, and he was in

497
0:55:57 --> 0:56:05
2020. And he said that he was talking about deadly viruses. And I thought, well, if Chris

498
0:56:05 --> 0:56:10
Witty is talking about deadly viruses to scare the population, he can't have it both ways.

499
0:56:10 --> 0:56:17
He may want to scare the British population still, but a deadly virus kills its host.

500
0:56:18 --> 0:56:25
And that means that it can't spread if it kills its host. So the point is that whether,

501
0:56:25 --> 0:56:29
in my opinion as a doctor, I'm allowed to have a medical opinion as a doctor,

502
0:56:31 --> 0:56:41
the gain of function research is a kind of limited hangout to push the narrative that

503
0:56:41 --> 0:56:47
future pandemics are possible. And I don't think they are. And also the gain of function research,

504
0:56:47 --> 0:56:51
I was very suspicious about the way they were saying, oh, it's very illegal, you know, in the

505
0:56:51 --> 0:56:58
United States, but they use taxpayers money in China. And some are other, nobody's responsible.

506
0:56:59 --> 0:57:04
And I'm thinking to myself, you know, and JJ Cooey to his great credit, I don't know whether he did

507
0:57:04 --> 0:57:11
it directly or whether I misinterpreted something that he said, but I started to think he, I thought,

508
0:57:11 --> 0:57:18
said something on the lines of, I don't believe that they can do what they say they can do.

509
0:57:19 --> 0:57:25
And I started to think, yeah, that would figure because actually, they don't need to be able to

510
0:57:25 --> 0:57:32
do what they say they can do. They just need to generate the fear. And what better way to generate

511
0:57:32 --> 0:57:38
the fear than to say that viruses could escape dangerous viruses, which have been created in

512
0:57:38 --> 0:57:44
labs could escape from labs, you know, anywhere in the world. And, you know, and that's what they

513
0:57:44 --> 0:57:51
were saying. So I thought, wow, whether JJ Cooey actually said that or whether he's I misinterpreted

514
0:57:51 --> 0:57:57
something that he said, but it got me thinking about, is it possible that they just want to scare

515
0:57:57 --> 0:58:03
people? And this was a brilliant way to scare them. You know, the whole concept of the whole

516
0:58:04 --> 0:58:11
narrative of endless pandemics in the future, you know, of great concern to humanity. I don't

517
0:58:11 --> 0:58:16
think it's true. I don't think there was a pandemic. I don't think that pandemics are possible.

518
0:58:17 --> 0:58:23
And because you've got this interplay between transmissibility and virulence. So if you've got

519
0:58:23 --> 0:58:30
a deadly or a very virulent virus, it can't transmit. And then it's certainly can't transmit

520
0:58:30 --> 0:58:39
all around the world. So I think the deadly, the gain of function research is a ploy to feed into

521
0:58:39 --> 0:58:46
the false narrative of endless pandemics in the future. And that is the point. I think for many,

522
0:58:46 --> 0:58:56
many years, they've been aiming for 2020 to push the button on a very dangerous pandemic.

523
0:58:56 --> 0:59:01
I think the pandemic notion is a fraud. Yeah. And that's what we need to protect.

524
0:59:01 --> 0:59:10
There's a lot there to unpack. So yeah, to begin with, there's lots of good research that has been

525
0:59:10 --> 0:59:20
done, especially in Australia, the so-called pandemic here was basically when you analyze

526
0:59:20 --> 0:59:32
the data, the real data was equivalent to a serious flu. And no more than that. So you're

527
0:59:32 --> 0:59:42
quite right about that. I take your point about the narrative about trying to scare people because

528
0:59:42 --> 0:59:51
fear was at the base of the propaganda. And when people are living in fear, they can't critically

529
0:59:51 --> 1:00:02
think. Even intelligent, well-educated people, and I know many of them couldn't even think,

530
1:00:02 --> 1:00:05
couldn't think their way through this. Especially then and maybe.

531
1:00:06 --> 1:00:17
Yeah. But just put in its simplest form, the creation, the design of the furan cleavage site

532
1:00:17 --> 1:00:27
in the virus was something, according to my understanding, and I'm not a genomic expert

533
1:00:28 --> 1:00:39
or a virologist, I have to declare, but that goal of creating heightened infectivity

534
1:00:40 --> 1:00:51
by inserting a furan cleavage site into the virus was something, as far as I am aware,

535
1:00:51 --> 1:00:56
that was designed. But- But did they do that? Do we know they did that?

536
1:00:57 --> 1:01:07
Well, well, look, I think so. Well, I'm wondering, you see, so-

537
1:01:07 --> 1:01:14
Yes, then. So I remember people saying they were looking into the spike protein, into the mRNA,

538
1:01:14 --> 1:01:19
the lipid nanoparticle. Stephanie Sennett was one of them, and there was some other as well,

539
1:01:19 --> 1:01:26
and I asked both of them the question, but how do we know this? And, you know, I think Stephanie

540
1:01:26 --> 1:01:33
Sennett is absolutely brilliant. The only thing- Well, I won't say that. So, but the point was

541
1:01:33 --> 1:01:39
that I realized I didn't think that she knew herself how we knew that these things were in

542
1:01:40 --> 1:01:45
the injections, you know, and certainly not in all of them, and in which countries, you know,

543
1:01:45 --> 1:01:55
and what percentage. So, and the answer was, eventually, she wouldn't answer. You can look at

544
1:01:56 --> 1:02:01
the recording. It's still up there. So Charles has kind of- or his wife has kindly put them up,

545
1:02:02 --> 1:02:07
and you can look at Stephanie Sennett's thing, and you can see, and she said,

546
1:02:08 --> 1:02:14
well, they told us that they put- I said, but who is they? And she said, the CDC, I think I'm right

547
1:02:14 --> 1:02:23
in saying the CDC, and the FDA. And I said, but there are enemies at the moment. And then Stephanie,

548
1:02:24 --> 1:02:30
she's brilliant, but she kind of accepted what it seemed to me. And then she said,

549
1:02:30 --> 1:02:34
well, let's take the other questions. So she didn't like my questions. You can watch it.

550
1:02:36 --> 1:02:45
I'm not criticizing her. I'm just saying a lot of people made assumptions, or still make assumptions,

551
1:02:45 --> 1:02:50
which surprised me, because they should start at the bottom, you know, how do we know this?

552
1:02:51 --> 1:02:56
You just said something then, and I said, what was it? The Furing cleavage site, yes, famous

553
1:02:56 --> 1:03:06
Furing. Yeah, how do we know that that's there? Well, I mean, I listened to David Martin,

554
1:03:06 --> 1:03:10
Dr. David Martin, and- Oh, he doesn't like me.

555
1:03:11 --> 1:03:23
And no, I can imagine that. But look, I do take notice of the patents that he refers to,

556
1:03:23 --> 1:03:32
that are published, that are well known. The other point that, just to come back to your point,

557
1:03:32 --> 1:03:45
which actually supports what you're saying, is that every level for biotech,

558
1:03:46 --> 1:03:54
biowarfare lab in the world has leaked at one time or the other, right? There's no,

559
1:03:54 --> 1:04:09
there's no, to use that word, safe level for biotech lab. They all leak. So that fits into

560
1:04:09 --> 1:04:14
the narrative that you are suggesting. I don't think they're capable of any of it,

561
1:04:15 --> 1:04:20
because a deadly virus kills its host, whether it's a naturally occurring virus or naturally

562
1:04:20 --> 1:04:26
produced, or whether it's being produced in the lab by the biggest, most evil person in the world.

563
1:04:27 --> 1:04:34
Yeah. You know, it's still the same, but people, the perception in the public is that,

564
1:04:34 --> 1:04:39
oh, if it comes from a lab and it's leaked out, oh my God, we're in trouble. And by the way,

565
1:04:39 --> 1:04:46
there are labs in Chester, in North Wales, you know, where it's sunk. And this is what they want

566
1:04:46 --> 1:04:52
people to believe. So Chris Witty, I caught him talking about deadly viruses. I'm thinking a

567
1:04:52 --> 1:04:59
deadly virus kills its host. It's never going to spread around the world, which is why all these,

568
1:04:59 --> 1:05:05
you know, the African viruses, alleged viruses, if we believe in viruses, are so feared, but

569
1:05:05 --> 1:05:10
they're nothing to fear because they're going to keep very local because they kill their host. And

570
1:05:10 --> 1:05:15
even if they're just dangerous, you know, it's on a kind of spectrum, if you like.

571
1:05:16 --> 1:05:23
Yeah. Actually, that name Chris Witty, Sir Chris Witty, I think.

572
1:05:24 --> 1:05:31
Professor Sir Chris Witty. Yeah, but he can't get a woman, he's not married,

573
1:05:31 --> 1:05:34
and he's not homosexual apparently. So what else is there?

574
1:05:34 --> 1:05:44
So I've mentioned him a couple times in some of my affidavits because

575
1:05:49 --> 1:05:59
when the government here and the US FDA were saying that Ivermectin was toxic horse paste,

576
1:05:59 --> 1:06:09
right? We've all seen the famous tweet from the US FDA, and that was echoed here

577
1:06:10 --> 1:06:20
a number of times. Chris Witty was on record 10 years prior to that saying that Ivermectin

578
1:06:21 --> 1:06:29
was really a relatively safe drug. He was commenting on something else, and you can actually

579
1:06:29 --> 1:06:38
go and see some of his quotes. And he was singing about how safe Ivermectin was, right? So I've used

580
1:06:38 --> 1:06:49
that in some of my affidavits. But let me say that, because you've said a lot of things, but

581
1:06:51 --> 1:07:03
COVID has an upside. It's a strange thing to say. But my favorite saying

582
1:07:04 --> 1:07:12
of all time is every problem is an opportunity. You just have to look at it a little bit differently,

583
1:07:12 --> 1:07:28
right? Absolutely. What's the opportunity here? Well, the opportunity for me was that I was

584
1:07:28 --> 1:07:41
paddling along in my Matrix world, seeing things that weren't disagreeable with me.

585
1:07:42 --> 1:07:55
Life was pretty good. But from my perspective, seeing the truth, and I think I'm seeing it for

586
1:07:55 --> 1:08:01
what it really is, because I've spent my whole life specifically in this area,

587
1:08:03 --> 1:08:14
seeing the lies that were perpetrated on the public repeatedly, not by a handful of individuals,

588
1:08:14 --> 1:08:25
but organized worldwide in an orchestrated way, in a military fashion, with military precision

589
1:08:25 --> 1:08:41
and effectiveness, perpetrated on the whole world, doing immense damage. It made me wake up and

590
1:08:41 --> 1:08:55
start to think, my God, what else is going wrong here? Is this the first thing? Or is this just the

591
1:08:55 --> 1:09:06
first thing that I've noticed? And it's inescapable. My conclusion is inescapable. It's the first thing

592
1:09:06 --> 1:09:13
that I've noticed. And now I'm beginning to think. Sorry, so Philip, I don't know about you,

593
1:09:13 --> 1:09:20
but I'm now wondering whether we ever got to the moon. And I read a tweet today, which pointed out

594
1:09:20 --> 1:09:27
that we can't even get 400 miles away from the Earth now. But in 1969, we allegedly got to the

595
1:09:27 --> 1:09:33
moon 240,000 miles away, which is nothing, of course, by the standards of the universe. But

596
1:09:33 --> 1:09:45
anyway. Yeah. Well, there is a problem there in that obviously we've been

597
1:09:47 --> 1:09:52
sold upon on many occasions. You know, how our war started and

598
1:09:53 --> 1:10:04
sure, there's been some mass destruction and various political assassinations and

599
1:10:06 --> 1:10:16
Russiagate and all sorts of things. We're all, I think, coming to realize that the media is

600
1:10:16 --> 1:10:22
highly controlled and cannot be trusted and should never have been trusted for many decades.

601
1:10:23 --> 1:10:32
And what's happened to medicine, what we're seeing now is just the culmination

602
1:10:34 --> 1:10:44
of a grand plan, which has been in effect for many decades. And that's the realization.

603
1:10:44 --> 1:10:54
Unfortunately, so many people cannot come to grips with that. From an emotional point of view,

604
1:10:55 --> 1:11:01
they're so invested in their career and what they've been doing their whole life.

605
1:11:03 --> 1:11:08
It's from a psychological, from an emotional point of view, they can't face it.

606
1:11:09 --> 1:11:19
Exactly. I have friends, I have friends, close friends who know what I do or basically know what

607
1:11:19 --> 1:11:33
I do, know my position and have been jabbed and injured. And they don't even, when we're on the

608
1:11:33 --> 1:11:41
tennis court, they don't even raise the issue. No, exactly. It's weird. So I've got friends as well.

609
1:11:41 --> 1:11:50
It is so weird. It does my head in. Yes. And I look, look,

610
1:11:53 --> 1:11:58
I have to say to you that throughout my life, you know, I

611
1:11:58 --> 1:12:11
was interested in academic stuff and everything else. But I was within the pharmaceutical industry,

612
1:12:12 --> 1:12:21
you know, really a backroom guy, right? You would never hear from a person like me. My worst

613
1:12:21 --> 1:12:28
fear in life, my absolutely worst fear in life was public speaking.

614
1:12:28 --> 1:12:35
Me. When I had my consultancy, you know, I knew my stuff

615
1:12:38 --> 1:12:44
and I was the go-to guy in Australia as a pharmaceutical consultant for many years.

616
1:12:45 --> 1:12:52
But I could have promoted my business and gone to meetings and stood up and said,

617
1:12:52 --> 1:13:03
I was petrified. Me too. And here I am speaking with all these people. I speak with sometimes

618
1:13:03 --> 1:13:13
hundreds of people at a time now. I've actually had to force myself to do it.

619
1:13:13 --> 1:13:20
And me too. Philip, I absolutely, and people like us need to find their courage and do exactly

620
1:13:20 --> 1:13:27
what you've done and what I've tried to do. You're such a calm speaker, Philip. You are able to take

621
1:13:27 --> 1:13:33
human beings with you. I'm a little bit more excitable and I'm not too diplomatic sometimes.

622
1:13:33 --> 1:13:40
And I just get it wrong. I have good intentions, but I just get frustrated when people don't want

623
1:13:40 --> 1:13:48
to hear. Well, actually, I'll be honest with you. I have to say what my truth is, even to my friends

624
1:13:48 --> 1:13:53
who don't want to hear it. I know they don't want to hear it. I have to say it because it's the only

625
1:13:53 --> 1:14:02
way I know to hang on to my identity and my humanity. And I knew that was slipping away from

626
1:14:02 --> 1:14:08
me in 2020 and 2021. Well, no, I didn't actually. But in 2022, I suddenly realized that I was

627
1:14:08 --> 1:14:16
created in response to this. I hated seeing the masks. So I stopped going out to see the masks.

628
1:14:17 --> 1:14:24
I created my own world and I thought, well, I'm not scared of this, you know. And but then I

629
1:14:24 --> 1:14:29
realized actually the worst thing you can do to human beings is isolate them. And of course, the

630
1:14:29 --> 1:14:37
lockdowns are about isolation. And that was pure evil in my head. So every day, I was in a state

631
1:14:37 --> 1:14:44
so every doctor in the world should have been demanding to know what was in the in the injections.

632
1:14:44 --> 1:14:50
We don't even know now what's in the injections. And every doctor in the world should have known

633
1:14:51 --> 1:14:59
that human beings are highly social animals and should never ever be isolated. Therefore,

634
1:14:59 --> 1:15:07
lockdowns can never be justified. And in the United Kingdom now, in September 2024,

635
1:15:07 --> 1:15:13
they're still saying the essential message to come out of the COVID inquiry in the United Kingdom

636
1:15:14 --> 1:15:24
is that millions of people of all ages were let down by the government's response to COVID.

637
1:15:24 --> 1:15:32
We got it wrong. We got the lockdowns too late or not, not harsh enough. And we need to do better

638
1:15:32 --> 1:15:38
next time. So we need to push back because the United Kingdom, even though it's not militarily

639
1:15:38 --> 1:15:45
very powerful these days, it still has huge influence, which it doesn't deserve, in my opinion,

640
1:15:45 --> 1:15:50
at the moment, the way people are educated here. But it still has a lot of influence. It's got the

641
1:15:50 --> 1:16:00
language. And it has credibility that the US lacks and even Australia lacks. So we know that

642
1:16:00 --> 1:16:08
the UK is the belly of the beast. I think there's so much, Philip, I could talk to you about it.

643
1:16:08 --> 1:16:13
But I think we've said enough. I think we've said enough. We've sown the seeds. So people, hopefully.

644
1:16:14 --> 1:16:18
Yeah. Look, I appreciate your comments.

645
1:16:23 --> 1:16:24
Why am I doing this?

646
1:16:24 --> 1:16:36
At my age, I could have a much more comfortable life.

647
1:16:36 --> 1:16:37
Absolutely.

648
1:16:37 --> 1:16:39
Not doing this.

649
1:16:39 --> 1:16:43
Thank you for doing it, Philip. All of us think that.

650
1:16:44 --> 1:16:57
But having said that, I haven't had to pay a personal price for doing this. I just had to

651
1:16:59 --> 1:17:06
satisfy my own conscience that I was doing the right thing. And of course, I care about my kids

652
1:17:06 --> 1:17:10
and my grandkids. It's about them and about me.

653
1:17:12 --> 1:17:23
How can this go on? And there is a plan. I'm convinced that this is going to get worse,

654
1:17:25 --> 1:17:36
that the powers that be are planning. They've used the playbook here and it's going to be extended

655
1:17:36 --> 1:17:39
and that's what the UN is up to right now as we speak.

656
1:17:39 --> 1:17:46
Absolutely. So, Philip, I think the most helpful way for people like you to think is possibly to

657
1:17:46 --> 1:17:56
think of COVID, the climate change nonsense, the Ukraine War, the pipeline explosion, a thermonuclear

658
1:17:56 --> 1:18:03
explosion in the center of Europe and everybody looks the other way, amazingly. I think that these

659
1:18:03 --> 1:18:08
are Trojan horses for totalitarianism. They're trying to create chaos. They're trying,

660
1:18:09 --> 1:18:15
in particular, in my opinion, nothing makes sense and they are aiming for nothing to make sense,

661
1:18:16 --> 1:18:23
which is, and the public in the UK are incredibly confused and behaving like children, I have to say.

662
1:18:24 --> 1:18:28
But thank you so, I wanted to ask you, you're American, aren't you, Philip?

663
1:18:29 --> 1:18:36
Yes, I do have dual passports. I came to Australia when I was 16 years of age. So,

664
1:18:36 --> 1:18:41
I lived most of my life in Sydney. We just recently moved just south of Sydney.

665
1:18:42 --> 1:18:42
I see.

666
1:18:43 --> 1:18:49
But I've spent just about all my life in Australia.

667
1:18:49 --> 1:18:53
But did you come from Kansas? Was it Kansas or Tennessee?

668
1:18:53 --> 1:18:55
No, no, from Seattle.

669
1:18:56 --> 1:19:03
Ah, Washington state, no. Okay. And I just wanted to ask you, sorry, these questions have gone on

670
1:19:03 --> 1:19:07
rather long, but I think it's very important what you're saying. You mentioned Russiagate.

671
1:19:07 --> 1:19:14
I just wanted to tell you that there is someone still, yes, on the call, Dr. Jerome Corsi,

672
1:19:14 --> 1:19:20
who stopped Russiagate. He stopped the Mueller investigation. They offered him a plea deal to

673
1:19:20 --> 1:19:27
go along with the narrative, you know. And if he accepted the plea deal, federal indictment,

674
1:19:27 --> 1:19:32
this was threatened, he would go to the prison. He wouldn't go to prison if he accepted the plea

675
1:19:32 --> 1:19:39
deal. But if he didn't accept the plea deal, oh, here he is, Jerome Corsi. So, he's absolutely

676
1:19:39 --> 1:19:49
brilliant. He said to them, I will not lie before God, even if I have to go to prison for the

677
1:19:50 --> 1:19:58
rest of my life. And guess what, Philip? They didn't indict him. Isn't that a brilliant story?

678
1:19:58 --> 1:20:09
But also, he's at the center of Dr. Andrew Paquette's incredible research on the election

679
1:20:09 --> 1:20:14
fraud in the United States and other countries around the world, including UK and France,

680
1:20:15 --> 1:20:20
and probably Australia. Jerome, do you want to say a few words or not?

681
1:20:20 --> 1:20:24
Yes, well, thank you. I mean, I've been listening to the conversation. It's been fascinating.

682
1:20:25 --> 1:20:36
And I agree entirely that I did resist going to, I would not take the plea deal

683
1:20:37 --> 1:20:42
because I could not lie. And it did not indict me. And that closed the Mueller investigation.

684
1:20:42 --> 1:20:50
I think it takes that level of resistance to put these people to stop this. But it is global.

685
1:20:52 --> 1:21:01
I also, it's interesting. This year, I published a book with David Mantek on the Kennedy assassination,

686
1:21:02 --> 1:21:10
which has done quite well, but it has the optical density measurements of the x-rays. Dr. Mantek is

687
1:21:10 --> 1:21:18
a radiation oncologist. And the three x-rays that are in the archives have all been altered

688
1:21:19 --> 1:21:25
to erase evidence of frontal shots. But yeah, you can see two frontal shots. One hit Jack Kennedy

689
1:21:25 --> 1:21:31
in the temporal bone on the right-hand side of his head and blew out the back of his head. You

690
1:21:31 --> 1:21:37
can see clearly the entrance wound. Another bullet hit at the forehead at the hairline.

691
1:21:38 --> 1:21:41
You can see the fragments of the bullet breaking up across the top of his head

692
1:21:42 --> 1:21:49
with the largest fragment at the back and not exiting. So the book has been very well received.

693
1:21:51 --> 1:21:57
But it shows over 61 years, the CIA, the government has been lying about this

694
1:21:58 --> 1:22:04
and getting away with it and with the open cooperation of the mainstream media.

695
1:22:04 --> 1:22:11
So I think worldwide, we're realizing the power of the intelligence agencies. And now

696
1:22:12 --> 1:22:20
with what Dr. Andrew Paquette has found, which he's found algorithms in the official state

697
1:22:21 --> 1:22:29
databases, voter registration databases in the United States, that are intelligence agency quality

698
1:22:30 --> 1:22:41
that allow for the creation of non-existent voters to get valid state IDs and to be put into the

699
1:22:41 --> 1:22:49
database as potential mail-in ballots that can be called upon by the perpetrators of this scheme

700
1:22:50 --> 1:22:56
to cast a mail-in ballot, which then has a valid state ID number and that will show a valid

701
1:22:57 --> 1:23:05
going through the tabulation is valid. That vote will certify even though the voter doesn't exist.

702
1:23:06 --> 1:23:13
And we're finding these algorithms in many states. So the state databases and the states don't seem

703
1:23:13 --> 1:23:20
to know this or are acknowledging, not acknowledging that they know it, but our databases in the United

704
1:23:20 --> 1:23:27
States are filled with double records, clones, records that don't have a registration date or

705
1:23:27 --> 1:23:34
have a registration date before somebody was born. I mean, our voter roles in the United States are

706
1:23:34 --> 1:23:41
intentionally a disgrace and are filled with non-existent voters or people with multiple

707
1:23:41 --> 1:23:47
registrations. And as we're writing about this, there's a website we've dedicated to it, which is

708
1:23:48 --> 1:24:00
God's Five Stones. That's G-O-D-S. It's spelled the word F-I-V-E-5 and S-T-O-N-E-S, plural, dot com.

709
1:24:01 --> 1:24:05
And we're posting a lot of information on this and we'll be posting more in October,

710
1:24:06 --> 1:24:14
but it is absolutely clear that the elections since 2007 when these algorithms first started

711
1:24:14 --> 1:24:20
appearing, I don't know how many legitimate elections we've had or how many people have been

712
1:24:20 --> 1:24:29
put into office by utilizing these algorithms and they appear to be worldwide. So in the EU,

713
1:24:29 --> 1:24:35
the voting follows the pattern that the first ballot for the EU commission, the conservatives

714
1:24:35 --> 1:24:42
do very well. The second ballot, they say the left woke up and is surging. Of course, the left wins

715
1:24:42 --> 1:24:48
in the second ballot, but you call up Europe, which I did, and there's no surge in the polls.

716
1:24:48 --> 1:24:55
They said, Dr. Corsi, the surge is in the computers. So I don't know that we've had fair elections

717
1:24:55 --> 1:25:07
worldwide going back now 15, 16 years or going back maybe 18 years. And the intelligence agencies,

718
1:25:07 --> 1:25:13
I think, are now running our elections. And so that's a very frightening thought.

719
1:25:14 --> 1:25:21
So you just said something there, Jerome. You said the surge is in the computers,

720
1:25:21 --> 1:25:23
a bit like the virus is in the computers.

721
1:25:24 --> 1:25:26
Right. The control of-

722
1:25:26 --> 1:25:28
Crazy, isn't it? So computers are the enemy.

723
1:25:29 --> 1:25:36
Well, the computer data, which can be rigged or falsified or manipulated,

724
1:25:37 --> 1:25:42
is key to a lot of the government control and the censorship that goes along with it.

725
1:25:43 --> 1:25:50
If you dare to oppose it or if you dare to criticize it, you're risking your freedom.

726
1:25:51 --> 1:25:57
These are issues that I think we're beginning to be aware of them worldwide.

727
1:25:57 --> 1:26:01
Jerome, can I just take a minute to ask you something that's really important? Because

728
1:26:01 --> 1:26:06
we've got this election coming up on the 5th of November. A lot of people on our side, as you

729
1:26:06 --> 1:26:17
know, they doubt that Trump can do much to help humanity. I prefer to be hopeful. We have to have

730
1:26:17 --> 1:26:25
some hope about something. And one of the things I hope is that Trump will do 50% maybe of what he

731
1:26:25 --> 1:26:35
says he will. But I'm so afraid that human beings, you know, when someone's dying, the family,

732
1:26:35 --> 1:26:41
even, or at least all the family, understand what's happening. And then when, you know,

733
1:26:41 --> 1:26:48
it's obvious when you kind of look at it coldly that the patient's going to die, but the family

734
1:26:48 --> 1:26:52
is surprised when the patient does die, even though they're half their body weight, you know,

735
1:26:52 --> 1:26:59
by the time they're not all people, but some people. So what I'm worried about, really worried

736
1:26:59 --> 1:27:06
about is I remember that election night in 2020. And I went to bed thinking Trump's won. And then

737
1:27:06 --> 1:27:12
I woke up in the morning, I was stunned that he hadn't won. And so I think that was election

738
1:27:12 --> 1:27:18
fraud. People say, Oh, Trump's crazy, you know, he's claiming that he lost, he didn't never lost

739
1:27:18 --> 1:27:23
the election. I don't think he did lose the election. But guess what, Jerome, we've got this

740
1:27:23 --> 1:27:31
information now about Andrew Paquette. You kind of made the information from Andrew Paquette

741
1:27:31 --> 1:27:37
palatable to the public, you're able to explain it in a way that people understand. But my concern

742
1:27:37 --> 1:27:45
is, and I know I've been trying to nail you down on this for weeks now. I'm concerned that we,

743
1:27:45 --> 1:27:52
the people who need to know about this, i.e. Trump's team, and RFK Jr. and all the rest of them,

744
1:27:53 --> 1:28:03
Tulsi Gabbard, and whoever, all the people who, they're just hoping that the gap between Trump

745
1:28:03 --> 1:28:11
and this crazy woman from Hawaii, I think originally, isn't she? Kamala?

746
1:28:11 --> 1:28:18
I think she comes from Canada originally, but I mean, it's a complicated personal story.

747
1:28:18 --> 1:28:24
So I'm just worried that everybody's hoping that the gap is so large, you know, that it's much

748
1:28:24 --> 1:28:30
bigger than the media portraying. But of course, you and I know the reason why they have the gap

749
1:28:30 --> 1:28:40
small officially in the media, so that actually, it's more plausible that she has beaten Trump,

750
1:28:40 --> 1:28:48
you know? Listening to her, I don't think any human being is, you know, okay, maybe

751
1:28:49 --> 1:28:54
a few of them on the Democrat side are going to be impressed with her. She doesn't even make sense.

752
1:28:54 --> 1:28:59
There's no way that she can be anywhere near Trump. But obviously, there's so much

753
1:28:59 --> 1:29:05
negative propaganda about Trump. But what I'm trying to say, Jerome, we know that there is a

754
1:29:05 --> 1:29:10
strong likelihood, well, there's proof that there's been election fraud in the United States and in

755
1:29:10 --> 1:29:17
other countries. And has that got to Trump's team and all the people who should know about it?

756
1:29:17 --> 1:29:26
Because it's no use messing about now. We're going to wake up on November the 6th, and maybe the same

757
1:29:26 --> 1:29:34
thing again. Oh, Kamala won, very surprisingly, but she won, and it was on the computer. It wasn't in

758
1:29:34 --> 1:29:40
the votes. And then we'll be kicking ourselves that we didn't make more noise about it before.

759
1:29:41 --> 1:29:47
I think that increasingly, the Trump team does know about it, and that they are aware of it.

760
1:29:49 --> 1:29:53
There's a lot more going on in the United States right now to get,

761
1:29:55 --> 1:30:01
to have these elections monitored, and a lot more preparation for challenging these elections,

762
1:30:02 --> 1:30:05
so that they're not going to be able to certify them as quickly as they want to.

763
1:30:06 --> 1:30:13
In other words, I think in states where there are algorithms, if they vote for Kamala,

764
1:30:14 --> 1:30:21
we'll immediately go in and file suits to challenge that there were irregularities that have to be

765
1:30:21 --> 1:30:27
checked. And we'll press for that. Now, I don't think they're going to get away with it as quickly

766
1:30:28 --> 1:30:33
this time as they did the last time, because it's the same thing with magic tricks. Once you've

767
1:30:34 --> 1:30:42
seen the misdirection, you know how the trick is done. It's all perception that this is going to be

768
1:30:42 --> 1:30:48
caught and seen much more easily this time, and there's a lot more people who are ready to pounce

769
1:30:48 --> 1:30:57
on it. But why are the elections allowed to go on, Jerome? If you think that the election fraud

770
1:30:57 --> 1:31:01
has been proved, and Andrew Paquette thinks that too, and there's an algorithm there which

771
1:31:01 --> 1:31:05
shouldn't be there, why isn't the whole of America alerted to this? Because it's no use

772
1:31:06 --> 1:31:12
arguing after the event, after the election has taken place, and Trump has lost. And then you go

773
1:31:12 --> 1:31:19
into courts and judges who lack courage, who will just find in favor of the new president.

774
1:31:21 --> 1:31:27
This scheme is so far advanced, it's hard to stop. It's like it would be hard to stop another

775
1:31:27 --> 1:31:31
pandemic if it came along, and we had the same rerun, especially if there was a more

776
1:31:33 --> 1:31:40
lethal pathogenic effect, if more people were dying, and you'd have the same psychological

777
1:31:40 --> 1:31:44
reaction you did before from the populace in general. So I mean, these things are very

778
1:31:44 --> 1:31:51
difficult to stop or turn back. I think it's just a matter of increasing awareness, which is

779
1:31:51 --> 1:31:57
increasing and making it harder at this point for the fraud to occur.

780
1:31:57 --> 1:32:04
So Jerome, why don't you get yourself interviewed by Tucker Carlson and people who can

781
1:32:04 --> 1:32:09
spread the message? Because I don't think many people in America know about this.

782
1:32:11 --> 1:32:15
We've tried repeatedly to get in front of Tucker Carlson, and people have spoken to him about the

783
1:32:15 --> 1:32:21
algorithms. People have spoken to Elon Musk about the algorithms. Many of these people themselves

784
1:32:21 --> 1:32:29
are concerned about retaliation, and they're concerned that they will be charged with

785
1:32:30 --> 1:32:39
crimes or misinformation or censored. Even Elon Musk, I think, is concerned about retaliation.

786
1:32:41 --> 1:32:48
With the Justice Department largely in control of the criminals, largely in control of political

787
1:32:49 --> 1:32:54
we've lost control of our justice system. Our justice system is 100% political. It's just a

788
1:32:54 --> 1:33:06
matter of fighting this into realizing that it's so far advanced that I don't know if there is an

789
1:33:06 --> 1:33:12
immediate solution. Like stopping the election is not going to happen, and so therefore the

790
1:33:12 --> 1:33:18
algorithms are going to get used. Well, putting out our side of the story, our propaganda,

791
1:33:18 --> 1:33:24
if you like, in the face of all their propaganda, it seems to be very reasonable to me, but I don't

792
1:33:24 --> 1:33:31
hear anything. Well, it's taking hold with millions of people, and it is making an impact.

793
1:33:31 --> 1:33:39
But again, it's like the awakening is going to take time because people are seeing.

794
1:33:39 --> 1:33:46
I think Kamala Harris is so tremendously unpopular, and I do think that there will be

795
1:33:47 --> 1:33:53
a surge from Trump that's going to make it harder for them to steal because we've revealed the

796
1:33:53 --> 1:33:57
algorithms and people are aware of them now. It's going to be harder for them to be used,

797
1:33:58 --> 1:34:04
and be harder for them to be used successfully. I think challenges to it will be more prepared

798
1:34:04 --> 1:34:10
in advance before elections get certified. There was just a judgmental decision, I believe,

799
1:34:10 --> 1:34:18
in Arizona just this past week that an election could not be certified if there were challenges

800
1:34:18 --> 1:34:25
to it, that were legitimate challenges to voter fraud. And there's going to be a lot of challenges

801
1:34:25 --> 1:34:33
to voter fraud if what happens in 2020 begins to happen again in 2024. So I don't think it's going

802
1:34:33 --> 1:34:39
to go unchallenged. I don't think. Yes, but eventually, whoever wins the election, so in

803
1:34:39 --> 1:34:48
this case, the fear is that Kamala will win it. This Chinese totalitarian, she is going to win it,

804
1:34:48 --> 1:34:55
and it's going to be extremely difficult to turn over an election in the United States.

805
1:34:55 --> 1:35:01
It's the same kind of thing. If they try another pandemic again, there's again millions of people

806
1:35:01 --> 1:35:09
who are aware of it. They're not being successful getting these jabs taken, increased by all the

807
1:35:09 --> 1:35:17
jabs for... Let me call you right back. All these jabs that are coming on now for

808
1:35:20 --> 1:35:25
boosters are not being taken. So there's a fundamentally different awareness now

809
1:35:26 --> 1:35:33
that the pandemic, the vaccines are killing people, and there's increasing awareness of it,

810
1:35:33 --> 1:35:42
I believe. More so than there was in two years ago. Okay. So anyway, I bet it not. So we have to

811
1:35:42 --> 1:35:52
respect the guest. I wanted to announce that we have Meredith Miller, we have offered a contract

812
1:35:52 --> 1:35:58
to her for publishing, and I am setting up being able to publish books now in Europe as well.

813
1:35:59 --> 1:36:02
So we're going to have an acquiring editor in Europe that will be working with me

814
1:36:03 --> 1:36:09
to get European contracts for books, as well as to publish in the United States, first published

815
1:36:09 --> 1:36:16
in the United States, as well as in American authors. So I've made an advancement on that,

816
1:36:16 --> 1:36:22
and I will be able this week to, I believe, appoint someone who will be an acquiring editor

817
1:36:22 --> 1:36:28
working with me in Europe, will be able to work directly with European authors. So I have advanced

818
1:36:28 --> 1:36:37
that. Well, Philip, I think maybe a candidate for you, Jerome. It could well be. A wonderful

819
1:36:37 --> 1:36:44
storyteller. Could well be. I would be very interested in as a compilation of these stories

820
1:36:44 --> 1:36:50
from around the world of resistance. Absolutely. Yeah, that'd be great. Philip could edit it,

821
1:36:50 --> 1:36:54
but we could have a whole group of people from the different countries

822
1:36:54 --> 1:37:00
talk about resistance and what they've faced. But I'm going to have to also beg off now. I have a

823
1:37:00 --> 1:37:05
podcast coming up very quickly. I've very much enjoyed listening. Thank you, Philip, for

824
1:37:06 --> 1:37:09
I've been listening for the entire time, and it's been compelling.

825
1:37:11 --> 1:37:17
Yeah, thank you so much, Jerome. JJ Cooey, tomorrow night, Jerome. And he quoted,

826
1:37:18 --> 1:37:24
we don't even want to get very excited. Unquote. So if JJ Cooey is excited,

827
1:37:24 --> 1:37:29
that's going to be something else tomorrow. I think. Is it tomorrow? Yeah. Oh, no, not tomorrow.

828
1:37:29 --> 1:37:35
The day after. Sorry. Tuesday. Tuesday. Yes, Tuesday. OK. Yeah. Thank you very much. I'll

829
1:37:35 --> 1:37:43
plan to be in attendance. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you so much. Yes. So John Lukacs, sorry to be so

830
1:37:43 --> 1:37:49
long, John. And there was Daria and then there was someone else as well, but the hands gone down.

831
1:37:51 --> 1:37:52
Who was that? Does anyone remember?

832
1:37:57 --> 1:38:02
John, you there? Yeah, I'm ready. Who was the third person? Can you remember, John?

833
1:38:05 --> 1:38:09
There was someone. Anyway, hopefully they'll remember.

834
1:38:09 --> 1:38:18
I think it was Anders Brunstad. Yes. Thank you, Jeremy. Thank you. It was. Yeah.

835
1:38:21 --> 1:38:28
Go ahead, John. Philip, are we ready to do something? I've got something for you.

836
1:38:28 --> 1:38:36
I've been passing it out gratuitously. And I'll put it in the chat for you. OK.

837
1:38:39 --> 1:38:46
I've written two articles on this. I'll just let you take those in. But this is the key.

838
1:38:47 --> 1:38:55
This is what they suppressed. It's a pattern. The pattern of anaphylaxis is just not well understood.

839
1:38:56 --> 1:39:06
It's conflated with allergy. It's its own thing. And it's immutable. Charles Richet

840
1:39:07 --> 1:39:14
is the key to this whole thing. This is a bulletproof argument. And it leads everywhere you want it to.

841
1:39:15 --> 1:39:21
All the things that people are talking about, all the systemic disease that's going on,

842
1:39:21 --> 1:39:28
the allergies that are creeping in everywhere, this is due to an anaphylactic pattern. So if you just

843
1:39:29 --> 1:39:35
get well versed with that, it's your whole argument. The whole house of cards goes down with this.

844
1:39:35 --> 1:39:46
So I've been trying to get people to notice this. And Sasha Ladoeva and Katherine Watt just noticed

845
1:39:46 --> 1:39:51
it. It's been a couple of years since I wrote a whole book on it. I'm going to give you that book.

846
1:39:51 --> 1:39:56
Okay.

847
1:39:57 --> 1:40:08
And so the other thing is just I'd like to talk with you offline a little bit about some things

848
1:40:08 --> 1:40:13
that I'm working on or have been working on. I'll throw them into the chat just to,

849
1:40:15 --> 1:40:19
you know, since you're an expert on clinical studies and things like that,

850
1:40:20 --> 1:40:29
I'd like to know your opinion on this if you have one. That is a clinical study on cancer

851
1:40:29 --> 1:40:36
and something I've been trying to repeat. And then I have some other things. But if it would

852
1:40:36 --> 1:40:40
be possible, if you think you'd have the time maybe to have an offline conversation.

853
1:40:41 --> 1:40:48
Sure, sure. That's fine. I'll put in...

854
1:40:51 --> 1:40:58
Where are you? Where did you go? Charles knows my email.

855
1:40:59 --> 1:41:02
There's mine. Drop me a line where we can work something out.

856
1:41:02 --> 1:41:03
Oh, I see. I see. John.

857
1:41:04 --> 1:41:06
I can send it to you now.

858
1:41:06 --> 1:41:11
Philip, did I have the correct email address for you, Philip? Or did I have

859
1:41:14 --> 1:41:18
your second email address? I can't quite remember. So

860
1:41:21 --> 1:41:26
without giving it if you don't want to give it, can you just remind me what's before the at?

861
1:41:27 --> 1:41:31
Yeah, this is Stephen speaking.

862
1:41:32 --> 1:41:35
Yes, it's me. Sorry. Yes. Sorry.

863
1:41:40 --> 1:41:42
Let me just put it in.

864
1:41:48 --> 1:41:49
Excellent.

865
1:41:56 --> 1:42:21
There. It's just gone off to Stephen Frost. So yeah, that's interesting. So

866
1:42:22 --> 1:42:29
there's been a lot of dissecting of the adverse drug reaction data.

867
1:42:33 --> 1:42:41
Some of the stuff that I've really found very interesting was... It's hard to get,

868
1:42:42 --> 1:42:57
hard to get, but it's been analyzed by some people of Rose... Jessica Rose.

869
1:42:57 --> 1:42:58
She's Canadian.

870
1:42:58 --> 1:42:59
Jessica Rose.

871
1:42:59 --> 1:43:08
By Jessica Rose. About the time course of events of the deaths, of the sudden deaths,

872
1:43:08 --> 1:43:15
whether sudden deaths and there's more long-term deaths. So I think you have to look at them a

873
1:43:15 --> 1:43:24
little bit differently. The things that are causing sudden death, and by that I'm referring to...

874
1:43:24 --> 1:43:26
It's Jessica Rose.

875
1:43:29 --> 1:43:36
The things that are causing sudden death to me as a pharmacologist are probably

876
1:43:36 --> 1:43:42
quite different to the things that are causing the long-term death. And you're referring to

877
1:43:42 --> 1:43:56
the anaphylactic reactions. Now, I listen very closely to a colleague of mine who we've both

878
1:43:56 --> 1:44:05
presented in Parliament House here in Canberra about the safety or lack thereof of the vaccines.

879
1:44:06 --> 1:44:21
And that fellow is Dr. Jeff Payne. G-E-O-F-F Payne. He's a real expert on endotoxins.

880
1:44:24 --> 1:44:31
And he's of the opinion. And if you read his substack, if you go into his substack,

881
1:44:32 --> 1:44:44
he's very active. He talks about the level of endotoxins. Now, endotoxins are

882
1:44:46 --> 1:44:54
white for white, one of the most dangerous substances known to man. And endotoxins are

883
1:44:54 --> 1:45:05
impurities in some pharmaceuticals, in the vaccines. They are in the vaccines,

884
1:45:05 --> 1:45:18
and they do have a limit. It's an arbitrary limit. And as we all know, the process

885
1:45:18 --> 1:45:25
that these vaccines were made by for the initial vaccines that were used in the trials,

886
1:45:26 --> 1:45:35
for most of the trials, was different to the manufacturing process used to produce

887
1:45:36 --> 1:45:43
vaccines for the world market. And a lot of that

888
1:45:43 --> 1:45:52
wasn't disclosed and is still a bit of a mystery. The drug regulators,

889
1:45:53 --> 1:46:02
when it was reported that there were high endotoxin levels in the vaccines in certain batches,

890
1:46:04 --> 1:46:11
arbitrarily raised the level of endotoxins in the vaccines.

891
1:46:13 --> 1:46:20
The release limits for endotoxin that was done in Australia. Now, the data to support that,

892
1:46:21 --> 1:46:30
I believe, was non-existent. And this is very dangerous because endotoxins can kill you instantly.

893
1:46:30 --> 1:46:40
Can I interrupt you for a moment? It's not endotoxins necessarily, very broad term.

894
1:46:40 --> 1:46:45
It is a protein. Any protein that's parentally administered.

895
1:46:45 --> 1:46:54
I understand. Yeah. What I'm saying to you is that, yeah, you could be very, very right. It could be

896
1:46:54 --> 1:47:04
just a protein. But I think the other thing that needs to be looked at, and Jeff Payne has convinced

897
1:47:04 --> 1:47:11
me of this, if you read his sub stacks, is that the endotoxin issue is a real issue as well.

898
1:47:11 --> 1:47:15
It could be in addition to what you were thinking about.

899
1:47:19 --> 1:47:26
Yeah. Well, that's a very measured response, Philip. The great thing about you is you don't

900
1:47:26 --> 1:47:34
reject what people say when it's new to you or maybe new to you. You actually take it on

901
1:47:34 --> 1:47:43
board and consider it. So that's great. Yeah. Look, I've learned in this space,

902
1:47:44 --> 1:47:55
there's so much noise and so much that I really hate to use the word misinformation or

903
1:47:55 --> 1:48:04
disinformation. One has to be very, very careful. A lot of people do listen to what I say, and

904
1:48:06 --> 1:48:14
they have lots of opinions, right? And I think we're going to get there in the end if we're

905
1:48:14 --> 1:48:23
sure and steady. Absolutely. So I think, Philip, I think you're very humble. You're very humble,

906
1:48:23 --> 1:48:29
and that is required in these very uncertain times, in my opinion. I don't understand why

907
1:48:29 --> 1:48:35
so many people are so certain about what they think about whatever, you know, everything.

908
1:48:35 --> 1:48:42
Here's what I'm certain about. Two guys got a Nobel Prize for opposing theories that cannot

909
1:48:42 --> 1:48:51
both be true. All right. So Charles Rochet got his in 1913 for documenting this anaphylactic pattern.

910
1:48:51 --> 1:48:58
Drew Weissman got his last year, okay, for saying something completely opposite. Wow.

911
1:49:00 --> 1:49:08
Who's right? Well, you look at the language. You know, what the, I've got it written down somewhere,

912
1:49:08 --> 1:49:18
what his Nobel was awarded for was a safe and effective mRNA protein shot.

913
1:49:18 --> 1:49:29
He's not, I mean, it's news speak, so anybody can go back and take that away from him.

914
1:49:30 --> 1:49:36
I'm challenging doctors, everyone that I come across, to go and do it,

915
1:49:37 --> 1:49:41
because he can't reproduce, he can't prove that. It's a malicious statement.

916
1:49:42 --> 1:49:43
A malicious statement.

917
1:49:45 --> 1:49:52
You see, it's a fallback position. They're going to say that Charles Rochet was wrong, or

918
1:49:52 --> 1:49:59
Drew was right, or, oh, we just don't have enough studies, you know, I mean, it's crap.

919
1:50:01 --> 1:50:07
So how does the Nobel committee justify, okay, there's 100 years between them, is that right?

920
1:50:07 --> 1:50:08
More than 100 years.

921
1:50:08 --> 1:50:15
Yeah, it's called this, you know, enough of these makes the world go around, Steven. I mean,

922
1:50:16 --> 1:50:19
everybody's bought and paid for, you know, this.

923
1:50:19 --> 1:50:21
Well, yeah, but it's not just about money.

924
1:50:23 --> 1:50:31
Well, it kind of is. I mean, you know, it's, it's, it's, perhaps, right? I mean, look, we're,

925
1:50:31 --> 1:50:36
we're devolving here in the US into an extreme version of oligarchy.

926
1:50:38 --> 1:50:45
Go read politics by Aristotle. It's a one-way street, okay? The corruption creeps into the

927
1:50:45 --> 1:50:52
democracy and the rich basically run things out of their own self-interest instead of for the common

928
1:50:52 --> 1:51:02
good. It's going to collapse. It's an unstable, evil twin of aristocracy, basically, or polity.

929
1:51:02 --> 1:51:09
They all devolve into oligarchy and then they fail. They're going to wreck everything. That's

930
1:51:09 --> 1:51:18
what they're doing. Yeah. So you don't do it by voting. They've already got that covered. I mean,

931
1:51:18 --> 1:51:27
yeah. So it seems to me, Philip, that times have to get worse before they get better.

932
1:51:29 --> 1:51:33
But even then, when everybody's in a state of Stockholm syndrome or a large

933
1:51:33 --> 1:51:39
percentage of the population in a state of Stockholm syndrome, even those people who seem

934
1:51:39 --> 1:51:47
to be functioning reasonably well, and then you've got mind control, you know, if we're seeing

935
1:51:47 --> 1:51:53
everything through the lens of mind control, including the people on this call, then there

936
1:51:53 --> 1:52:00
isn't. It seems to be difficult to sort anything out. But having said that, maybe it doesn't all

937
1:52:00 --> 1:52:06
depend on logic. So I think human beings, when they're faced with a threat, they kind of get

938
1:52:06 --> 1:52:14
together and work things out. And eventually, the empire fails or the country fails, or there's a

939
1:52:14 --> 1:52:20
revolution and nobody knows where it came from. The historians come along and tell us that this

940
1:52:20 --> 1:52:26
happened because of that. But was that the reason? Anyway, let's go on to the next. So Daria is next

941
1:52:26 --> 1:52:34
and Daria, I think I'm right in saying has discovered a god or rediscovered god in the last

942
1:52:35 --> 1:52:43
four years. Well, I say I got a lot closer. I don't think I ever, you know, it feels like a

943
1:52:43 --> 1:52:48
comet, you know, I was really close to the sun, you know, when I was growing up, then about the

944
1:52:48 --> 1:52:57
time I was 20. Actually, before that around time I was 14, I just went into the world, I worked on

945
1:52:57 --> 1:53:08
Sundays, you know, I stopped observing. And in 20 ended well through 2020 to 2021. With all the

946
1:53:08 --> 1:53:17
madness going on. Somehow I got sort of drawn back in and found myself praying the rosary again,

947
1:53:17 --> 1:53:22
taught myself how to pray it in Latin. Three months later, I found a Latin mass church and I

948
1:53:22 --> 1:53:27
have been faithfully attending ever since and studying a lot of theology, which is

949
1:53:28 --> 1:53:35
not something I expected I'd ever do. But there are so many important concepts from a philosophical

950
1:53:35 --> 1:53:43
standpoint that are consistent with proper spirituality, if you want to call it that.

951
1:53:44 --> 1:53:49
Daria is a neurosurgeon, Philip. She has the background, she is a neurosurgeon.

952
1:53:49 --> 1:53:55
So well, last time Philip was on, he and I talked about my experience in pharmacy too,

953
1:53:55 --> 1:54:00
because I'm a licensed pharmacist. And when I was in college, I actually worked at Eli Lilly. So I

954
1:54:01 --> 1:54:07
at that time, I was in the environmental analysis, environmental waste analysis lab,

955
1:54:07 --> 1:54:11
and quality control was everything. You had to be accurate about what you did, especially since our

956
1:54:11 --> 1:54:18
test results were sent to the EPA. And so it was a company that really had high standards back then.

957
1:54:18 --> 1:54:29
And that was in up through 19, how long was I there until I went to Indianapolis? No? Up through

958
1:54:29 --> 1:54:34
1983, when I graduated pharmacy school and went to med school. So that's when I was working there,

959
1:54:34 --> 1:54:42
when I was in college. But Philip, I wanted to say thank you from the pharmacological angle,

960
1:54:42 --> 1:54:49
especially having had so much emphasis on scientific method in my undergrad. I worked with

961
1:54:49 --> 1:54:56
Dr. David Nichols, who was a medicinal chemist who worked on psychotropic medication research,

962
1:54:56 --> 1:55:04
especially looking at hallucinogens. So I worked with him. And again, that scientific method

963
1:55:05 --> 1:55:12
discipline, you can't deviate from it and expect to answer any questions. So it was the same thing

964
1:55:12 --> 1:55:20
when I saw these peculiar comments coming out of regulators that it's safe and effective. It's like,

965
1:55:20 --> 1:55:26
where's the evidence? And even before the vaccine was released, or I don't want to call it a vaccine,

966
1:55:26 --> 1:55:35
from Pfizer, I looked up the Pfizer white paper on their mRNA shots. And I did that before they were

967
1:55:35 --> 1:55:41
released, because that information was available. And I'm like, Whoa, this is not good. The genetic

968
1:55:41 --> 1:55:48
side of it was not a good sign. And then when I looked into the studies and how superficial a lot

969
1:55:48 --> 1:55:55
of information was, and even in their own white paper, Pfizer said, this has not been studied in

970
1:55:55 --> 1:56:01
pregnant women. So what happens? Oh, it's, they're pushing it into pregnant women left and right.

971
1:56:01 --> 1:56:09
It's literally ridiculous, you know, to see what happened. And so that complete abandonment of

972
1:56:09 --> 1:56:15
scientific discipline and integrity, it betrayed all of us, Philip, you know, betrayed us in

973
1:56:16 --> 1:56:23
the pharmacy world, it betrayed us in the medical world. And I know people spoke up. And a lot of

974
1:56:23 --> 1:56:30
them, one of the people that probably was on the inside was Kerry Mullis, who got, I believe it was

975
1:56:30 --> 1:56:40
the Nobel Prize for his PCR testing research. No, no, he won the PCR technique. The technique. Thank

976
1:56:40 --> 1:56:48
you. Yeah, yeah, research in the technique. He was going around saying that under no circumstances,

977
1:56:48 --> 1:56:55
should his technique be used as the basis for a diagnostic test for a viral illness.

978
1:56:55 --> 1:57:04
And that probably cost him his life. August 2019. Right. Again, ahead of the game. So Philip,

979
1:57:04 --> 1:57:12
you're right. This, I do believe with you that a lot of this occult work was being done prior to

980
1:57:13 --> 1:57:20
getting sprung on the planet and all the people. And then they were all blindsided by the catastrophic,

981
1:57:20 --> 1:57:26
I'll call it Mockingbird media, parroting whatever the government told them to say about this horrible

982
1:57:26 --> 1:57:34
pandemic that wasn't. And we've had many discussions on that in the past. But as you were speaking,

983
1:57:34 --> 1:57:40
it occurred to me that at least part of the possibility of people not speaking up,

984
1:57:40 --> 1:57:46
besides signing non-disclosure agreements, maybe being subtly threatened or coerced or extorted in

985
1:57:46 --> 1:57:52
some way, people working in these research labs all over had to keep a lid on it for a number of

986
1:57:52 --> 1:58:02
reasons. But conversely, what is the possibility that it was compartmentalized? In other words,

987
1:58:02 --> 1:58:09
like the Manhattan Project was, nobody knew, except maybe Oppenheimer, that there was all this work,

988
1:58:09 --> 1:58:15
this body of work on the Manhattan Project for a nuclear bomb was done all over the country,

989
1:58:15 --> 1:58:22
possibly outside of the USA as well. But the different areas where this was being worked on

990
1:58:22 --> 1:58:28
were all separated. So no individual researcher knew that their work was going to be applied to

991
1:58:28 --> 1:58:35
this deadly end. And I'm wondering if a similar Manhattan type project is feasible for something

992
1:58:35 --> 1:58:46
like this to come together with first the pseudo plague being the COVID-19 infection, supposedly,

993
1:58:46 --> 1:58:51
which was a coronavirus. I'm like, it's a cold virus. What the hell's going on? And people were

994
1:58:51 --> 1:58:59
freaking out. And then it was all to create the hype, eliminating our access to actual

995
1:58:59 --> 1:59:05
effective medicine, which would have precluded the ability for the pharmaceutical regulators to

996
1:59:06 --> 1:59:14
clear this experimental shot for use, because it couldn't be cleared based on the rules,

997
1:59:14 --> 1:59:20
if there were effective alternative treatments. So people like Dr. Zelenko from day one was using

998
1:59:20 --> 1:59:25
his effective alternative treatments that he used for years without question on his blue patients

999
1:59:25 --> 1:59:30
and everyone else. And guess what? They did well. Very few people died. Some people were immune

1000
1:59:30 --> 1:59:36
compromised and higher susceptibility with advanced age and multiple medical problems

1001
1:59:36 --> 1:59:42
did not survive, but they too would not have survived the flu. And the other thing that

1002
1:59:43 --> 1:59:53
suggests this deception is that sort of smashing of the effective alternative treatments that were

1003
1:59:53 --> 2:00:00
being deployed in 2020 and being discredited and have been called fake news. And then you throw in

1004
2:00:00 --> 2:00:06
all the censorship that happened and people were shut down that were trying to speak the truth

1005
2:00:06 --> 2:00:13
and others were just persecuted. But do you think it is possible? This is my question, that

1006
2:00:15 --> 2:00:22
this type of compartmentalization may have happened where people of ethical goodwill

1007
2:00:23 --> 2:00:31
were not aware that it got this bad. And then you look at someone like, I went back and looked up

1008
2:00:31 --> 2:00:40
how early was Dr. Malone publishing on mRNA and it was 1985 and he was researching

1009
2:00:41 --> 2:00:47
mRNA technology and I don't know if they called it vaccines back then, but studying these

1010
2:00:47 --> 2:00:52
effects on cancer cells. And I believe his initial research from looking at his old papers going back

1011
2:00:52 --> 2:01:04
to 1985 was to look at cancer and possibly a way to treat cancer. But that's not billions of people

1012
2:01:04 --> 2:01:11
around the planet. It was supposed to target a small group of people to try and intervene so

1013
2:01:11 --> 2:01:20
they can get rid of their cancer with the immune system. And again, his work was obviously further

1014
2:01:20 --> 2:01:26
expanded and he did eventually speak up. People have different thoughts about Dr. Malone, but at

1015
2:01:26 --> 2:01:36
least he's got a paper trail. He has a research scientific publication paper trail. So if a lot of

1016
2:01:36 --> 2:01:43
people of good integrity were not deceived, bought off, threatened, were they possibly

1017
2:01:43 --> 2:01:47
just compartmentalized? What do you think of that? Thanks.

1018
2:01:47 --> 2:02:00
Right, right. Good question. Good question. There's a person online here, Dr. Jerry Brady,

1019
2:02:00 --> 2:02:11
who could answer that question as well. Jerry and I published, as well as with some other people,

1020
2:02:12 --> 2:02:24
a paper in early, in January 2023 in the Brownstone Institute, if you want to look it up.

1021
2:02:24 --> 2:02:34
If you want to look it up, I'm the senior author, but Jerry and I basically drafted the paper.

1022
2:02:34 --> 2:02:49
We were the core authors and it dealt with how these products, I won't call them pharmaceuticals

1023
2:02:49 --> 2:02:55
because they're actually classified as countermeasures by the US Department of Defense.

1024
2:02:58 --> 2:03:07
This is not a conspiracy theory or anything like that. This is from published information.

1025
2:03:09 --> 2:03:17
It was the US Department of Defense which was in command and control of the development of the

1026
2:03:17 --> 2:03:27
mRNA vaccines. There were literally hundreds of sub-manufacturers. The image that the public has

1027
2:03:28 --> 2:03:41
is that companies like Moderna and Pfizer and Novavax and Johnson & Johnson and so forth

1028
2:03:42 --> 2:03:51
had these bright ideas and went away and developed these vaccines in record time. The

1029
2:03:55 --> 2:04:04
Project Warp Speed, what was under the control of the US Department of Defense and covered by

1030
2:04:04 --> 2:04:13
legislation including the PREP Act. Sasha Latapova has written extensively on this

1031
2:04:14 --> 2:04:24
and that's where I got a lot of my information and Katherine Watt as well to give her fair due.

1032
2:04:24 --> 2:04:38
It explains an awful lot because in my humble opinion, the

1033
2:04:40 --> 2:04:51
US FDA wasn't really performing its role as a drug regulator. It was theater. They

1034
2:04:52 --> 2:05:01
had the appearance of being the authority to evaluate and control these things but they weren't

1035
2:05:02 --> 2:05:08
really in charge. The people at the table who were really making the decisions

1036
2:05:10 --> 2:05:16
was the US Department of Defense. So it was a matter of national security. Now you can argue

1037
2:05:16 --> 2:05:23
was that a noble lie? Were they doing it for the right reasons? Were they doing it for the wrong

1038
2:05:23 --> 2:05:34
reasons? You can make up your own mind about that but all I can say to you is that the usual

1039
2:05:34 --> 2:05:46
I can say to you is that the usual logical, necessary ethical guidelines that should have

1040
2:05:46 --> 2:05:56
been used to evaluate these products, these countermeasures which they called pharmaceuticals,

1041
2:05:56 --> 2:06:01
which they still call pharmaceuticals, were not used.

1042
2:06:03 --> 2:06:09
They just weren't and they still are not used. I believe the governments

1043
2:06:10 --> 2:06:21
and the bureaucrats are restricted by what they can say under national security arrangements

1044
2:06:21 --> 2:06:30
and intelligence which trumps everything else. Unfortunately, given that situation,

1045
2:06:32 --> 2:06:40
we can no longer trust what the drug regulators say. Whenever they say a drug is approved,

1046
2:06:40 --> 2:06:45
it's safe and efficacious, you have to question everything. How can the average person in the

1047
2:06:45 --> 2:06:53
industry know? I mean, I didn't know when I was in the industry. I didn't really know

1048
2:06:55 --> 2:07:01
for a number of months. You know, well into 2020 before I really made up my mind,

1049
2:07:01 --> 2:07:10
I was on a learning curve. No one knew about mRNA vaccines. I wasn't a genomic expert. I've

1050
2:07:10 --> 2:07:18
never been trained in genomics. So what would I know? I was on a big learning curve.

1051
2:07:19 --> 2:07:28
So the public relies on what the TGA and the FDA and the other regulatory agencies say.

1052
2:07:29 --> 2:07:37
And now it is very, very clear to anyone who looks at this situation

1053
2:07:39 --> 2:07:47
in a critical way is that we can no longer depend on them and that should send chills

1054
2:07:47 --> 2:07:54
up and down your spine. How do you know? And now the question about vaccines comes up and

1055
2:07:55 --> 2:08:02
and I note that someone had mentioned the testimony of Plotkin, Stan Stanley Plotkin,

1056
2:08:03 --> 2:08:14
who was the gray's anatomy of vaccines, right? And he said they haven't been tested for safety.

1057
2:08:15 --> 2:08:26
RFK has been right all along. He's been vindicated and the vaccine industry

1058
2:08:27 --> 2:08:32
has no obligation to test for safety and they do not want to test for safety

1059
2:08:33 --> 2:08:39
because they're worried about what they will find. And these are things that

1060
2:08:39 --> 2:08:50
I had never thought about in my decades of experience in dealing with regulatory agencies.

1061
2:08:51 --> 2:08:59
In fact, you know, I've done trials on almost every class of therapeutic that there was

1062
2:08:59 --> 2:09:11
over the years, except one class. And that class was vaccines because you didn't have to do a

1063
2:09:11 --> 2:09:20
clinical trial. Clinical trials were very rare. The companies did the core trials and they

1064
2:09:21 --> 2:09:31
they designed them. And as we all know, as I know, you can design a clinical trial

1065
2:09:33 --> 2:09:42
to succeed or fail. You can design it well or you can design it with deficiencies.

1066
2:09:42 --> 2:09:52
There's a whole range of quality of clinical trials out there. And unfortunately,

1067
2:09:55 --> 2:10:02
the gold standard that's accepted by people worldwide are randomized control clinical trials

1068
2:10:03 --> 2:10:11
on a large scale. And if you have a problem with a drug post-marketing,

1069
2:10:14 --> 2:10:19
it's only the drug companies that have the wherewithal, the resources, the financial

1070
2:10:19 --> 2:10:25
resources and the manpower to actually do those things. The burden of proof

1071
2:10:26 --> 2:10:34
when people claim I've been injured by a vaccine rests on the individual. It's been shifted to the

1072
2:10:34 --> 2:10:43
individual. It's impossible to argue. Going to court, and I've seen it firsthand trying to argue

1073
2:10:43 --> 2:10:50
that you've been injured by a vaccine in a court of law. Very, very difficult to prove. The

1074
2:10:50 --> 2:10:56
pharmaceutical industry knows this. So huge problems in the system and I don't know how we

1075
2:10:56 --> 2:11:08
can come back from here because such egregious things have been done now. So many people have

1076
2:11:08 --> 2:11:14
been injured worldwide and died and there's been nothing like this in the history of the

1077
2:11:14 --> 2:11:20
pharmaceutical industry. Yeah, they baked in plausible deniability is what they did.

1078
2:11:22 --> 2:11:35
Exactly. So how do we come back from here? I really just don't know. All my life, you know,

1079
2:11:36 --> 2:11:45
I worked for industry either as a staff member or later as a consultant.

1080
2:11:49 --> 2:11:55
I really argued with my friends when they accused me of working for a corrupt industry and

1081
2:11:55 --> 2:12:00
that was at a time decades ago when there were problems and people were complaining and drugs

1082
2:12:00 --> 2:12:06
were withdrawn and there were lawsuits. We all know about the lawsuits. There have been

1083
2:12:07 --> 2:12:19
over 400 drugs withdrawn worldwide since 2000. Drugs aren't safe and even if a regulatory

1084
2:12:19 --> 2:12:25
agency says that they're approved, that doesn't mean that they're safe. The real

1085
2:12:25 --> 2:12:36
test comes post-marketing when they're released and millions of people use the drugs. But now,

1086
2:12:36 --> 2:12:42
we can no longer rely on the adverse drug reaction reporting system, which was our safety net,

1087
2:12:45 --> 2:12:51
to double check if the initial clinical trials were right, which were usually done on just a

1088
2:12:51 --> 2:12:58
few thousand patients. If that, I've been involved in falls where drugs were registered on a few

1089
2:12:58 --> 2:13:07
hundred patients. Now, you have to ask yourself, if an adverse drug event occurs, a serious deadly

1090
2:13:07 --> 2:13:15
adverse event occurs one in a thousand or one in 10,000, are you going to find that in a clinical

1091
2:13:15 --> 2:13:23
trial of a few hundred patients? The answer is clearly no. That's why you need an unbiased,

1092
2:13:24 --> 2:13:30
reliable adverse drug reaction reporting system. Now, these adverse drug reporting systems,

1093
2:13:31 --> 2:13:38
I believe, are corrupt. They're in the hands of the bureaucrats, the same bureaucrats

1094
2:13:38 --> 2:13:45
that have been telling you for four years that the COVID vaccines are safe and efficacious.

1095
2:13:47 --> 2:13:56
Myocardial infarctions and myocarditis is not a problem, and there's no increase in cancers,

1096
2:13:56 --> 2:14:03
there's no increase in excess deaths. The excess deaths have come from the drug

1097
2:14:03 --> 2:14:08
and the drugs, and the drugs have come from the drug and the drugs have come from the drugs.

1098
2:14:08 --> 2:14:15
There's no increase in cancers, there's no increase in excess deaths. The excess deaths have come down

1099
2:14:15 --> 2:14:23
now. That's what a lot of countries are reporting, that the unexpected, all-cause mortality is finally

1100
2:14:23 --> 2:14:31
coming down. What they don't tell you is that they've changed the formula to calculate excess

1101
2:14:31 --> 2:14:37
deaths. I did put up a sub-stack where he mentions the fact that the natural cause mortality,

1102
2:14:37 --> 2:14:46
in other words, what's on the death certificate, has skyrocketed. I did put that link in the chat,

1103
2:14:46 --> 2:14:52
so you should be able to find it. It's a sub-stack post by Steve Kirsch. He was citing another paper

1104
2:14:52 --> 2:15:00
as well. They just lie. They're like a bunch of five-year-olds. They didn't do their homework,

1105
2:15:00 --> 2:15:03
and they say the dog ate it. They just want you to believe their lies,

1106
2:15:04 --> 2:15:17
and they'll shoot you if you don't. It's crazy. That's basically why I'm here and doing what I'm

1107
2:15:17 --> 2:15:32
doing, because I believe the lies will continue, and the people who made this happen are still

1108
2:15:33 --> 2:15:43
there, still making decisions. The more people know, the better it is.

1109
2:15:43 --> 2:15:44
Absolutely.

1110
2:15:44 --> 2:15:53
You just have to spread the word and keep going and not be disillusioned at the carnage.

1111
2:15:57 --> 2:15:59
Philip, are you in touch with Andrew Wakefield?

1112
2:16:01 --> 2:16:04
No, no. I've never talked to him.

1113
2:16:04 --> 2:16:06
Are you in touch with him?

1114
2:16:06 --> 2:16:13
There are actually very few people in the world that

1115
2:16:17 --> 2:16:26
come at this problem from a regulatory affairs point of view. Sasha Latopova is one. She,

1116
2:16:27 --> 2:16:36
like myself, owned a CRO, a contract research organization. I listen very carefully

1117
2:16:38 --> 2:16:52
to what she has to say. Robert Malone I listen to because he has extensive experience in regulatory

1118
2:16:52 --> 2:17:03
affairs over the years. When I listen to him, he uses the right words. I know he's been there,

1119
2:17:04 --> 2:17:16
and I rely on what he says. Mike Eden, just until recently, has been one of my people that I would

1120
2:17:16 --> 2:17:22
rely on. I'm not so sure at the moment. I haven't made up my mind yet.

1121
2:17:26 --> 2:17:32
That's the problem. Unless you're in regulatory affairs and you've been in regulatory affairs and

1122
2:17:32 --> 2:17:39
you've seen what goes on, you can't really speak with authority.

1123
2:17:39 --> 2:17:48
But the people who are currently employed in regulatory affairs cannot speak for fear of losing

1124
2:17:48 --> 2:17:58
their careers, their livelihood, their jobs. A lot of people, especially medical people that I talk

1125
2:17:58 --> 2:18:06
to, have spoken up at great, great personal cost, of course, as we all know. They've not only lost

1126
2:18:07 --> 2:18:16
their accreditation in many circumstances, they've lost family, they've lost marriages,

1127
2:18:17 --> 2:18:24
family members don't speak with them, they've lost their family members, they've lost their

1128
2:18:24 --> 2:18:32
family members, don't speak with them, they're in financial difficulty, they've lost homes.

1129
2:18:34 --> 2:18:48
It's been just incredible. As far as myself is concerned, I really haven't had to sacrifice

1130
2:18:48 --> 2:18:54
that much because I wasn't employed, I was retired. It's much easier for me to speak.

1131
2:18:55 --> 2:19:08
But I really give full credit and admiration to those clinicians and scientists who

1132
2:19:09 --> 2:19:15
are currently employed and are brave enough to speak up.

1133
2:19:19 --> 2:19:25
Well, if no one speaks up, then we're all really heading for

1134
2:19:26 --> 2:19:30
oblivion, I think. So it's essential that some people speak up.

1135
2:19:32 --> 2:19:41
So next question is from Anders Brunstad and he is a 5G, 4G, 3G expert in Norway.

1136
2:19:41 --> 2:19:47
Anders?

1137
2:19:48 --> 2:19:58
Hello, Philip. I'm really happy to hear your testimony and especially your reference to

1138
2:19:59 --> 2:20:10
Latipova and Katrin Vatt. They really have done a big work on this. I couldn't agree 100%

1139
2:20:10 --> 2:20:17
on some earlier stories about viruses, etc. But that's not important. I have studied this

1140
2:20:17 --> 2:20:27
extensively in scientific methods of research into what was the cause of 5G, 4G, 3G,

1141
2:20:28 --> 2:20:36
or other possible reasons, but I don't want to go into there now because it's not really productive.

1142
2:20:36 --> 2:20:45
And what is the history of this matter is that this is a deliberate plan

1143
2:20:49 --> 2:20:56
conceived to kill, depopulate, control human population. It's been

1144
2:20:56 --> 2:21:02
reported in books in the Bilderberger of 1976 or whatever later.

1145
2:21:03 --> 2:21:09
I don't need to go there, but they refer to also microwave without going into that.

1146
2:21:11 --> 2:21:18
What is the reality is that when you study the vaccine damages, it started roughly in,

1147
2:21:19 --> 2:21:27
well, 1902. There was never any virus proven by science, but there was a lot of vaccine damage

1148
2:21:27 --> 2:21:39
proven by science. In 1956, you got both. You got vaccines and let's say not 2G, 3G, 4G. You got TV.

1149
2:21:39 --> 2:21:49
You got microwave. In 1968, you got satellites and microwave. And you've been getting more and

1150
2:21:49 --> 2:21:56
more of it later. In 1986, the biggest problem, if you want to reverse what we have now,

1151
2:21:57 --> 2:22:03
you need to go back to what Ronald Reagan did with approving vaccines to be the

1152
2:22:04 --> 2:22:09
product without any liability. And this is where we need to go back. We need to say,

1153
2:22:10 --> 2:22:16
this is not okay. And that's my point. What is your comment to that?

1154
2:22:17 --> 2:22:28
Yeah, that is basically the root of the problem. Because if you're not liable for any damages

1155
2:22:30 --> 2:22:37
and you're developing a vaccine, quite obviously you can save a lot of time and money in getting

1156
2:22:37 --> 2:22:45
your product to the market in terms of a marketing model. It's perfect. Not only that, you can get

1157
2:22:45 --> 2:22:52
government to promote your product. You can get government to pay for your product. This is why

1158
2:22:52 --> 2:23:03
Bill Gates is in vaccines. It's more profitable than computers. And he's made more money on vaccines.

1159
2:23:05 --> 2:23:13
If there's no liability, then how are we going to get out of this? This is going to continue.

1160
2:23:13 --> 2:23:23
I've become very, very skeptical about vaccines. You only have to look at the incidents of autism.

1161
2:23:23 --> 2:23:32
And Steve Kirsch has done this exceedingly well and brought up a lot of the data. Whereas autism was

1162
2:23:32 --> 2:23:44
was before the 1980s, a very, very rare condition, hardly known. And now in the US,

1163
2:23:45 --> 2:23:55
where there are basically 72 different doses of vaccine on the kids' schedule

1164
2:23:56 --> 2:24:03
that's required in the US. And that's recently started off at a lower number,

1165
2:24:03 --> 2:24:12
six or eight or something like that. But the increase in autism has paralleled the use of

1166
2:24:12 --> 2:24:17
the vaccines. And then you look at the- I just have a brief comment, if I can.

1167
2:24:18 --> 2:24:23
And I would like to introduce Dr. Martin Pall,

1168
2:24:26 --> 2:24:34
who has done extensive research first in the idea of, let's say, radiation or 4G, 5G, whatever.

1169
2:24:36 --> 2:24:44
And then recently in April this year, he has concluded that it's a combination of these

1170
2:24:45 --> 2:24:52
radiation and the vaccines, the metals, the aluminium, etc. So it is a combination. And

1171
2:24:52 --> 2:24:57
if you look into the vaccines, you will find exactly that. If you look into the chantrails,

1172
2:24:57 --> 2:25:02
you'll find exactly that. If you look into the water, you'll find exactly that. If you look into

1173
2:25:02 --> 2:25:11
the pesticides, you'll find exactly that. It's a war on four arms. It's the vaccines, it's the air,

1174
2:25:11 --> 2:25:21
the water, it's the food. Yeah. Look, I believe you. I believe you. I don't know a lot about

1175
2:25:23 --> 2:25:34
5G, but I'm talking to people about 5G. My interest has been fricked. And

1176
2:25:35 --> 2:25:40
I just getting back to what I was going to say about autism,

1177
2:25:42 --> 2:25:50
you know, what you need because the drug companies don't do safety studies, as Plotkin said.

1178
2:25:52 --> 2:26:01
Just look at a control group like the Amish. The Amish don't have a problem with autism.

1179
2:26:01 --> 2:26:09
I have a second control group for you. You have those who live in cities and those who live rural.

1180
2:26:12 --> 2:26:18
The rural population have much less radiation and much less, let's say, excess mortality.

1181
2:26:19 --> 2:26:23
Yeah, yeah. You know, I

1182
2:26:27 --> 2:26:35
opened a conference on 5G not long ago. They asked me to open the conference.

1183
2:26:35 --> 2:26:48
And my worst subject at university was physics. I hardly passed. Here I was opening a conference

1184
2:26:48 --> 2:26:57
on 5G. But the reason why they asked me to do that was because there were lots of

1185
2:26:57 --> 2:27:05
parallels between what was happening with the regulation with drugs and 5G. And when I started

1186
2:27:05 --> 2:27:20
to look at 5G, the claims of safety are based largely on inadequate studies. For example,

1187
2:27:20 --> 2:27:30
the rise in subdermal skin temperature, that's what they base safety on.

1188
2:27:33 --> 2:27:41
And real safety studies, the telecommunications industry, like the pharmaceutical industry,

1189
2:27:41 --> 2:27:48
has the wherewithal, has the money, could do it, but they don't want to do it because they don't

1190
2:27:48 --> 2:27:55
want to know the answer. And it's been done. It's been done, but it's kind of protected. So

1191
2:27:55 --> 2:28:05
it's a digital pulses of all new communication, which induces ionization, which causes harm

1192
2:28:06 --> 2:28:12
connected to metals in the body from these other vectors.

1193
2:28:12 --> 2:28:21
I'd like to connect with you offline. I'll send you my email. I'd like to communicate

1194
2:28:22 --> 2:28:30
with you about this because it's another area of interest, which I do agree is very important.

1195
2:28:30 --> 2:28:40
And it's another situation where the burden of proof of safety has been shifted to the individual

1196
2:28:40 --> 2:28:49
and not the companies that are responsible. So it's very interesting.

1197
2:28:51 --> 2:28:56
And one of the things we learned when I was doing... So I'm a radiologist,

1198
2:28:57 --> 2:29:04
and so diagnostic radiologist. One of the things we learned in radiation physics was that no one

1199
2:29:04 --> 2:29:14
on then knew what the risk was of radiation. But we have to wear dosimeters, so-called,

1200
2:29:15 --> 2:29:19
under the lead aprons if we were in the lab screening the patient, you know.

1201
2:29:20 --> 2:29:32
But the risk was unquantifiable for the individual and varied hugely as far as

1202
2:29:33 --> 2:29:43
we were taught anyway. So what made me really... So I was very careful with my dosimeters. Some

1203
2:29:43 --> 2:29:49
people didn't bother, you know, they didn't have it on under the lead apron. I always had mine on.

1204
2:29:49 --> 2:29:58
And then one day in Sweden where I was working as a radiologist, so I qualified as a doctor in the UK

1205
2:29:58 --> 2:30:06
and then as a diagnostic radiologist in Sweden. And one day in Sweden, they said,

1206
2:30:08 --> 2:30:14
someone came around from the radiation physics department of the hospital and said,

1207
2:30:14 --> 2:30:19
we are collecting all the dosimeters. And I said, why are you taking those? You don't need them

1208
2:30:19 --> 2:30:29
any longer. And I said, oh, can you show me how you know that? I didn't get any answer to that.

1209
2:30:31 --> 2:30:42
Can I comment on that? Sure. So I have friends who are radiologists and they do,

1210
2:30:43 --> 2:30:50
it's in hospitals and they do, let's say, x-rays and all these CTs. Okay.

1211
2:30:51 --> 2:30:58
And geographies and stuff like that. Yes. Yes. And the husband worked in the army

1212
2:30:58 --> 2:31:02
and was exposed to much radiation from radar systems.

1213
2:31:03 --> 2:31:11
And each of those two factors, each of them have 400% increases of risk for DNA damages.

1214
2:31:13 --> 2:31:21
Yeah. Different types of diagnosis of kids with, yeah, I don't want to go there, but there is

1215
2:31:21 --> 2:31:29
something called the radar case, which is military US radar, which is from 65, which is 400,000

1216
2:31:29 --> 2:31:38
increase of risk. And the second is those who work in radiology in hospitals and everywhere

1217
2:31:38 --> 2:31:50
with these x-rays. Sure. And when you combine those two, you have something which can exemplify

1218
2:31:50 --> 2:31:53
what you're dealing with, with the microwave.

1219
2:31:53 --> 2:32:01
Yeah. Yeah, it sounds sensible because you get a synergistic effect. One in one is not two.

1220
2:32:01 --> 2:32:08
One in one could be five. Sure. Or 20. Or 20.

1221
2:32:10 --> 2:32:17
So we were told in the radiation physics that in the nuclear explosions in Nagasaki,

1222
2:32:17 --> 2:32:26
Hiroshima, that the effect on human beings was hugely variable. So two human beings very close

1223
2:32:26 --> 2:32:32
to each other in those cities when they were bombed, if they were bombed, of course,

1224
2:32:36 --> 2:32:42
one could be vomiting. And the other could be a little bit of a fever.

1225
2:32:43 --> 2:32:53
They one could be vomiting. And the person, the human being next to him or her could be dead.

1226
2:32:55 --> 2:32:59
It was that variable. So and one of the things also we were told about the dosimeters was that

1227
2:33:00 --> 2:33:08
was that they were required because they couldn't guarantee the safety of the x-ray tubes,

1228
2:33:08 --> 2:33:15
the tubes that created the x-rays. So all kinds of disasters could occur, you know,

1229
2:33:16 --> 2:33:26
and without any any measurement of radiation, no one knew what had happened. And so clearly,

1230
2:33:26 --> 2:33:32
anybody who was behind the dosimeters was thinking about, well, hopefully thinking about the people

1231
2:33:32 --> 2:33:40
working with radiation in health services, you know, and trying at least to protect so

1232
2:33:40 --> 2:33:46
that there was some record, which indisputable record, which could be used in the future.

1233
2:33:46 --> 2:33:53
But then so I never believed that it was that the dosimeters should have been taken away. But I

1234
2:33:53 --> 2:34:01
couldn't obviously foresee what would happen in 2020. And it was to remove the evidence. Exactly.

1235
2:34:01 --> 2:34:09
They didn't want to have the evidence there. And so and also to nudge people into thinking,

1236
2:34:09 --> 2:34:17
well, you know, mobile phones were coming. So we knew that the towers that they used for mobile

1237
2:34:17 --> 2:34:24
phones, certainly the early ones and still I suppose, they were emitting radiation.

1238
2:34:24 --> 2:34:34
So they didn't they wanted to kind of hide the fact that the radiation from these mobile phone

1239
2:34:34 --> 2:34:39
towers, because that was the world that they wanted to bring, you know, mobile phones,

1240
2:34:39 --> 2:34:48
everybody connected. And but nobody really foresaw, I certainly didn't, that the effect of

1241
2:34:48 --> 2:34:56
the mobile phones would be mobile phone addictions, and the creation of cults, essentially of

1242
2:34:56 --> 2:35:02
echo chambers. So and especially with young people, it seems to me that the danger now is that young

1243
2:35:02 --> 2:35:09
people are certain because they have an easy time on social media, they seek out platforms,

1244
2:35:09 --> 2:35:15
or they like and and where they get lots of likes, you know, and approval, and they never had to kind

1245
2:35:15 --> 2:35:21
of they don't need to engage with anyone who doesn't agree with them. They don't like to have

1246
2:35:21 --> 2:35:26
conversations with their peers, because it's too difficult because they come up against people for

1247
2:35:26 --> 2:35:32
the first time in their lives who disagree with them. This is absolutely crazy. It's taking people

1248
2:35:32 --> 2:35:38
away from their identity and their humanity. And it needs to be challenged. But the point is that

1249
2:35:39 --> 2:35:43
the mobile phones were the vision of the future and the most social media, whether that was all

1250
2:35:43 --> 2:35:50
planned, you know, to take us away from our identity, our humanity. It seems very plausible

1251
2:35:50 --> 2:35:55
to me, and everybody's addicted to their mobile phones and to the social media. And everybody

1252
2:35:55 --> 2:36:00
thinks it's okay not to worry about it. If it was any other addiction, when you combine,

1253
2:36:01 --> 2:36:08
when you combine those phones with radiation with the massive amount of increased vaccination with

1254
2:36:08 --> 2:36:15
all these metal nanometals, that's where you have the kill. Sure. But the dosimeter,

1255
2:36:15 --> 2:36:22
ME, the dosimeter story was very, very interesting. So we knew why we were wearing dosimeters. And all

1256
2:36:22 --> 2:36:28
of a sudden in Sweden, but I thought it was just Sweden that was weird, came back to the UK,

1257
2:36:28 --> 2:36:37
checked up. Same thing has happened in the UK. Steven, I'm gonna have to depart, unfortunately.

1258
2:36:37 --> 2:36:40
Yes, sure. We're coming to a natural end anyway.

1259
2:36:42 --> 2:36:49
Okay. Thank you so much, Philip. Thank you. Thank you for the invitation to speak. It's been really

1260
2:36:49 --> 2:36:54
interesting. Can I just tell you one thing, Philip? You're dealing with a lot of lawyers,

1261
2:36:54 --> 2:37:02
I think, aren't you? Yes. Do they understand that the gain of function story could be part of the

1262
2:37:02 --> 2:37:10
false narrative? And also, do they understand that there was no pandemic? But very importantly,

1263
2:37:10 --> 2:37:19
in my opinion, as a doctor, and increasingly, I've got doctors joining me now who think that

1264
2:37:19 --> 2:37:25
I don't think pandemics are possible. It was always a construct. It was a construct because

1265
2:37:26 --> 2:37:34
it was going to... They created a pandemic, if you like, through the fear. So it wasn't necessary

1266
2:37:34 --> 2:37:43
to have a pandemic. It was necessary to have the illusion of a pandemic to create the fear. So the

1267
2:37:43 --> 2:37:51
fear became the Trojan horse for totalitarianism. Yeah, they understand that. And do they understand...

1268
2:37:51 --> 2:38:00
So do they understand that the notion that we have to be very careful with pandemics in the future,

1269
2:38:00 --> 2:38:05
we don't have to worry about pandemics in the future because a deadly virus kills its host?

1270
2:38:06 --> 2:38:13
And the other thing, Philip, do they understand that they're... In my opinion, COVID-19,

1271
2:38:14 --> 2:38:20
the diagnosis of COVID-19, it was always an improper diagnosis. Yeah. So on the one hand,

1272
2:38:20 --> 2:38:27
you've got a fraudulent test. And on the other hand, there wasn't a single clinical symptom,

1273
2:38:27 --> 2:38:32
or signs for that matter, which was pathognomonic for COVID-19.

1274
2:38:33 --> 2:38:37
Yeah. I've made absolutely sure that they understand that.

1275
2:38:38 --> 2:38:39
Great. Yeah.

1276
2:38:42 --> 2:38:46
And then your best friend comes along and says, Stephen, I had COVID last week.

1277
2:38:47 --> 2:38:49
Yeah, that's right. And I say...

1278
2:38:50 --> 2:38:52
And I've got COVID again.

1279
2:38:53 --> 2:39:00
Yes. And I say, how do you know you had COVID? Oh, I've never been so ill in my life.

1280
2:39:01 --> 2:39:06
And I'm thinking, what? Yeah.

1281
2:39:06 --> 2:39:09
I despair of my friendships, honestly. It's just kind of...

1282
2:39:09 --> 2:39:10
I know.

1283
2:39:10 --> 2:39:11
It's like a war zone.

1284
2:39:12 --> 2:39:21
Yeah. Well, I lost a lot of friends, but I gained many, many, many more new friends.

1285
2:39:21 --> 2:39:25
You had brilliant friends as well, aren't they? Just extraordinary people.

1286
2:39:26 --> 2:39:26
Yeah.

1287
2:39:27 --> 2:39:28
Anyway, thank you so much, Philip.

1288
2:39:29 --> 2:39:33
Thank you again. I really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you.

1289
2:39:33 --> 2:39:36
And thank you for the fantastic work you've been doing.

1290
2:39:37 --> 2:39:39
You're welcome.

1291
2:39:39 --> 2:39:39
Yes.

1292
2:39:40 --> 2:39:41
Bye.

1293
2:39:41 --> 2:39:43
Thank you. Thank you, Philip.

1294
2:39:43 --> 2:39:44
Bye-bye.