of an inquest going through on a guy by the name of Roy Butler who died, you may have
seen it, it's been all over the place, who died five days after getting a vaccine.
I was in contact with the family and we set up a meeting for me to go down to Exford to
meet the family.
I suggested that they bring their solicitors along because it would only be fair because
they were being represented by a legal team.
Within a day or two, or rather the day before I had the meeting set up, I got a message
from my contact within the family, the brother, saying that the meeting was off, they didn't
want to meet me.
I said, why?
He said, well, we just don't want to meet you.
So I said, well, what I'll do is I'll send on the information that I got from Professor
Bakhti and I did that.
And then I rang him a couple of times and he wouldn't take my phone, he wouldn't take
my calls.
Who wouldn't?
He said he'd instantly took my calls.
So I firmly believe that the legal team warned them off me.
Now, what did they say?
Probably that I was a loose cannon and I was, I caused trouble and I'd only make things
worse for them.
Anyway, it appears now that the inquest has gone to return an open verdict in spite of
the fact that he died five days after the vaccine.
So it'll be very interesting because he kind of thought they were going to get some sort
of compensation.
I thought between the lines, I thought that there was an idea that there was going to
be some compensation or that.
It'll be very interesting now to see if in effect the, you know, whether what the verdict
is.
Yes, we're going to go.
Jerry, stop.
We'll talk some more about that.
Jerry, I would say that the open verdict is actually better than the other one that they
could have got natural causes because that's what they gave to.
Oh, no, it was suicide in the case of David Kelly, but he should have had an open verdict,
of course.
And so I don't know about you, your perception in Ireland, but open verdict in the UK is
OK.
I think I don't know enough about it to say.
Let's go.
Come on.
On we go.
Thank you, Jerry, for that.
But there's those inquests are so important.
And the transcript, as we've talked about of the UK inquiry into Covid response.
So everybody, welcome to Medical Doctors for Covid Ethics International.
I'm very excited because this is the last week of 5am starts and our guest today, Philip
Altman, Dr Philip Altman, he's got a 5am start as well because he's in Australia.
But Philip starts normally at 5am, Stephen.
So he's a good man.
And I'd rather be in bed.
But anyway, here I am with all of you lot.
If I'd been in the last week, Stephen, I could have waited until next week.
I started 6am next week.
Woohoo!
How exciting.
Anyway, so welcome to the end of October 7am.
Yes.
And somebody pointed out to me that New Zealand Daylight Saving started this weekend.
So they're one week ahead of Australia.
Oh, I didn't know that.
I didn't want that either.
So there you are.
Is that correct?
Yeah.
OK.
All right.
So welcome to today's discussion.
The New Zealand Daylight Saving Group was founded by Dr Stephen Frost over three years
ago with a desire to pursue truth, ethics, justice, freedom and health.
Stephen has stood up against government and power over the years and has been a whistleblower
and activist.
His medical specialty is radiology.
At this time, we remember Rainer Formick, German US lawyer who's currently incarcerated
in Germany, undergoing a show trial, has been in jail for almost a year after an illegal
criminal kidnapping through collusion of the Mexican government and German government.
I call out those two governments.
I call on him to be released as we all do here.
The show trial is a disgrace on any legal principles.
And Ryan Formick is a man who has fought for truth, ethics, justice, freedom and health.
If anyone has any updates on his situation, please put them into the chat.
I'm Charles Corvus, the moderator of this group.
I'm Australasia's passion provocateur.
And we love passionate people in these meetings.
I practiced law for 20 years before changing career 31 years ago.
And over the last 14 years, I've helped parents and lawyers to strategize remedies for vaccine
damage and damage from bad medical advice.
Bad medical advice is now the number one killer in America.
Bad medical advice.
I'm also the CEO of an industrial hemp company and industrial hemp is going to be a lifesaver
for us as humanity against the globalists who want to destroy humanity.
We comprise lots of professions here and we're from all around the world.
Many of us thought that vaccines were okay.
Now, many of us proudly say, yes, we are passionate anti-vaxxers.
And I will keep saying that Stanley Plotkin in the last couple of months published an
article, he the godfather, the alleged godfather of children's vaccines in America.
Now in his eighties, having been deposed by Aaron Ciri through the informed consent action
network orchestrated by Del Bigtree of the high wire, full credit to Del Bigtree and
his team.
Stanley Plotkin has now acknowledged in his article that no childhood vaccine in history
ever has been properly tested for safety and efficacy.
And anybody who tells you the contrary is deliberately ignorant.
If this is your first time, sorry, in other words, no vaccines for children.
Putting vaccines into children is essentially saying that God is a failure.
Correct.
If this is your first time here, welcome and feel free to introduce yourself in the chat
and where you're from.
If you publish a newsletter or podcast or you have a radio or TV show or you've written
a book, put the links into the chat so we can follow you, promote you and find you.
Philip Altman, put your sub stack link into the chat, please, so that people can easily
get it.
Most of us understand we're in the middle of World War III and that the medical science
battle is only one of 12 battle fronts.
Today, Philip Altman is going to be talking about the cunning stunts that governments
use on the legal battlefront.
No time to be tired.
We're four and a half years into a seven year war.
I assess we've got a lot of work to do everybody.
So look after yourself.
Do what needs to be done.
So you are in magnificent health.
Most of us understand the development of science and the science is never settled.
This meeting runs for two and a half hours after which for those with the time Tom Rodman
runs a video telegram meeting.
Tom puts the links into the chat.
If you are able to join, we will listen to our guest presenter, Dr. Philip Altman, for
as long as Philip wishes to speak.
And then we have Q&A.
Philip is going to be wonderful on Q&A with his background, which I will tell you about
in a moment.
Stephen Frost, by long established tradition, asks the first questions for 15 minutes.
This is a free speech environment with appropriate moderating.
Free speech is crucially important in a fight to preserve our human freedoms.
And in Australia, a new misinformation disinformation bill has been brought in to
literally ban anybody saying anything the government doesn't approve of.
So it is full attack on free speech in Australia.
And as most Australians would say to the government, they are talking bullshit.
However, we must fight against it.
If you're offended by anything, be offended.
We are lovingly not interested.
We reject the offense industry that requires nobody to say anything that may offend another.
Be ready with your responses when somebody says, Stephen, I'm offended by what you said.
And I have nine standard responses if you want that.
In fact, I'll put it into the chat.
Nine standard responses.
Be ready.
One of my standard responses when someone says they're offended by what I said,
I say, well, I'm offended that you dare tell me that you're offended.
So now we're both offended.
Happens all the time to me, Charles.
And what's your standard response, Stephen?
People saying I'm no, I'm joking.
And we also reject the triggering industry, the triggered industry.
Don't say something you might trigger somebody that is a BS industry as well designed to suppress
free speech.
We come with an attitude and perspective of love, not fear.
Fear is the opposite of love.
Fear squashes you and enslaves you.
Love, on the other hand, expands you, liberates you.
These twice weekly meetings are not just talkfests.
An extraordinary range of actions and initiatives have been generated from linkages made by
attendees in these meetings.
One, for example, is Albert Benavides and his VAERS database.
It was Jerry Waters in these meetings who helped to finance the establishment of that
excellent database that enables Albert to properly show the true state of carnage of
these COVID jabs and indeed any jabs.
If you have a solution or a product or links or resources that will help people put the
details into the chat, the meeting is recorded, is uploaded onto the Rumble channel.
And now welcome to our guest presenter, Dr Philip Altman.
Thank you so much, Philip, for giving us your time, wisdom and insights.
And for the purposes of the recording, I'm going to read your abbreviated curriculum
BTA.
Philip has expertise in the areas of clinical medical research and pharmaceutical drug
regulatory affairs in Australia.
For the past four years, he has shone a light on the many failures of governments and regulators
holding the degrees of bachelor of pharmacy, honors a master of science and doctor of
philosophy.
Philip's doctorate concerned the development of new cardiotonic drugs with lower intrinsic
toxicity compared to existing drugs, including the chemical synthesis and testing in various
animal models.
Philip has worked primarily within the Australian pharmaceutical industry since 1974.
So that's your 50th anniversary here, Philip, in relation to clinical trial design,
management and reporting in relation to planning new drug approvals, dealing with the secretary
of the Department of Health and the Therapeutic Goods Administration.
After many years of working within Big Pharma, Philip later became a senior industry
pharmaceutical consultant through his contract research company, which provides both clinical
trial and regulatory consultant services to pharmaceutical industry.
And that focused his experience in critically evaluating clinical trial safety and efficacy
data as submitted in complex new drug dossiers for international regulatory purposes.
This work saw Philip consulted by more than half of the multinational pharmaceutical companies
in Australia in various capacities with a focus on drug regulatory affairs.
Philip founded the Association of Regulatory and Clinical Scientists, which includes more than
2000 scientists, clinicians and associated health professionals involved in both clinical
trial and regulatory affairs in Australia and New Zealand, where that association continues
to be the foremost educational forum for both industry and government, including the TGA
personnel involved in clinical trials and regulatory affairs.
Philip's experience involves more than 100 clinical trials and lots more, lots more.
And he, Philip, in association with the TGA on behalf of pharmaceutical companies,
directed two major drug withdrawals in relation to public safety.
So Philip has a popular substack for four years. He has shone a light, as I said at the start,
on what we've been facing. And his topic today is that prior to COVID, it was against the law to
say any therapeutic was safe. The government said the COVID jabs were safe. How did the government
get around the law? So Philip, thank you for being willing to speak to us again. Philip has spoken,
I think, on two previous occasions. And thank you, Stephen Frost, again, for organizing this group
and for us, Stephen and I, for organizing Philip and getting him off his desk and talking to us.
Welcome, Philip. Thank you very much for having me.
And good morning. It's 5 a.m. It's still dark here.
Wow.
So I guess I can start with that topic. How did the Australian government say
in an unqualified way that the COVID-19 vaccines were safe?
When this all started, I was certainly on a big learning curve like everyone else,
because this was completely new. And when I heard the chief medical officer and other
senior bureaucrats in Australia start to say in an unqualified way that the COVID vaccines were
safe and effective, I knew that that couldn't be right. It basically couldn't be right
for two main reasons on its surface without even digging at any data.
The first reason was that the COVID-19 vaccines were provisionally approved
provisionally approved. Now that was a new regulatory pathway
for therapeutic goods in Australia. So as opposed to getting full approval
for drugs that following the submission of quality, safety, and efficacy data,
a drug was either rejected or fully approved. However, from 2018, a new regulatory pathway
was introduced. And that was the provisional approval where a company could submit partial
quality, safety, and efficacy data. And they could receive provisional approval
pending the supply of the outstanding data up to six years after the fact. Now
I always thought in the beginning when that was done
that that would apply to very few drugs. And it would normally apply by logic because of the
safety risk to special circumstances where there was no alternative or it was a potentially
life-saving drug that showed promise. And the potential recipient, the prospects were not
very good. It could have been new drugs for cancer or something like that.
But this was a provisionally approved drug.
And it was advocated either in the beginning or shortly thereafter
for everyone, not only for desperately
ill people, but for healthy people, for pregnant women, for breastfeeding women,
for children, and then for the elderly. And it was a provisionally approved drug.
And that didn't seem right to me. So that's the first point. And up until
even now, I don't think that's the first point. And I think that's the first point.
And that didn't seem right to me. So that's the first point. And up until even now
in Australia, for young children, the COVID vaccines are still provisionally approved. They,
in more recent times, approved the COVID vaccines for adults.
So that was the first reason that I was surprised at. The second reason was that I was
was well-trained within the industry. And later on in my career, I had to sign off on
marketing advertising for drugs that were sold by the company that I worked for.
And they had to get medical approval for any advertisement. So I knew something about the
Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code, things that you could say and you couldn't say by law. So
there is a Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code in Australia. And that code specifically said
you could not claim a drug or a therapeutic was safe, safe in an unqualified way.
And yet the Chief Medical Officer of Australia was saying repeatedly ad nauseam that these COVID-19
vaccines, these provisionally, they called them approved and they weren't approved.
They were provisionally approved. And there's a huge difference.
They said that these approved drugs were safe. And that, at that time, was against the law.
So I've actually been involved in a number of legal cases for
for individuals who were fighting the vaccine mandates and
and involved in larger companies, larger suits with the federal court here and
with the High Court of Australia. So I've been keeping touch with many lawyers. And
and one of the lawyers that I was working with when I commented that it was against the law
to say that these things were safe, he pricked up his ears and he said,
why do you say that? Where is that? And I said, well, it's in the Therapeutic Goods Advertising
Code. And I didn't have it at my fingertips at the time. But he dug around and pulled up the
advertising code. And to his credit, he actually found how they were able to get around it.
This lawyer is Jaden Beal. Very, very good. He's involved in a very important case in Queensland.
So Jaden sent me the
the
the amendment to the Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code word for word. And
John Scare, who is head of the TGA, in I believe it was June 2021,
single handedly just changed the advertising code to exempt COVID-19 vaccines from the
regulation that said you cannot claim a drug was safe.
So that really, really surprised me. Now that sets a huge precedent where
where a drug or a therapeutic, any therapeutic that does not is not supported
by the normal safety, efficacy and quality control information required
to support the approval of the drug could be put on the market.
And the claim can be made, the legal claim can be made that it's safe. And the public were told
it was safe. So the public
trust the TGA, the Therapeutic Goods Administration, at least they did then.
I did too. I was really surprised that TGA here
has standards equivalent to the US FDA and is one of the, has been
known as one of the best drug regulators in the world. And I knew a lot of the people
personally within the TGA. And they generally do a very good job. Yeah, I've had disputes with them.
I've gone to bat for multinationals to appeal decisions that were made by the TGA. And I know
from years of experience that
they're very good at what they do. They know what they're doing. And when I heard that
the chief medical officer, other bureaucrats, state health officers, chief health officers
in each state were saying and repeating the mantra, the COVID vaccines were safe and
effective without qualification, I was shocked, absolutely shocked. So
in a nutshell, that's how they did it. And to this day, I think most Australians and most
most Americans heard the same mantra. And they trust their drug regulators to keep them safe.
Well, after almost four years now, with the huge amount of information that we now know,
it is astounding that this mantra can continue to be repeated. Absolutely astounding.
Let me tell you that having worked in the industry for a long time, and I've been involved in a lot
of interesting cases, the drug regulators here and the US FDA have an incredible capacity to
keep abreast of the world literature. They have huge resources. They have people dedicated to do
this. And if I or anyone else launched an application, say a bibliographic application,
which is one type of application, usually applying to older drugs, where you rely on the literature
to support an application. If you don't present the full literature, that is the good, the bad,
and the ugly, and mention that and review that in your application, you are in trouble, because they
do their own research and they can pull up all the literature. And if you don't present
papers and literature that maybe does not support your application, you don't comment on that and
you hide it, you lose all credibility. So they know. And I've been involved in
cases where a single paper, even not a clinical type paper, but a laboratory-based paper,
suggested a toxicity which was new or unusual could cause a firestorm within the TGA and would
prompt them to contact the company with a please explain letter. We're talking here about four years
and thousands and thousands of papers and reports and literally millions of adverse drug reaction
reports and hundreds of thousands of reported deaths in association with the administration
of these vaccines that it is unparalleled in history and yet it has not prompted
the Australian TGA or the US FDA to send a letter to the company's concern or pick up the phone
and say please explain. You have 30 days or you have 60 days or 90 days.
Things like the rubbery white clots that have been reported all around the world
by embalmers, we all know about this. In the past, before COVID,
a single report like that would have normally triggered a drug regulator to make an inquiry.
We don't have single reports. We have hundreds and hundreds of reports. We have autopsies. It's all
published, this video. And yet the drug regulator would have been
a drug regulator. It's not asked a question about that. The recommendation now is
that people get their ninth booster. It seems incredible to me. So basically, Charles,
that covers all of them.
There's only about 10 bombshells in what you just shared over the last half hour.
So that is like, I don't know where to start with this outrageous attack on this industry that you
loved, that you thought was properly regulated, that you've spent 50 years in this industry.
So as you know, Stephen goes first while Stephen's collecting his thoughts. Are you there Stephen?
Oh yeah, sorry. I'm here. We just can't see you.
It's just that I've got the, that's it. That's great. So just before you, just to gather your
thoughts, Philip, I have a question for you. Can you tell everybody John Skerritt's current
position having retired from TGA? Well, right. So John Skerritt, who was
up until recently the head of the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration, has now joined
the peak, basically lobbying body in Australia. It was called, when I was
practicing and had my business years ago, was called the Australian Pharmaceutical Manufacturers
Association, the ATMA. Now it's called Medicines Australia. So he's representing
at a senior level the pharmaceutical industry in Australia. So he's on, he's a director of,
he's on the board of directors of Medicines Australia, the peak body representing the
interest of pharmaceutical companies. Yeah. And really it was, it's the first case.
We've all heard of the revolving door in the US where the commissioners are,
for the FDA, join industry. They're on fairly small salaries as commissioners to the FDA.
And then there's a decision made by the FDA for a company, they get their drug approved. And
shortly after that, these people pop up on boards of directors of those companies
that own the drug. And that was commonly called, and we all know it, as the revolving door. And
it's a real problem because there's a lot of money to be made. And these companies can afford to pay
huge salaries to these ex-commissioners who know people within the FDA who have good connections.
This seems to be routine. To my mind, it shouldn't be allowed. But the move by John Skerritt
was the first such move in Australia. And it actually doesn't surprise me because the way the
TGA was behaving, it's not the same TGA that I knew. In fact, up until COVID came along,
I didn't have a problem with the TGA. I held them in high regard.
I worked very closely with them over the years, some very, very difficult files,
lots of interactions, lots of submissions, countless submissions, and I was very happy
to be able to work with them. And I was very happy to be able to work with them.
Lots of interactions, lots of submissions, countless submissions. They were very, very good.
I mean, the requirements were really, really tough to prove quality, safety, and efficacy.
The requirements in Australia were really tough. Let me give you a simple example.
So, if you had a, just a simple example, say you had a sustained release tablet
for blood pressure, say, that the application was to take the tablet once a day to lower
your blood pressure, and that was approved. And the company then wanted to submit an application
to give half a tablet once a day to lower the dose. Well, you couldn't just apply for that.
Well, you could apply for it, but the TGA would come back and say,
oh, you want to break the tablet in two? Right. Demonstrate to us that the sustained release
characteristics from the matrix of that tablet, when you change the geometry of that tablet,
are the same within 5% or 10%. I forget the limits of the whole tablet. And you're giving
half the dose. Right? I mean, that is the fine detail that they drilled down to in terms of
quality. And I respect them for that. It's a good question. Why would you change the geometry of a
tablet that has a matrix and a coding around the tablet, just breaking it in half? Is it going to
behave the same? No, you have to prove that. The burden of proof is on the company.
So, that's a very simple example, a small example. But there are guidelines. And I must say that
when dealing with drug regulators, the regulators don't have rules.
They work to guidelines. And there are international guidelines. There's what's called
the International Conference on Harmonization. You can look that up online. Huge organization.
Thousands of people from companies all around the world contribute to the various committees. And
it takes years to develop guidelines for specific topics. And there's basically hundreds of topics.
And companies work to these guidelines. In Australia, we work to these guidelines. In the
U.S., the U.K., everywhere in Canada, you work to these guidelines. These guidelines are amended
from time to time in light of new knowledge. And this is why it would normally take something like
it would normally take something like seven to ten years to bring a new drug to the market
and cost billions and billions of dollars to conduct all the research to actually do it.
Well, that was good for me because I was a consultant, right? And the harder the regulations
became, the more important my job became. And a lot of companies came to me. In fact, I consulted
for probably more than half of the multinationals in Australia for one reason or the other.
So when this provisional approval system came about, and now it's being applied to many,
many drugs, it's been a mechanism to get lots of drugs. I don't know what the statistics are
right now in terms of the number of drugs that have adopted to choose that pathway.
But it's a huge percentage of the applications are now going down the provisional approval pathway.
And that is dangerous. That is very, very dangerous. There has to be a very good reason
to do it. Now, I realized in the beginning, everyone was petrified. The propaganda about
COVID-19 was everywhere. It was well organized and people were living in fear. And
I could sort of appreciate how they used the provisional approval system for the COVID-19
vaccines, but to claim that they were safe and efficacious when the data simply was not there.
And any data that they submitted was really deficient, as we now know.
Data was hidden. It's still being hidden. It was incomplete. And there have been serious,
serious accusations of fraud, which we all know about. Given all that now, for the
TGA here to not reflect and conduct an inquiry as to what's happened. And the government here
promised a royal commission before they came to power. They promised a royal commission
into COVID and the policies and everything else. Because we were one of the
worst treated countries in the world. Daniel Andrews, whose statue will be going up shortly
in Victoria, was responsible, the premier of the state of Victoria, for the longest lockdown
in history. It was brutal. I mean, people were being shot at close range with a rubber gun.
I mean, people were being shot at close range with rubber bullets.
There were people in demonstrations that were hit with directed energy weapons that I had never
seen the likes of before by a military in black uniforms without name tags. I mean,
this came as a huge shock. So, you know, before COVID, I was quite a happy guy playing tennis
and going out in my little boat. And the world was a great place. And it's just
it's just turned my world upside down. I cannot believe what's happened. And you have to appreciate
my perspective because to the average guy in the street, who now is seeing how wrong
things are going, they have their perspective. But when you really know what should have been done
like myself, and now I know what's been done and what's been going on in terms of the adverse
drug reactions that have been reported around the world, you can imagine it's hit me like a cement
truck. Yeah, I find it hard to believe. And it has to make me think that
how could this happen? And did this happen by incompetence? And I thought in the beginning,
maybe it was just fear and incompetence that was responsible for the mess that we're in.
And I was thinking like that for, I don't recall exactly now, but maybe the first six months or
seven months, I was just thinking, how could they be doing it? How could they be so incompetent?
But now it's not incompetence.
It's not incompetence because the facts are clear. And that is
what has really upset me and depressed me. And it is really hard to come to grips with, Charles.
It's just an unbelievable situation. Well, Philip, thank you so much for sharing
what this impact has had on you. You have had a storied career and thank you for speaking honestly
to us. Stephen, next 15 minutes is all yours. So I remember when you were last on Philip,
that was about 18 months ago, was it? From memory? November 2022, I think. Yeah. Yeah. So nearly two
years. So the way you deliver, I think you were less calm then almost two years ago than you are
today. But the calm delivery actually is a good lesson for me that I need to kind of take some
lessons from you. I agree with you about so the more outraged you are, the more likely you're
kind of to raise your voice and, you know, start saying the usual things, everything's outrageous
because actually you're lost for words. I understand what you're saying. So for me,
everything was turned upside down in 2020, just as you've brilliantly described now.
But I think that so I was telling someone only yesterday that I now and I've never said this
before that I had been realizing that I was thinking of things prior to the spring of 2020,
you know, so pre-COVID and post-COVID. So I've been dividing that without actually saying that
to and yesterday I said it for the first time to a friend that I think of everything in terms of
was it before 2020 or was it after? It's like the birth of Christ, you know,
and that's how big it was for me what happened in 2020. So I think that people have been
really affected by what happened in 2020. And so there are a lot of most people are,
how shall I say, they're just reacting to events they don't understand and to some extent they
don't care. But I'm thinking as a medical doctor have been thinking for a long time
of the possibilities and so a medical doctor has to hypothesize what could be happening.
You know, even in the realm of public health and my biggest concern, as far as public health is
concerned, is after all this psychological torture, propaganda, intense propaganda,
and censorship, people are not going to be normal after all this, even if it lasted for a few weeks,
but it's been going on for four years now. And I think that you and I, for example,
we knew that we had to do something. So we were very upset by what had happened,
but we weren't upset in the same way as people who didn't understand. So I, for one, I don't know
about you, Philip, but I thought that for a long time, I thought I was immune to the psychological
torture from which everyone was suffering because I understood it. But actually, I didn't quite
understand it as usual as human being, because I now realize that I was very driven about what I
needed to do. I knew I had to do something. I didn't know what to do. And so I was very
in a similar position. It took a while to take it in, the enormity of what we were seeing
and the disbelief. But eventually, we realized that actually it was true. The whole world had
been turned upside down, and they had the audacity to do what they did do. But I mentioned this
because these videos are seen later, after this live meeting. So I think it's important to say,
to create a record of our thoughts, and that's what we've done. So I knew I had to form a group.
I didn't know why. I had no idea. But I now realize that we unwittingly, if you like,
created a record. We haven't made too many mistakes. We haven't got a website,
so nobody knows what we're doing. And that has its advantages. But we've got a wonderful
understanding worldwide of what's been going on. I think now we're very privileged to have that
understanding. And all the people on this group tonight are here twice a week. Some come and go,
but I thank them for coming, because had they not come, then we wouldn't have created this platform.
But anyway, the point is, Philip, I think your testimony is very, very powerful,
not just about the regulatory authorities, the pharmaceutical. I just wanted to ask you,
why do you think that it wasn't so much about why would they ruin their reputation? You know,
the TGA in Australia and the FDA in America, why would these bodies ruin their reputations? Or
is the point that they wanted to ruin the reputations of these bodies so they could
drive anything through, for example, all the mRNA vaccines that they're now pushing through
everywhere and nobody can keep track of at all? Do you think that the idea was to destroy the
regulatory system? So we're wondering why they did it. How could they possibly do it? All those
people that you know personally at the TGA, why were they doing all this? You're thinking to say,
very confusing for you. But actually, unknown to each one of those, there was an agenda to destroy
the regulatory agencies. That was the agenda. So in the UK at the moment, the parallel thing,
you know, an analogy is that in the UK at the moment, nothing makes sense. And so you think
to yourself, you're trying to find an explanation for why a socialist, allegedly socialist prime
minister like Keir Starmer should come in. And the first thing he does is take the winter fuel
allowance from pensioners. It just doesn't make sense. But that's the point. It doesn't make sense
what the TGA did and the FDA. But that is what disturbs people, human beings, the very fact they're
destabilizing human beings. That's the agenda. Destabilize so that nothing makes sense.
So that they can control these people by destroying their humanity. That's what I think they're doing.
Yeah, it's a good question. And I have thought about that. And I it's a question I don't think
I can give you an answer for. And I'm very reluctant to pontificate about, you know,
how people were thinking because you can't ever really determine or know how people were thinking.
I mean, people said to me in the very beginning, and as we now know, this was a man-made virus.
So 100% of the data supports that. Anyone that says that it's not doesn't know what they're
talking about. There's actually not a scarik of data to say this came from a natural source.
And people said, we're asking me, especially in the first year, well, you know, what was this
man-made virus released on purpose? Well, I couldn't answer that because I just don't know.
And my answer to them at the time and still is now is that I don't know. But what I do know
is that they know the dangers of the virus. They know what is happening. And they know
that they know the dangers of the virus. They know what has happened. And whether it was released
by an individual or a laboratory as a planned release or just by mistake really
almost doesn't matter now. What matters now is the damage that's being done. Let's focus on that.
But it does matter a bit, Philip, because we need to know the motive to know how far they were
prepared to go and how far they're still prepared to go. So they're pushing the next pandemic.
So we need to hypothesize. So I can understand why you say, you know, you don't want to say this
because there's no scientific proof or, you know, you can't prove it beyond reasonable doubt or
beyond the balance of probabilities. But actually, we do need to think as human beings and trust our
instincts and people like you and me and others on this call tonight, we really need to trust
our instincts and we don't need proof before we start to investigate possibilities.
Yeah. Well, this virus was produced by gain of function research.
Well, we don't. I'm not convinced that that's true narrative. I think that could be
a limited hangout. But anyway, go ahead. Okay. Well, that's my belief. And that type of research
was outlawed under Obama. They got around it from what I've read. And that gain of function research
is now the basis for the development of SARS-CoV-2. And that research
is still ongoing in many parts of the world, including Australia. Knowing what we know,
knowing that the huge disaster that this has produced, it's still ongoing.
But Philip, we learned at medical school and I happen to remember it, although all the people
I qualified with haven't remembered it apart from me. I just can't believe it. I remember
a professor of immunology telling us that the deadly virus kills its host. Chris Witty at the
COVID inquiry, Chris Witty is the chief medical officer of England still, I think, and he was in
2020. And he said that he was talking about deadly viruses. And I thought, well, if Chris
Witty is talking about deadly viruses to scare the population, he can't have it both ways.
He may want to scare the British population still, but a deadly virus kills its host.
And that means that it can't spread if it kills its host. So the point is that whether,
in my opinion as a doctor, I'm allowed to have a medical opinion as a doctor,
the gain of function research is a kind of limited hangout to push the narrative that
future pandemics are possible. And I don't think they are. And also the gain of function research,
I was very suspicious about the way they were saying, oh, it's very illegal, you know, in the
United States, but they use taxpayers money in China. And some are other, nobody's responsible.
And I'm thinking to myself, you know, and JJ Cooey to his great credit, I don't know whether he did
it directly or whether I misinterpreted something that he said, but I started to think he, I thought,
said something on the lines of, I don't believe that they can do what they say they can do.
And I started to think, yeah, that would figure because actually, they don't need to be able to
do what they say they can do. They just need to generate the fear. And what better way to generate
the fear than to say that viruses could escape dangerous viruses, which have been created in
labs could escape from labs, you know, anywhere in the world. And, you know, and that's what they
were saying. So I thought, wow, whether JJ Cooey actually said that or whether he's I misinterpreted
something that he said, but it got me thinking about, is it possible that they just want to scare
people? And this was a brilliant way to scare them. You know, the whole concept of the whole
narrative of endless pandemics in the future, you know, of great concern to humanity. I don't
think it's true. I don't think there was a pandemic. I don't think that pandemics are possible.
And because you've got this interplay between transmissibility and virulence. So if you've got
a deadly or a very virulent virus, it can't transmit. And then it's certainly can't transmit
all around the world. So I think the deadly, the gain of function research is a ploy to feed into
the false narrative of endless pandemics in the future. And that is the point. I think for many,
many years, they've been aiming for 2020 to push the button on a very dangerous pandemic.
I think the pandemic notion is a fraud. Yeah. And that's what we need to protect.
There's a lot there to unpack. So yeah, to begin with, there's lots of good research that has been
done, especially in Australia, the so-called pandemic here was basically when you analyze
the data, the real data was equivalent to a serious flu. And no more than that. So you're
quite right about that. I take your point about the narrative about trying to scare people because
fear was at the base of the propaganda. And when people are living in fear, they can't critically
think. Even intelligent, well-educated people, and I know many of them couldn't even think,
couldn't think their way through this. Especially then and maybe.
Yeah. But just put in its simplest form, the creation, the design of the furan cleavage site
in the virus was something, according to my understanding, and I'm not a genomic expert
or a virologist, I have to declare, but that goal of creating heightened infectivity
by inserting a furan cleavage site into the virus was something, as far as I am aware,
that was designed. But- But did they do that? Do we know they did that?
Well, well, look, I think so. Well, I'm wondering, you see, so-
Yes, then. So I remember people saying they were looking into the spike protein, into the mRNA,
the lipid nanoparticle. Stephanie Sennett was one of them, and there was some other as well,
and I asked both of them the question, but how do we know this? And, you know, I think Stephanie
Sennett is absolutely brilliant. The only thing- Well, I won't say that. So, but the point was
that I realized I didn't think that she knew herself how we knew that these things were in
the injections, you know, and certainly not in all of them, and in which countries, you know,
and what percentage. So, and the answer was, eventually, she wouldn't answer. You can look at
the recording. It's still up there. So Charles has kind of- or his wife has kindly put them up,
and you can look at Stephanie Sennett's thing, and you can see, and she said,
well, they told us that they put- I said, but who is they? And she said, the CDC, I think I'm right
in saying the CDC, and the FDA. And I said, but there are enemies at the moment. And then Stephanie,
she's brilliant, but she kind of accepted what it seemed to me. And then she said,
well, let's take the other questions. So she didn't like my questions. You can watch it.
I'm not criticizing her. I'm just saying a lot of people made assumptions, or still make assumptions,
which surprised me, because they should start at the bottom, you know, how do we know this?
You just said something then, and I said, what was it? The Furing cleavage site, yes, famous
Furing. Yeah, how do we know that that's there? Well, I mean, I listened to David Martin,
Dr. David Martin, and- Oh, he doesn't like me.
And no, I can imagine that. But look, I do take notice of the patents that he refers to,
that are published, that are well known. The other point that, just to come back to your point,
which actually supports what you're saying, is that every level for biotech,
biowarfare lab in the world has leaked at one time or the other, right? There's no,
there's no, to use that word, safe level for biotech lab. They all leak. So that fits into
the narrative that you are suggesting. I don't think they're capable of any of it,
because a deadly virus kills its host, whether it's a naturally occurring virus or naturally
produced, or whether it's being produced in the lab by the biggest, most evil person in the world.
Yeah. You know, it's still the same, but people, the perception in the public is that,
oh, if it comes from a lab and it's leaked out, oh my God, we're in trouble. And by the way,
there are labs in Chester, in North Wales, you know, where it's sunk. And this is what they want
people to believe. So Chris Witty, I caught him talking about deadly viruses. I'm thinking a
deadly virus kills its host. It's never going to spread around the world, which is why all these,
you know, the African viruses, alleged viruses, if we believe in viruses, are so feared, but
they're nothing to fear because they're going to keep very local because they kill their host. And
even if they're just dangerous, you know, it's on a kind of spectrum, if you like.
Yeah. Actually, that name Chris Witty, Sir Chris Witty, I think.
Professor Sir Chris Witty. Yeah, but he can't get a woman, he's not married,
and he's not homosexual apparently. So what else is there?
So I've mentioned him a couple times in some of my affidavits because
when the government here and the US FDA were saying that Ivermectin was toxic horse paste,
right? We've all seen the famous tweet from the US FDA, and that was echoed here
a number of times. Chris Witty was on record 10 years prior to that saying that Ivermectin
was really a relatively safe drug. He was commenting on something else, and you can actually
go and see some of his quotes. And he was singing about how safe Ivermectin was, right? So I've used
that in some of my affidavits. But let me say that, because you've said a lot of things, but
COVID has an upside. It's a strange thing to say. But my favorite saying
of all time is every problem is an opportunity. You just have to look at it a little bit differently,
right? Absolutely. What's the opportunity here? Well, the opportunity for me was that I was
paddling along in my Matrix world, seeing things that weren't disagreeable with me.
Life was pretty good. But from my perspective, seeing the truth, and I think I'm seeing it for
what it really is, because I've spent my whole life specifically in this area,
seeing the lies that were perpetrated on the public repeatedly, not by a handful of individuals,
but organized worldwide in an orchestrated way, in a military fashion, with military precision
and effectiveness, perpetrated on the whole world, doing immense damage. It made me wake up and
start to think, my God, what else is going wrong here? Is this the first thing? Or is this just the
first thing that I've noticed? And it's inescapable. My conclusion is inescapable. It's the first thing
that I've noticed. And now I'm beginning to think. Sorry, so Philip, I don't know about you,
but I'm now wondering whether we ever got to the moon. And I read a tweet today, which pointed out
that we can't even get 400 miles away from the Earth now. But in 1969, we allegedly got to the
moon 240,000 miles away, which is nothing, of course, by the standards of the universe. But
anyway. Yeah. Well, there is a problem there in that obviously we've been
sold upon on many occasions. You know, how our war started and
sure, there's been some mass destruction and various political assassinations and
Russiagate and all sorts of things. We're all, I think, coming to realize that the media is
highly controlled and cannot be trusted and should never have been trusted for many decades.
And what's happened to medicine, what we're seeing now is just the culmination
of a grand plan, which has been in effect for many decades. And that's the realization.
Unfortunately, so many people cannot come to grips with that. From an emotional point of view,
they're so invested in their career and what they've been doing their whole life.
It's from a psychological, from an emotional point of view, they can't face it.
Exactly. I have friends, I have friends, close friends who know what I do or basically know what
I do, know my position and have been jabbed and injured. And they don't even, when we're on the
tennis court, they don't even raise the issue. No, exactly. It's weird. So I've got friends as well.
It is so weird. It does my head in. Yes. And I look, look,
I have to say to you that throughout my life, you know, I
was interested in academic stuff and everything else. But I was within the pharmaceutical industry,
you know, really a backroom guy, right? You would never hear from a person like me. My worst
fear in life, my absolutely worst fear in life was public speaking.
Me. When I had my consultancy, you know, I knew my stuff
and I was the go-to guy in Australia as a pharmaceutical consultant for many years.
But I could have promoted my business and gone to meetings and stood up and said,
I was petrified. Me too. And here I am speaking with all these people. I speak with sometimes
hundreds of people at a time now. I've actually had to force myself to do it.
And me too. Philip, I absolutely, and people like us need to find their courage and do exactly
what you've done and what I've tried to do. You're such a calm speaker, Philip. You are able to take
human beings with you. I'm a little bit more excitable and I'm not too diplomatic sometimes.
And I just get it wrong. I have good intentions, but I just get frustrated when people don't want
to hear. Well, actually, I'll be honest with you. I have to say what my truth is, even to my friends
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
way I know to hang on to my identity and my humanity. And I knew that was slipping away from
me in 2020 and 2021. Well, no, I didn't actually. But in 2022, I suddenly realized that I was
created in response to this. I hated seeing the masks. So I stopped going out to see the masks.
I created my own world and I thought, well, I'm not scared of this, you know. And but then I
realized actually the worst thing you can do to human beings is isolate them. And of course, the
lockdowns are about isolation. And that was pure evil in my head. So every day, I was in a state
so every doctor in the world should have been demanding to know what was in the in the injections.
We don't even know now what's in the injections. And every doctor in the world should have known
that human beings are highly social animals and should never ever be isolated. Therefore,
lockdowns can never be justified. And in the United Kingdom now, in September 2024,
they're still saying the essential message to come out of the COVID inquiry in the United Kingdom
is that millions of people of all ages were let down by the government's response to COVID.
We got it wrong. We got the lockdowns too late or not, not harsh enough. And we need to do better
next time. So we need to push back because the United Kingdom, even though it's not militarily
very powerful these days, it still has huge influence, which it doesn't deserve, in my opinion,
at the moment, the way people are educated here. But it still has a lot of influence. It's got the
language. And it has credibility that the US lacks and even Australia lacks. So we know that
the UK is the belly of the beast. I think there's so much, Philip, I could talk to you about it.
But I think we've said enough. I think we've said enough. We've sown the seeds. So people, hopefully.
Yeah. Look, I appreciate your comments.
Why am I doing this?
At my age, I could have a much more comfortable life.
Absolutely.
Not doing this.
Thank you for doing it, Philip. All of us think that.
But having said that, I haven't had to pay a personal price for doing this. I just had to
satisfy my own conscience that I was doing the right thing. And of course, I care about my kids
and my grandkids. It's about them and about me.
How can this go on? And there is a plan. I'm convinced that this is going to get worse,
that the powers that be are planning. They've used the playbook here and it's going to be extended
and that's what the UN is up to right now as we speak.
Absolutely. So, Philip, I think the most helpful way for people like you to think is possibly to
think of COVID, the climate change nonsense, the Ukraine War, the pipeline explosion, a thermonuclear
explosion in the center of Europe and everybody looks the other way, amazingly. I think that these
are Trojan horses for totalitarianism. They're trying to create chaos. They're trying,
in particular, in my opinion, nothing makes sense and they are aiming for nothing to make sense,
which is, and the public in the UK are incredibly confused and behaving like children, I have to say.
But thank you so, I wanted to ask you, you're American, aren't you, Philip?
Yes, I do have dual passports. I came to Australia when I was 16 years of age. So,
I lived most of my life in Sydney. We just recently moved just south of Sydney.
I see.
But I've spent just about all my life in Australia.
But did you come from Kansas? Was it Kansas or Tennessee?
No, no, from Seattle.
Ah, Washington state, no. Okay. And I just wanted to ask you, sorry, these questions have gone on
rather long, but I think it's very important what you're saying. You mentioned Russiagate.
I just wanted to tell you that there is someone still, yes, on the call, Dr. Jerome Corsi,
who stopped Russiagate. He stopped the Mueller investigation. They offered him a plea deal to
go along with the narrative, you know. And if he accepted the plea deal, federal indictment,
this was threatened, he would go to the prison. He wouldn't go to prison if he accepted the plea
deal. But if he didn't accept the plea deal, oh, here he is, Jerome Corsi. So, he's absolutely
brilliant. He said to them, I will not lie before God, even if I have to go to prison for the
rest of my life. And guess what, Philip? They didn't indict him. Isn't that a brilliant story?
But also, he's at the center of Dr. Andrew Paquette's incredible research on the election
fraud in the United States and other countries around the world, including UK and France,
and probably Australia. Jerome, do you want to say a few words or not?
Yes, well, thank you. I mean, I've been listening to the conversation. It's been fascinating.
And I agree entirely that I did resist going to, I would not take the plea deal
because I could not lie. And it did not indict me. And that closed the Mueller investigation.
I think it takes that level of resistance to put these people to stop this. But it is global.
I also, it's interesting. This year, I published a book with David Mantek on the Kennedy assassination,
which has done quite well, but it has the optical density measurements of the x-rays. Dr. Mantek is
a radiation oncologist. And the three x-rays that are in the archives have all been altered
to erase evidence of frontal shots. But yeah, you can see two frontal shots. One hit Jack Kennedy
in the temporal bone on the right-hand side of his head and blew out the back of his head. You
can see clearly the entrance wound. Another bullet hit at the forehead at the hairline.
You can see the fragments of the bullet breaking up across the top of his head
with the largest fragment at the back and not exiting. So the book has been very well received.
But it shows over 61 years, the CIA, the government has been lying about this
and getting away with it and with the open cooperation of the mainstream media.
So I think worldwide, we're realizing the power of the intelligence agencies. And now
with what Dr. Andrew Paquette has found, which he's found algorithms in the official state
databases, voter registration databases in the United States, that are intelligence agency quality
that allow for the creation of non-existent voters to get valid state IDs and to be put into the
database as potential mail-in ballots that can be called upon by the perpetrators of this scheme
to cast a mail-in ballot, which then has a valid state ID number and that will show a valid
going through the tabulation is valid. That vote will certify even though the voter doesn't exist.
And we're finding these algorithms in many states. So the state databases and the states don't seem
to know this or are acknowledging, not acknowledging that they know it, but our databases in the United
States are filled with double records, clones, records that don't have a registration date or
have a registration date before somebody was born. I mean, our voter roles in the United States are
intentionally a disgrace and are filled with non-existent voters or people with multiple
registrations. And as we're writing about this, there's a website we've dedicated to it, which is
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.
And we're posting a lot of information on this and we'll be posting more in October,
but it is absolutely clear that the elections since 2007 when these algorithms first started
appearing, I don't know how many legitimate elections we've had or how many people have been
put into office by utilizing these algorithms and they appear to be worldwide. So in the EU,
the voting follows the pattern that the first ballot for the EU commission, the conservatives
do very well. The second ballot, they say the left woke up and is surging. Of course, the left wins
in the second ballot, but you call up Europe, which I did, and there's no surge in the polls.
They said, Dr. Corsi, the surge is in the computers. So I don't know that we've had fair elections
worldwide going back now 15, 16 years or going back maybe 18 years. And the intelligence agencies,
I think, are now running our elections. And so that's a very frightening thought.
So you just said something there, Jerome. You said the surge is in the computers,
a bit like the virus is in the computers.
Right. The control of-
Crazy, isn't it? So computers are the enemy.
Well, the computer data, which can be rigged or falsified or manipulated,
is key to a lot of the government control and the censorship that goes along with it.
If you dare to oppose it or if you dare to criticize it, you're risking your freedom.
These are issues that I think we're beginning to be aware of them worldwide.
Jerome, can I just take a minute to ask you something that's really important? Because
we've got this election coming up on the 5th of November. A lot of people on our side, as you
know, they doubt that Trump can do much to help humanity. I prefer to be hopeful. We have to have
some hope about something. And one of the things I hope is that Trump will do 50% maybe of what he
says he will. But I'm so afraid that human beings, you know, when someone's dying, the family,
even, or at least all the family, understand what's happening. And then when, you know,
it's obvious when you kind of look at it coldly that the patient's going to die, but the family
is surprised when the patient does die, even though they're half their body weight, you know,
by the time they're not all people, but some people. So what I'm worried about, really worried
about is I remember that election night in 2020. And I went to bed thinking Trump's won. And then
I woke up in the morning, I was stunned that he hadn't won. And so I think that was election
fraud. People say, Oh, Trump's crazy, you know, he's claiming that he lost, he didn't never lost
the election. I don't think he did lose the election. But guess what, Jerome, we've got this
information now about Andrew Paquette. You kind of made the information from Andrew Paquette
palatable to the public, you're able to explain it in a way that people understand. But my concern
is, and I know I've been trying to nail you down on this for weeks now. I'm concerned that we,
the people who need to know about this, i.e. Trump's team, and RFK Jr. and all the rest of them,
Tulsi Gabbard, and whoever, all the people who, they're just hoping that the gap between Trump
and this crazy woman from Hawaii, I think originally, isn't she? Kamala?
I think she comes from Canada originally, but I mean, it's a complicated personal story.
So I'm just worried that everybody's hoping that the gap is so large, you know, that it's much
bigger than the media portraying. But of course, you and I know the reason why they have the gap
small officially in the media, so that actually, it's more plausible that she has beaten Trump,
you know? Listening to her, I don't think any human being is, you know, okay, maybe
a few of them on the Democrat side are going to be impressed with her. She doesn't even make sense.
There's no way that she can be anywhere near Trump. But obviously, there's so much
negative propaganda about Trump. But what I'm trying to say, Jerome, we know that there is a
strong likelihood, well, there's proof that there's been election fraud in the United States and in
other countries. And has that got to Trump's team and all the people who should know about it?
Because it's no use messing about now. We're going to wake up on November the 6th, and maybe the same
thing again. Oh, Kamala won, very surprisingly, but she won, and it was on the computer. It wasn't in
the votes. And then we'll be kicking ourselves that we didn't make more noise about it before.
I think that increasingly, the Trump team does know about it, and that they are aware of it.
There's a lot more going on in the United States right now to get,
to have these elections monitored, and a lot more preparation for challenging these elections,
so that they're not going to be able to certify them as quickly as they want to.
In other words, I think in states where there are algorithms, if they vote for Kamala,
we'll immediately go in and file suits to challenge that there were irregularities that have to be
checked. And we'll press for that. Now, I don't think they're going to get away with it as quickly
this time as they did the last time, because it's the same thing with magic tricks. Once you've
seen the misdirection, you know how the trick is done. It's all perception that this is going to be
caught and seen much more easily this time, and there's a lot more people who are ready to pounce
on it. But why are the elections allowed to go on, Jerome? If you think that the election fraud
has been proved, and Andrew Paquette thinks that too, and there's an algorithm there which
shouldn't be there, why isn't the whole of America alerted to this? Because it's no use
arguing after the event, after the election has taken place, and Trump has lost. And then you go
into courts and judges who lack courage, who will just find in favor of the new president.
This scheme is so far advanced, it's hard to stop. It's like it would be hard to stop another
pandemic if it came along, and we had the same rerun, especially if there was a more
lethal pathogenic effect, if more people were dying, and you'd have the same psychological
reaction you did before from the populace in general. So I mean, these things are very
difficult to stop or turn back. I think it's just a matter of increasing awareness, which is
increasing and making it harder at this point for the fraud to occur.
So Jerome, why don't you get yourself interviewed by Tucker Carlson and people who can
spread the message? Because I don't think many people in America know about this.
We've tried repeatedly to get in front of Tucker Carlson, and people have spoken to him about the
algorithms. People have spoken to Elon Musk about the algorithms. Many of these people themselves
are concerned about retaliation, and they're concerned that they will be charged with
crimes or misinformation or censored. Even Elon Musk, I think, is concerned about retaliation.
With the Justice Department largely in control of the criminals, largely in control of political
we've lost control of our justice system. Our justice system is 100% political. It's just a
matter of fighting this into realizing that it's so far advanced that I don't know if there is an
immediate solution. Like stopping the election is not going to happen, and so therefore the
algorithms are going to get used. Well, putting out our side of the story, our propaganda,
if you like, in the face of all their propaganda, it seems to be very reasonable to me, but I don't
hear anything. Well, it's taking hold with millions of people, and it is making an impact.
But again, it's like the awakening is going to take time because people are seeing.
I think Kamala Harris is so tremendously unpopular, and I do think that there will be
a surge from Trump that's going to make it harder for them to steal because we've revealed the
algorithms and people are aware of them now. It's going to be harder for them to be used,
and be harder for them to be used successfully. I think challenges to it will be more prepared
in advance before elections get certified. There was just a judgmental decision, I believe,
in Arizona just this past week that an election could not be certified if there were challenges
to it, that were legitimate challenges to voter fraud. And there's going to be a lot of challenges
to voter fraud if what happens in 2020 begins to happen again in 2024. So I don't think it's going
to go unchallenged. I don't think. Yes, but eventually, whoever wins the election, so in
this case, the fear is that Kamala will win it. This Chinese totalitarian, she is going to win it,
and it's going to be extremely difficult to turn over an election in the United States.
It's the same kind of thing. If they try another pandemic again, there's again millions of people
who are aware of it. They're not being successful getting these jabs taken, increased by all the
jabs for... Let me call you right back. All these jabs that are coming on now for
boosters are not being taken. So there's a fundamentally different awareness now
that the pandemic, the vaccines are killing people, and there's increasing awareness of it,
I believe. More so than there was in two years ago. Okay. So anyway, I bet it not. So we have to
respect the guest. I wanted to announce that we have Meredith Miller, we have offered a contract
to her for publishing, and I am setting up being able to publish books now in Europe as well.
So we're going to have an acquiring editor in Europe that will be working with me
to get European contracts for books, as well as to publish in the United States, first published
in the United States, as well as in American authors. So I've made an advancement on that,
and I will be able this week to, I believe, appoint someone who will be an acquiring editor
working with me in Europe, will be able to work directly with European authors. So I have advanced
that. Well, Philip, I think maybe a candidate for you, Jerome. It could well be. A wonderful
storyteller. Could well be. I would be very interested in as a compilation of these stories
from around the world of resistance. Absolutely. Yeah, that'd be great. Philip could edit it,
but we could have a whole group of people from the different countries
talk about resistance and what they've faced. But I'm going to have to also beg off now. I have a
podcast coming up very quickly. I've very much enjoyed listening. Thank you, Philip, for
I've been listening for the entire time, and it's been compelling.
Yeah, thank you so much, Jerome. JJ Cooey, tomorrow night, Jerome. And he quoted,
we don't even want to get very excited. Unquote. So if JJ Cooey is excited,
that's going to be something else tomorrow. I think. Is it tomorrow? Yeah. Oh, no, not tomorrow.
The day after. Sorry. Tuesday. Tuesday. Yes, Tuesday. OK. Yeah. Thank you very much. I'll
plan to be in attendance. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you so much. Yes. So John Lukacs, sorry to be so
long, John. And there was Daria and then there was someone else as well, but the hands gone down.
Who was that? Does anyone remember?
John, you there? Yeah, I'm ready. Who was the third person? Can you remember, John?
There was someone. Anyway, hopefully they'll remember.
I think it was Anders Brunstad. Yes. Thank you, Jeremy. Thank you. It was. Yeah.
Go ahead, John. Philip, are we ready to do something? I've got something for you.
I've been passing it out gratuitously. And I'll put it in the chat for you. OK.
I've written two articles on this. I'll just let you take those in. But this is the key.
This is what they suppressed. It's a pattern. The pattern of anaphylaxis is just not well understood.
It's conflated with allergy. It's its own thing. And it's immutable. Charles Richet
is the key to this whole thing. This is a bulletproof argument. And it leads everywhere you want it to.
All the things that people are talking about, all the systemic disease that's going on,
the allergies that are creeping in everywhere, this is due to an anaphylactic pattern. So if you just
get well versed with that, it's your whole argument. The whole house of cards goes down with this.
So I've been trying to get people to notice this. And Sasha Ladoeva and Katherine Watt just noticed
it. It's been a couple of years since I wrote a whole book on it. I'm going to give you that book.
Okay.
And so the other thing is just I'd like to talk with you offline a little bit about some things
that I'm working on or have been working on. I'll throw them into the chat just to,
you know, since you're an expert on clinical studies and things like that,
I'd like to know your opinion on this if you have one. That is a clinical study on cancer
and something I've been trying to repeat. And then I have some other things. But if it would
be possible, if you think you'd have the time maybe to have an offline conversation.
Sure, sure. That's fine. I'll put in...
Where are you? Where did you go? Charles knows my email.
There's mine. Drop me a line where we can work something out.
Oh, I see. I see. John.
I can send it to you now.
Philip, did I have the correct email address for you, Philip? Or did I have
your second email address? I can't quite remember. So
without giving it if you don't want to give it, can you just remind me what's before the at?
Yeah, this is Stephen speaking.
Yes, it's me. Sorry. Yes. Sorry.
Let me just put it in.
Excellent.
There. It's just gone off to Stephen Frost. So yeah, that's interesting. So
there's been a lot of dissecting of the adverse drug reaction data.
Some of the stuff that I've really found very interesting was... It's hard to get,
hard to get, but it's been analyzed by some people of Rose... Jessica Rose.
She's Canadian.
Jessica Rose.
By Jessica Rose. About the time course of events of the deaths, of the sudden deaths,
whether sudden deaths and there's more long-term deaths. So I think you have to look at them a
little bit differently. The things that are causing sudden death, and by that I'm referring to...
It's Jessica Rose.
The things that are causing sudden death to me as a pharmacologist are probably
quite different to the things that are causing the long-term death. And you're referring to
the anaphylactic reactions. Now, I listen very closely to a colleague of mine who we've both
presented in Parliament House here in Canberra about the safety or lack thereof of the vaccines.
And that fellow is Dr. Jeff Payne. G-E-O-F-F Payne. He's a real expert on endotoxins.
And he's of the opinion. And if you read his substack, if you go into his substack,
he's very active. He talks about the level of endotoxins. Now, endotoxins are
white for white, one of the most dangerous substances known to man. And endotoxins are
impurities in some pharmaceuticals, in the vaccines. They are in the vaccines,
and they do have a limit. It's an arbitrary limit. And as we all know, the process
that these vaccines were made by for the initial vaccines that were used in the trials,
for most of the trials, was different to the manufacturing process used to produce
vaccines for the world market. And a lot of that
wasn't disclosed and is still a bit of a mystery. The drug regulators,
when it was reported that there were high endotoxin levels in the vaccines in certain batches,
arbitrarily raised the level of endotoxins in the vaccines.
The release limits for endotoxin that was done in Australia. Now, the data to support that,
I believe, was non-existent. And this is very dangerous because endotoxins can kill you instantly.
Can I interrupt you for a moment? It's not endotoxins necessarily, very broad term.
It is a protein. Any protein that's parentally administered.
I understand. Yeah. What I'm saying to you is that, yeah, you could be very, very right. It could be
just a protein. But I think the other thing that needs to be looked at, and Jeff Payne has convinced
me of this, if you read his sub stacks, is that the endotoxin issue is a real issue as well.
It could be in addition to what you were thinking about.
Yeah. Well, that's a very measured response, Philip. The great thing about you is you don't
reject what people say when it's new to you or maybe new to you. You actually take it on
board and consider it. So that's great. Yeah. Look, I've learned in this space,
there's so much noise and so much that I really hate to use the word misinformation or
disinformation. One has to be very, very careful. A lot of people do listen to what I say, and
they have lots of opinions, right? And I think we're going to get there in the end if we're
sure and steady. Absolutely. So I think, Philip, I think you're very humble. You're very humble,
and that is required in these very uncertain times, in my opinion. I don't understand why
so many people are so certain about what they think about whatever, you know, everything.
Here's what I'm certain about. Two guys got a Nobel Prize for opposing theories that cannot
both be true. All right. So Charles Rochet got his in 1913 for documenting this anaphylactic pattern.
Drew Weissman got his last year, okay, for saying something completely opposite. Wow.
Who's right? Well, you look at the language. You know, what the, I've got it written down somewhere,
what his Nobel was awarded for was a safe and effective mRNA protein shot.
He's not, I mean, it's news speak, so anybody can go back and take that away from him.
I'm challenging doctors, everyone that I come across, to go and do it,
because he can't reproduce, he can't prove that. It's a malicious statement.
A malicious statement.
You see, it's a fallback position. They're going to say that Charles Rochet was wrong, or
Drew was right, or, oh, we just don't have enough studies, you know, I mean, it's crap.
So how does the Nobel committee justify, okay, there's 100 years between them, is that right?
More than 100 years.
Yeah, it's called this, you know, enough of these makes the world go around, Steven. I mean,
everybody's bought and paid for, you know, this.
Well, yeah, but it's not just about money.
Well, it kind of is. I mean, you know, it's, it's, it's, perhaps, right? I mean, look, we're,
we're devolving here in the US into an extreme version of oligarchy.
Go read politics by Aristotle. It's a one-way street, okay? The corruption creeps into the
democracy and the rich basically run things out of their own self-interest instead of for the common
good. It's going to collapse. It's an unstable, evil twin of aristocracy, basically, or polity.
They all devolve into oligarchy and then they fail. They're going to wreck everything. That's
what they're doing. Yeah. So you don't do it by voting. They've already got that covered. I mean,
yeah. So it seems to me, Philip, that times have to get worse before they get better.
But even then, when everybody's in a state of Stockholm syndrome or a large
percentage of the population in a state of Stockholm syndrome, even those people who seem
to be functioning reasonably well, and then you've got mind control, you know, if we're seeing
everything through the lens of mind control, including the people on this call, then there
isn't. It seems to be difficult to sort anything out. But having said that, maybe it doesn't all
depend on logic. So I think human beings, when they're faced with a threat, they kind of get
together and work things out. And eventually, the empire fails or the country fails, or there's a
revolution and nobody knows where it came from. The historians come along and tell us that this
happened because of that. But was that the reason? Anyway, let's go on to the next. So Daria is next
and Daria, I think I'm right in saying has discovered a god or rediscovered god in the last
four years. Well, I say I got a lot closer. I don't think I ever, you know, it feels like a
comet, you know, I was really close to the sun, you know, when I was growing up, then about the
time I was 20. Actually, before that around time I was 14, I just went into the world, I worked on
Sundays, you know, I stopped observing. And in 20 ended well through 2020 to 2021. With all the
madness going on. Somehow I got sort of drawn back in and found myself praying the rosary again,
taught myself how to pray it in Latin. Three months later, I found a Latin mass church and I
have been faithfully attending ever since and studying a lot of theology, which is
not something I expected I'd ever do. But there are so many important concepts from a philosophical
standpoint that are consistent with proper spirituality, if you want to call it that.
Daria is a neurosurgeon, Philip. She has the background, she is a neurosurgeon.
So well, last time Philip was on, he and I talked about my experience in pharmacy too,
because I'm a licensed pharmacist. And when I was in college, I actually worked at Eli Lilly. So I
at that time, I was in the environmental analysis, environmental waste analysis lab,
and quality control was everything. You had to be accurate about what you did, especially since our
test results were sent to the EPA. And so it was a company that really had high standards back then.
And that was in up through 19, how long was I there until I went to Indianapolis? No? Up through
1983, when I graduated pharmacy school and went to med school. So that's when I was working there,
when I was in college. But Philip, I wanted to say thank you from the pharmacological angle,
especially having had so much emphasis on scientific method in my undergrad. I worked with
Dr. David Nichols, who was a medicinal chemist who worked on psychotropic medication research,
especially looking at hallucinogens. So I worked with him. And again, that scientific method
discipline, you can't deviate from it and expect to answer any questions. So it was the same thing
when I saw these peculiar comments coming out of regulators that it's safe and effective. It's like,
where's the evidence? And even before the vaccine was released, or I don't want to call it a vaccine,
from Pfizer, I looked up the Pfizer white paper on their mRNA shots. And I did that before they were
released, because that information was available. And I'm like, Whoa, this is not good. The genetic
side of it was not a good sign. And then when I looked into the studies and how superficial a lot
of information was, and even in their own white paper, Pfizer said, this has not been studied in
pregnant women. So what happens? Oh, it's, they're pushing it into pregnant women left and right.
It's literally ridiculous, you know, to see what happened. And so that complete abandonment of
scientific discipline and integrity, it betrayed all of us, Philip, you know, betrayed us in
the pharmacy world, it betrayed us in the medical world. And I know people spoke up. And a lot of
them, one of the people that probably was on the inside was Kerry Mullis, who got, I believe it was
the Nobel Prize for his PCR testing research. No, no, he won the PCR technique. The technique. Thank
you. Yeah, yeah, research in the technique. He was going around saying that under no circumstances,
should his technique be used as the basis for a diagnostic test for a viral illness.
And that probably cost him his life. August 2019. Right. Again, ahead of the game. So Philip,
you're right. This, I do believe with you that a lot of this occult work was being done prior to
getting sprung on the planet and all the people. And then they were all blindsided by the catastrophic,
I'll call it Mockingbird media, parroting whatever the government told them to say about this horrible
pandemic that wasn't. And we've had many discussions on that in the past. But as you were speaking,
it occurred to me that at least part of the possibility of people not speaking up,
besides signing non-disclosure agreements, maybe being subtly threatened or coerced or extorted in
some way, people working in these research labs all over had to keep a lid on it for a number of
reasons. But conversely, what is the possibility that it was compartmentalized? In other words,
like the Manhattan Project was, nobody knew, except maybe Oppenheimer, that there was all this work,
this body of work on the Manhattan Project for a nuclear bomb was done all over the country,
possibly outside of the USA as well. But the different areas where this was being worked on
were all separated. So no individual researcher knew that their work was going to be applied to
this deadly end. And I'm wondering if a similar Manhattan type project is feasible for something
like this to come together with first the pseudo plague being the COVID-19 infection, supposedly,
which was a coronavirus. I'm like, it's a cold virus. What the hell's going on? And people were
freaking out. And then it was all to create the hype, eliminating our access to actual
effective medicine, which would have precluded the ability for the pharmaceutical regulators to
clear this experimental shot for use, because it couldn't be cleared based on the rules,
if there were effective alternative treatments. So people like Dr. Zelenko from day one was using
his effective alternative treatments that he used for years without question on his blue patients
and everyone else. And guess what? They did well. Very few people died. Some people were immune
compromised and higher susceptibility with advanced age and multiple medical problems
did not survive, but they too would not have survived the flu. And the other thing that
suggests this deception is that sort of smashing of the effective alternative treatments that were
being deployed in 2020 and being discredited and have been called fake news. And then you throw in
all the censorship that happened and people were shut down that were trying to speak the truth
and others were just persecuted. But do you think it is possible? This is my question, that
this type of compartmentalization may have happened where people of ethical goodwill
were not aware that it got this bad. And then you look at someone like, I went back and looked up
how early was Dr. Malone publishing on mRNA and it was 1985 and he was researching
mRNA technology and I don't know if they called it vaccines back then, but studying these
effects on cancer cells. And I believe his initial research from looking at his old papers going back
to 1985 was to look at cancer and possibly a way to treat cancer. But that's not billions of people
around the planet. It was supposed to target a small group of people to try and intervene so
they can get rid of their cancer with the immune system. And again, his work was obviously further
expanded and he did eventually speak up. People have different thoughts about Dr. Malone, but at
least he's got a paper trail. He has a research scientific publication paper trail. So if a lot of
people of good integrity were not deceived, bought off, threatened, were they possibly
just compartmentalized? What do you think of that? Thanks.
Right, right. Good question. Good question. There's a person online here, Dr. Jerry Brady,
who could answer that question as well. Jerry and I published, as well as with some other people,
a paper in early, in January 2023 in the Brownstone Institute, if you want to look it up.
If you want to look it up, I'm the senior author, but Jerry and I basically drafted the paper.
We were the core authors and it dealt with how these products, I won't call them pharmaceuticals
because they're actually classified as countermeasures by the US Department of Defense.
This is not a conspiracy theory or anything like that. This is from published information.
It was the US Department of Defense which was in command and control of the development of the
mRNA vaccines. There were literally hundreds of sub-manufacturers. The image that the public has
is that companies like Moderna and Pfizer and Novavax and Johnson & Johnson and so forth
had these bright ideas and went away and developed these vaccines in record time. The
Project Warp Speed, what was under the control of the US Department of Defense and covered by
legislation including the PREP Act. Sasha Latapova has written extensively on this
and that's where I got a lot of my information and Katherine Watt as well to give her fair due.
It explains an awful lot because in my humble opinion, the
US FDA wasn't really performing its role as a drug regulator. It was theater. They
had the appearance of being the authority to evaluate and control these things but they weren't
really in charge. The people at the table who were really making the decisions
was the US Department of Defense. So it was a matter of national security. Now you can argue
was that a noble lie? Were they doing it for the right reasons? Were they doing it for the wrong
reasons? You can make up your own mind about that but all I can say to you is that the usual
I can say to you is that the usual logical, necessary ethical guidelines that should have
been used to evaluate these products, these countermeasures which they called pharmaceuticals,
which they still call pharmaceuticals, were not used.
They just weren't and they still are not used. I believe the governments
and the bureaucrats are restricted by what they can say under national security arrangements
and intelligence which trumps everything else. Unfortunately, given that situation,
we can no longer trust what the drug regulators say. Whenever they say a drug is approved,
it's safe and efficacious, you have to question everything. How can the average person in the
industry know? I mean, I didn't know when I was in the industry. I didn't really know
for a number of months. You know, well into 2020 before I really made up my mind,
I was on a learning curve. No one knew about mRNA vaccines. I wasn't a genomic expert. I've
never been trained in genomics. So what would I know? I was on a big learning curve.
So the public relies on what the TGA and the FDA and the other regulatory agencies say.
And now it is very, very clear to anyone who looks at this situation
in a critical way is that we can no longer depend on them and that should send chills
up and down your spine. How do you know? And now the question about vaccines comes up and
and I note that someone had mentioned the testimony of Plotkin, Stan Stanley Plotkin,
who was the gray's anatomy of vaccines, right? And he said they haven't been tested for safety.
RFK has been right all along. He's been vindicated and the vaccine industry
has no obligation to test for safety and they do not want to test for safety
because they're worried about what they will find. And these are things that
I had never thought about in my decades of experience in dealing with regulatory agencies.
In fact, you know, I've done trials on almost every class of therapeutic that there was
over the years, except one class. And that class was vaccines because you didn't have to do a
clinical trial. Clinical trials were very rare. The companies did the core trials and they
they designed them. And as we all know, as I know, you can design a clinical trial
to succeed or fail. You can design it well or you can design it with deficiencies.
There's a whole range of quality of clinical trials out there. And unfortunately,
the gold standard that's accepted by people worldwide are randomized control clinical trials
on a large scale. And if you have a problem with a drug post-marketing,
it's only the drug companies that have the wherewithal, the resources, the financial
resources and the manpower to actually do those things. The burden of proof
when people claim I've been injured by a vaccine rests on the individual. It's been shifted to the
individual. It's impossible to argue. Going to court, and I've seen it firsthand trying to argue
that you've been injured by a vaccine in a court of law. Very, very difficult to prove. The
pharmaceutical industry knows this. So huge problems in the system and I don't know how we
can come back from here because such egregious things have been done now. So many people have
been injured worldwide and died and there's been nothing like this in the history of the
pharmaceutical industry. Yeah, they baked in plausible deniability is what they did.
Exactly. So how do we come back from here? I really just don't know. All my life, you know,
I worked for industry either as a staff member or later as a consultant.
I really argued with my friends when they accused me of working for a corrupt industry and
that was at a time decades ago when there were problems and people were complaining and drugs
were withdrawn and there were lawsuits. We all know about the lawsuits. There have been
over 400 drugs withdrawn worldwide since 2000. Drugs aren't safe and even if a regulatory
agency says that they're approved, that doesn't mean that they're safe. The real
test comes post-marketing when they're released and millions of people use the drugs. But now,
we can no longer rely on the adverse drug reaction reporting system, which was our safety net,
to double check if the initial clinical trials were right, which were usually done on just a
few thousand patients. If that, I've been involved in falls where drugs were registered on a few
hundred patients. Now, you have to ask yourself, if an adverse drug event occurs, a serious deadly
adverse event occurs one in a thousand or one in 10,000, are you going to find that in a clinical
trial of a few hundred patients? The answer is clearly no. That's why you need an unbiased,
reliable adverse drug reaction reporting system. Now, these adverse drug reporting systems,
I believe, are corrupt. They're in the hands of the bureaucrats, the same bureaucrats
that have been telling you for four years that the COVID vaccines are safe and efficacious.
Myocardial infarctions and myocarditis is not a problem, and there's no increase in cancers,
there's no increase in excess deaths. The excess deaths have come from the drug
and the drugs, and the drugs have come from the drug and the drugs have come from the drugs.
There's no increase in cancers, there's no increase in excess deaths. The excess deaths have come down
now. That's what a lot of countries are reporting, that the unexpected, all-cause mortality is finally
coming down. What they don't tell you is that they've changed the formula to calculate excess
deaths. I did put up a sub-stack where he mentions the fact that the natural cause mortality,
in other words, what's on the death certificate, has skyrocketed. I did put that link in the chat,
so you should be able to find it. It's a sub-stack post by Steve Kirsch. He was citing another paper
as well. They just lie. They're like a bunch of five-year-olds. They didn't do their homework,
and they say the dog ate it. They just want you to believe their lies,
and they'll shoot you if you don't. It's crazy. That's basically why I'm here and doing what I'm
doing, because I believe the lies will continue, and the people who made this happen are still
there, still making decisions. The more people know, the better it is.
Absolutely.
You just have to spread the word and keep going and not be disillusioned at the carnage.
Philip, are you in touch with Andrew Wakefield?
No, no. I've never talked to him.
Are you in touch with him?
There are actually very few people in the world that
come at this problem from a regulatory affairs point of view. Sasha Latopova is one. She,
like myself, owned a CRO, a contract research organization. I listen very carefully
to what she has to say. Robert Malone I listen to because he has extensive experience in regulatory
affairs over the years. When I listen to him, he uses the right words. I know he's been there,
and I rely on what he says. Mike Eden, just until recently, has been one of my people that I would
rely on. I'm not so sure at the moment. I haven't made up my mind yet.
That's the problem. Unless you're in regulatory affairs and you've been in regulatory affairs and
you've seen what goes on, you can't really speak with authority.
But the people who are currently employed in regulatory affairs cannot speak for fear of losing
their careers, their livelihood, their jobs. A lot of people, especially medical people that I talk
to, have spoken up at great, great personal cost, of course, as we all know. They've not only lost
their accreditation in many circumstances, they've lost family, they've lost marriages,
family members don't speak with them, they've lost their family members, they've lost their
family members, don't speak with them, they're in financial difficulty, they've lost homes.
It's been just incredible. As far as myself is concerned, I really haven't had to sacrifice
that much because I wasn't employed, I was retired. It's much easier for me to speak.
But I really give full credit and admiration to those clinicians and scientists who
are currently employed and are brave enough to speak up.
Well, if no one speaks up, then we're all really heading for
oblivion, I think. So it's essential that some people speak up.
So next question is from Anders Brunstad and he is a 5G, 4G, 3G expert in Norway.
Anders?
Hello, Philip. I'm really happy to hear your testimony and especially your reference to
Latipova and Katrin Vatt. They really have done a big work on this. I couldn't agree 100%
on some earlier stories about viruses, etc. But that's not important. I have studied this
extensively in scientific methods of research into what was the cause of 5G, 4G, 3G,
or other possible reasons, but I don't want to go into there now because it's not really productive.
And what is the history of this matter is that this is a deliberate plan
conceived to kill, depopulate, control human population. It's been
reported in books in the Bilderberger of 1976 or whatever later.
I don't need to go there, but they refer to also microwave without going into that.
What is the reality is that when you study the vaccine damages, it started roughly in,
well, 1902. There was never any virus proven by science, but there was a lot of vaccine damage
proven by science. In 1956, you got both. You got vaccines and let's say not 2G, 3G, 4G. You got TV.
You got microwave. In 1968, you got satellites and microwave. And you've been getting more and
more of it later. In 1986, the biggest problem, if you want to reverse what we have now,
you need to go back to what Ronald Reagan did with approving vaccines to be the
product without any liability. And this is where we need to go back. We need to say,
this is not okay. And that's my point. What is your comment to that?
Yeah, that is basically the root of the problem. Because if you're not liable for any damages
and you're developing a vaccine, quite obviously you can save a lot of time and money in getting
your product to the market in terms of a marketing model. It's perfect. Not only that, you can get
government to promote your product. You can get government to pay for your product. This is why
Bill Gates is in vaccines. It's more profitable than computers. And he's made more money on vaccines.
If there's no liability, then how are we going to get out of this? This is going to continue.
I've become very, very skeptical about vaccines. You only have to look at the incidents of autism.
And Steve Kirsch has done this exceedingly well and brought up a lot of the data. Whereas autism was
was before the 1980s, a very, very rare condition, hardly known. And now in the US,
where there are basically 72 different doses of vaccine on the kids' schedule
that's required in the US. And that's recently started off at a lower number,
six or eight or something like that. But the increase in autism has paralleled the use of
the vaccines. And then you look at the- I just have a brief comment, if I can.
And I would like to introduce Dr. Martin Pall,
who has done extensive research first in the idea of, let's say, radiation or 4G, 5G, whatever.
And then recently in April this year, he has concluded that it's a combination of these
radiation and the vaccines, the metals, the aluminium, etc. So it is a combination. And
if you look into the vaccines, you will find exactly that. If you look into the chantrails,
you'll find exactly that. If you look into the water, you'll find exactly that. If you look into
the pesticides, you'll find exactly that. It's a war on four arms. It's the vaccines, it's the air,
the water, it's the food. Yeah. Look, I believe you. I believe you. I don't know a lot about
5G, but I'm talking to people about 5G. My interest has been fricked. And
I just getting back to what I was going to say about autism,
you know, what you need because the drug companies don't do safety studies, as Plotkin said.
Just look at a control group like the Amish. The Amish don't have a problem with autism.
I have a second control group for you. You have those who live in cities and those who live rural.
The rural population have much less radiation and much less, let's say, excess mortality.
Yeah, yeah. You know, I
opened a conference on 5G not long ago. They asked me to open the conference.
And my worst subject at university was physics. I hardly passed. Here I was opening a conference
on 5G. But the reason why they asked me to do that was because there were lots of
parallels between what was happening with the regulation with drugs and 5G. And when I started
to look at 5G, the claims of safety are based largely on inadequate studies. For example,
the rise in subdermal skin temperature, that's what they base safety on.
And real safety studies, the telecommunications industry, like the pharmaceutical industry,
has the wherewithal, has the money, could do it, but they don't want to do it because they don't
want to know the answer. And it's been done. It's been done, but it's kind of protected. So
it's a digital pulses of all new communication, which induces ionization, which causes harm
connected to metals in the body from these other vectors.
I'd like to connect with you offline. I'll send you my email. I'd like to communicate
with you about this because it's another area of interest, which I do agree is very important.
And it's another situation where the burden of proof of safety has been shifted to the individual
and not the companies that are responsible. So it's very interesting.
And one of the things we learned when I was doing... So I'm a radiologist,
and so diagnostic radiologist. One of the things we learned in radiation physics was that no one
on then knew what the risk was of radiation. But we have to wear dosimeters, so-called,
under the lead aprons if we were in the lab screening the patient, you know.
But the risk was unquantifiable for the individual and varied hugely as far as
we were taught anyway. So what made me really... So I was very careful with my dosimeters. Some
people didn't bother, you know, they didn't have it on under the lead apron. I always had mine on.
And then one day in Sweden where I was working as a radiologist, so I qualified as a doctor in the UK
and then as a diagnostic radiologist in Sweden. And one day in Sweden, they said,
someone came around from the radiation physics department of the hospital and said,
we are collecting all the dosimeters. And I said, why are you taking those? You don't need them
any longer. And I said, oh, can you show me how you know that? I didn't get any answer to that.
Can I comment on that? Sure. So I have friends who are radiologists and they do,
it's in hospitals and they do, let's say, x-rays and all these CTs. Okay.
And geographies and stuff like that. Yes. Yes. And the husband worked in the army
and was exposed to much radiation from radar systems.
And each of those two factors, each of them have 400% increases of risk for DNA damages.
Yeah. Different types of diagnosis of kids with, yeah, I don't want to go there, but there is
something called the radar case, which is military US radar, which is from 65, which is 400,000
increase of risk. And the second is those who work in radiology in hospitals and everywhere
with these x-rays. Sure. And when you combine those two, you have something which can exemplify
what you're dealing with, with the microwave.
Yeah. Yeah, it sounds sensible because you get a synergistic effect. One in one is not two.
One in one could be five. Sure. Or 20. Or 20.
So we were told in the radiation physics that in the nuclear explosions in Nagasaki,
Hiroshima, that the effect on human beings was hugely variable. So two human beings very close
to each other in those cities when they were bombed, if they were bombed, of course,
one could be vomiting. And the other could be a little bit of a fever.
They one could be vomiting. And the person, the human being next to him or her could be dead.
It was that variable. So and one of the things also we were told about the dosimeters was that
was that they were required because they couldn't guarantee the safety of the x-ray tubes,
the tubes that created the x-rays. So all kinds of disasters could occur, you know,
and without any any measurement of radiation, no one knew what had happened. And so clearly,
anybody who was behind the dosimeters was thinking about, well, hopefully thinking about the people
working with radiation in health services, you know, and trying at least to protect so
that there was some record, which indisputable record, which could be used in the future.
But then so I never believed that it was that the dosimeters should have been taken away. But I
couldn't obviously foresee what would happen in 2020. And it was to remove the evidence. Exactly.
They didn't want to have the evidence there. And so and also to nudge people into thinking,
well, you know, mobile phones were coming. So we knew that the towers that they used for mobile
phones, certainly the early ones and still I suppose, they were emitting radiation.
So they didn't they wanted to kind of hide the fact that the radiation from these mobile phone
towers, because that was the world that they wanted to bring, you know, mobile phones,
everybody connected. And but nobody really foresaw, I certainly didn't, that the effect of
the mobile phones would be mobile phone addictions, and the creation of cults, essentially of
echo chambers. So and especially with young people, it seems to me that the danger now is that young
people are certain because they have an easy time on social media, they seek out platforms,
or they like and and where they get lots of likes, you know, and approval, and they never had to kind
of they don't need to engage with anyone who doesn't agree with them. They don't like to have
conversations with their peers, because it's too difficult because they come up against people for
the first time in their lives who disagree with them. This is absolutely crazy. It's taking people
away from their identity and their humanity. And it needs to be challenged. But the point is that
the mobile phones were the vision of the future and the most social media, whether that was all
planned, you know, to take us away from our identity, our humanity. It seems very plausible
to me, and everybody's addicted to their mobile phones and to the social media. And everybody
thinks it's okay not to worry about it. If it was any other addiction, when you combine,
when you combine those phones with radiation with the massive amount of increased vaccination with
all these metal nanometals, that's where you have the kill. Sure. But the dosimeter,
ME, the dosimeter story was very, very interesting. So we knew why we were wearing dosimeters. And all
of a sudden in Sweden, but I thought it was just Sweden that was weird, came back to the UK,
checked up. Same thing has happened in the UK. Steven, I'm gonna have to depart, unfortunately.
Yes, sure. We're coming to a natural end anyway.
Okay. Thank you so much, Philip. Thank you. Thank you for the invitation to speak. It's been really
interesting. Can I just tell you one thing, Philip? You're dealing with a lot of lawyers,
I think, aren't you? Yes. Do they understand that the gain of function story could be part of the
false narrative? And also, do they understand that there was no pandemic? But very importantly,
in my opinion, as a doctor, and increasingly, I've got doctors joining me now who think that
I don't think pandemics are possible. It was always a construct. It was a construct because
it was going to... They created a pandemic, if you like, through the fear. So it wasn't necessary
to have a pandemic. It was necessary to have the illusion of a pandemic to create the fear. So the
fear became the Trojan horse for totalitarianism. Yeah, they understand that. And do they understand...
So do they understand that the notion that we have to be very careful with pandemics in the future,
we don't have to worry about pandemics in the future because a deadly virus kills its host?
And the other thing, Philip, do they understand that they're... In my opinion, COVID-19,
the diagnosis of COVID-19, it was always an improper diagnosis. Yeah. So on the one hand,
you've got a fraudulent test. And on the other hand, there wasn't a single clinical symptom,
or signs for that matter, which was pathognomonic for COVID-19.
Yeah. I've made absolutely sure that they understand that.
Great. Yeah.
And then your best friend comes along and says, Stephen, I had COVID last week.
Yeah, that's right. And I say...
And I've got COVID again.
Yes. And I say, how do you know you had COVID? Oh, I've never been so ill in my life.
And I'm thinking, what? Yeah.
I despair of my friendships, honestly. It's just kind of...
I know.
It's like a war zone.
Yeah. Well, I lost a lot of friends, but I gained many, many, many more new friends.
You had brilliant friends as well, aren't they? Just extraordinary people.
Yeah.
Anyway, thank you so much, Philip.
Thank you again. I really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you.
And thank you for the fantastic work you've been doing.
You're welcome.
Yes.
Bye.
Thank you. Thank you, Philip.
Bye-bye.