from you, up to you.
Yes, thank you, Meryl. That was brilliant.
I really liked it and it just demonstrated to me
that this seems to be a government racket more than any,
oh, sorry, a global government racket,
because this is going on in most of the countries of the world.
And it's not just Covid-19, and it seems,
and I'm just stunned because when we get through this,
we've got to start looking at all these vaccinations,
because this looks like a, how should I say,
the whole thing has been constructed.
I mean, it's not about medicine.
It's all about crime, as far as I can see, and deception
and definitions, and there don't seem to be any doctors
at the FDA or at the CDC who know what they're doing.
And who have ethics.
And that has to be corrected in the future,
despite what people say about medical doctors at the moment.
But I just wondered what your thoughts are.
Do you view this as a big global government racket?
Well, yeah, I mean, since I started paying attention
to these bioterrorism vaccines, yes, I thought it was a big racket.
But of course, now I think people are trying to take over the world
and that this is just one piece of it.
Unfortunately, our governments and even possibly subnational
organizations have access to all these agents
that can cause medical problems.
And the public is just not aware enough of what's going on.
What are the real risks to them?
You know, they're in a state of fear from the Covid
and they can't assess things.
And the pharmaceutical industry has already managed to sort of.
Gain control of the narrative that no matter what the illness is,
you need a vaccine for it, for example, chickenpox, which is a,
you know, mild childhood illness, but everyone has to be vaccinated
for chickenpox.
Well, chickenpox is kind of like monkeypox.
So if you need a vaccine for chickenpox, well, of course,
we need a vaccine for monkeypox.
And nobody tells them, yeah, you might get myocarditis,
you know, you might die of the vaccine.
And because CDC is not sharing what data it has on the risks
and benefits, if, you know, if any benefits from the vaccines,
people can be easily fooled.
And I'm not sure how to put the feet to the fire of these agencies.
How do you go to CDC and say, hey, I just found your
your clinical trial of the JYNNEOS vaccine in the Congo
for the last five and a half years.
What the hell, you know, did you find if you vaccinated
1600 Congolese, you know, health care workers?
How do we do that?
Good question.
So, yeah, so just as a matter of interest, Meryl,
have you actually written down your top 10 names of people
who need to be hold to account after all this?
I mean, OK, I think the list was between 50 and 100.
Yes, exactly. Yes.
But so you have got a list.
I do have a list. Right.
So perhaps everybody on the call,
if they have strong views about who should be on their list,
they need to write them down now because they're, you know,
there are people from very many different professions and specialties.
And so they might have different ideas about who should be on lists.
But I'd love to see your list, Meryl, but I wouldn't.
I'm not sharing it.
I understand. Yeah.
Well, I think that's if I ask any more questions
and I'll detract from what I said earlier, I think this is crime.
It's serious crime.
And you said the EUA
protects these people from any mistakes or whatever.
But I've I've understood that if crime is involved, it doesn't.
They are culpable.
So all I can do is answer this to the best of my knowledge, not being a lawyer.
It's my understanding.
And I have followed the the EUA's and the
the
Prep Act and and Project BioShield,
because I was involved with those cases with anthrax vaccine going way back,
that nobody has litigated that.
So there are big, big legal questions about whether the Prep Act is even
constitutional because it does not provide due process.
So, you know, there's nowhere to you are only given an administrative procedure
if you're injured by a an EUA vaccine.
You can go to HHS and ask them to pay you for your for your missed
work and your medical expenses.
That's all you can collect for.
And if they say no, you get nothing.
So there's no judge. There's no trial.
There's no lawyers.
And guess what?
Nobody has been given any money for a covid vaccine injury in the United States.
I know that's not true in every other country. But so anyway, so.
So there are serious.
I mean, the lawyers I work with would love to litigate the Prep Act,
but they're waiting for the right time and the right situation.
We don't want to do it in such a way that you get a decision
that will push you in the wrong direction later.
So all the lawyers looking at that now.
Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah.
It's a huge it's a huge thing for them.
They'd love to overturn it.
As I say, they're waiting for an opportunity, but it hasn't been really litigated.
The legality of that law, the prep.
I mean, it's a congressional law.
So you have to take it to probably the Supreme Court to litigate.
And, you know, you've got to get the right people on the Supreme Court.
These things are not simple.
And we've had a lot of decision legal decisions that did not go in our favor
during this covid period.
Do you know if Todd Callender knows this?
He probably does, but.
He's not one of my best friends.
Oh, right.
Yeah. So, Charles, let's give the others.
So we will go to the next questions in a moment.
Meryl, I put it to you and to everybody.
I believe.
That.
There is no indemnity for crime, full stop.
And I think it doesn't matter that the government gives indemnities.
There is no indemnity for crime.
And Meryl, this is a very important point.
That's that's why exiting presidents have the power to pardon certain people.
Nowhere in the common law world is there indemnity for crime.
And I say, and I'm a lawyer, a legal strategist,
that the behavior of these companies amounts to criminal negligence.
And that will come out eventually.
Yes, they are where everybody civil negligence, you can get an indemnity.
Criminal, you cannot.
And so, please, just remember, you're beautifully put.
We have to find the right case.
But remember, in the States, I don't know of any executive of a big
pharmaceutical company that has been had proceedings issued.
And that's why they keep doing it, because it's part of the cartel.
We know that.
And then if you want to run criminal proceedings against the pharma execs,
then the sheriffs and the DA, district attorneys and the attorneys general,
they don't take the steps.
But no one is above the law.
Hammer that into our brains, everybody.
Full stop.
Otherwise, politicians would have been giving themselves indemnity for crimes.
Don't you get it, John Lukacs?
Your comments are excellent in the chat.
No indemnity for crime.
So, Anna, over to you.
Could I just say to Meryl,
so my impression, just listening to you, you know,
without paying that much attention to the detail,
just listening to the the general thrust of what you were saying, Meryl,
was that governments don't care about the people.
This is all about making money.
And that would that would tie in with my feeling as a doctor.
And you're a medical doctor, too, that actually this is not to do with medicine.
You don't you don't worry only about diseases
and vaccines, you know, infectious diseases.
Those are the only ones they they're worried about.
Come on, it's nonsense.
It's just a way of making money.
And in this case, as you said, I think, I can't remember who said it now.
It's being used for other means to to kind of whatever,
you know, these crazy people from the W.E.F. or wherever they're from.
But it's very effective.
It's like a lot of what else happened in the Covid time,
is it allows the politicians to immunize themselves
from the claim that they didn't do anything worse.
But Meryl, the test is, would they actually
employ the United Nations to go to war on their behalf?
No, they wouldn't.
Clearly they wouldn't.
But yet they use a UN agency, the WHO, which I think it is in the UN
to sort out these medical.
So clearly they're giving responsibility to a worldwide organization
who doesn't care.
The the thing is totally unregulated, it seems to me.
Right. Exactly.
I mean, if they cared about this vaccine, if they cared about monkey pucks,
they would have moved the doses over.
They would have gotten them bottled.
You know, they already spent almost two billion dollars
on this damn genious vaccine.
They would have had everything ready to go.
But it wasn't about that.
And the same true of anthrax.
At the same time, we have apparently a legal droctrine in the United States
or in some states, the government contractor defense,
which is that if the government contractor is not producing
a good product and it does not meet the specifications in the contract,
but the government knew that and allowed them to go ahead anyway
and bought the product knowingly, then you can't sue them.
So that that's another bar to get.
Yes, Meryl, they would never send the UN to war, you know, proper war
on the nation's behalf.
So why do they why is it this big thing about pandemics, you know?
Right. Crazy.
It's not about medicine.
All right, Anna, over to you.
By the way, what's that picture behind you?
It looks I can't work out whether it's Mount Everest or a string of molecules.
It's DNA, but Daria was ahead of me.
Daria, you're still here.
OK, well, I must screen Daria.
Secretary Daria, if you'd like to go first, go first.
OK, yeah, thank you, Meryl.
That was awesome. I really appreciate it.
Yeah, I agree with you.
And you just laid out the evidence so clearly here
that it's obvious, I think, to everyone on this call
that this is an exploitative money grabbing
syndicate that has been very successful and somehow has skirted the law.
Mainly, I think, and again, people have better evidence than I do,
but it seems like everybody's been bought off and they're complicit in
executing this, you know, through societies.
And that means people in government, these NGOs
and things like that. So.
How do you literally this is like, how do you fight city hall?
We're not even fighting city hall.
We're like fighting the entire power system that's also
creating money out of thin air to empower themselves to further
exploit the average person.
That's I'm just trying to figure out how do we get out of this?
Besides just continuing to say, no,
we're not going to take your shitty shot.
Excuse my French.
Thank you. Yeah, I mean, that's the sixty four thousand dollar question,
which nobody knows the answer to. How do you wake people up?
Because obviously, if we got the mass of people who would speak out,
this would be over. And then and
and are there legal ways?
Are there other ways to do this?
And, you know, I don't I don't know the answer.
I'm worried that they will try and lock us down more.
Ed Dowd suggested that monkeypox will be used to try to cancel the elections
or force everybody to do mail in ballots.
You know, we have a lot of work to do.
I don't know how to do it.
I'm I'm sort of doing my piece because this is the one I'm able to do.
I encourage I encourage everybody with a sense of humor
to start making jokes, you know, satire,
because the other side will listen to jokes and satire.
We need, you know, a George Carlin for our side,
because if he's that good, he'll actually get on television.
So that and I work with lawyers and they are scratching their heads, too.
You know, I I work with a variety of very good lawyers.
And I've been involved with two cases against the FDA
that Children's Health Defense has brought, you know,
and I thought they were slam dunks.
I mean, I thought we had all the evidence and we'd been thrown out of court
on both of them and they're on appeal.
So I don't have the answers.
Yes, it's a good it's a good example.
What Meryl just shared with us that there are legal principles,
but you might have the wrong evidence.
You might have the wrong plaintiff.
You might have the wrong missing smoking gun document.
And and my my metaphor is that it's like golf.
You know, it's a mystery how to hit a golf ball correctly.
And it's a mystery how to get a winning court case.
But we keep trying.
And I remind you all that Warner Mendenhall has published a number.
There's over 16000 cases in the US court system against Covid.
16000 Meryl.
So don't despair, everybody, where we're doing lots of practicing of golf.
You know, the 10,000 hour rule for Michael Jordan and 10,000 shots.
Sorry. And then the then gold, Daniel Goldman,
you know, 10,000 hours before you become good at anything.
So we just have to keep finding that next nuance in the legal system.
Anna, next. Thank you, Daria.
Thank you so much for this excellent presentation.
My question is, we know that the Covid shots cause myocarditis,
and we also know now that monkeypox shots cause myocarditis.
And in the table simulation of monkeypox,
there was one point three million deaths projected till early 2023.
Do you think that if you give a monkeypox vaccine to somebody
who already got Covid shots, that the my that they're just going to start
accelerating the death toll?
That's the first question.
The second question, if I may ask, is,
did you resolve everything with the medical board?
And if that's offline, I OK.
So let me see.
The first question is, there's no data.
And of course, it makes sense that if you've already gotten one, you know,
the one thing about the Covid shots is they almost always cause myocarditis
within about four days of a shot.
So for whatever the mechanism is, it's not as long duration
as some of the other side effects from the Covid shots.
So if we're luck, fingers crossed, it might go away.
But obviously, it makes you wonder how many other vaccines
also might cause myocarditis that we missed in the past.
But these are huge numbers.
So the number from ACAM2000 is more than 10 times higher
than the highest number ever reported for the Covid vaccines.
So that was for Covid.
It was one in 2000 for boys 17 to 24 in one Kaiser study.
That was the highest rate, one in 2000.
This is one in 175. So it's unbelievable.
And there was a military study that looked at I think it does.
It's very cagey.
It doesn't specify whether it used ACAM2000 or or dry Vax or a mixture.
But the military study found one in 220 had frank myocarditis.
And that so they had chest pain and they had rise in troponin
or cardiac MRI or EKG changes.
You know, they met a case definition.
But one in 30 had subclinical myocarditis.
They had at least an elevation of troponin, at least twice
the upper limit of normal.
So that's that's old.
That's from 2015 paper.
As far as my medical license, I have a hearing that starts in October
and we'll go we don't know how long.
Two days in October, probably two days in November, maybe sometime in December.
So I'm not allowed to practice medicine at this point.
And my case is totally political.
And we'll wait and see what happens.
Godspeed to you. Thank you so much.
Thank you. Thank you, Anna.
Craig. Good evening.
I it's good to be here.
I am just want to ask many of the things that Merrill said
indicate pre-planning of the monkeypox pandemic.
And I wanted to ask
regarding the elements that indicate pre-planning,
you mentioned the license in 2019 given to rebranding a smallpox vaccine,
the tabletop exercise in 2021 in March,
the CDC Congo study, which actually was due to end in August 2022,
which is conveniently when this outbreak is about to happen.
The manufacturing plant, which was in 2021 and the supply of
the stockpile of vaccines prior to the pandemic.
And most of these seem very distinct in terms of them being
having full knowledge of the monkeypox pandemic.
But the stockpile is that.
Can I add two more?
Yes. Two more.
OK, one is the fact that there were 39 years in Nigeria without any reported cases.
And then suddenly they started getting a bunch of cases in 2017,
opening the possibility that it was seeded in Nigeria first
to make it appear that it came from Nigeria.
It was going to come from Nigeria later.
Possibility. And what was the other one?
Oh, I've forgotten now. Sorry.
I'll remember it later.
Oh, yes. The number of the number of mutations.
So the number of mutations was too high for a supposedly for a natural
monkeypox strain to have mutated that much in these few years.
So that's another question.
It's a question for the virologists and not for me.
So with regarding the stockpiling, would you say that
they were stockpiling for a disease which hadn't yet posed,
didn't really pose any serious risk before 2020?
Well, I think that's a good question.
Well, the claim is that it was stockpiled for smallpox vaccine.
However, why why add a monkeypox indication?
You know, why was it licensed for monkeypox?
That's curious.
It was, you know, the company applied first just to have it licensed for smallpox.
And then during the process, monkeypox was added.
Hmm. Finally, I'd just like to ask if it's possible.
I'm planning to create a leaflet to be to go out about this on the How Bad is My Batch website.
And I'd like to remain in communication with you.
If I need to clarify any points on the leaflet, it's going to be a really
a summary, very much of a summary leaflet.
But I'd like to make sure that I'm not missing out anything important.
When it goes out, it should reach about 100,000 people a day.
So that it would I feel it's important to get the, for example, the adverse reactions regarding this
regarding the vaccine monkeypox vaccines.
It's really important that I get that out really quickly to the.
I agree. You know, and that's why I make the slides and give you the links and overload you with minutia
so that somebody like you who may want to go back can do so and look at this and know where to go for the evidence.
Great. So is it possible that we can communicate by email?
Yes, I'll write it in the chat.
Great. You can email me if you if you don't see the chat or whatever.
You'll probably see it in the group emails about the chat about these.
Great email. If you haven't got a reliable way, then email me and I'll put you in touch with Meryl.
Great. And final thing is, is there a PCR test that they've developed already for this monkeypox?
Well, of course there is, but I don't know what it is.
And I haven't I haven't seen maybe someone else has seen whether anything's been published on it,
whether it's real, you know, how likely are the cases to be real cases?
Don't know that we know that they faked a lot of the media photos, you know, that were of smallpox or of shingles
and other things at the beginning of the outbreak.
And we don't know whether that's, you know, been clarified, cleaned up or not.
Thank you very much.
Meryl, did they use pictures of molluscum contagion as well?
That I don't know.
OK, I think I've heard that, but I'm not sure that would really confuse the public, of course.
Well, it seems to be really good at scaring people.
Yeah, we need to get rid of the WHO.
I think that's the key thing.
Rima said that.
And and humor overcomes fear.
You know, it's a fear game plan, isn't it?
Yeah.
Leo, thank you very much for the talk, Meryl.
I'd love to get a copy of your slides for me and I'll drop you an email after this.
Hang on, Leo.
Meryl, I can put that into the chat.
You're happy to put your slide deck into the chat for everybody?
I'm going to think about that because there's an article coming out.
So I'm not sure.
I'll have to check with my co-author.
Yep. OK, good.
So, Leo, if you communicate with Meryl on that for certain elements,
but at the moment we're not sharing it with everybody.
Yes. OK, so Leo to you.
Leo, email me and then it won't get missed.
No problem. I will do.
Meryl, I did also wonder.
So on the origin of it in Copenhagen, which struck me as odd in your presentation
that that's where the viruses, the vaccines were stockpiled.
But in 1958, it was discovered in Copenhagen in some test monkeys
that had actually been at the laboratory for about 60 days,
which kind of debunks the incubation period of monkeypox.
And also the monkeys that had tested positive or where they said
they'd identified this monkeypox had also been given experimental polio injections.
So you're already aware of that.
And they showed transmission without touching on, you know, the virus issue
by injecting inoculants of postules into mice brains
to show that this thing was transmissible.
The science, the outset of discovery of this just looks shockingly off.
So I can't I agree with you that there are many odd things that some of which I did not mention,
but they require you to have access to documents and samples that none of us have access to.
It was said that those monkeys that in 1958 were being used for polio research.
Well, we know that monkeys were being used because their kidneys
the basis for all live polio vaccines, I think still in the world today.
And, you know, at Hooper made it very clear in the river
that there's a lot of extraneous viruses in monkey kidneys.
So, yeah, I don't believe that I am saying that the PCRs or any of the means of diagnosis are
accurate at the beginning of this in the United States.
So it's so monkeypox is an ortho pox virus.
And so apparently there were tests available in general for ortho pox viruses,
and labs could do that.
But CDC was the only lab in the United States that could confirm it was positive.
And so they had to confirm it was monkeypox.
Then about a month ago, they shipped out their new PCR, I guess, to a bunch of labs.
So now throughout the United States, labs can conduct a test looking to see whether specifically
this is monkeypox.
But like the COVID tests, we have no idea how did they develop that test?
Is it accurate?
You know, what's the specificity and sensitivity?
We have no if it's even real, you know, we just don't know.
There's always we've learned from COVID to be very wary.
But I've given my talk as if, you know, these the diagnoses are accurate,
because I don't know how else to explore this issue.
Thank you very much.
Yeah. So in the pet wholesale facility, it's spread around to various animals.
So nobody knew which of the rodents from Ghana it actually came in on.
And nobody knows what the natural host is.
The primary host in nature is not thought to be a monkey.
It's thought to be some kind of rodent or squirrel, but we don't know what.
And I guess I guess that's all I can say.
I mean, we're taking a lot on faith.
But it does seem like there is an outbreak and it's acting very different than the other outbreaks.
But then again, you know, knowing what happens during sexual intercourse,
it's certainly possible that that it's transmitting the way described.
Okay, thank you very much.
So, Meryl, can we go to the question of doctors being attacked?
Because one of the this whole group, the fundamental basis for criticism,
the basis for creation of this group was Stephen's view that,
and the view of many people on this call,
that if significant numbers of doctors had pushed back against this pandemic,
it would never have got anywhere.
But you are a good example of doctors being attacked for daring to speak up.
Sam White from the UK is another and numerous doctors in Australia.
Now, what I want you everyone to know is that in Australia,
everybody who has fought back against the regulators is being reinstated as
doctors.
In other words, their suspensions are being set aside
because they are unlawful, illegal, unwarranted.
My question for you in the US from your understanding of the structure
is everyone who pushes back, because remember,
the whole of the medical profession never pushed back against the regulators.
Stephen in the GMC, against APRA in Australia, that was not done.
Just get off my back so I can go keep earning money.
My question to you is that likely that you're not so much your case,
but generally doctors who speak up against the narrative,
are they specifically able to be suspended?
Is that valid or not?
In the United States, every state has a medical board or more than one,
and they have wide ability to determine what they can take your license away for.
Now, in my own case, they did something that was fairly unprecedented,
which was to call me an immediate risk to the public,
such that they had to suspend me before ever hearing me say one word,
or actually reading my CV, or knowing really anything about me.
And that was particularly stunning because there had been no patient complaints
and no other complaints that I'd injured anyone.
It was purely political, and the day after I was suspended,
the Associated Press had articles all over the United States about me,
and Newsweek, and it was on the radio.
It was a big deal.
I was part of a campaign to frighten doctors around the country.
And earlier today at a status conference,
we were having my side is using a witness to discuss the First Amendment,
which is freedom of speech, the press, et cetera.
And the other attorney, the assistant attorney general on the other side,
was trying to prevent that witness from being able to speak.
So they are certainly fearful.
They know there is a First Amendment.
They know they've overstepped.
What they're doing in most cases are trying to find some piddly thing to go out.
So for me, now what they're saying is, well, your records weren't good enough.
Your telemedicine visits didn't have a formal informed consent in the chart.
It's like they're calling me.
Why do I need an informed consent to telemedicine?
They could have come to my office.
I didn't ask them to do telemedicine.
They chose it, but I'm supposed to get them to somehow say they are consenting.
It's that kind of craziness.
So they know they are on a slippery slope, but it's totally political.
I mean, if our current governor remains in office,
I will probably lose my license forever.
And if the former governor who's running against her wins,
he's already said he's going to pardon me and every other health care professional
that's lost their jobs during COVID and give it back to them.
So that's political in Merrill.
It's totally political.
Yeah. Can't be otherwise.
So that's the similar, Merrill, in Australia, that's the similar rule
where numerous doctors have been suspended and then no suspensions set aside
because it is claimed that what they said publicly is an immediate threat to public health.
Yes, exactly.
Which is a total lie.
But the same words are used in Australia.
Australia has copied the US model.
Right.
And so that threat, I mean, we saw Peter McCulloch got a case.
I don't know if anyone's got an update on Peter's case, Merrill, you?
Yeah, I think his is with the...
So what happened is, we don't know where it started,
but a lot of non-profit organizations went along and they all have contracts
all that I know of, have contracts with the US government.
And so they pushed this.
So with him, the American Board of Internal Medicine said
they were going to take away his board certification,
but they didn't go after his license.
Robert Malone's board went after him, but he sent them a letter.
And had I sent them a threatening letter with a lawyer when they first went after me,
chances are good they would have been backing off,
but I sort of rolled over and showed my belly to them and challenged them
and asked them what was their statutory authority that they could even monitor free speech
and how did they define misinformation.
And I asked for trouble.
So they went after me.
It was an ego thing as well, and I'm sure they were directed to do so.
So some states have the attorney general and in some states the legislature
have chosen to specify to the medical boards that they can't go after doctors
for this sort of thing, that they're free to prescribe ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine,
but it's been all states that are under Republican rule
and the states that are under Dem rule are not doing that.
Robert Malone Okay, okay.
Now, now, now, now.
Are there, there are, Stephen, do you have a question?
I just want to do one other thing, but what I am very interested in everybody,
now that we've got a moment, I'm just checking an email,
but the question that I have for all of you and are really interested in your views,
because this is an opportunity, what would you like to see happening?
So there is stuff happening, we know stuff is happening, you know, with the information
that Meryl has shared with us and Stephen says, hey, what action should we be taking?
There are 16,000 court cases happening in the states, there are many cases happening
in Australia, I'm not so sure in the UK.
What would you like to see happening?
What are your suggestions?
I either put them in the chat, I've, Richard Fleming has published,
I'm sure you've seen the letters, he wants to swamp the attorney,
attorneys general and district attorneys with complaints.
You know, that's, that's, that's a strategy that he's using.
And remember, we've also talked about unifying people, there's no doubt the globalists are small
in number, and there are 8 billion of us against them.
So the question is, how do we unify?
I'm, I'm working on a strategy to do that.
Jerry Brady is working on a strategy and Jerry, I'm wondering if you can share that.
Jerry's working on uniting the people who have suffered adverse events.
And, and so they've got a cause.
So how do we unify the people so that we stop complying, because that's what has to happen.
And if enough of us don't comply, it will stop.
But Charles, what should be our aim?
So I'm beginning to think that Rima is up right.
Hang on, just a second.
Sorry.
I just asked the question, what do people, what would they like to see happening, Stephen?
Just, you know, in terms of a brainstorm, because people on this call have all got ideas of what
should be happening.
You know, let's not get so much into the strategic, because I've, we've agreed at this call that if
we unify the people against the globalists, the globalists will lose.
And there's no doubt that's what history shows.
So I'm just, that's what I'm calling for.
And then we might deal, Stephen, with your question.
In fact, that's a different question.
What's the end outcome?
What, so Stephen, was that the two questions?
What do you want to see happening?
And what should be the end outcome?
So Craig has got his hand up to two issues, two suggestions.
And Jerry, why don't you come online and share what you're trying to establish?
But anyway, Craig.
Yeah, okay.
I was going to say that in my opinion, that we have to get rid of the WHO, because that's a means
of committing treason for all these countries.
So the people who want to undermine sovereign countries, they just have to support the WHO,
because they've got this instrument and it's clearly inappropriate.
It needs to be removed.
It's like sending the United Nations to war in Afghanistan, for example, or Iraq.
And it's just nonsense.
The whole thing is nonsense.
Always has been nonsense.
And it will be nonsense in two years time.
And we can discuss as much as we like, but we need to get rid of the WHO.
So Trump was right on target.
Yep.
Well, and what Jerry has put in the chat, because he can't talk to them,
we're trying to establish a global alliance of compassionate, non-profit organizations.
Millions of people can ally and defeat.
World Economic Forum, WHO and Gates.
Okay.
That's what Jerry's working on.
Craig?
Besides top-down solutions, such as trying to change the governing bodies like the WHO,
I think-
Don't get rid of them, Craig.
We're not going to change them.
Yeah, I agree with you, but it's a top-down solution, which it's kind of trying to change
things from the top down.
Well, no, it's actually what we've realized is that the WHO is the instrument
of committing treason in these countries.
So everybody can agree that we don't like treason.
We don't like traitors.
So that's my opinion.
Sorry.
Anyway, from the COVID pandemic, I think we've done really well to get the people
coming over to our side with 75% apparently refusing further vaccination
and 25% still completely unvaccinated.
But it would be good if we can reach the doctors' community
because the doctors are the ones that are going to be pushing the vaccine for this.
And somehow having a strong outreach to the doctors' community with the information that
we know we can gather for the monkeypox so that the doctors are no longer
just complete.
If we can get to the doctors first before the government narrative can get to them,
I think it would really help to-
Because we were very slow taking off with COVID.
There was a lot of confusion about it initially, and there wasn't
a kind of such a body of resistance formed until maybe many months later.
Whereas now with monkeypox, we've got a head start.
We can actually pump the information to the doctors' communities so that they can understand
before the government's really had a chance to blast people with propaganda.
And if we can get the doctors on our side by just inoculating them with the truth,
then they will be resistant to the virus of propaganda.
They'll be resistant to it because they would have been inoculated by us with
information prior to that.
And to expose them to the truth would be good to get in there early.
So I just think we've got an opportunity to get more doctors on our side this time,
because we're starting very, very early before the pandemic's really hardly begun.
So it would be good to-
There is no pandemic, Craig.
Yeah, I know that. I'm just using that as to describe the situation.
That's all.
I realise, yeah.
So that's what I'm thinking we should reach the doctors, because there would be no
opportunity for the government to apply this agenda if the doctors were not compliant,
because they're going to want them to push the vaccine.
So yeah, that's what my point was.
That's one of my solutions I'm proposing.
Yes, Craig. It's a very interesting suggestion that if the doctors withdraw their services,
then the game plan of depopulation is proceeding at a pace, isn't it?
Because doctors say, we're not going to play your game.
And yet, if more doctors speak up, because you're not going to be able to get the vaccine,
generally speaking, they're respected in the community, then that has a big effect on the
credibility of anything from government if enough doctors spoke up.
So there's your suggestion, and I've taken a note of that.
And it's very, very relevant.
You know, the view many times expressed here is enough.
If enough doctors push back, it'll stop.
All right, Craig, thank you for that suggestion.
Meryl, you've got your hand up.
And the question I put also to you is,
William Houston sent you a question by email.
It's up to you whether you wish to address it or you can read it and then come back later.
But he sent it some time ago, so he didn't send it in the last few minutes.
But anyway, you had your hand up, Meryl.
So ask your thing, put your suggestion first.
You muted, Meryl.
You muted.
Could he send the question again, because it's hard to find them amongst all of these
different comments.
Yes, William, would you?
I put a pledge in the chat, which I have been working on with several other groups.
The idea is to get people to sign this pledge and then put it in front of candidates for
elected office and force them to look at it.
That's why it has to be short and say yes or no.
And of course, they'll all say, I don't have time.
And then you say, OK, you're a no until you tell us that you're a yes.
And we have a website and we put all the candidates' responses on it.
And if enough people take this seriously, enough people sign it,
and the candidates know they're going to be facing this at their campaign stops,
and we have posters that say, have you signed the pledge, etc.,
that this could potentially put their feet to the fire in a way that nothing else we've
done so far has accomplished.
Of course, it requires a lot of people to be on board, but I have about four organizations
already that are anxious to do it.
And I hope you'll all read the pledge.
There's also a cover letter, which I don't have space to put in here.
There are some footnotes also.
But anyway, you ask for a solution.
It's just another tool in the toolbox.
We're trying so many things.
Excellent.
Thank you, Meryl.
Jerry totally approves.
Randall.
Hi.
Meryl Andress, the doctor's here.
Last November, I was successful in getting Dr. Peter McCulloch to come into San Diego
to address the reopen San Diego activist group.
They were fighting the COVID lockdown in all of San Diego County.
Dr. McCulloch gave an excellent presentation, and it did increase the zealousness of that
group of people.
Lately, they have been trying to fight back.
Both the city mayor and the county supervisors are still continuing the emergency declaration.
Peggy Hall up in Orange County has been suing California Superior Court to get that emergency
declaration stopped.
The reopened San Diego people are going to have to file federal lawsuit to do the same
thing.
My wish is somehow, I wish that the doctors on our side could have better connection with
the activist group when they're needed to testify in front of the city council or the
county commissioners meeting.
They would counter the bad advice that the city relies on.
San Diego chief health officer still adamantly insists that there is an emergency situation
in San Diego County.
And that gives them tremendous latitude to continue to enforce this.
I hate to say this, almost a false agenda.
I'm throwing it out here.
At least I got Peggy in touch with the San Diego people.
I would like to see more networking of the doctors with these groups of people who are
starting to push back.
Thank you.
Thank you, Randall.
All I can say is, I think, you know, Paul Merrick went up to New Hampshire and probably
convinced the legislature to vote in favor of making ivermectin an over-the-counter drug,
which was amazing.
And then the governor wouldn't sign it.
But they did pass a secondary bill that allowed doctors to freely prescribe it.
So although patients couldn't get it over the counter, doctors could not be pursued
by the medical board for giving it.
And so he made a big difference there.
Now, I've never turned down an opportunity to testify, you know, and usually it's on
Zoom.
But, you know, McCullough and Malone are really, really busy.
There are other doctors.
There was a Southern California orthopedist who testified at one of the county hearings.
So I think, you know, we're doing the best we can.
And it's up to the activist groups to connect with us, I think.
Very good.
Meryl and Randall, your question or your comment is relevant to some steps that were taken in
Western Australia by a large number of citizens who went to their local municipal councillors
meeting.
So, you know, each municipality, there are 590 local governments in Australia, similar
system to most countries.
And they got it organised and a large number of citizens went to express their concerns
to the councillors.
And it was remarkable how ill-informed the councillors were.
And there's real benefit.
We had one of our speakers a couple of weeks ago, Stephen, I wonder if you can remember,
who said, perform your civic duties.
You know, Randall, the comment that you make, and Meryl, you know, this going to council
meetings and saying, why do you, for example, insist on your staff wearing masks?
Don't you know that this is madness?
And by turning up and putting the heat on councillors, that's part of our civic duty.
It is an ability that we have.
If every local government or local municipality in the US had citizen activists turning up
at their meetings, it would get the message through.
And it's not difficult to, you know, it's not difficult to organise because we've got
people right through.
We've got millions of people in the US on our side.
So please look in your own, you know, in your own country, whether that's possible and for
this opportunity to question the crazy mandates that these local authorities impose.
Now, Stephen, come to Stephen's question.
What outcomes do we want?
So any other suggestions on outcomes?
So, you know, that's what Rima was saying.
Hey, let's get rid of the World Holocaust Organisation.
She called it.
That's what Rima calls it.
I love it.
There was another description of it.
I took a note of it.
I'll come to you, Glenn, in a moment.
She called also, James Rogusky called it, whatever.
And I remind all of you as well to share your thoughts with James.
He's invited all of you to send him an email, telephone him about your thinking about what
should be happening.
And Gerry Brady has put in the chat, go to cmnnews.org every day.
What outcomes do you want to see?
Glenn.
The World Stealth Organisation.
I like it.
John Stone.
Glenn.
The topic I'm going to bring up is something I've been evolving to, especially recently.
And I call it training partnership teams.
We know that if we try to amass in any kind of size, that we can be attacked by infiltrators.
However, if you think of a partnership team as being somewhere between two and five or
six people that know each other well, are supportive of each other, and can take action.
And there's various kinds of action.
But almost all of them have to do with managing the situation where they are confronted with
the bluffs, with illegal actions, and they can resist.
Let's take the Board of Ed topic and the warnings or the theme that somehow that is
a domestic terrorist action.
If people are careful and they go into a Board of Ed, they can directly quote the First Amendment
as directly enabling them to petition any government group for a grievance with redress.
It's right there in the 45 words of the First Amendment.
If they go in and they specifically say, I'm here to object to a range of things that have
occurred, here are my grievances, and here is my action set for redress.
And then if some first responders come near you and say, gee, we're going to take you from
this podium, you can tell them, you need to read the First Amendment.
I'm supportive.
You're supposed to be supporting our country's laws.
Our Supreme Court certainly will support that.
And you talk down those other participants that are being forced into executing the
illegal actions.
You look to share that knowledge with as much as the public and those people that can help
support you.
And as I say, you are fully protected.
I'll give a couple other examples.
If someone felt they needed to get their prescription, that they do fully went through
a COVID treating doctor or a telemed and got a prescription, we know that many pharmacists are
refusing to fill it.
That's illegal.
They are not allowed to override a doctor's prescription.
Their only role is to monitor what is being done and to check if there happened to be any error.
There aren't errors going on here.
They don't have a right to refuse the prescription.
Now, in general, there can be reasons where they decide they don't want to fill it.
And in most states, the law requires them to find another pharmacy that will fill it.
Now, the way to be successful in this is that you're not going in on your own.
You're going in with what I'm calling the partnership team.
As a minimum, you have someone there with a mobile phone that's recording the entire session.
You may want even a third person that is coming along and watching it and making sure that no one
is disturbing either the speaker or the person videoing and maybe even have some extra materials,
printed materials in case the speaker felt they needed something extra.
But just think of it that a team of three like that can be extremely effective, can capture
everything on tape, can talk down the illegal acts and are prepared to defend themselves in case
there is any action taken by local law enforcement and basically talk down the law enforcement too
on what their role is.
I'll give one other example, and that's around challenging those that are trying to kill
your friends or relatives in a hospital setting.
Many people know of Ernesto Ramirez and the fact that his teenage son died of the vaccine.
And he did everything he could as follow-up to try to get retribution.
But after the fact, it didn't help because at every stage, our opponents have ganged up
and prevented action against their supporters.
But he was a case where he was very familiar with the background.
He knew about all the conditions of Bram Dezavir and ventilators as contributing to the situation.
And his aunt was in the hospital and his cousin was there and called Ernesto for help.
Ernesto got on the phone, demanded when the doctors were present, demanded to speak and
tell them that what they were doing was wrong.
If they attempted to proceed, not only would he be looking to sue the hospital, he would
be suing every individual that was participating with that patient.
That doctor, the set of nurses, and that he had the backing of a variety of experts, medical
directors, medical doctors like Dr. Cole and Dr. McCullough, and that they were not going
to be able to survive.
See, this is basically knowing your rights, marking your presence to them, and if others
attempt to intervene, being able to know your rights there.
This is a case where his cousin was right there having the medical power of attorney
and seeking the help of Ernesto.
And as a team, they talked the hospital staff from doing that and within two days she was
released and fine.
And in almost every case like this, there is the ability to say, make sure you're prepared,
make sure you're working with a small team, make sure you're videoing it, make sure you
can tell any law enforcement about the law so that they aren't violating their oath also.
Thank you.
Glenn, excellent.
Just a quick question.
Glenn, sorry, Glenn, I was going to say, that's excellent information, brilliant, love it,
and there's some good examples online of precisely what you're saying.
So did you say you are training partnership teams or is that?
I'm saying this is a concept that my group is reviewing right now and looking to develop
training materials.
It's very, I don't know to what degree you watched some of the things that Todd
Callender has been doing, but he also has been training people on how to try to fight for their
rights at the point of, as they're occurring, rather than waiting to have to sue them in court.
If you can state those rights up front, challenge the players, including the
law enforcement in small teams, you can be powerful, especially if you plan it ahead,
that you have your verbiage down, that you have someone recording it, that you tell them you're
going to spread the word from the results. In the same way as they bluff us with garbage,
we can bluff them back with truth.
Excellent.
And sometimes untruths maybe. Glenn, do you know of people in the United States who are taking on
Harvard, Massachusetts General Hospital, they are still mandating these injections, and not just
Harvard, many, many of the universities in America are continuing with pushing these
injections onto young adults, 18 years old to 21 or whatever. It's absolutely crazy,
and they think they can get away with it, these universities. It's terrible what's happening.
It's unfortunate that they have a lot more leverage in the colleges than almost every other space.
In the space of employment, you can talk down the employer of go ahead and fire me, because you know
what? I'm going to sue you. You're going to end up paying all the cost. You're going to pay me all
the back pay, and you're going to be embarrassed in the press. So what happens if they, most of
the time they back off in the employment area. Sometimes they will sue you, and then what do they
do? They contact you in a few days and say, well, we don't really want the suit around. How about if
we hire you back as a contractor and boost your pay by 30%? So in employment space, there's
clear direction in the grade school, K through 12. Glenn, if the students... Hold on, let me finish.
Let me finish. There's clear ways to protest. In the colleges, you're bound up. There is an approach
that I think can work. I'm not sure anyone's doing it in any scale, and that's where a large
number of the students say, hell no. We're not going to show you any of the evidence around
vaccine cards. In fact, just think of it if college students start to gather and say, okay,
let's do a vaccine card burning, because that's not something anyone else needs to know about.
That's our right to do and to be our information, not the university's. And if enough protested to
the universities, they will back down. But you need a big number that truly scares them that
suddenly their enrollment is going to disappear or they're going to become the laughing stock of
the country for taking on an illegal... Yes, but Glenn, the reality is this, that students have been
and still are the most vulnerable, arguably, apart from children, obviously.
They have nobody supporting them. Everybody's turning a blind eye to the fact that all these
young people are being forced to take injections to carry on studying whatever they want to study
at Harvard, Yale, wherever, Washington State University. We're not supporting them. Nobody
is supporting them. The lawyers aren't supporting them. Nobody's even looking at it. It's almost as
if it's not. That's certainly not true. There are people looking at it. There are a variety of lawyers
involved. It is the most difficult case because universities have a very strange kind of leverage.
There is no risk to these students. It's not the most difficult case. It's the most difficult case
because the lawyers say it's the most difficult case. No, I don't accept it. I believe you're wrong
and it's because of the influence they have where they can say you can't come here and there isn't
any wages that are at risk. It's wrong. It's wrong. It's wrong. And it's wrong again. And it will be
wrong next year and in two years time and forever more. So why aren't you doing it? I agree. It's
completely wrong. I'm simply saying that is the most difficult case of all the kind of cases we
have. That's the one that's most complicated. Why? Why is it because there's not a direct way
that you private universities have no authority from any government mechanism. So you can't use
Sertibond. There's no standard way of getting a university to pay back damages. How many damage
suits do you think have ever been paid off by a university? Virtually none.
That's not the point. It's just not a body. That's not the point. They're putting their
students at risk and their staff. I agree. I agree. Steven, Glenn agrees with you. He's just saying
it's legally a difficult case to run but you're both agreeing that it's wrong. Nobody's tried
those Charles. Nobody's tried as far as I know. Well, I'm telling you I'm describing to you
a way of training small teams. That's not going to work in the university setting. You need a big
team. You can't go in there with three or four people and have success whereas almost every other
area I've mentioned you can. Three or four people can have a huge success. So of course you can beat it
if there's a will but there is no will. No, it's not just that you need will and you need a mountain of people
to organize and soon as you collect a mountain of people you're going to get attacked
and you're going to be infiltrated by the other side. So it's right then. It's okay for the
university. I didn't say that. I said it's the most difficult case. Can you tell me a case that's more
difficult than the university one? A situation for any. I don't accept it's difficult. It shouldn't
be difficult. At least someone should be trying. Nobody's trying. Charles is going to try. Warner Mendenhall is trying. He's actually
got five cases currently running in Ohio. One he actually completely won already and
four of them are currently up for appeal. Very good, Catherine. Thank you. Leslie Manoukian is also trying and
she's had a variety of successes including I believe it's the University of Chicago completely
backed down. Who's that then? Leslie Manoukian. She's the same one that got the
the mask mandates lifted for all domestic air flights in the USA. So that was on behalf of
who was that now? Richard Fleming? No. Someone. It's her group. It's her health defense group.
Yeah, health defense fund. Right. Well one of the lawyers on this call has actually said that he was
responsible for that being lifted. Yes, the mask requirements on flights. Well the person
that was responsible for that is Leslie Manoukian. There's been some other chatter
that is not completely accurate. Do you have her email address, Glenn?
I do but I'm not in a position to share it. Well can you ask her?
Ask her which? Well could you email her and ask her whether you're able to pass it to me?
Yes. Thanks. Glenn, well done on that strategy. Craig, Scottie and Catherine, I point out that
in Australia this issue of dealing with the doctors is being addressed by a newly formed
a newly formed medical association, Ampsie, Australia Medical Practitioners Society, is now
writing to, influencing, sending the science to all of the medical colleges in Australia.
In other words, rather than going to the doctors, there are some 50 colleges of medicine in Australia
and what they're doing is putting those colleges on notice with the science.
And they've got all of the data that we know and they're attacking the colleges, not the
universities or the students. So I think that's an excellent strategy. Craig,
do you have your hand up and then Catherine? Firstly, I'd like to say that I like Glenn's idea
about small groups and I can see how the small groups would be more immune to infiltration.
And as a suggestion, I don't know, I used to run a website called Meet My Street, which basically
enabled users to enter their location and then they would be able to
link up with people in their local neighbourhood. And it was a simple thing, it utilised Google Maps
and plotted everyone's icon on a map and then people could see if there were people in their
streets, hence the name Meet My Street. But in the same way, I can create something similar for
uniting people into small local groups, Glenn. I'm not sure if local is what you had in mind,
but I assume that because people are meeting physically, then they would be more or less local
unless you did it when they convened during an event. But I totally can see how having a small
group of people meeting would provide a form of organisation which was immune to infiltration
and also provide a kind of family unit almost, which would be quite supportive of people in their
efforts. Because people, even in a large group, people lose their lives, they lose their lives,
and you can feel ineffective because you're always assuming that someone else in the large group is
going to do the job and therefore there's no delegation of responsibility to the individual.
Whereas in a small group, people would feel much more motivated, so I can see that.
And I'd also like to say that I'll try and create a Meet My Street,
but it would be for the formation of small groups. I was going to say cells, but these cells,
that's probably the wrong word because that sort of implies it's got connotations.
So I'll just stick with the partnership groups, teams. But the other thing I really liked about
Meet My Street was that it was a small group of people who were meeting each other. And I think
the other thing I really liked was Meryl's idea of the pledge, because basically having
publishing the names of candidates who have pledged to go against mandates and such,
it sounds like a brilliant idea, especially with the elections coming up.
So I think that's really good. But I was going to ask her what the pledge would contain, so I guess
it would be interesting to know what the pledge would have in it.
Craig, just let me respond to the naming convention. Absolutely,
cell is the wrong way to go because there's a lot of other connotations to it. The nature of
partnership I think is really powerful because it basically says it starts with two.
And then it can be incremental, but small to whatever size you think you can have the most
influence. And as a word, I think it's a friendly word to be using, partnerships. Thank you.
What about Alliance?
Alliance can be massive in size, so it doesn't help define it. Using words that people can
get meaning from, from just the title, is always better than others that are less precise.
But our enemies use the word partner and partnerships.
Yeah, I think partnerships is okay, Stephen, the fact that they use it. Our enemies use the internet.
That's why they haven't brought it down. But I don't understand what's wrong with Alliance.
Partnership is closer than an alliance. Right. Is it? Yep. Yeah, yeah, much closer.
Alliance is just a, you know, we're going to alliance here in this meeting, but a partnership
is a close connection. I like that idea of training partnership teams. That's nice.
Cell is more, anyway, anyway, as Rima said, you know, everybody wake up. It's not time to be nice.
So, Catherine, we've got 10 minutes to go. Catherine, and then Meryl, Stephen's going to,
he gets the last question, as you know, for you before we leave at the, in the 10-minute mark.
Catherine, over to you. Hi, unfortunately, I got here pretty late today. So, I just heard this
business about the universities. And I just wanted to clarify a little bit more there about, yes,
there are suits going on in the university space. Like I said before, Warner Mendenhall has
sued five universities here in Ohio. And I do know that there's groups like No College Mandates.
That's a group of, I don't know how many parents, it's hundreds, thousands of parents of students
across the country. And there are organizing groups. And I can say locally here in Ohio,
the pushback is getting stronger right now. One of the schools that Warner is suing is
Ohio University, who just reinstituted mask mandates. And I'm hearing from the parents there
and some of the students there as well that they are, more and more of the students and parents
are starting to fight back and push back. So, it is not without hope. It is just extremely slow.
And the other big thing about it is it's extremely expensive. Each one of these cases
costs tens of thousands of dollars. So, if you really want to, if you really want to help and,
and fight back against these mandates, once, once a few of them start to fall,
it should hopefully spread further from individual universities and colleges.
But it's, it's just expensive and they have to take it all the way through to the end in order
to help others. So, if you want to, if you want to help with it, they need money. All of these groups
need money. So, that's all I wanted to say. Thanks. Catherine, could you put, could you
send an email to me with your email address so I can... Yeah, what is your email address?
So, it's Stephen with a PH dot frost. Stephen, put your, Stephen, put your email address into
the chat. Okay. That's the easiest, safest. Catherine, excellent, excellent point, you know,
and the, and the law, and you know, the lawyers need some money. And I say to doctors who are
in Australia, I go, well, you know, if you agree there's a depopulation agenda, why,
why would you try and save your money, sell your house and fund these cases? Because otherwise
we're all lost. We're all doomed. So, a lot of people are certainly doing that. And our job
is to keep educating people from our work that we're doing here so that they give money. Those
who can give money easily should be giving it in large amounts. And there's a lot of cash sloshing
around and there's a lot of people with money on our side, but we have to ask them. So, Catherine,
well said. Stephen, last questions to you of Beryl. And Tom Rodman has put the link in the chat for
the Telegram group. We'll be finishing in a few minutes here if you wish to continue the discussion.
So, Stephen, over to you. Yeah. So, first, Catherine, I put my, oh, sorry, I haven't pressed
enter though. I have now. Beautiful. Well done. Can you see that? Yep. Thank you. Very good. Thank
you. If you could email me, Catherine, I'd be really grateful to you. I will do that. Thank you.
So, Beryl, I thought your presentation was outstanding. So, I used an adjective in my
introduction in the invitations, which I think was appropriate. I won't repeat it here because
I don't want to embarrass you, but I just wondered. So, you presented it in a very neutral way
and maybe you don't want to say what you really think. And that wouldn't be surprising with this
case you've got coming up in October. But maybe you do want to say what your views are on
what you were talking about. And it's, in my view, one can't defend it at any point. The whole thing
is just, it seems to me that the whole thing was designed to make money and now it's being used
as a mechanism of control. And maybe that was the original intention. What do you see? Because I
noticed there are four films that come up and I put the link to one of those films in the invitation.
I don't know whether you noticed that. Your name, when you search it, there are four films. I think
it says filmography or something. But you appear in them, I think, but you're not the director,
or you may be, I don't know. But you've been very active at least since 2007, I think.
So you've worked with Andrew Wakefield, correct?
I haven't worked directly with Andrew, no. But I certainly know of him and I work with people who
work with him and all that. As a matter of interest, do you know how to contact him?
Well, he lives in Texas and near Polly Tommy, I think. And at least he did live in Texas. So
I know Polly. Polly would know how to contact him. I have his email address. Sorry? I have his email
address. Oh, very good, John. Could you send it to me? John?
Yes, of course. Yeah. With his permission, obviously. Yes. Thank you so much. So Meryl,
do you want to say what you think about what you presented today or not? Your take on it?
Well, I think I already did, Stephen. I told you that I think people are trying to take over the
world, impoverish us and weaken us under the guise of medical pandemics. And monkeypox may be the
next one. Certainly, there are many fishy aspects of this pandemic. I've actually been in this kind
of medical activist role for over 30 years. I identified the first offensive use of biological
warfare, which happened during the Rhodesian Civil War and involved anthrax. And I published that
30 years ago. So I think my position is well known. And what I try to do in all my writings is
just present the facts that I find to people because I think they tell a story. And I'd like
the reader or the person listening to be able to make up their own mind because that's more powerful.
Sure. And if I've missed facts, because, you know, we're all selective in some way, I'm
happy to be apprised of what I've missed if I don't have the story right.
So do you think the stockpiling of vaccines, not just so the monkeypox, but there are others,
presumably, do you think they're doing that because they care about the populations they serve?
These governments? Well, OK, so now you're asking for opinion with where I have no facts to
say what the intent is, but certainly the expense, the incredible expense of the preparations for
pandemics and biological warfare, which are probably about $150 billion in the last 21 years
in the US. That's extraordinary, probably at least that much. And my guess, if you look at
the companies that got big chunks of that money without good evidence of an effective product,
you will find that they often were politically connected. So for instance, the company
that is selling this product, T-Pox, which is the main drug for monkeypox now,
T-Pox was their primary investor was Ronald Perelman, who was a big Democrat donor.
And when the government first tried to buy half a billion dollars worth of this drug,
10 years ago or more, during the Obama administration, Congress was having a fit.
And so they just waited 18 months and then they bought a larger amount of T-Pox from the company.
So yeah, I think there's a tremendous amount of corruption involved when there's this much
money sloshing around and you don't need to prove that your product works before the government
buys it. I mean, you're asking for trouble. But as I said, I think this is only a relatively small
piece of a larger program that is trying to gain hegemony over people using medical threats.
And I think that whole issue of expecting the government to help us out with a pandemic,
well, maybe we shouldn't. Maybe we should distress the government and maybe it's going to be every
man for himself. On the other hand, were a real smallpox pandemic to arise with a 30% mortality
rate, which is then maybe people would want the vaccine. On the other hand, it seems that drugs
that treat viral infections have been suppressed. Who knew? I didn't know at the beginning of COVID
that the chloroquine drugs, which I'd worked with for many years, that they were effective antivirals,
not every virus, but a number of viruses can be killed in vitro with chloroquine drugs.
And it turns out that federal agencies knew that as well. So I think for those of us who are aware,
requires a whole new way of thinking about how we deal with medical emergencies, how we determine
whether there are emergencies, who do we trust, et cetera. We can't stop the government from
wasting money, but we can at this point, we might lose our job, we might lose the ability to go to
a school, but we can say, you're not going to inject me. And we could lose that freedom soon
if people aren't very clear about protecting the autonomy of their own bodies.
And that's the final frontier, right? Is our body. The line stops at my skin.
And we haven't gotten that message out, but I think it's a compelling one.
And maybe we'll learn how to do it better. That's a brilliant summary, Merrill. Absolutely great.
And have you got any ideas about what is your, can you see any solutions, the best solutions
that you can see or? Well, as I said, you know, I've created this pledge with the help of a lot
of people. And if groups, I have several groups already that are anxious to get it started.
So if groups come together and they have their own constituency, we can push it and it'll make
a difference. And if people don't, it won't. So I hope to get it out there in its final form
within the next few days. I've been playing with it for two and a half weeks and it's long enough.
Have you got much support, Merrill? Yeah, everyone who's seen it has been
very taken with it. Just about. I should say, I mean, people have come to me and asked if their
group could join. Yeah, very good. It's in the chat. And I hope people will come to me and ask
to join and I will sign them up. Great. Or if they want to discuss the language, you know,
we've got maybe a few more days to do that. Thank you. Thank you.
All right, Merrill, the request was to put it in the chat again, because I think some people,
because the chat goes quite long and well done, everybody, for the information that you have put
into the chat and shared with us. It's so valuable. And then Cathy Dopp asks to put your substrack link
in, although that's quite findable, I would have thought, under your name.
Anyway, put the chat in there, we'll keep it open. All right.
Charles, I just noticed that Jerry Brady has summed it up. Well, if you want to live in a
concentration camp, do nothing. That's it. Jerry Brady is a medical doctor in Australia.
But Stephen is so comfortable to be asleep. I love being asleep.
Yeah, I know. I know the feeling, Charles, but you've got to fight.
Oh, I'm going to sleep. There's a word in Welsh called Bechod. Poor baby. I think something like
that. I'm a poor baby. That's correct. Yeah. All right. Tom Rodman has put the link in for the
Telegram chat for those who wish to continue. Thank you, Merrill, everybody. Please thank
Merrill in the usual way with... Brilliant, Merrill. Very good.
Wonderful. Well done on your courage over the last 30 years, Merrill. Yes. It's a great credit to you.
Please save the chat, everybody. Stephen, I will send you the chat. Thank you.
And Merrill, thank you for putting those links in there. Thank you, everyone, for being here.
And Stephen, I think you know who's going to be on Sunday, don't you?
Yeah, it's Richard Fleming, yeah. And he is appealing for help with indictments yesterday,
actually, and at present. So he's really going for that. I don't quite know who's in his sights,
but that's what we'll ask on Sunday. Very good.
Merrill, you can join us if you like. Thank you.
All right, everybody. Thank you. Have a wonderful Tuesday night, Wednesday,
and we'll be with you again Sunday night or Monday for We Poor Australians. Anyway,
we can cope with lack of sleep. Just put the chat in there. Thank you, Merrill, for adding those bits.
All right. Thanks for being here. Bye, everybody.
Bye bye.