So everybody, welcome to today's discussion of Medical Doctors for COVID Ethics International.
This group was founded by Dr. Stephen Frost over three and a half 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.
We remember here today one of our group, Anna de Buisare, UK lawyer who died on the 30th
of November.
A sad passing.
And we also remember Ryan Ofolmik who's unlawfully incarcerated in German jail undergoing a German
show trial.
Any of you that can shine a light on Ryan's plight, please do so.
I'm Charles Covester, moderator of this group.
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 bad medical
and damage from bad medical advice.
Bad medical advice is now the number one killer in America.
I'm also the CEO of an industrial hemp company.
We comprise lots of professions here and we're from all around the world.
Many of us thought the vaccines were OK.
Now many of us proudly say we are passionate anti-vaxxers as I am and anybody who's pro
childhood vaccines or any vaccines is simply ignorant and in many cases criminally negligent.
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 a podcast like Jerry Waters, put the link into the chat Jerry
so people can subscribe to your 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.
Most of us understand we're in the middle of World War 3 at present since late 2019,
obviously but perhaps less obviously before that.
And that the medical science battle is only one of 12 battle fronts of this latest world
war.
The ISS were four and a half years into a seven year war so two and a half years to
go probably.
So choose not to be tired.
Choose to look after yourself and be up for the fight.
Most of us understand the development of science and the science is never settled.
The meeting runs for two and a half hours after which for those with the time Tom Rodman
runs a video telegram meeting and he puts the links into the chat if you're able to
join.
We will listen to our guest presenters today Dr Bob Gill for as long as Bob wishes to
speak and then we have Q&A 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 our fight to preserve our human freedoms.
If you're offended by anything be offended we're lovingly not interested.
We reject the offence industry that requires nobody to say anything that may offend another
and we similarly reject the triggering industry.
Don't you dare say something that might trigger something.
Both the offence industry and triggering industry are both attacks on free speech.
We come with an attitude and perspective of love not fear.
Fear squashes you, enslaves you, love expands you, liberates you.
The challenge of love is loving those who have diametrically opposed views to us.
It's really easy to agree with people who are nice to you, who agree with you.
These twice weekly meetings are not just talk fests an extraordinary range of actions and
initiatives have been generated from linkages made by attendees in these meetings and Stephen
before we started the recording talked about Jerome Corsi here and Jerome has published
books of people who's met on these calls.
There's lots of other connections made and indeed we can't keep track of all of those
connections.
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 and is uploaded onto the Rumble channel and
before I introduce our presenter today Dr Bob Gill from the UK and we thank you for
giving us your time I'm going to get a special treat for you all a three a new song that's
very apacite Bob to you in the UK to Stephen in the UK and enjoy it.
It goes for three and a half minutes and please observe and think.
Oh sorry.
Yeah patience Stephen.
Sure.
Is that with a swipe of my pen I can charge someone with a misdemeanor and by virtue of
swipe of my pen you will have to go to a courthouse and stand in line you will have to come out
of pocket and hire an attorney you may get arrested for a few hours you will be embarrassed
in your community all because with the swipe of my pen I've tried to charge you with a
crime which I may choose to dismiss two weeks later it's an incredible amount of power.
Enough is enough.
How much more can the people take our freedoms disappear with the stroke of a pen.
There is rioting on the streets there are children being murdered it is so hard to believe
that this is England.
People with knives in their hands shouting their terrifying words others are running
for cover but where can they go.
This is their home.
Enough is enough.
How much more can the people take our freedoms disappear with the stroke of a pen.
Around the world right now the violence is escalating there are those who seek to take
control are we playing right into their hands.
Their plans to turn us against each other are manifesting every day the people cave
but we must join together until lambs become lions.
Enough is enough.
How much more can the people take our freedoms disappear with the stroke of a pen.
The time has come when each one must decide which master we serve the dark or the light.
Enough is enough.
How much more can the people take our freedoms disappear with the stroke of a pen.
Enough is enough.
How much more can the people take our freedoms disappear with the stroke of a pen.
This is the power that is being claimed across the board and we have to resist it.
So let's unpack that song.
The arrogance as well Charles that she should openly say that and not realise that people
would turn that against her in the future.
It's just unbelievable.
She said an incredible amount of power.
We've been rescued.
Let me now introduce because I showed that because that's a great song with a message
and Bob is a filmmaker so let me give you a bit of background for those who didn't
get the invitation for the purpose of the recording and Bob's in the media and
really these discussions and the media can be used to really educate people in important
ways.
So Bob is a GP, general practitioner who's worked in the National Health Service in the
UK for 30 years during which time he's witnessed the corporatisation of health care in
England.
He's produced two documentaries on this subject.
Sell-off in 2014 followed by the great NHS heist in 2019 that exposed the repurposing of
public health system into a US style profit driven dystopia.
The era of COVID hysteria with the threat to basic human rights and we've just seen
that on the video on the song enough is enough.
Medical ethics and free speech overshadowed the slow death of NHS but were not unrelated.
Bob Gill refused to stop providing in-person care for his patients and publicly supported
his call for cessation of mRNA shots and of course the work of Angus Del Glis who's presented
to us on three occasions calling for a cessation of all mRNA shots.
So the other thing I wanted to say is that Bob exposed how over decades the National
Health Service in the UK has been packaged up and readied for privatisation by successive
governments and Boris Johnson's government passed the UK Health and Care Act 2022 which
set up integrated care systems mirroring the American Kaiser Permanente managed care
model.
Among its many shortcomings it introduces greater power to ministers to make future
changes without parliamentary scrutiny.
In other words with the stroke of a pen.
So Bob is going to speak to us about this attack and yes I think that's enough Bob you're
going to tell us the rest and Bob is begging the public to wake up to educate your family
and friends get on National Talk Radio and join grassroots movements to fight this
specific utter betrayal by our politicians before it's finally too late.
So Charles I think we ought to recognise that Bob was way ahead of his time in 2014 with
sell-off and 2019 with the great NHS heist and what he did was just brilliant very very
few people could have done it but Bob did it I think together with others but I saw him
and I was very clear of that and he couldn't have imagined and neither could I what would
happen in the next five years it was so he was ahead of his time so maybe you can tell
the story of the last five years now Bob.
Well Bob over to you we're in your hands go for as long as you like well done on what
you've done.
Thank you yes thanks for that introduction so I'm a full-time GP I'm still practicing
I became an activist about a decade ago because I was seeing the consequences of policy in
terms of restricting health care and access to health care for my patients and I couldn't
really work out what was going on until I joined a campaign to prevent the closure of
a local emergency department and you know then followed a period of great learning meeting
some very bright people such as health policy expert Alison Pollock and Dr. Lucy Reynolds
amongst many others but it also gave me a baptism in how nefarious political involvement
and activism can be the concept of controlled opposition and infiltration and sabotage so
I had a very steep learning curve and the process of making the films was really to
do the job that our media was supposed to do I thought our media was supposed to do
which is to inform the public and make them aware that actually our politicians were getting
away with being unchallenged in destroying our health service what I will share with
you is a few slides just to guide my discussion just bear with me so hopefully you can see
this yep we can yep perfect okay so I'm just going to put that full screen if it will let
me do that it will are you on a Mac or a PC a PC yep good from beginning yep perfect
okay yeah so I started on this journey I made the films because there was a media silence
on what was really going on the NHS was presented as needing reform but what actually was going
on was a total restructuring without public consent I think this is a useful quote just
to summarize what the privatization lobby had intended this is from a Dr. Tim Evans
who was part of a public relations pressure group the independent health care association
from 2011 saying the NHS would be simply turned into a kite mark behind which private providers
would be doing the provision and extracting profit of course but the story goes back a
lot further we had during the Reagan-Thatcher era the birth of neoliberalism in the west
which they tried out in South America and the strategy was really to remove public services
and infrastructure and widen inequality and concentrate power and wealth in the hands
of the few not unlike what the globalists are doing around the world and this is a document
from 1977 before Thatcher even got to power which spelt out how they would privatize all
the nationalized industries with a special note made of proceeding by stealth and piecemeal
in secret in terms of what they would do to the health service it wouldn't be a full frontal
attack or a big bang privatization as they did for the utilities this had to be done
by stealth another document from 1988 produced by Oliver Letwin and John Redwood for the
think tank the CPS Center for Policy Studies at the time they were working for NM Roth-Charles
Bank they subsequently went on to become MPs under Thatcher and they gave us a useful bullet
point of what they wanted to achieve with their reforms I'll draw your attention to
number one here which was to break the NHS up into independent trusts because the NHS
is far too big for a privatization to go unnoticed until you break it up and joint ventures in
other words public private partnerships not unlike the partnership between Bill Gates
and the WHO where a lot of evil is pursued under the name very soft comforting term of
partnership and ultimately they wanted to turn the NHS really into a funding stream
to operate a basic Medicare type insurance provision run by the private insurance industry
so my film the great NHS high in just under around two hours set out in significant detail
speaking to very many experts in the field including several from America health experts
in this country and also patient testimony to show that the legislation wasn't a series
of incompetent political acts but a very well coordinated plan to fit the NHS's needs
and ultimately ultimately to the NHS's needs and ultimately to the NHS's needs and ultimately
to the public now a lot of this resonates with the Covid era but this preceded the Covid
era what woke me up to something nefarious a miss was when I attended a rally in 2012
2013 in Manchester as a relatively new activist and at that time there was a party conference
being held by the Conservative Party in Manchester there were about 50,000 demonstrators predominantly
demonstrating against the threat to the NHS and I was sure that when I returned home this
would be all over the mainstream media and I rang my wife and said I'm sorry I'm sorry
and I rang my wife and said don't go to sleep until I get home we'll watch the news together
my job will be done and I can relax and go back to being a doctor but only when I got
home I realised there was a total blackout of the fact that even being a demonstration
despite the fact that the country and the world's media were gathered together to cover
the party political conference so this was staggering quite shocking and you started
to realise that the world I thought I was living in actually didn't really exist you
know it's a carefully crafted illusion by the media and our politicians and this fake
opposition set up we have a duopoly so that it could have put me right off and go back
to the day job but actually something within me wanted to get to the truth and it's part
of that getting to the truth that formed the framework of the film and what you have here
is a timeline of what actually took place going back to the 80s you had the disempowerment
of the medical profession within the NHS with the creation of a bloated management structure
you had a decoupling of medical responsibility from the control of what actually went on
in the hospital so they introduced a bloated structure which was then to serve the further
privatisation which was to follow and for the first time in the 80s we had the outsourcing
of critical services within the hospital such as cleaning catering the porting services
these were handed over to the private sector fragmenting the care for example I'll put
it to you keeping the hospital clean is pretty important to prevent hospital acquired infection
which subsequently was proven to have gone up with the contracting out of services in
the 1990s we were sold the lie that somehow competition within a public service would
somehow increase efficiency that was the lie of the internal market and as we know once
you introduce bureaucracy what actually happened was the overhead of running the service increased
from around 4% which was in international comparison was a very low overhead in running
the service by the mid 2000s this was estimated to have gone up to 14% and the overhead the
running and the management and the extraction of profit in the US accounts for 36% of US
health expenditure so competition in healthcare does not drive efficiency it just introduces
more siphoning points and they hold multiple tiers of intermediaries that don't actually
contribute a single iota of benefit to the patient in the late 90s we had a change of
government we had the Blair Brown government which supposedly rejected the statutory forms
but actually they reinforced them and embedded them further and in order to achieve the next
step what they did was introduce a system of financialization they decided to borrow
very expensively from the private sector to replace hospital infrastructure they used
a vehicle called private finance initiative and what that ended up doing in fact was burdening
the NHS with very expensive debt and at the same time it provided cover for replacing
old hospitals with very high capacity with new hospitals with very much lower capacity
and also transferred ownership of the assets so the infrastructure of the NHS which was
built using private finance achieved a capacity reduction a transfer of ownership and attaching
a financial millstone to the NHS so now public money was being redirected to debt servicing
rather than providing care for patients we had for the first time in the early 2000s
under the Labour government the outsourcing of clinical care to for-profit companies and
what that saw was a very large increase in the number of people who were in the NHS and
that was a term or a system of cherry picking and cream skimming where the private sector
is very happy to take on board profitable high volume work and leave the complex care to the NHS
this proved very lucrative in fact the public purse underwrote the profits of these outsourced contracts
guaranteeing them a return whether they fulfilled the whole contract value or not
so it was underwritten by the taxpayer and into the 2000s we had another change of government
but a continuation of the policy stream whereby in 2012 this phony internal market that had been
normalised over the preceding decade was now turned into a compulsory private market
whereby every service over a certain value had to be tended out to the private sector
so now the GPs were supposedly in charge of improving the healthcare but actually their hands were tied
and they were forced to outsource hospital provision and later on in the early 2010s
we had the proposal of replicating the American Accountable Care Organisations or managed care
and a lot of this was overseen between 2014 and 2021 by a gentleman known as Mr Simon Stevens
who through the revolving door went from being a policy advisor to Tony Blair on health
then he spent the next decade working for UnitedHealth, America's biggest private insurer
only to return to the NHS as leaving the job of president for global expansion for this insurance company
to become the chief executive of the NHS for seven years whereby he set about repurposing NHS structures
and management to replicate the American insurance industry model of managed care
and by the time we made the film we'd managed to look at the contracts UnitedHealth had obtained
via their subsidiary Optum in the UK which involved training management
introducing their own insurance based software protocols and really shaping the leadership of the NHS
into the mantra of American managed care and they by 2018 were covering most of the country in terms of influence and policy implementation in England
So by the time we were approaching 2019 the NHS did not resemble in ethos or structure what had been set up in 1948
the medical profession had been tamed in order for a consultant to progress within a hospital he had to tow the line
whistleblowers were routinely thrown under the bus and ignored
for consultants to maximise their income they had to keep their noses clean and do as management told them
medicine became very much more top down and protocol following
the opportunities for speaking freely were narrowed, examples were made of whistleblowers
so the culture within the NHS was that of fear and top down control
and once they felt confident enough they started to actually a programme of doctor substitution
which is fully underway and more recently become noticeable by the public and some elements of the media are reporting it
but I've highlighted here a paragraph from the Institute of Economic Affairs
another right wing pro privatisation think tank which under a blog titled How to Abolish the NHS
the NHS set forward their radical view of deregulation
to quote perhaps the most important most importantly the compulsory licensing of medical professionals should be abolished
anyone should be at the liberty to practice as a doctor or nurse
with patients relying on brand names or competing voluntary associations to ensure quality
ending restrictive practices is essential to enable private firms to increase productivity in the sector
now our politicians aren't that stupid they certainly wouldn't announce a policy as stated so blatantly here
but what they did is to achieve this goal they have introduced a whole branch of health professional
known as physicians associates previously known as physicians assistants
and they have been brought under the wing of the general medical council which is the regulatory body for doctors
thereby creating a smoke screen and blurring the boundaries between people who've had two years of medical studies
compared to somebody such as a general practitioner who's had ten years of study and clinical practice
so they are making a false equivalence of a physician's associate with a doctor
with very little pushback from the medical bodies including the royal colleges and the BMA in fact
they have been largely complicit with this whole agenda of repurposing our health service
this is an article published by LBC which is a national sort of talk radio station
raising concerns about this sort of downskilling agenda which is common to privatized medicine
so what I learned with my activism and making the films was our politicians have through several decades
been actively making our health care more expensive and driving down standards
which inevitably will lead to mass patient harm and premature death
to give us a graph that replicates this red line you see here of health care expenditure versus life expectancy
whereas the UK is sort of somewhere in the middle of that cluster to the left and above
and what this shows is the US system spends two to three times what the UK was spending
yet everybody's living a shorter life expectancy
and this is because in the American system either you don't have health care provision
and even if you do have health care provision you'll find that the insurance companies are expert at avoiding paying out for very expensive care
so in fact the point of insurance is to cover you for the very thing they're supposed to cover you for
they will abandon you at your hour of greatest need
now what this graph is, it is showing you what happened to a gentleman who had private insurance
who thought he was safe, he was in fact a barrister, a queen's council, now king's council
who unfortunately developed a cancer and in 2016 his premium started to escalate from around £7000 a year
ultimately reaching £164000 a year because what the insurance company wanted to do was to price him out of cover
that's how they work, they're not there to provide you with care
they're there to provide you with cover for simple and cheap procedures
but as soon as you become expensive they want to dump you like a hot potato
and if you don't have a basic health service there to pick up the pieces, well it's down to you
to either you go bankrupt paying for your own health care that you thought was covered
which is the US's top reason for bankruptcy is health care
and the vast majority of those people going bankrupt actually had private health insurance
so really the objective of the film was to say look we need to defend a system of universal comprehensive provision
because in the system we have moved to nobody is safe, neither the insured nor the uninsured
and that was the chap who suffered the fate of being priced out of private cover
now United Health has been in the news recently, their chief executive was shot and killed in New York
there are several speculative ideas as to why this might have happened
some say it was an aggrieved policy holder whose loved one or himself hasn't been able to secure payment by his insurance company
others have said suggested that perhaps he was about to blow the whistle on how his industry worked
but under his leadership United Health have received the esteemed honour of being amongst the leading insurance company to deny policy holders cover in the United States
so anybody in England who thought the NHS was unadulterated and sticking to its founding principles
needs now to understand that it is actually modelled on a system which from a study back in 2016
showed that the third leading cause of death in America was actually medical error
because their system is driven by profit, it's not driven by prevention of illness, it's not driven by avoiding unnecessary treatment
and it's very fragmented and that is a system that our politicians have unfortunately chosen to copy without our permission
interestingly there wasn't an outpouring of sympathy with this killing in New York
but actually there was an outpouring of anger and animosity in America towards United Health in particular and the insurance industry model in general in the States
there may be some people in England sitting back thinking our saviour Keir Starmer will come to the rescue
but they don't necessarily realise that he's actually very much in favour of the sort of global agenda and the getting into bed of governments with private corporations
and he has the blessing of Black Rock and Larry Fink no less
so the reforms that have undertaken over the past couple of decades in legal terms they've achieved their goal
the transition to the full American system is slowly happening
we have growing waiting lists, people are driven to paying out of pocket or taking up top up insurance because they don't want to wait two to three years to get an operation
there is denial of care which happens in America, here it's happening through waiting lists and also closure of services
so we have a pretty well set up two tier service now in England
so when the film was finished and ready to go within a matter of weeks actually we hit the era of Covid
which scuppered our plans to promote the film unfortunately
and it came at a time when I was personally pretty much burnt out in terms of getting the film produced
and it was quite a discombobulating period with the hysteria and project fear around Covid
but I was actually looking at what was going on through the lens of what I discovered in making the film
which was that our politicians don't really care about the public
whatever they do and say doesn't necessarily match their motivations or actually their intended goal
so I was questioning from the beginning but I hadn't figured it out as quick as some others
but I was open to listening to what was going on because I certainly didn't trust what mainstream media were saying
and in early in 2020 I happened to listen to Ralph Nader interview a specialist in genetics
who said that from what he understood of the genetic sequence of Covid that this could not have been a natural occurrence
the way the genetic code was and the sequence of repeating codes
hundreds of repeating codes one after the other that this looked like it had been created in a lab
and you know this was quite shocking to me but you know you would have thought I wouldn't be able to be shocked
but it was shocking and then I started to question a lot of the narrative that was coming out
particularly when the government actually instructed GPs to close their doors
now on a very basic level if you're dealing with a health crisis
you shouldn't ask your health professionals to step down and just be observers from home
that didn't make any sense but with my privatisation filter applied I thought
was this a tactic to help destroy further the trust between the medical profession and the public
and GPs in particular, GPs closing their doors was not a very good move
trust takes years to gain and can be lost in seconds
so with that outlook I refused to shut my doors
I took precautions, I made sure the waiting room wasn't overcrowded, good ventilation
I didn't go far as religiously wearing a mask, I thought if I get it I get it but you know I've got to carry on working
and I didn't want an accumulation of unmet need amongst my patients
so the way I practice, my patient group I've known for 20 years
I have a personalised list and these are not, it's not just a transaction with me and my patients
I know them, I have a connection with them and I have a genuine interest in making sure that they have the best outcome
on a professional level and on a human level so none of this actually made any sense to me
but I could understand why others who had abandoned continuity of care and had stopped critically thinking years before
could see this maybe as a break from the grind and maybe a time to just de-stress
so I haven't come across any other GP certainly in my area who carried on providing services as normal
watching the news, watching the BBC I was struck by how they gave a daily death toll in terms of Covid deaths
and I thought this didn't really add up because normally the BBC, one of its main functions is not to challenge government
but their daily reporting of the death toll wasn't doing government a service
so I didn't quite understand what was going on there at the beginning but later on it became clear that this was part of Project FEAR
to prime people to be ready and desperate to take whatever health intervention was offered in due course
so I kept my eyes and ears open, I wasn't quite prepared to learn what I subsequently learnt
when the vaccine came about and we were instructed to administer it, initially it started off as a targeted programme
primarily to the most vulnerable groups particularly the elderly and this was made extremely attractive to GPs
because there was a fee for administering every vaccine so all of a sudden the GPs who had locked themselves in their own homes
and hidden away from patients were suddenly very happy to start providing in-person care again which I found quite amusing
but gradually there was a mission creep and more and more people were included into the mRNA vaccination programme
then we started to hear more and more stuff that made absolutely no sense at all, the denial of natural immunity, the wearing of masks was promoted
and lockdowns of course which by that time I'd come across the work of Professor Ioannidis through my contact with Osimil Hotra
and from what he published the death rate from Covid was no more significant than that of a typical flu season
but what was different was how this may significantly affect different age groups
it could be a death sentence for the very elderly but healthy people under the age of 50 would recover without any problem and would have very protective natural immunity
so more and more I started looking into this and keeping an open mind, it was in 2022 that Osimil Hotra contacted me again and said
I've managed to look at Pfizer's data from their trials and actually what he discovered and revealed in his paper was 1 in 800 adverse incident rate
and I supported his call publicly for the suspension of the modified RNA gene therapy programme and personally and my surgery we pulled out the whole system
we refused to participate in any more of the programme so at that point I had to make a pretty firm stand in the face of objection from health colleagues in my practice
and that was quite difficult because people had been very successfully propagandised into believing that this was some miraculous cure and anybody who did challenge it was some sort of nutcase
or needed to be ostracised and smeared and ignored so I fell into that category I suppose of people who were the new medical untouchables
so it was quite a difficult time and it wasn't a time where, because at that time I was potentially straddling two horses, do I continue to speak on the NHS and the destruction of public service provision
or do I start straddling another horse quite vocally and publicly where a lot of my colleagues had already been brainwashed and psychologically inoculated against hearing anything that went against the mainstream narrative
but gradually, certainly on social media, I was sharing and amplifying much of the stuff that a lot of your previous guests have revealed to the public particularly from Assim and others who have been very active on this subject
and done a lot of the primary research into the harms of the mRNA intervention and the subsequent knock-on effects on immunity, the effect on cancer surveillance of an altered immune system and indeed the harms in terms of myocarditis and other autoimmune and inflammatory side effects of the gene therapy
so that sort of brings me up to date in terms of what I've been up to and what the changes and challenges and the learning, the impact they've had on me
I've been encouraged to see people like RFK Jr. and others who seem to have been given a platform, hopefully have been given a platform to put some of these gross injustices, correct them
and also I live in hope that there might be some accountability in terms of people like Anthony Fauci and others who have actually subjected the world and democracy a very big devastating blow in terms of trust and confidence
and hopefully we'll be able to rebuild the free speech that has suffered under the Covid era censorship, actually something that was revealed by the Twitter files and the work done by the journalists who exposed how heavily infiltrated the deep state was in controlling the narrative around Covid
and the promotion of the vaccine and the cancelling and deplatforming of others who are trying to warn us about the dangers ahead. Thank you.
Thank you.
Bob, thank you so much for sharing your story, the work that you've done supporting the same Mel Hotra and there are those who say, you know, that a doctor should never have been, a doctor should never have been fooled.
On the other hand, I reject that because all of us are wonderful at making mistakes and I'm a fan of Buckminster Fuller. Bob, I don't know if you've heard of Buckminster Fuller, but not one of us on this call, not you, not anybody on this call has been able to develop any skill without making mistakes.
Not possible. None of you, none of you, you could, you don't even know how to eat. You don't even know how to walk without making mistakes. So the mistakes that we make, we all on a different journey.
Now, in Australia, to compare the NHS to the Australian experience and the privatisation and the removal of doctors, that's the game plan. Get rid of doctors, replace them with AI.
In 1975, I was a tax lawyer and that's when Medibank came in and that was when medicine became a menage à trois. When it was no longer the doctor and the patient, but the government became the third party of this menage à trois.
And that's when the beginning of the end of proper medicine happened and same with the NHS. And it's salutary to observe that and again, Buckminster Fuller said, don't tear down the existing system, set up a new one.
You make the observation. And that, of course, that led then to the evidence-based medicine fraud and the protocol fraud that many people are suffering from.
So interesting question you're talking about licensing of doctors. And the thought that I put to you for contemplation is, and I say this for any profession, the whole licensing game is what enables, what's your regulatory body called, Stephen, in Australia?
It's the it's APRA. What's the doctors General Medical Council, the GMC. Okay. The whole licensing process enables the GMC to terrorise doctors. Same with Anna de Buissere being terrorised by the Solicitors Board.
And this we have to. And Charles, it's very important to realise that General Medical Council are bureaucrats through and through.
Yeah, so Australia, APRA is the same. And so the question, the question to think about is, all of us in due course, not just Bob, I'm just planting this thought for you to think about is, hey, this whole idea of licensing is sold to us as protection for people.
And your presentation reinforces that the protection of the public is all part of the fascist game of government and big corporates coming together for profit purposes, not for the benefit of the people.
And you clearly articulated the politicians no longer care about us. And I think that's excellently put. And all of us have to stop thinking other than politicians other than Christian Anderson and Andrew Bridgen and another number of minority.
They couldn't give a shit about us. So well, so well articulated, well said and get off. All of us have to think about, hey, why do we actually need licensing?
Because now, anyone, we are people on this call who are fantastic healers, who just say, I'm not a doctor. I will look after you. Here's my qualifications. I don't need a license from somebody to be able to give good advice.
So, Bob, thank you so much for sharing your story. I just put those there for people to think about in the context that we get caught up in these nice certificates that I've got the back of my head.
And now we have the next 15 minutes belongs to Stephen as tradition dictates.
Yeah, so Bob, where do we start? So I just wanted to say that it's important to understand, I think that. So what happened in the world of medicine was a since 2020 was a Trojan horse for totalitarianism.
So actually the big pick, the really big picture is totalitarianism. They want to control all the people in the whole world for their own good.
Obviously, we realize that's not for our good, but so they want to take our freedom away from us, which is obviously not good for human beings to protect us, you know, allegedly.
And the WHO is a prime example, but it's not just the WHO. All these things are working together. The other Trojan horses are Ukraine war.
I mean, there's so many, the Trans Agenda and then climate change. Charles can probably reel off a few others. But anyway, so what happened in 2020?
I knew straight away there was something terribly wrong. And to me, I realized almost immediately that it was a global coup d'etat.
So they were taking down governments essentially around the world and actually the politicians who were part of those governments were actually doing it.
They were committing treason, in my opinion. So I knew and I thought the best place to start from was that everything was alive.
So I've now come to the conclusion that there was no pandemic. And furthermore, probably, I think that it's highly probable that it is impossible for pandemics to occur.
So when I was at medical school, there was a professor of immunology who said deadly viruses kill the host. And I said, I asked him innocently.
I was good at asking questions even then. And I said, does that mean that pandemics are not possible? And he said to my amazement, I didn't understand then.
He said, very good, Steven. So did he know something then that he wasn't sure about and didn't want to share with us? But anyway, you get my message.
So do you think that there was a pandemic? Do you think that it was properly diagnosed COVID-19?
I personally don't think that it was properly diagnosed, not just with the fraudulent test, but also there was no symptom, which was pathognomonic for COVID-19 as far as I could see.
Although there were colleagues of ours who were saying, oh, yes, loss of sense, loss of taste, loss of smell, you know, and then loads of other people saying, oh, I've had COVID.
And I thought, have they forgotten what flu was like? Common cold, you know? So and of course, pneumonia and flu disappeared.
So pick what you like of that, and also the psychological torture of human beings in the United Kingdom and around the world was absolutely outrageous.
Every doctor in the world should have known, had he not been psychologically tortured, that isolating human beings was absolutely wrong in every way and particularly children.
But even adults, and I think that we're all stuck in a state of Stockholm syndrome to different degrees.
So we've suffered in different ways from people who didn't understand at all.
But actually we have suffered because certainly I felt that I had a responsibility to speak out and that's exacted a price.
So I just welcome your thoughts on some of those things so we can remember them.
Yes, in terms of diagnosis, the biggest controversy was the use of PCR testing and the degree of amplification.
I think the inventor of PCR never designed it as a diagnostic tool.
Kerry Mullis, yeah. Kerry Mullis.
The other problem with it was this in terms of the reporting of deaths.
So, you know, in different countries did it differently, but there became an incentive in America to label deaths as a COVID death in order to receive more funding from the federal authorities.
So they became a perverse incentive in terms of over diagnosing.
There's a big false positive rate.
And, you know, we were given to believe that nothing else was around.
And as you mentioned yourself, you know, what happened to all the flu deaths that year and what happened to the other pneumonia deaths?
So it is you could argue there's a case to be made that there was a large amount of fake news, hysteria, propaganda.
None of the information the authorities were giving us was reliable.
A lot of the fear was driven based on modeling by I think it was was it UCL or King, one of the one of the London.
Yeah. So what's his name? Neil Ferguson at which one is it?
I think it's UCL.
I can't quite remember. Anyway, Neil Ferguson, who'd been wrong about every damned alleged pandemic.
He's got a very bad track record in terms of how how they the managed response to an airborne virus.
Well, they ripped up the rule book. They just made it up as they went along.
There was never a case for locking down that.
That was also a new invention by the WHO and spread to everybody else.
So the harm done by lockdown in terms of disruption, isolation, depression, unreported health emergencies,
vastly outweighed what we knew very early on from the work by epidemiologist I need this and also the Petri dish of the diamond princess,
which did not have although they had a very elderly elderly passenger cohort, the death rate was very low.
So the fear overtook rationality in people who should have known better, including the medical professionals in that.
And of course, but it seems to me that everything that we were told was a lie, including the gain of function.
Or at least we should be very suspicious of that story because it feeds into the narrative of fearing pandemics in the future from labs,
you know, which could appear in North Wales or Ukraine or wherever.
And leaking people leaking the virus or viruses leaking from these labs, you know,
manufactured viruses. So the whole thing was and then unprecedented unprecedented propaganda and censorship.
So it should have been obvious to everyone. This is this was a cyop.
But yeah, so I think so.
But the main thing is the totalitarianism. That's what they're pushing.
And and so who is pushing for that? Is it the globalists or is it the Chinese Communist Party?
So is the big the grand picture coming from the Chinese Communist Party who want to bring down the United States and the United Kingdom and every damn country in Europe?
Or is it coming from the globalists? And I don't know.
Have you got any views on that?
The sort of what I'm what I'm aware of or, you know, what I'm being being made aware of is.
Whenever whenever the powers that be the globalists.
Witness some sort of populist political demand, such as Trump in America or Brexit in the UK.
Always seeing it playing out in Romania at the moment, they will gather their forces to shut down.
Awareness and dissent. And, you know, we saw this over Covid, didn't we?
So people who were expressing doubt and concern about the dominant narrative were smeared and airbrushed out of the discourse.
So they're they're struggling hard to have a tighter and tighter control of what we hear and what we understand and what we believe.
And I think that's that's probably a good sign that they're reacting to a growing awareness that what our politicians and authorities tell us is not the truth.
And at least we need to be open to hearing different perspectives and trying to think for ourselves.
Yeah. So I was looking at the headlines on I can't remember where, but today, you know,
And it was just like one headline after another, which didn't make sense.
So I thought and that's, you know, people like us who've been fighting this for the last five years.
You've been fighting it longer than that. Really fighting it.
I mean, and so I thought to myself, with all this kind of news going on, this kind of noise going on, you know, which doesn't make sense and is not even important.
No wonder people can't separate the truth from from lies.
And so and also nothing makes sense anymore.
I don't think it was like this before 2020.
So but the point is that nothing makes sense because that's the best way to destabilize human beings.
Nothing makes sense. Yes. So the Chinese Communist Party in the Cultural Revolution, the Great Cultural Revolution,
Mao Tse-tung, 66 to 76, he died in 76.
They were asked to the Chinese government ordered every Chinese citizen to kill 20 flies a day to make China cleaner.
Well, obviously, even the Chinese didn't think that that was a good idea, but they went along with it because actually, if you didn't go along with it, you were put in prison or you were killed.
So they could find out who who was loyal to the Chinese Communist Party by coming out with a ridiculous thing like that.
You know, like the BBC, sorry, clapping on your front doorstep in the United Kingdom, publicly clapping for the for the NHS and BBC kind of saying that was a good thing, you know, or suggesting to me.
So they all did it. A lot of people did it. Well, I didn't do it, obviously, but I don't think you did.
But but the point is that they got people to undermine their own humanity by doing things that didn't make sense.
And they were they didn't actually believe in but they're compromising their integrity.
So was the idea to kind of attack people's humanity to such an extent that people lost their self-respect?
So I'd ask you this because the the I don't know whether you know about the mouse experiments in the 60s.
It's called the universe 25 experiment. Do you know about that? So the mice, they kind of lost the plot as the population rose in this ideal environment for the mice.
They got loads of food, loads of space to start with.
But then it got a bit crowded and then they noticed that some of the mice or it was noticed that some of the mice didn't want to the males didn't want to mate with the females.
And that led to all kinds of problems because the females identified the males who didn't want to mate with them for whatever reason.
And and they attacked them, you know, so the breakdown of society allegedly.
So so so essentially so eventually all the mice died and they were about like the experiment said there were 150 left at one stage.
But he predicted that every single mouse would die.
So the population was declining because allegedly no one wanted to mate.
You see, so so the mice, I think my interpretation is that the mice lost the will to live.
So did the lockdowns and all the other things going on was the intention to do exactly the same thing with human beings so that people didn't want to live anymore?
Because if they don't want to live, they won't live. They will die.
And so I just wonder, I just observed a difference in the United Kingdom, certainly where I live in North Wales.
It's a seaside resort and people come to look at the sea and they kind of drop there.
And it's like a human zoo that you just go down and you can just watch people and they somehow things don't seem the same as before.
What do you think? Do you think people in the United Kingdom anyway have lost the will to live?
I think certainly during the during the Covid period, it was particularly problematic for the elderly because of the social isolation.
And, you know, I'd seen a lot of my patients significantly cognitive decline in a short period of time.
Yep. And in fact, that prompted us to start like a coffee morning to get them to come out of the house and come to the surgery and have a cup of coffee.
Good for you.
Because they were they were getting socially isolated and fearful of leaving the home.
And, you know, we know that once you get into this depressed state, it's going to negatively affect your health.
So so there was certainly that. But, you know, conversations I have with people, what I have noticed is people don't want to stick out like a sore thumb.
They want to follow the crowd. There's a big pressure to conform.
However, when you on an individual or small group basis raise the subject of the whole Covid era, I'm surprised by how many people actually agree that this has been a bit of a con job.
And certainly how the politicians lied through their teeth were telling us to do one thing while they did the opposite.
Boris Johnson having parties and all the rest.
The fraud that took place behind this sort of Covid spend spending spree.
So I think that's a positive development in that the low trust in politicians got even lower.
The other positives were, you know, neighbors were looking out for each other a little bit more.
We had that patients helping other patients.
So we saw some of that going on.
And when I do raise the concerns about the MRNA intervention, a lot of people then volunteer that, you know, they may have taken two or three, but they felt very unwell after the third and they wouldn't touch another one with the barge pole.
But they haven't been allowed to express that opinion.
For fear of being contained, condemned by the rest of the group.
So when given the chance, people surprisingly have arrived at a similar position to us in terms of what what has been done to us as a population.
Yeah.
So recently, I've come to miss, Stephen.
OK, can I just say one more?
So recently, Bob, I've kind of articulated for the first time in my thoughts, you know, that this is about God, family and country.
These are our natural enemies at the moment, whoever they are, are against God.
They're against family.
They're against country, in particular against the church.
They're terrified of the church.
I've realized I'm not a Christian.
I'm not a Christian.
Brief against the family.
What do you say?
No, I agree.
And I think getting out, making, you know, reinforcing your social contacts and speaking to others is is therapy and it's necessary to push back against what is being done to us.
Exactly.
So if you don't want to go out, you should make it your business to go out, even if you really don't want to go out or especially if you do.
Yes, exactly.
Thank you so much.
Brilliant.
Thank you, Stephen.
Thank you, Stephen, for those questions.
And yes, Bob, great, great work.
I've got plenty more questions.
So don't don't stress.
We got we won't run out of questions.
OK, Julie, over to you with your great work.
Tell Bob what you're doing, please.
Thank you so much.
And yeah, Dr. Gill, very fascinating conversation.
First of all, I'm in here in California.
First 25 years of my career, I was an H.R. executive down in Silicon Valley.
And part of my job was making sure that my employees were not getting screwed by these insurance companies with their health claims.
And man, I tell you, it was a racket, but I was really good at making sure that they weren't denied.
And it's obviously not lost on me.
Your slide with United Health Care having the highest denial rate when their CEO was just shot and murdered in New York this past week.
So not a big shock to me there.
My second career was because I had to get out of there.
It was hard work.
So I moved up to northern California to a little small town and started working in health care.
And I was non-medical trained, but I was very passionate about helping our patients at Enlo Medical Center.
And when Covid hit, we all went to work for the clinics.
And I literally passed out syringes for six months to the tune of about 35,000 members in my community.
So first off, I thank you so much for standing your ground and not doing the same.
Obviously, I trusted every layer of my medical community and my public health establishment.
And it's hard, right, to have to look back on that.
And then I got injured.
So those two shots of Moderna have left me disabled.
I had both retinas detached.
I've got a lesion on my brain and it's no fun.
So and then my mom died from four shots.
So, yeah, I've spent the past two and a half years since I had to walk away from that career,
fighting everybody I can here, whoever's responsible, who is responsible for my poison and my mom's murder.
So I've been working with Ronald F. Owens Jr., who I can see walking, going county to county here in California
to speak before our supervisors who are the ones responsible at the local level to purchase the shots, store the shots, administer the shots.
And again, since I worked there, I know who these people are in my own county, but I'm on eight counties.
Ronald's on about 15 counties.
But my question is kind of then to our newest battle, which is the Board of Pharmacy.
So, again, here in the United States, you've got two places to go to get your shots, either your doctor or the public health establishment or the pharmacies.
And that started mostly started a while ago, but in 2017, they really ramped up the pharmacies becoming vaccination clinics.
And there's a ton of problems with that.
So I'm wondering if and we went and spoke before the California Board of Pharmacy last Wednesday,
and it was I wish Ronald would come and speak to that because he got mad and I never see Ronald the phone shooter get mad.
But my question is, who else gives shots in the UK?
Are your pharmacies also able to supply the shots?
Where do people go to get their vaccinations?
And thank you again for everything you do.
And thank you for holding your ground.
Thank you. Yes.
Thank you. Yes. So predominantly, it's the GP or the primary care physician.
But pharmacies have increasingly gotten on the act.
They've been doing flu shots for a few years.
And sometimes the patients think, well, I don't want to burden my doctor.
I'll go to the pharmacy.
So so there is a growth in pharmacy delivered vaccinations.
Once we pulled out of the program.
So again, I had to strike a balance of do I stick my stick?
How far do I stick my head above the parapet?
And do I jeopardize everything?
So as a practice, we pulled out of the delivery,
but I couldn't go around advertising the fact that, you know, there's a problem with the vaccine other than what I was doing on social media.
But then I was encountering patients who there seemed to be a spike in my patient group of people who were harmed after the booster.
The third jab seemed seemed to do something more than the other two.
And, you know, I've read subsequently that the repeated vaccinations has an additive effect in terms of damaging your immune system.
So that might explain it.
But even before the booster program rolled out, I started to see, you know, in relatively small population things that there was an uptick in from bohembolic disease.
In 20 years, I'd seen about two or three Bell's palsies.
And then in six months, I had about six of them.
And each time I looked, they were all vaccinated.
So I was starting to see a pattern in a small relatively small cohort of 5000 people that the vaccinated population were coming to me far more frequently.
I wasn't seeing the unvaccinated.
And the biggest issue was menstrual irregularity amongst ladies of fertile age.
And we had a couple of miscarriages, which was terrible.
So having seen the effect in my patient group, having become more and more aware, I could no longer turn a blind eye and just take the money, despite a lot of opposition from my practice within the practice.
So I was very unpopular for a while before people start to wake up to what was going on.
But it's not an easy place to be.
And I haven't been as brave as many of the other guests you've had on your group.
Oh, well, thank you so much.
Back to you, Charles.
Thank you again, Julie, Julie and Ron.
I was, you know, it's step by step, you know, Bob and each one of us does what we, you know, what we do.
And it's an interesting question, you know, that that can combine if each one of us does a little bit makes a massive difference.
And Julie, your great work with Ron is shining an important light, as is yours, Bob.
Vera, who also shining a light on much fraud.
Good to see you.
Good to see you too.
First of all, I'd like to say that the medical profession really is responsible.
None of this could happen without the seal of the doctor.
And that really the medical profession really began its downhill towards, you know, the money part way back when the American Medical Association sold the names of its membership with their license to prescribe.
They sold that to pharmaceutical companies.
The doctors did not complain.
The next thing, the reps from each pharmaceutical company with their new drug would come and teach the doctor all about why and how he should prescribe their drug.
It had nothing to do with medical evidence, nothing to do with anything that is legitimate for a doctor to follow.
And then came the medical records, right?
Suddenly, all the doctors were convinced digital medical records the way to go.
Well, guess what?
All those records are constantly being invaded by all.
You know, once it's on, you know, in digital form, the government doesn't really protect your privacy.
It's the other way around.
This is an easy way to share.
And you have no idea who is being shared with.
Now, when it came to COVID, I really, really wonder why so many doctors were fooled.
I wasn't fooled.
I'm not a doctor.
But I look at, you know, what makes sense and what doesn't.
Now, in New York City, which is where I live, everyone in the world heard that we were the epicenter, that the hospitals were overrun and everyone was dying.
And I was getting calls about Central Park became a hospital.
I said, what?
It was all a sham.
There were a few women who went to the hospitals in New York City with their iPhone and took videos of empty, empty hospitals, all but three.
Those three were overrun because all the pneumonia, all everything was dumped into those hospitals.
So, of course, you had that.
But the rest, no medicine was being practiced, actually, because it was all COVID.
Now, on top of that, it happened that my husband, who had been ill for quite a few years, nothing to do with this, he died actually April 12th, 2020.
And it was three weeks I couldn't see him.
He was in an assisted care facility because lockdown.
Okay, they did let me have the last two days with him.
The first thing after he died, I called the doctor in the hospital and I said, do not put down that COVID is the cause of death because he didn't die from COVID.
And the doctor told me, I have to.
And I threatened him. I said, I'll take you all, I fight you all the way. I suggest you don't do it.
Somehow or other, he convinced the hospital to forego the tens and I don't know, 50,000.
I mean, it varies just to put down COVID.
We had to wait more than two weeks to bury him because, oh, the cemeteries were so crowded.
Well, guess what? When we finally, finally were able to bury him, we were the only ones in this huge cemetery.
So I guess I figured it out.
Thank you for being what your profession is supposed to be a healer.
You're not supposed to be a follower of government orders.
It dictates. I'm sorry. Just because government says so doesn't mean you have to do it.
If enough doctors would have stood like you did, this whole thing would have been over one, two, three.
So I'm sorry, but I do blame the medical profession for going along.
Sorry.
No, I don't disagree with you. I think, you know, the rock started many years ago.
We bought into the whole managerialism and bloated bureaucracy.
I don't think realizing we were giving away our clinical autonomy and then, you know, these people are very clever.
They introduce perverse incentives and those who those who do speak up and stick to an ethical principle are publicly shamed and damaged.
And that has a chilling effect on other people who might have done the same thing.
And the structures within health care are set up not necessarily to think, but just to look up and do what the protocols say.
Because there's also another jeopardy for doctors is if you don't follow what the regulatory bodies or your association says, well, you're potentially open to more litigation.
So there is there is a double whammy there if you're not following the prescribed agreed care pathway.
So it's not easy, but we'd lacked leadership from our leaders.
That's the problem. Our leaders were totally castrated and did as they told.
So it was very hard for for the jobbing clinician to stick their neck out without any protection from the top.
But Bob, so in my case, I lost my profession in twenty twenty one when I withdrew my license and my registration from the General Medical Council.
And the precise reason was that I realized that it was impossible for me to do what I needed to do as a doctor with the with the threat of the GMC snapping at my heels and me having to hire lawyers,
which I couldn't afford after the after the incredible case that I got involved in a whistleblowing case.
So from 2013 to 2019.
So and so I but I thereby in one stroke, it took me three months to get out the clutches of the damn General Medical Council, who were for the first time in my life.
They wrote to me and said that I had a complaint against me, but the complainant was anonymous and there was a named person who was complaining on behalf of that complaint.
I thought I've got to get out of the General Medical Council. This was just prior to me.
And so they don't have a chance to target me for what I'm saying and what I need to say.
I was trying to get back into medicine after that dreadful case, which ended in 2019.
And then I realized that actually it was such an uphill struggle with all this stupid compliance and all the ridiculous nonsense that they wanted me to do.
I was being persuaded to do it by the Medical Defense Union. And in the end, I just told the Medical Defense Union to get lost.
Okay, Stephen, thank you for that. Vera's got another thing to say.
Just one more thing. And that is that precisely the more doctors obeyed the protocol and were not allowed to make any professional decisions,
the easier it was to have nurse practitioners take over because they're very good at following orders.
They don't have to think you see one thing led to the other led to the other.
Absolutely. You're absolutely right.
So one of the things that in my opinion, that where doctors were led astray and should have been speaking out, they were kind of say, you know,
there was this mantra about the evidence based medicine, which effectively took the autonomy of individual doctors away from them.
That's extremely important. So it took the ethics away and they had to follow these protocols and guidelines.
I never did that, but it was becoming more and more difficult to practice medicine from a computer, which is what they were aiming for.
And to become an automaton when actually the whole purpose of a good doctor, in my opinion, was to provide hope to the patient.
That's the most important thing. And then if he can also cure the patient, that that's a good second string.
I didn't find many doctors who thought that providing hope in a crazy world to the patient was important, but I think Bob understands that.
I can give you a very fresh example. Only a week or two ago.
So one of my hats I wear is a medical educator.
I host family doctors who are in their last year of training. They come and work with me for a year.
And as part of being a trainer, you go along to these trainer groups.
And we were being given an update from our raw college.
And the opening opening key message was if a physician associate asks a trainee GP to sign a prescription or a request for ionizing radiation, they should just do it and suck it up.
No, wrong.
That was the instruction. So I'm known for being a bit of a noisy person in these meetings, but I couldn't stop myself.
And I said, I beg your pardon. Are you asking them to absorb clinical responsibility for something they have no understanding of?
They haven't seen the patient. Why are you asking junior doctors to do this completely brainless compliance test?
And she totally withdrew her comment. But this is what we're up against.
So you withdrew that comment.
The key trainer who was telling us how we should train.
Wow. Yeah.
So she couldn't defend her own view.
She couldn't defend it.
Wow.
Come on.
Okay.
Yeah.
Okay.
Come on. Sorry. Okay.
Vera, you're done.
Jack.
Jack in the US of a here, Bob.
If he's here.
You muted Jack.
All right, we're going to we're going to Mark.
Hi, Bob.
Bob got a few questions.
I've become the chairman of a PPG.
And I'm very interested in understanding when you saw these patients that had problems after they had been jabbed.
Were you inclined to raise a yellow card?
What would be the process around that if you could raise the yellow card?
So a yellow card can be raised by the patient.
And when I was was aware that they were having a problem likely related to the MRA, I was encouraging them to do that.
Right.
Right. So it wouldn't be the practice then that would be doing it.
You'd want the patient to do it.
But would the patient be capable of doing it?
Yeah, I don't think it's a complicated procedure.
The point is, it's a pragmatic one.
So given how overrun and how services are in on their sort of knees, I just made a pragmatic decision that, you know, this could be related to your vaccination.
And this is what you can do.
Right.
Okay.
I don't want you to lose sight of the fact that I'm working full time.
Yes, spare time. I'm trying to do anti privatization activism.
Yeah, so there's no I understand. No, I understand. I understand.
And I don't I don't. And even if the yellow card is raised, it goes into a black hole.
So I don't have that much trust that raising the yellow card gets us anywhere because if if it did, they'd suppress the information.
And I do remember seeing a seeing a presentation done by the MRHA, more or less dismissing any concerns that are raised around excess death and problems with with the mRNA gene therapy.
So I don't trust any of these regulatory bodies that exist in a neoliberal setup are really just a charade.
And I have very limited time engaging with charade. Right.
But if if patients, for example, let's say patient has some harm has come to a patient after a hospital episode, I will say to them, I'm happy to act on your behalf.
I will even push it as far as the coroner's call.
But I need you to be strong and willing to fight. Otherwise, I can't invest the time.
And I'm sorry. Unfortunately, most people are too afraid to challenge authority.
And I have limited time and energy.
Understood. So another question.
How many patients have has the practice got roughly in total 5000 5000.
OK, so the the practice I belong to has about seven and a half thousand.
So how many GPs do you have?
So there are two full time GPs and we have a trainee GP.
All right. OK. Now, would what if you were wanting to get bloods?
Right. So right in a week.
Right. How many would you expect to actually ask people to go and get a blood test?
I probably request five or six a day.
Then there are requests made by others because they're on disease registers.
So they have annual blood tests, which I don't generate the admin staff generate.
And the younger GPs tend to request more blood tests.
So you're talking probably about 100 a week, I would say, for my population.
All right. So OK, because what I was trying to do is get a handle on some data.
Right. To find out what I wanted the GPs to provide was how many blood tests were being asked for prior to 2020.
And how many are now being given, you know, asked for further 21, 22, 23 to try and see if we've got a trend.
But I don't seem to be able to get through to have anybody look at a trend.
Is there any way that your practice is looking at any trends to see whether or not there is a particular illness that you need to be watching for?
I think in terms of demand is generally going up.
It's often fueled by patient anxiety and concern or whatever is in the news.
And more and more people are on disease registers and on long term drugs that require monitoring.
So the general trend is upward. But certainly 2020, 2021, a lot of the routine checking was suspended.
Just because of the lockdowns and everything else. So there was actually a period of catch up which lasted about a good year or so.
And now we're back down to a new normal, which is probably higher than 2019.
OK. And just one last question. We've got some patients have, let's say, have had pulmonary embolism.
Right. And they've been, you know, they've gone to the hospital, they've done a diagnosis, they haven't found any cause like a problem in the vein in the leg or the artery.
Right. But then they have told these patients that they've got to be on blood thinners now for the rest of their lives.
Is that normal?
They might not have found a trigger factor necessarily.
There may be other confounding factors. For example, the communist one is high body mass index being overweight.
So that is a independent risk factor for clotting.
But generally what the NHS is not looking at is where these vaccine related clots, right? They're just not interested.
So I've I've tried to engage with the hospital just to broach the idea that, you know, this person has become very ill with a clot or a heart attack or crushing heart failure shortly after a vaccine.
Could these things be related? There is absolutely no interest in engaging.
In fact, I was trying to get a post-mortem done on a patient of mine who within weeks of the booster ended up having crushing heart failure without any new event.
And I was I was convinced this was related to the vaccination.
By that point, I'd seen the work of the pathologist Dr.
He gave a two and a half hour interview to a journalist where he had taken a special interest in looking for vaccine related damage in the cardiovascular system and elsewhere.
But, you know, the hospitals aren't engaging with this concept at all.
It's a topic that they might discuss privately, but not through official channels.
Okay. And one last thing. If I was to join the hospital as a governor, would you have any advice for me to try and ascertain?
Is it related? So, Mark, you need to get together with Bob because he can tell you the questions that you need to ask as president or whatever it is in your PPG.
And also the hospital governor thing, because you as a I'm not I'm not saying it's going to be a long time before you come to the right questions.
The what the questions that. Oh, no. Agreed. Agreed. Agreed.
Agreed, Stephen. Agreed. Okay. Yeah.
I mean, Bob, would you can I Bob, can I give you my email address or my details? Pop them into the chat privately to you?
Sure. Yeah. Thank you. Very good. Thank you very much.
And on the data we've got Bobby Bobby bands. I was going to talk to you, but we'll get we'll get to you in due course in terms of analyzing data.
The other observation on blood tests is in my experience and in many doctors idea with huge numbers of doctors are incapable of interpreting blood test results.
So that's that's another conversation. I'll just bring that to your attention because that's a that's a rare skill to have a look at a series of blood test results and then decide what to do about it.
All right. Thank you, Mark. Now we've got Jack Bob from the US. Hopefully he's unmuted himself.
Yeah, my my audio was off before.
I wanted to comment first on what's very important.
The not finding any evidence of so-called emergency in New York City, even where it was supposed to have been acute.
We had the same thing here in Oregon. One of my friends here, normally on the line here, I'm our science.
He lives in the state capital, which is a midsize city of about 100,000.
And he went over every day to the ER at the main hospital to see if there were a line up of patients and a line of ambulances and never found either one.
There was no visible emergency whatsoever.
So that's the first thing I wanted to comment on.
And the second thing was I want to recommend a very important book about a follow up book to Bobby's book on Dr.
And this one is called the Wuhan Cover Up.
And Charles, I think this would be of special interest to you as an ex-lawyer because Bobby was also an ex-lawyer.
And he goes into all kinds of very detailed evidence.
To be taken in any courtroom in the world.
And the evidence is found connect Dr.
Fousi with Dr.
Ralph Barrett at the University of North Carolina, a specialist in gain of function research.
And with a man named Peter Daszak, who's the head of a nonprofit called EcoHealth Alliance in New York City,
which is a pass through, serves as a pass through of government funding from NIAID, NIH to Wuhan.
Where a lot of this research was done that created the virus.
Which involved somewhat magically injecting a spike protein where none existed in nature.
And this was at Wuhan Institute of Virology, directed by Dr.
Shi Zhengli.
And Dr.
Shi Zhengli, interestingly, I first heard of in February of 2020, Dr.
Fousi published an op-ed in the New England Journal of Medicine saying that he had contacted Dr.
Shi Zhengli about the fatality data coming out of Wuhan and was assured that it was no problem.
He had everything under control.
Now, it seems that the our government, but the NIH specifically, USNID, has been funneling money to Wuhan through EcoHealth Alliance,
which is a CIA cutout organization, headed by Dr.
Peter Daszak.
And for years we've been funneling money for a bioweapons program to Wuhan.
And it is from this program, apparently, that the COVID-19 virus emerged.
And so I strongly recommend this book to everybody here, and especially to Charlotte and Shirley.
You'd be fascinated by the kind of evidence that Bobby has assembled that involves the correlation between all these actors.
So the money somehow disappears or it's called something else, it's mislabeled.
And so ultimately, from the US government, specifically the bioweapons program of Fort Detrick, which is associated with NIH, goes from that bank account down to Wuhan.
I was also reminded of a Harvard scientist who was arrested for hiding evidence from the US government associated with Wuhan.
He is an expert in nanotechnology.
And there's many ways in which nanotechnology can be applied to viral transmission.
So that's the Wuhan cover-up by Robert F. Kennedy.
Very good. Jack, we're going to keep moving.
That's Bobby's latest book. I think it's really available now, is it not?
Yes. Excellent. Jack, you're a psychologist, aren't you?
Pardon? You're a psychologist, aren't you, Jack? Yes.
Yeah, good. Yes, I'm writing a book myself on some of the things that have come up here.
And I think it's going to be titled Common Sense 2.0.
Very good. Excellent. Common Sense what? Devoidov? 2.0.
OK, here we go. Jeff, thank you, Jack. Jeff, good to see you.
Hi, Charles. Good to see you too.
I have a comment coming back to what Vera was saying, because she asked who vaccinates in the UK.
And she may not know, but my son was taking me vaccinated by his mom, which I disagreed with.
And when I asked him, I said, well, how did it happen? Because you surely didn't consent because he didn't want it.
And he said, well, this chap vaccinated me, so I had to raise a complaint to find out what happened.
And it wasn't a doctor. It wasn't a nurse practitioner. And I think this is how they had such a high hit rate with COVID.
The person that vaccinated him was just implied at one of these pop-up clinics to vaccinate.
And the chap was a music student who vaccinated him.
And I don't think you've got any chance of getting any sort of full informed consent or any information from someone like that,
that had pretty much no training because he couldn't highlight any risks, benefits, if there are any, to the vaccine.
And that was the first time for this pandemic that I'd ever seen that, that there were people who weren't GPs, weren't doctors,
weren't nurse practitioners. They could just be employed specifically to vaccinate.
And did you have something like that in the US as well?
Well, in the US, you ask?
In the UK, you mean?
I'm in the UK, so in the UK, we definitely had that.
No, Bob is UK, doctor.
Yeah, I guess that was a little bit Tavira. But if Bob wants to answer,
is that something that you'd experienced before in your profession that people who weren't medically trained,
who weren't given training and how to consent people properly, were just rolled out to vaccinate?
I've never seen that in a flu campaign before or anything.
No, yeah, I agree with you. That did happen. It's the first time I ever became aware of it.
There were volunteers. There were people who'd never injected anything to anybody ever before.
They were given a crash course in how to do the injection.
And you're right, they were appearing in pop-up centres.
Even more perversely, there were GPs getting paid quite handsomely for the vaccination of their patients.
And they weren't even administering the vaccine.
They were getting volunteers to do it for them whilst they sat at home hiding from the virus.
It's crazy. And I know a lot of those volunteers didn't aspirate.
I know they weren't informed how to inject properly.
But I went to my GP afterwards and I said, look, I'm aware of now all the risks of being injured myself.
And what he said to me, and this is Richmond Lock surgery, out of my naming the surgery.
I said, look, aren't you aware of the risks?
Oh, you know, there are some and I think mainly they just downplayed myocarditis.
And I never forget those words, downplayed myocarditis.
And so I said to him, that's not a rash.
You know, they downplay the risk for rash. Myocarditis is pretty serious.
And I asked him, I asked him, what have you done about that? That's your opinion. What have you done?
Nothing. Absolutely nothing. And I was shocked.
So, Bob, if Jeff wanted to sue someone for a music student being allowed or empowered,
shall we say, to vaccinate his so-called, except it wasn't vaccination, his son, have you got any ideas who he should sue?
I'm not a lawyer, but I think it's if the music student injected you in the wrong place,
you've probably got a case against the music student.
But there wasn't much informed consent going on by the GPs either, I'm afraid.
None at all. We were just told it's safe and effective. Crack on.
Yeah, I think we're past the point of suing.
I mean, I wrote a complaint to the Chelsea and Westminster hospital that, you know, said that everything was done properly, as they would.
And all I've all I'm left with really is a son that's just lost complete faith in the medical profession.
Oh, that's a good thing, Jeff. That's a bloody good thing.
It is.
You know.
No, no, that's that is the fraud, the fraud that's been perpetrated.
We need people to have no faith in government and no faith in the medical system or in the legal profession.
No problems.
But Charles, don't you remember wasn't Jeff wasn't you, Jeff, who said that you're you were questioning your son about what had happened.
And then it turned out that he was isolated in a room on his own without either parent.
And someone was coercing him as someone much older than him, coercing him to.
Is that right?
Exactly that. So his mom went for her vaccine and they asked if she wanted to get the kids vaccinated at the same time.
Previously to this, I'd spoken to him about it. He didn't want it.
And he told a person on a desk he didn't want it.
So then he was left in a room outside while she had the vaccine, along with his sister, who was younger.
He was crying at this point because I said, I don't want it because I'd explained the risks against the benefits.
And then that music student coerced him into the room.
He said, I'm not going to vaccinate you. I just want to talk to you.
So then he went in and, you know, he was still in tears.
I don't want it. And then just simply gave up.
He said, OK, do it. He said, I just gave up trying to fight not having it.
Well, we've got a lot of hands up. We've got to keep moving.
I just want to say this. So so I'm aware of at least one hairdresser who was coerced or whatever by the money or whatever into doing these damned vaccinations in my area.
So if there was one that I know of, definitely there were others and hairdressers apparently were chosen.
Well, were they chosen?
Hairdressers did man these, you know, they were amongst the people.
Come on, come on, Steven. We've got we've got the point.
We've only got half an hour.
Well, we need to find out, Jeff, you try and find out and I'd be very interested in in who exactly was manning these so-called vaccination centres because these people who allowed those vaccination centres to exist.
These were terrible crimes in my opinion.
Here we go, Steven. No more. Jim is next.
Jim, you're muted as usual.
You are muted. Sorry.
Sorry, can I go next? Can I go later?
Yeah, yes, you can.
Janet, you're muted now.
Hello, can you hear me?
Yeah, yeah.
Yeah, great.
Yes, Bob, you said that you kept seeing patients during the so-called pandemic.
So what symptoms did you see associated with Covid and were they any different from what you would normally have seen?
So, yes, so the people who are the Covid patients were more or less told to stay confined to their houses.
So I wasn't necessarily seeing Covid patients.
But if they were if they rang up for an appointment, I'd see them.
We weren't being selective.
I'd rather I saw them than they rang up the phone health line 111 and be given some bad advice.
But generally we kept seeing all our normal patients, people coming in for, you know, preventative health, contraception, all the regular stuff and non-Covid related problems.
Right.
So but the the people with respiratory symptoms were self selecting not to bother everybody, as instructed by the BBC every night.
So if they phoned you and, you know, they what kind of symptoms were they describing then if they were they were they different symptoms from what you would have normally have heard about?
Not particularly, no, no.
OK, thank you.
You know, you asked the question, was there Covid-19?
So I think I had Covid quite early on.
I've had flu before I get the odd cold every year.
And with what I thought was Covid, the symptom I've had for the very first time was a crushing headache.
And this headache went on for several hours and disappeared very quickly as well.
And it left me with sort of word finding difficulty afterwards.
Now, this that was quite scary, but I had no other symptom, you know, minor respiratory symptoms.
And the other thing that I had was very long lasting muscle fatigue, almost to the point where I couldn't run after run for a bus.
And this was from being quite fit.
So the sort of long myalgia, long fatigue, you know, long.
The prolonged headache, intense headache, I'd never experienced any of that before personally, whereas my children had hardly any symptoms whatsoever.
So you thought that it was Covid because you did a PCR test?
I just thought I don't recognize this illness.
Yeah, we did a PCR test anyway.
Yeah. And did you get the headache?
Did you get the headache after the PCR test or before?
No, the headache came on in the middle of the night.
So I hadn't done any testing. I just went to bed.
So I've got the cold. Right. OK. Thank you.
Thanks. Thank you, Janet. But the symptoms could have been made worse, couldn't they, Bob?
And I'm not doubting you, but the symptoms could have been made worse by unprecedented fear mongering.
OK, come on, come on, come on. Yes, possible.
It's possible. Bob is next.
Jimmy, you ready or go Bobby? We'll go Bobby and then Jim and then Susan.
Hi, Dr. Bob. I read death certificates.
I petition state health departments to obtain death certificates in the United States.
I've got I don't know, I got like half a dozen states, millions of death certificates over nine years to use as my source of data.
And the question I have for you is recently many health freedom experts, doctors, researchers are claiming that they're seeing a lot of rapid turbo cancer on set from 2021 onward, not prior to 2021.
And so the data that I have in dozens of categories of the ICD 10 codes show that many, many gigantic increases in death, individual diseases or death, ICD 10 codes really ramped up in 2020.
And continued and got even worse in 2021.
So my question to you is how in your trained mind could what possible explanation could you give for all of this massive increase in death in 2020 and continuing into the vaccine years?
I yield back.
Yes, I've heard heard about this sort of turbo cancer concern.
I've listened to talks given by Angus Dalglish and others.
The mechanism is twofold.
I think on the one hand, you've got the impact of repeated mRNA vaccination on imbalancing your immune system and toning down your cancer surveillance element of immune function.
And then there's the other element, which is the sort of DNA contamination of the mRNA vials with with code with with DNA fragments that can be incorporated into your your cells.
And some of them have cancer promoting qualities to them.
So it's a double fold immune immune surveillance being toned down and DNA contamination and other factors promoting cancer.
So it's a double whammy, really.
Well, my question has that's great.
My question was specifically the massive increase in cancers in 2020 prior to any covid injections.
How can one explain such a thing?
And I think a certain health freedom.
I think I think there's a narrative sort of blaming the you know, there's a there's a natural tendency to blame the vaccine for increases in death.
But if the increases began in 2020, a solid scientist or doctor is going to need to explain how could these deaths from these certain disease categories.
I put a couple of them in the chat.
I don't know if you probably can't see that.
But in the chat, I've got a lymphoma and a couple of a couple of cancers there that went up 25 to 50 percent in 2020 and continued upward in subsequent years.
As an example, and this is raw data, you know, from death certificates.
So it's not sourced from CDC wonder or anything like that.
It's just straight counts of deaths.
So I've kind of just I'm putting this out there.
I don't really need an answer.
I mean, it's kind of a gotcha because I know the I know the.
There are cause injury and death.
That's not the question.
I always I just want to quantify.
And personally, I think something else nefarious was afoot.
In 2020, 2019, what if MRA was added to the flu vaccine or other other vehicles of poisoning the public prior to the public events of 2020?
So called cove.
I think I'm working on a hypothesis that something else happened in the prior year or two to make people sick.
And that and that would a treat that would account for this these huge increases in in death in the prior years in 2020 specifically.
May I answer that question?
This is Jim answer that question.
Let Bob go first and then you can make.
I'm happy to.
I'm happy to let Jim have a go.
Go for Jim.
Okay, thank you.
The SARS-CoV-2 spike protein contains a GP 120, which is the HIV like moiety.
If it attaches.
If you get you get COVID before the vaccines, the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein is a bioterror weapon in vaccine or virus form.
So before the vaccine was made, the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein was circulated.
That SARS-CoV-2 spike protein is in and of itself.
And it's in a genetic specifically genetically specific manner.
Once you bind the ACE2 and you and you cleave the urine cleavage site, which is a which was put on the spike protein, and it's a bacterial pure and cleavage site.
And you cleave the TMPRSS2 cleavage site.
Then you activate the GP 120, which attacks T cells.
It has two. It has a double head.
The first head kills off CD4 and CD8 counts.
And the second head binds to the CCR 5 receptor, which initiates turbo cancer.
But Jim, that doesn't explain 2020.
The SARS-CoV-2 spike protein was circulating before the vaccine was given.
Yes, it was. Yes, it does. Yeah.
Yeah.
Anyway, so yeah, yeah, sorry.
I'm in the camp that there was no COVID.
So you're what you just proffered is fine if you believe in COVID, but I don't think there was COVID.
And that's fine. So, you know, that that doesn't that doesn't fly.
But well, I'll let Bob answer.
Okay.
All right. And then I'll ask my and then I'll ask my question if you don't mind.
Good. So Bob, let Bob answer.
So, yeah, okay.
So, yeah, I'm I'm with Jim.
I do believe there was a COVID virus.
And as explained, if the spike protein itself is carcinogenic, then that would explain the uptick prior to the vaccine rollout.
Whether an element of it could be explained by the lack of the lack of screening that might have taken place.
People have made that argument in terms of explaining the excess death rate in the following years after 2020.
So I don't personally think that that flies.
But there are some people putting that idea out there.
All right. Thank you, Bob. Jim, your question.
Yes, thank you. And great presentation, by the way, Bob.
This is very important. This is financial bioterror.
And you have done a you have done a fantastic job of tracking this beforehand.
How our health systems are going to be weaponized against the people of our country.
Using using this financial bioterror and health systems that dictate treatments rather than physicians.
We have no choice.
Because if you do anything, if you think if you use clinical acumen, then you experience unlimited liability.
And in fact, you get your license taken away from you.
But if you follow along with the with the.
Just the allowed cures, the FDA approved or or health system approved medications, then you have no liability.
So so. I would caution you that this your same system that you're describing is getting worse in the United States.
We have this thing called Medicare Advantage, where we're where we're actually giving more money to these.
Financial systems in order to manage and deprive us of care.
The question is, who's running this? Who made the who made the changes in the health care system?
You cited BlackRock and a guy who used to work for BlackRock and then is UHS and and guys from the United Health Care.
You know, we're all trying to figure out who did this.
My estimate is it's not from Wuhan because the Chinese guys, they don't really they don't really invent stuff.
They just duplicate things. So sure, they took the spike protein and duplicated and put it in different things for us.
And they were paid hands by the United States.
But the real question is who who who masterminded this and who is masterminding the downfall of the United States?
You mentioned all the five eyes countries who are are doing this as well and.
Taking down the health and taking down the populations via the health care system, systems and managing systems rather than individual physicians.
And dare I say Larry Fink.
And BlackRock seems to be very much part of this and financing.
Do you have any more evidence of that? And do you have any GPOs group purchasing organizations?
I have.
Yes, so so in terms of the whole HMO managed care model that the roots of that lie back in the 70s and were exposed through the Nixon tapes when he was.
Speaking to his advisor Ehrlichman, where he talked about the transition to HMOs, which was proposed to him by the founder of Kaiser.
And basically the tagline was the less care we give them, the more money we make.
So this was clearly a profit extracting scam and that that that's what ended up taking over the not non not for profit charitable hospitals and buying out the county hospitals and shutting them down.
So you had a concentration of hospital provision in in fewer and bigger provider chains who are.
Part of the triad of the on the one hand, you've got the insurance companies and you've got the provider chains and then you've got the drug and appliance makers, all of whom see health care as a big federal pot to be rated.
And if I if I can use, you know, bastardize what Julian Assange said, the idea of war for the military industrial complex is not to win the war, but is to continue extracting the tax base.
And ending up in the pockets of the Washington elites.
Well, health care is a system in America and now in the UK is now a system of delivering health, not for the benefit of the patient, but to enrich these three entities, the insurers, the providers and the drug companies and the doctors.
Unfortunately, our protocol led facilitators of this system soon to be replaced by algorithms and PAs, you know.
Yeah, brilliant analysis.
And it is it's moving forward in many countries.
And it's so scary that we're about to be the whole world is going to be taken over by medical.
So thank you for all your work.
And I'd like to share with you some other stuff.
And I'll go through Stephen and Charles.
Thank you, Stephen and Charles for this.
I really appreciate it.
Thank you.
Thanks, Jim.
We're going to keep moving.
We're 20 minutes to go.
Susan.
Hi, I'm also a filmmaker.
And if you want to collaborate in any way, feel free.
I'll put my films and email in the chat.
I made one on nutrition at Congress from an Adam Schiff censored.
So, you know, I did something right.
And the second one was on COVID got over 85 awards, but obviously it'll be censored anyway.
I'll put all that in the chat.
Thank you.
Susan, Susan, the superstar Bob.
Really, you two should collaborate.
That's a good idea.
Well done.
Thanks.
So doctor Bob.
Janet.
Hi.
Yes, again.
Yeah.
Going back to the first question, I think, I think we've got a lot of questions.
Hi.
Yes, again.
Yeah.
Going back to the the increase in turbo cancer in 2020, it seems to be forgotten that non-ionizing
radiation in the form of Wi-Fi and mobile phones, specifically 5G, that it is actually
this kind of radiation is actually carcinogenic.
And it can be reduced by using Ethernet with with a computer turning off your phone and
turning off the Wi-Fi.
You can actually join meetings like this, which I do through Ethernet without using
Wi-Fi.
So it may very well be that the increase in exposure to Wi-Fi and phones during the lockdowns
actually made people more susceptible to the carcinogenesis of the radiation.
Janet will have Anders on that because that's his main thing.
But you're quite absolutely quite right.
So Bob will take that on board and then we'll go to Anders because that's he spent he spent
the whole last five years doing that, Janet.
So good point.
Anders.
So Bob, Janet is also a British doctor, British medical doctor.
Right.
Anders.
Yes.
Hello.
Yes.
OK.
Yeah.
I just want to support Janet what she said and what Mark still has put into the chat.
So I would say that it is very strong correlation.
And I would say evidence that the 4G and later 5G and 4G with 5G software, which were introduced
in 2020 and later on in more rural areas, correlates very strongly to an increased excess
mortality already in 2020, especially in the metro cities.
So and what we see now, what also Mark has commented on, is that this is not just the
radiation from the phone and antennas.
And there are a lot of other equipment, including what most people don't realize is that the
LED streetlights which came on are actually 5G in terahertz and they are pulsating and
they are very harmful.
And these are very alarmingly effective, harmful because the intensity are increased as you
walk in the street.
And when you if you are realizing that these lights actually are connected to the fiber
optics as well as the 5G, let's say 4G radiation antenna.
So and I would add that in as early as October 2019, there was clearly an uptick in excess
mortality at the time of the well correlated to both the flu shot as well as the 4G with
3 antennas came on.
And there is also a similar correlation to the flu shot of 2020.
So these harmful vaccines so-called are correlated in time to excess mortality.
And I will rather strongly disagree to anyone claiming there is a virus.
And if you claim there is, you need to please read the really solid work by Dr.
Sam and Mark Bailey, who is really been debunking these theories, I would say very strongly.
So it is very dangerous to continue down the line of claiming the virus because that will be
then used again for defending introduction or more vaccines which are only harmful, only
harmful.
This is my statement.
Thank you, Anders.
Well said.
And Bob, just this question of existence and non-existence of viruses, the recordings of
these for your information, people keep making comments, how could anybody possibly say that
there is such a thing as a virus?
You are all a bunch of idiots for even daring to think that.
And I think that Stephen and I get criticized for daring to allow anybody to suggest that viruses
even exist.
Now it is interesting to observe those comments.
And I am a fan of Sam Bailey and Mark Bailey in New Zealand.
And it really does not matter because coming back to what you experienced, Bob, your headache,
what Anders is talking about, and I point out that the whole germ theory, Larry Pilewski who is
presented to us, we have had many experts who, this whole question of health, your commitment to
health, Bob, is what is very good.
The commitment of your patience and the rank stupidity of anybody who says I know precisely
what is going on in the human body is quite frankly stupid.
But the people in this discussion group and people who watch these recordings, the combined wisdom of
the people in this group is quite remarkable.
So Bob, you will not have seen in the chat, but some people have got problems.
There are people in this group who can solve almost any health problem, including Alan Chapman, we were
talking about vibrational healing and the like.
And then what Anders has brought to our attention, these EMFs, we have had other presenters on the
whole question of electromagnetic frequencies and electromagnetic radiation.
And then we are looking for a virus.
And here is the other problem with the conversation before we go to Stephen, the final questions.
It is wonderful to talk about a virus in Wuhan because guess what?
We will never get to resolution because no one can see the bloody things.
And we will have eternal conversations here while we are being knocked off left, right and centre.
And I say the game plan of the globalists, as many say, but this is not new, that the game plan is to
reduce the world's population to less than one billion.
So if it is the fault of something we cannot even see, that is pretty convenient, isn't it?
No, I can see how that would fit.
I wouldn't put it past the people who want to control population to come up with very cunning schemes to achieve it.
Very cunning stunts.
All right, Stephen, now people have been commenting in the chat that it's outrageous that they can't see your face, Stephen.
So last time.
It's not intentional.
It's just.
It is. You got to fix it.
Fix it.
It's not intentional.
No, I put it down like that so I can see the screen.
So I've got two screens here.
Well, it's a construct.
Well, fixed.
Change the construct.
Deconstruct and reconstruct.
OK, Stephen, the next.
Well, if I could, I would, but I can't because I don't know enough about computers and I don't want to know anything about computers really.
It's boring.
But it's very important that we know people who do know about computers because they could maybe tell us what is possible for these miscreants who love computers.
But anyway, I wanted to ask.
I'd forgotten what it was.
But anyway, yeah, so somebody in the chat said, what about the Notre Dame ceremony?
I don't know whether you know about that, Bob.
You know about that, Bob.
So I don't know whether you know about the ceremony in the Saint-Gaudard tunnel.
I've actually seen a video which claimed to be of that opening of the Saint-Gaudard tunnel, which is where the massive fires took place.
Do you remember that?
I think there were 50 lorries burned.
And this was the reopening of the.
And I've been through that tunnel since.
And I can't quite remember, but I think there's a speed limit of maybe if it was it was either 20 or 10 miles an hour or the you know, in kilometers an hour, obviously.
But it was very slow.
And but they had some weird ceremony there akin to what we saw at the Paris Olympics and the London Olympics for that matter.
And apparently now it looks as though they've had another ceremony at the opening reopening of Notre Dame.
And I don't know what that's about.
Do you?
No, I haven't heard.
I knew the dignitaries were gathering, but I haven't seen or heard about the ceremony.
Yeah.
So this video of the Saint-Gaudard tunnel is just weird.
You need to have a look at it.
The trouble is, I don't know how to find it, but otherwise I'd send it to you.
But it's clearly so people say it's Satanism, you know, reasonable people look at it and think that is seriously weird, a bit like the Paris Olympics only worse.
You know, it was kind of really weird.
And I just wonder whether they're at it again in Notre Dame.
If you remember the fire at Notre Dame was weird in itself.
It was all over the news and there seemed to be something very strange going on.
You know, as to how the fire started.
And anyway, so I just wonder the last five years, how do you so what you knew before 2020?
How do you see now what has happened in the last five years?
Do you see that?
Do you see that it was just about medical ethics being abandoned mysteriously?
Or do you see, as I do, a kind of agenda totalitarianism and that what we're going through now is a cultural revolution akin to what happened in China with the Great Cultural Revolution of 1966 to 1976.
Yeah, I think it's part of a series of things that are being done to countries in the West.
You have the problem of mass surveillance.
You've got censorship.
You've got the crushing of dissent and whistleblowers.
You've got the deplatforming of dissent.
Then you've got also identity politics being thrust down our throat and policies in general, which don't lend themselves to proper scrutiny.
And the latest one we have with the assault on cows and methane production, which if you knew the carbon cycle,
methane reverts to carbon dioxide and water over a period of 10 years or so.
So none of it adds up.
And then you have big players like Bill Gates, who has a very big holding in farmland.
He has a history of maximizing maximizing his income through patents.
If you add that with the move towards veganism and abandoning the natural food for humans and farm animals and meat and all the rest of it,
there seems to be an erection of a control grid, which wants to control not only what we eat, but what we think and what we're allowed to say.
So I think Covid was just a very blatant example of what has been a creep in terms of drifting towards authoritarianism and the removal of freedoms.
So are you optimistic for the future or not?
And what is the best thing that ordinary human beings can do, not necessarily party to what we know on this group, having listened to so many people around the world?
I see, you know, causes for optimism.
So the chance of R.F.K. Junior opening up inquiries into what happened through the pandemic era seems promising if he's allowed to do that.
J. Bhattacharya is also potentially going to be at the helm of NIH.
So hopefully that will expose some of what's gone on.
There are people speaking out about the anti-farming, anti-food agenda.
Thankfully, social media spaces, certainly Twitter X, remains quite a good platform for the dissemination of information.
And we have to challenge the attempts for censorship and challenge the identity politics, which does jar with people, but they're afraid to be seen as going against the sanctioned dominant narrative.
And we just have to provide more and more spaces and opportunities to share with like-minded people, but also to help nudge others who are questioning in the right direction.
Yeah. So do you think so with everybody, with many, many people stuck in a state of Stockholm syndrome, do you think we need more of the Great Barrington Declaration, you know, which you could say is a limited hangout?
You know, so it's kind of reasonable to the extent that it gets a lot of signatures, but actually it plays into the narrative of these miscreants.
So how do you think, what do you think you and I and others in this group can do, which will make the biggest difference?
Do we wake people up slowly or do we say, look, this is what I really think as a medical doctor?
Do we take the lead in that way or do we kind of be reasonable and start to and how should I say, massage our views so that we appear reasonable?
Even the danger in my view, if you do that, is that if you're not true to yourself, is that you end up not appearing authentic to anyone.
I think there's a place for all those different tactics.
I find if you approach somebody who holds a totally opposing view head on, they're going to switch off, so you won't get anywhere with them.
So the softly, softly approach works in some people. Other people need a bit of shock therapy.
There's not one prescription for everybody, I'm afraid, and we just have to welcome all attempts as long as people are moving in the same direction and not let the good be the enemy of the perfect.
We need we need all approaches as long as the people we're collaborating with and sharing space with agree some basic principles that we are pro-human.
We're against the concentration of wealth and power. We're against an oligarchy.
We're against anti-democratic globalist forces and we want human beings to flourish in an uncensored and free environment.
Yeah. So, but the problem, as I see it with the Great Balancing Declaration, was that it had enormous appeal.
It provided relief to huge numbers of people around the world.
But the problem was it played into the narrative.
And that's dangerous because I personally think as a doctor that we should be able to hypothesize as medical doctors and think about what has really happened and especially about the possibility in this case, or probability in my view, that pandemics are not possible.
And that was the whole the notion of being fearful of endless pandemics, endless deadly pandemics, was a huge business model for these miscreants, you know, if that's what they saw it as.
But it wasn't just about that. There were others who were interested in the control aspect and maybe other aspects.
But but and so you're an activist. You've got a proven record in that.
And so what do you think is the single most important thing for all of us to do?
Do we speak our truth undialuted or do we look for safe views to have?
Or how do we do it?
Yeah, I think it's horses for courses.
I suppose it depends on the sort of reach you want.
If you're if you're coming from a view so far out of what people currently understand, the risk is they reject you and they don't listen to a word.
That's the problem.
Unfortunately, part of part of what, you know, Trump's issues were that when he might speak elements of truth, but then he would contaminate it with some quite extreme views or very far off views or off the cuff comments.
So you end up contaminating the truth or contaminating what you believe if it's too far off the radar for most people.
I understand. Yeah. But so got Jay Bhattacharya, the head head of the NIH.
Now, that's a massive position to hold.
But is it the right choice? That's what worries me.
I'm not saying anything bad about Jay Bhattacharya, but he was part he's best known for the Great Baratun Declaration.
I haven't heard much since then.
So I just wonder whether it was the best choice for the NIH because the NIH arguably since Fauci held that post.
What? No, he didn't actually hold the head of the NIH.
That's right. It was part of it, but he was extremely influential within the NIH, directing all the medical research.
I think at least we can agree that we know Bhattacharya was smeared and knocked out of social media platforms so he can speak on at least the the culture that science and medicine needs, which is open debate, not about censoring your opposition.
So I can't think of anybody more qualified than him to speak to that particular element of science and progress.
Whether whether you feel he's playing into the pandemic narrative and that's not helpful.
I can't see many other people that I'm aware of that could have stepped up to that position because so many of the key health figures in the US are in some way compromised.
Either they buy into the pharma industrial complex, they buy into the very biased and fraudulent research machinery that America has, or they're part of a pharma owned regulatory apparatus.
So there's very few clean skins out there to take the role.
I see. Yeah.
Very good. Thank you so much.
All right. Wonderful.
Thank you.
Stephen well done for organizing.
Bob Bob thank you so much for this for your work and keep looking after your patients and ignore EBM and protocols.
Stephen thank you. Thanks everybody for the contributions.
Thank you.
We'll be in touch. Bye everybody.
Bob, you see the two and a half hours went quickly. So Charles was asking last night. He said, What if the questions dry up?
Never happens.
Never.
Correct. I'll get another 10 bloody questions to ask you. But anyway.
All right. Good to be with you. Thanks Bob. Thanks Julie. Thanks Stephen. Thanks everybody.
And go to the Tom Rodman discussion group for those who have the time. Thank you.
Yeah.
Brilliant Bob. Thank you.
Yes.