So, Cleo, what do you know about this?
You're tired then, Charles, you've only had three hours, three and a half hours sleep.
Three hours sleep, yes. And then I have to drive after this meeting to go to a university in Ballarat, 120km from here, to do a presentation on HMP.
You'll be contracting COVID next thing you know, Charles.
That's it, Howard, I know I've got COVID.
Joking.
Charles, what's the test for properly knowing whether you've got COVID?
There isn't one.
No, there aren't.
Droopy eyes.
Don't test and you won't have it.
Yeah, there's nothing, clinically or test-wise. Yeah, in my opinion.
Alright, so, Cleo, I'm the moderator, everybody, particularly new people, welcome. Please introduce yourself, say hello.
Our plan is at two and a half hours, Cleo, as long as we've got you, you don't have to stay for two and a half hours, but this event goes for two and a half hours.
And if you're happy to stay, then we'd love to have a conversation with you for that time. We'll finish at 10.30.
Now, Stephen was sent from Christine Anderson details of an event tonight in Europe on airline safety at 7.30pm Central European time.
Stephen said that's in half an hour's time.
No, I've listened to it, Charles. It started an hour ago.
Sorry, an hour ago, yes.
Yeah, I listened to it for the last hour, just for you to know.
And how was it?
Yeah, it was good, actually. Christine Anderson, the German MEP, was on fire. A commander from the airline industry spoke.
Cabin crew, cabin manager spoke, explained the problems she'd had with 18 days of bleeding and passing massive blood clots.
Very graphic, very clear, very upsetting. More MEPs there than normal. It's normally only the four of them, but more turned up for this because everybody's concerned, as we've said, about airline industry safety.
So there were a lot of people there, other MEPs asking questions. So I think it's gathering momentum.
Very good. Well, let me give you a quick update, Claire, before you start. Just a minute. There are a number of, there are three good lead, your strategies that we're working on to the airline industry.
One of which is the writ of mandamus. And that is really, that is a prerogative writ issued against a government authority or a public servant requiring them mandating mandamus, mandating them to do their job, enforce the law.
And they're not enforcing the law because the matters being injected into pilots have not been approved and breaching all sorts of laws and regulations on aviation.
The second thing, very interesting, is that pilots are required to have a license, but that license is owned by the pilots. So taking this jab is putting their license at risk.
Okay. So, so they are not obliged to put that at risk. Thirdly, it's a breach of contract. Fourthly, it's a breach of the legislation to require the jab of pilots.
And indeed, the direction to take the jab itself is putting their license at risk. So there's all sorts of provisions, there's all sorts of legal strategies available for pilots.
And I mentioned last time in the other work we're doing, the pilots don't own up to any damage because if they set they're required to self disclose injury, and they're scared of disclosing that injury because then they put their career at risk.
And then what happens if they are permanently damaged, as we know a lot of people are, then what happens is they get an insurance payout, but they lose that payout if they speak up about the injury.
So a lot of pilots who have been injured are scared to speak up.
Wow.
Now the question of two pilots, you know, flying a plane, as we heard last time 99% of takeoffs and landings are done manually if the computer can even the computers can do it.
And of course, but single pilot planes are far more risk than dual pilot planes, but you just need to know all those elements.
And I'll keep you posted on those cases there's a case on is the directions hearing before the Federal Court of Australia today with a Virgin Airlines pilot that I've been involved in heavily.
And, Stephen, you'll be very interested in this on this issue of informed consent and valid consent so a physician a doctor is not allowed to inject someone under Australian ethics rules for medicos, unless there's valid consent.
And if there's any coercion and it's not valid, and the words in the in the ethics regular in the medical regulations are valid consent. And therefore, and therefore, physicians if you tell them, I'm coming to be jabbed by the orders of Virgin Airlines.
I don't want this job, but they're forcing me to have this job. Will you jab me know, we've got evidence from 13 doctors that they've refused to jam them. And so the Allies have given an instruction to pilots that cannot be lawfully fulfilled therefore the instruction is void.
And that leads to breach of contract. And if you win a breach of contract case that's worth many millions not just a $1 million payout.
Okay, so similarly to doctors so these provisions and mandamus provision is also another tool and step by step.
And, you know, we will win a David Martens cases on today's today's the fifth in the US. Tomorrow, David Martin is back in court on his case I hope all of you have watched the watchdog USA interview of him, the 63 minute interview it's magnificent please watch it.
It says what we've been saying in this group what I've been saying, we will win.
The only question is how long it's going to take.
So it's masterful in the proceedings that is issued are available on the prosecute now.io site that's referred to in that Greg Hunter interview, please, please watch it, it will inspire you to go stick it up them.
Why is it that no lawyer has taken what I see is the best chance. So informed consent cannot be obtained in the absence of knowing what is in the, in the, the injections.
And so, and obviously, somebody like a lawyer could could ask a judge to ask that that's rectified and the only way to rectify it is to force fires on the rest of them to many, many cases have been run in Australia, in the Fair Work Commission and in lower courts so this is not informed consent, and many judges just go, no, I disagree.
Okay, you're a judge to Uruguay judges now put that on the front lines.
Good. Yes, it was very good to so who read just clear with you with you in a moment. Just this question that was posted yesterday, Raymond, can you just give us a quick heads up on what the Uruguay judge replies evidence of.
Well, basically, basically as has just indicated that the pharmaceutical companies have got to reveal the contents of these medical procedures.
And so I think I think that's a major major step forward. Otherwise, what kind of counters out the companies are going to present, but I think they've got a very weak cases, as Stephen, you know, as pointed out so many times.
Otherwise informed and otherwise informed as the evidence possibly be obtained.
And the other thing is why why the other approach.
As far as I know hasn't been pursued at least not successfully and that is these injections are an experiment. You cannot mandate an experiment surely in anybody's book.
Because in many cases, Stephen is quite remarkable what the judges do is they take another angle like they did in the Australian vaccination risk network case that was also caught yesterday, applying for an urgent appeal hearing where the judge to get over that issue
Stephen says you don't have legal standing to come before the court. So this was a major Australian organization established since 1994 of which I'm now on the board.
They asked me to join so I joined them last week, and they're in the federal court and the single judge of the federal court on March of this year ruled you don't have legal standing to to take proceedings against the TGA because this to declare that these experimental jabs are neither safe nor effective.
So, so I didn't even get the first base. Well, that's how corrupt this judges. Yeah, that's been now appealed.
Yeah, but surely anybody who's injured by these injections has standing to bring a case that he or she was forced into an experiment.
And that look, the judge was wrong. That's, you know, the judge was corrupt. The judge was got to go out. I should say. Anyway, we've heard Ryan or full make tell us that the whole courts are hopelessly corrupted. I don't think they're hopelessly corrupted, but they are significantly corrupted, not hopelessly.
All right, so let's get into it. Claire we're dying to listen to you. We're all dying. In fact, I saw a piece, Stephen, you're, you're a doctor, I heard saw a piece from a doctor said we're dying as soon as we're born. So, Claire, we're dying to hear you.
Yes, you certainly will. I'll make you a co host in a moment. This group is made up of all sorts of people, journalists, doctors, lawyers, ex lawyers like me, legal strategists, dentists, people from Czech Republic, UK, Australia, Canada, US, Uruguay.
I mean, in fact, I need a lawyer from Uruguay. I gave me from Uruguay. Please give me a note. I'm looking for somebody on a major matter in Uruguay. Who else have we who have got patent experts?
We've got a lawyer. We've got at least one Spanish lawyer and I know that's not Uruguayan, but probably got contacts in Uruguay.
I have contacts in Uruguay, Charles. Oh, yeah, Mattel does. I have contacts of lawyers in Uruguay. I don't know that personally.
Excellent. I will remind myself so that I will share what the issue is after Claire speaks. So Claire, the collective group, none of us are on the side of the government narrative, I would have to say,
except for if there are infiltrators here, you can speak as long as you would like and then we'd love to do Q&A. If for everybody else, Q&A, go under the Reactions tab, partway through Claire's.
Excellent. Kat Lindy, thank you. You've got contacts in Uruguay as well. Beautiful. Reactions, we'll do Q&A discussion after you finish. So does that work for you, Claire?
Yeah, totally. Yep. Can I share my screen? You may. All right. Welcome, welcome, welcome. And again, for people who haven't heard the earlier piece, if you could please introduce yourself and welcome to
virtual attendees to this group. Dr. Claire Craig from the UK, all over the UN, you can now share your screen. Thank you very much. So I want to talk to you about the trial, the Pfizer trial for six month olds to four year olds,
which has got real issues in it. And I've kind of done a quick summary video that you might have already seen, but I want to go into a bit of a detail with you. And the way I've approached it is to think, try and think about what Pfizer's view was and what they were trying to achieve.
So I mean, the first thing to say from the outset is that they managed to find an ethics committee that approved this trial, which in itself is extraordinary because you've got a situation where the product is known to have issues in adults.
And you've got children who are at no risk and there's no perceived benefit from it. And yet they still managed to get ethical approval to do this trial on thousands of children.
So from Pfizer's point of view, they have a dilemma because they had to find a measure of efficacy in young children who don't die of it, don't get severe disease and where symptomatic infection they knew was going to be a problem for them.
So in terms of deaths, the Cambridge Biostatistics Unit have estimated that in England, 90% of children under five have already had COVID and there have been 10 deaths in that age group, so that works out as three in a million.
So you can't measure that in a trial.
And actually, even for those three in a million, we've had the paediatric intensive care auditors, PECANET, state that they couldn't say that any of the deaths of children on intensive care with a COVID diagnosis wouldn't have occurred in the absence of COVID.
So, you know, death is not an issue in this age group.
And then in terms of severe COVID, which in other trials was measured based on really hospitalizations, in this age group, hospitalizations are often incidental positives, so you can't fix that with any vaccine.
And what we also saw in England was that for the children that have been vaccinated, who were mostly vaccinated in the summer of 2021, what we saw was that the hospitalizations actually increased.
So for the 12 to 17 year olds, there was a 2.7 fold increase after vaccination, and there was an increase in the younger age groups as well, but it wasn't as big an increase.
So that's not how you sell the product, but the idea was it's meant to reduce hospitalizations, but the only evidence we've really got from the real world is that the opposite happened.
So that leaves them symptomatic infections.
Now, from their own trial, Pfizer's trial in adults, which they're the first one that they did, their primary outcome was symptomatic test positive patients.
But they know that they fudged that because what they did was they didn't test all of the patients. A whole load of the patients in the vaccine arm dropped out of the trial.
It was much higher rate than in the placebo arm.
They did all of the PCR testing in their own central laboratory, so they have total control over those results and produced this result of 162 cases in the placebo group versus only eight in the vaccine group and then had their lovely graphs and their big sales pitch and they were away.
So now that we've had the Pfizer data dump, we know that the patients actually had far more COVID than that story tells because we've now got the antibody data and the antibody data shows that 165 of the placebo group had an infection from the beginning of the trial, which matches quite well with what they were claiming.
But there were 75 who had had the mRNA, which is nothing like the eight they were claiming.
And we also know now that those antibody levels in the vaccinated aren't the same as in the placebo group.
So we Moderna have shown and the UK Health Security Agency have commented on this as well, that vaccinated patients don't make antibodies when they've had an infection of the same rate.
So whereas almost anybody without the vaccine will make an antibody, it's only about 40% who are vaccinated.
Once you factor that in, there's no effect on symptomatic infections.
So the efficacy is somewhere between zero and 50% based on this.
So they're going to struggle to show any improvement with that.
So they decided to set their own rules and they came up with this idea of using what they call immunobridging as a measure of success.
And what that means is they were just going to show that these children developed antibodies.
And if they could show that they would develop antibodies at a similar level to adults and teenagers in the other trials, then that means that they have a product that works.
But in their own submission to the FDA, which I've got here, they state quite correctly, no specific neutralizing antibody titer,
which is level, has been established to predict protection against COVID-19.
So they've come up with their own rules of we're going to show that we've got this antibody level, but they admit it's meaningless.
It is utterly meaningless in terms of infection.
So then they took these 4500 children and they dosed them up and they followed them through.
And for a proportion of them, they measured these antibody levels.
And this is what they got.
So this is their slide they presented to the FDA and the blue bars show the level of antibody that the children had to the Wuhan variant.
So, you know, the mRNA is Wuhan spike and it produces antibodies to the Wuhan variant.
And those pinky purple bars are the level of antibody to Omicron.
And the dotted line there, which says LOD, shows the limit of detection.
Anything below that dotted line is background noise.
So after two doses, when they measured this in the children, there was nothing there for Omicron, nothing at all.
So they moved the goalposts again.
So what they did is they just changed the protocol.
They said, well, we've tried two doses and it didn't work.
Let's just do it again.
And they added in a third dose.
Now, after the third dose, they did manage to get antibody levels up for Omicron.
There's still only half the levels that they had against the Wuhan variant.
But moreover, we know that these levels weren't achieving anything in the teenagers that they're comparing them to and the young people that compare them to.
So, you know, and they themselves say these levels are meaningless.
So let's have a bit of a closer look at what they got up to.
First of all, they only measured the antibody levels on 225 of the children.
So this is the primary outcome of a trial that you've recruited 4500 children to and you're only measuring the primary outcome in 225 children.
That's just wrong.
And they only gave the third dose to 1500 of the children.
So here are the tables that show you where the children have got to at the point where they presented the data to the FDA.
And the top numbers, where it says total, are all of the children in each of those groups.
So there were twice as many in the vaccine arm as the placebo arm.
And they were slightly more in the older age group than the younger age group.
But the point is, there were only 1500 that had had the third dose and only just over 1000 that had had the third dose and a month of follow up before they presented the data.
So this trial is far from complete.
Then, of all of the COVID that they saw in the trial, there were 375 children who had a COVID diagnosis by PCR and symptoms.
They ignored 365 of them when they calculated the efficacy.
So in the top row there, you see the totals.
What's in those yellow boxes is what they chose to ignore.
And those tiny numbers in the bottom row are what they presented to the FDA.
Now, if you look at the second row, the number of COVID cases between dose one and dose two, which was a three week period, they were considerably higher in the vaccinated.
So the vaccine efficacy column shows you for both age groups that you are 30% more likely to have COVID in that period if you are vaccinated than if you had placebo.
And these numbers are too small to say that that was statistically significant.
But it's a problem that we've seen again and again when that data has been presented.
Very often that data in that early period after the first dose has been hidden and censored in the papers.
But when it's being presented, it's a pattern we've seen again and again that there is a danger moment after the first vaccine where the patients are immunosuppressed and they're more likely to get COVID.
And if they get through that, of course, for the ones that have had COVID at that point, they've then got natural immunity and they're protected.
So if you only start measuring after that point, it's going to look like the vaccines worked or at least it's going to look like the vaccines work better.
So, you know, it's a really important point to make that.
And it's never been addressed.
And you don't want to be causing immunosuppression when you've got a horrible infectious disease around.
So this is a slide they presented on efficacy to the FDA.
That top row is the total for the whole trial.
Ten patients.
Three were vaccinated, seven the placebo aunt, which remember is a smaller group of children.
And they made out that that was an 80% effective vaccine.
But these numbers are just ludicrously small.
You can't decide to vaccinate the whole of the US population aged six months to five years old on the basis of 10 COVID cases.
It's absolutely insane.
And it's insane that the FDA agreed and went along with it.
And you can see in that bottom row, the confidence intervals go so low, that minus 370, meaning that the data is so poor that it could mean that for the younger group,
there's 3.7 times more likely to get COVID if they had the vaccine and if they had the placebo.
So, you know, if you've got that kind of that kind of nonsense within the range, it's just meaningless.
So they moved the goalposts again with this, actually, because they decided to present to the FDA based on 10 patients.
But when they changed their protocol to add in the third dose, they specified there should be 21 cases before there was any interim analysis.
But they're clearly so spooked that this isn't going to work that just having seen a tiny, tiny signal of something that they could present, they presented after only 10 cases and moved the goalposts again.
Now, they had to come up with their own new definition of what severe COVID was, because these children don't get severe COVID.
And largely, they defined it by a raised respiratory rate or a raised heart rate.
And they included all sorts of other things that could go wrong, but it didn't go wrong for any of the children, you know, death ICU didn't happen.
So, according to their definition of severe, they had one child in the younger age group and they had who was on placebo.
They had one child on placebo in the two to four year old age group, but they also had six severe COVID cases who'd had mRNA.
Two of those children had had the placebo and then they had vaccinated them and then they had got severe COVID.
Again, the numbers are small, but based on those numbers, you can make a case that the vaccine is causing a problem here.
And you can't easily make a case that it's doing the opposite because the numbers are just, you know, they're weighted the wrong way.
But of course, they tried to shift the focus and having come up with this definition on their own, they then tried to sideline it and say, well, it was because the people examining them decided it wasn't as relevant in fact.
And maybe it was because they were crying, but the placebo children weren't crying.
So why were all these mRNA dose children crying so much that their heart rate and respiratory rates were raised?
But never mind. I mean, it's not severe COVID. It's just a ridiculous definition.
So they are calling it crying was moving the goalposts again.
So there were two children. It's worth commenting on a bit more depth.
One was in the younger age group, a 14 month old placebo recipient who went to hospital with a fever and had actually had a COVID test on day five of symptoms, which was negative.
But they had tested positive for rhinovirus and enterovirus.
And then when they went back to hospital on day nine, they tested positive.
The COVID went home from hospital the same day.
So essentially, this is a child who's got a different virus and COVID was probably an incidental positive.
And we see the same in the older age group where there was a vaccine recipient who was quite sick with para influenza, had low oxygen, was hospitalized with the weeds, was in for three days and had a COVID positive test.
But again, I think essentially what this is showing is COVID doesn't hospitalize young children.
Now, this is where it gets a bit ridiculous.
So they include a section in their FDA submission on children that had multiple cases of COVID in the trial.
But what was notable about these children is that nine of them had another case of COVID after they'd had three doses of mRNA, one of them after two doses and only two of them after the placebo.
So there does seem to be something concerning going on there.
And when you remember that, how high that figure is nine after three doses of mRNA and compare it to these results they included in the table.
So in the table, we've got four mRNA, seven placebo.
And in this multiple infection group, we've got nine mRNA, two placebo.
It looks like what they're doing is counting patients, not cases.
So they're saying if you've had COVID at some point during the trial, we're not going to count the second one.
But that just makes you wonder what exactly it is we're trying to prevent here.
Because if you're getting cases multiple times, then that's surely a problem in terms of, you know, not there is any risk.
But in terms of what you're trying to prevent, you're trying to stop it and you're actually ignoring the fact that it's potentially more in the ones that have had the mRNA.
Again, they move the goalposts.
Now, I just wanted to stop and comment a little bit on those 225 children that they measured the antibodies on, because they're a slightly peculiar group.
So they say the number that could have been included in that measurement.
And then beneath that, they've said of those, how many of them had no evidence of infection?
So the whole load of these children had evidence of prior infection, presumably antibodies.
There were 50 in the younger age group and 61 in the older age group, which works out at 38 and 30 percent of the children that they would have tested had already had it.
Now, those are really big numbers, especially when you compare them to the number that had antibodies at the outset of the trial.
So elsewhere in the report, they say that, you know, seven point six percent, twelve point seven percent had antibodies before the first dose.
So you've still got 30 percent in the younger group and 70 percent in the older group who seem to have developed antibodies after starting the trial.
Whereas the numbers that they've included who are PCR positive are 10 percent or lower.
So something's really amiss here.
It means one of two things. It either means that the sample they were using for the antibody measurement is in no way representative of the whole population, or it means that this antibody measure gives a totally different result to the PCR measure,
which makes it sound like they're not testing with children properly in the same way that they did with the adults.
Now, Pfizer did their own critique in their FDA submission, which is quite a good critique.
So I thought I'd show it to you.
They said that they couldn't estimate the efficacy because they didn't have enough cases.
And that's why they were really wide confidence intervals.
They said that they shouldn't really have been presenting when they had specified that there should be 21 cases and they haven't yet achieved that number.
They said there was a hugely variable dosing interval between dose two and dose three because of this change of protocol.
And children were at different stages along the pathway at that point.
They also criticized how short a time they'd followed them up for.
It's only 35 days for the younger ones and 40 days for the two to four year olds, which is no kind of safety analysis, is it?
So talking about safety, the FDA, well, the Pfizer included in their submission to the FDA that the FDA had agreed that they needed 500 to 3000 trial participants
followed up for six months in order to have usable safety data.
They also stated that the FDA actually wouldn't like to have seen longer follow up, but that it wouldn't be a prerequisite.
And on that basis, Pfizer decided to limit the safety follow up to six months.
So their protocol originally was for two doses, six months of follow up.
And then they vaccinated the placebo children so they would be no more safety data after only six months of follow up.
That was their plan.
In reality, what they presented to the FDA after dose three was essentially six weeks of follow up in those two groups and a little bit of follow up, having swapped them over and vaccinated them.
But instead of six months of follow up, they presented six weeks of follow up to the FDA and the FDA bought it.
The other thing about the safety in this trial that concerns me is actually the placebo arm.
So if you look at the placebo group there, SAE means serious adverse events, which means hospitalised life changing side effect or death.
Well, death in both separately. So these are basically children who've ended up in hospital.
And you've got 14 out of 598 and eight out of 915.
That works out as one in every 90 children in the trial ending up in hospital, which is incredibly high.
It's ridiculously high. And if you compare it to the adult trial, which included elderly people, who would be much more likely to end up in hospital, incidentally, their rate was only one in 200.
So there have to be serious questions asked about why the children who were apparently only injected with saline were ending up in hospital at such a high rate.
And then the other thing to mention on safety is that six children had a fever over 40 degrees in the mRNA group compared with one in the placebo group.
Now, like, if there's anything to prevent in this age group, it's a fever.
There's nothing much else to prevent. And yet we have this much higher rate of severe fever because of the vaccine.
What they also included were two things that I considered to be hidden threats.
So they stated that Pfizer believe it likely that these tiny children are going to need a fourth dose as well as the three dose primary series.
And to be saying that after six weeks of safety data and with 10 Covid cases for the efficacy data, it's just ludicrous.
It's just like it's just a massive sales pitch.
And then they also have stated their intention that if they can get this approved, which they now have done unanimously, the FDA push it through unanimously,
that in future trials, they would use this vaccine as the control instead of using a placebo control.
So we that six weeks of safety data might be all the safety data that we have ever on this vaccine.
So I'm showing it the red card.
Lovely red card. You produced that red card so well.
Wow. Wow, wow, wow.
Everybody with with questions traditionally Claire Stephen asks the first questions.
And the rest of you can gear up into your thinking because it's just mind blowing how how the rules of the game change and what's relevant to this change of rules is how it impacts.
Just imagine if these rules were applied to all new fun pharmaceutical products coming on, which clear we're going to ask you about, which is what is being planned.
So, Stephen, over to you.
Hi, Claire. Very good.
I just wondered, do you do they state what dose they're using, Claire?
They're using three micrograms. So the adults were 30 and the five to 11s were getting 10 and these children are getting three doses of three.
Sorry, the the five to 11s were getting, sorry, what?
They were getting 10. Yes. And these younger children are getting three.
So from six months to four years, sorry, four years that includes up to five, does it?
Yes. So they were children who turned five during the trial. And if they turned five, they were then giving them 10.
So, so but is it possible in your view that three milligrams is not enough for a five year old anyway?
Is it questionable? I mean, it's just nonsense.
I think it's all too much for all of them, to be honest.
But I mean, the dosaging, the dosaging is like not something to be discussed because this is a pre drug.
It's not actually a drug. And without having done any measurements of how much spike protein is produced as a result of the injection, nobody knows what doses these children are getting.
And the idea that a growing child might have cells that are really quite efficient in producing spike based on some RNA compared to an adult, it's not an unreasonable idea.
But nobody has checked that to see actually what dose is being given.
So in a normal trial for a normal drug, how is the dose business? How is that approached?
So with a normal drug, you can measure the drug in the blood. You know, you give it and you measure it and it's straightforward.
You're not having to measure something that you're not giving.
But it wouldn't have been I don't think it would have been too difficult to have measured spike quantities.
I don't think that's arduous. They just skipped it.
But yeah, OK. So but they get to three milligrams and 10 milligrams for the older ones over five.
Sorry, over five. Yeah. How how do with a normal drug, how do they decide what to give?
That's not really my area. OK, doesn't matter. OK, next question.
So can you can you go through with this again?
Because I think I've got an idea, but I think there's some reason why they need an emergency use authorization for children.
Correct. Why is that so interesting for Pfizer and the rest of them?
Because we hear a lot about Pfizer. We don't hear about Moderna and J&J.
Do you know what the position is with those?
So, OK, so my understanding about what you're hinting at is this idea that in America they need to get it onto the children's schedule and then they're indemnified for the adults.
But I would have thought that applied equally to any of the products. I don't think it's just Pfizer that would apply to.
But I'm not sure how true it really is in that in that, you know, other countries have just given them immunity through separate legislation.
And there's no reason why the USA couldn't do that as well if they wanted to.
Exactly. I'm not entirely sure that that is the motivation.
So if they have if they have permission, if you like, via the WHO or whomever to close down society.
Why haven't they just said these are to be given full stop?
Do you understand they're breaking every other rule, including breaking down our way of life and our society?
Why have they just why have they even attempted to go through the FDA?
Why haven't they just said it's an emergency, therefore we have to do it?
Because everybody's talking about these injections being approved, but they're not really approved because they're emergency use authorizations.
But we know that there's no emergency for adults, never mind children.
I know. I mean, the stipulation for an emergency use authorization is that it will prevent serious injury or death.
So it completely does not apply in this situation.
And yet the FDA approved it unanimously.
Now, if Pfizer and Moderna know they've got an FDA that will approve something unanimously, why wouldn't they go down that route?
You know, it adds to their sales pitch, doesn't it?
Claire, are you aware of the nonsense that went on with the FDA and the CDC in the control drugs scandal in the USA, which came to the UK as well over the Oxycontin?
Oxycontin, yeah.
Only vaguely.
OK, so you know about the book, what's it called?
Empire of Pain and the film which is based on that, but I'm not sure how closely based on it, which is called Dope Sick, which is in eight parts, I think.
I've seen two of them. Absolutely brilliant.
I would recommend those to you if you haven't seen them.
I haven't seen it all myself.
I watch it almost on a daily basis at the moment, so I think I'm going to watch it.
Almost every day someone's telling me to watch it.
Yes, it's excellent.
And it's almost like the filmmakers, by the way, they started the film in December 2020.
It's almost like the filmmakers are blowing the whistle on what's happening.
So one of the claims that was made was that Oxycontin was miraculously not addictive when clearly it was.
It was actually more addictive.
So a repeat performance of what's happened over the last two years.
And I think it's very instructive to watch that film.
It's almost like someone saying, look at this.
We've had this before, you know, like swine flu pandemic fraud of 2009.
Anyway, that's I think.
Yeah.
Have Moderna and J&J got an EUA for children?
Yes, Moderna was passed at the same meeting.
And they I mean, the Moderna one, my understanding is that Moderna had got their act together a bit better.
I haven't gone through in detail their submission yet, but that Pfizer saw Moderna coming.
And that's why they presented this pile of rubbish was because they didn't want Moderna to win the, you know, to get there before them.
What's happened to J&J?
I haven't heard anything about J&J for this age group.
No.
And they've gone very quiet about the third dose with J&J, haven't they?
Yeah, it has all gone very quiet.
And they, the first two days of this being available to under fives in the States was really hyped up.
They had the mayor and various other officials in New York being photographed at a vaccine center with no patients.
And in the whole of the United States, only 1500 children were vaccinated in the first two days.
So hopefully some of this messaging has got through.
But the FDA meeting was attended by a lot of frankly hysterical American parents who have, you know,
been brainwashed into believing that their children are at serious risk and that these products will protect their children and were desperate for an authorization.
So the FDA can pretend that that kind of pressure was what made them yield.
But honestly, they're not doing their jobs at all. They're just at all.
And the fact that it was unanimous is in itself quite frightening because, you know, the idea that there's no ambiguity here,
that there's no there's no question to be had on that kind of rubbish data is just, you know,
why have all of these people given up all their ethics and given up any kind of belief in any kind of science in order to approve this thing?
It's very odd. Well, I saw a live press press conference and I can send you the video because there's a link to it.
The live press conference of two FDA officials being questioned by the press.
It was all kind of distant, you know, and there were no supplementary questions and it was really sickening.
And there was a I think it was a new guy who was talking about having been in position three months.
So I think he may be in the replacement for can't remember a name now.
I think she'd been there for 30 years at the FDA. And this guy was so full of himself.
He was there in a bow tie, you know, absolutely full of himself.
Absolutely full of himself. And the one the answer the questions he couldn't answer, he was passing over to his mate, you know, who was supposedly an expert.
But there was no mention about the things that you've been talking about now.
But I just wonder how how were Pfizer, should we say Pfizer, how were they testing for, you know,
saying that patients in this trial they did for the children that they got Covid.
How was that being ascertained?
So they were basing it on symptoms which were fairly minor and a positive PCR test.
And with all of these trials, you have to wonder what's actually you know what actually they needed to do in order to get the testing done.
Because because of that big discrepancy between the PCR results and the antibody results.
So Claire, what did they say? What were the symptoms?
I don't I don't remember exactly what they specified.
OK, did you get it was you know, included fever, cough, runny nose.
But I can't remember the whole list.
Did you get the impression that that the scientists were in the ascendancy at Pfizer rather than medical doctors?
I'm just wondering who are medical doctors?
I think it's just a marketing team.
I just don't think there's any science behind any of it at all.
And the fact that they think they can.
But is there any medicine?
Well, there's no medicine. But is there any science?
I mean, it's ridiculous that they like the idea that they would put this in the public domain and present it with no shame, you know, and believing they could get away with it.
And they were right. They could get away with it.
But actually, from our point of view, it's a bit of a gift because it is such a nonsense and it's so rubbish and it's relatively easy to explain.
And so in terms of getting through to people that things have gone awry, this is actually much more clear cut than the trials that have gone before.
But I can't understand why they go to such lengths to say that these things are, you know, OK.
And when they could actually say, well, actually, it's an emergency, so we're going to do it.
We're not going to need FDA approval.
I don't know what the position is.
But I mean, they're getting there, aren't they?
They've already started to say that they're going to do that for new variants.
They're going to put in a different sequence, not test at all and just get it waved through the FDA.
So, yeah, I mean, they're at the stage where science doesn't mean anything to them anymore.
But how can you have two negatives?
Before you go there, hold that thought.
We're on a tight time frame with Cat, Stephen.
She has to go. So hold your thought.
And I just want to let Cat ask her question of Claire and then we'll come back to you, Stephen.
Cat has to go to her interview.
Cat.
Thank you, Charles, and thank you, Stephen, as well.
And thanks, Claire, for coming on this Zoom.
I had a question.
And actually, according to the law that Ronald Reagan passed in 86, it's actually true.
Once it goes on a vaccine schedule for children, they get the indemnity in adult vaccines as well.
And that's why most of us believe that this FDA trial was really more of a sham.
The hearing itself was more of a sham.
And that's why they passed it.
But my question to you is now, knowing that most likely we will put it on a vaccine schedule before the school starts,
we do have a little bit of a game plan on how to fight this back when it comes to working with parents and putting out different campaigns.
What are you guys going to do in the UK specifically to discourage parents from vaccinating children?
Because you guys already put five and up on your schedule.
And it's just a matter of time, although I think your health minister resigned today.
So who knows what's going to happen.
But what is specifically your game plan, the Hart Group game plan to attack this from the public relations standpoint?
So what we had done up until now was the Safer to Wait campaign, which I think had worked really well,
because what we were trying to do is meet parents where they were at, which might have been that they had been vaccinated.
They wanted to believe that their vaccine was working.
And so, you know, not try and create too much cognitive dissonance, but just suggest to them that there were concerns to be had and that there was no big rush and that they could just be cautious.
And I think that campaign did work really, really well.
And we've only had fewer than 10 percent of the 5 to 10 adults being vaccinated and it's plateaued off.
So, you know, 90 percent of the parents didn't, despite surveys saying that half the parents of that age group intended to, which I think were just rubbish from the government.
Because in reality, it's nothing like that.
But we have decided to kind of step it up for this because this isn't about waiting.
This is about saying no and just, you know, and I think I think we've got enough momentum behind us to be much more forthright.
We've written a letter to the MHRA around the younger children and how they shouldn't be vaccinated and try to get some coverage of it.
But, you know, we've always struggled so much to get any mainstream media coverage of anything that we do.
But, you know, we're trying to cover it through our other channels.
And beyond that, we don't have a major plan.
We're just going to keep shouting about it as much as we possibly can.
And, you know, there are journalists out there who have felt they could be against children's vaccinations for some time because that was a relatively safe position to hold.
It wasn't as controversial.
And so there are more voices around children's vaccination, I think, than there ever have been around adults.
So we'll try and kind of keep feeding into them as well.
Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Kat.
And have fun in your interview.
And Claire, that might be something that you come back to.
I haven't heard about the Safer to Wait campaign. You can tell us about that later.
Stephen, back to you. Thank you for that.
Yeah. So very quickly, Claire.
So how can they get two negatives to make a positive or 10 negatives to make a positive?
That seems to be, you know, kind of talking broadly.
How have they managed to do that?
It's just nonsense, isn't it?
Why have they bothered? I just don't understand why they bothered.
I mean, this is fraud to me.
Yeah, completely it's fraud.
It's crime. It's treason.
Any society which allows its children to get vaccinated with a deadly product or potentially deadly product, that's treason, in my view.
And it's not just crime.
They cheated at every point.
They cheated and cheated and cheated and then come up with something ridiculous.
And then the FDA proved it unanimously.
Yes, but why are the doctors going along with it?
And the scientists, the scientists who know very well that you can't decide anything on the basis of such small numbers.
Well, I mean, I think a lot of doctors use authorities for their knowledge base.
And it means that it gets them off the hook from doing an awful lot of reading.
Claire, that's not what we were taught at medical school. We were taught.
No, nor we. But I think that's a reality.
I think the reality is a lot of doctors trust all the guidance and the protocols and what they're told to do.
And that if you were told...
When I was at medical school, we were actually taught not to allow ourselves to ever be told what to do by anybody, including doctors.
So the notion that doctors should just wait for orders, you know, is just nonsense.
Steven, I completely agree with you.
I'm just saying that I think a lot of them do that.
And if you were to challenge them on this one aspect of doing that, their world will fall apart.
Because if you prove to them that what they're doing is being lazy and dangerous as a consequence,
then they have to question everything that they've done before and they suddenly have a whole load of work to do.
And they have to realize, you know, they realize how irresponsible they've been.
So you...
They should have understood their ethics before they ever became a damn doctor.
They should have. And it's still in there somewhere, which is why if you do poke this and show it to them, they will become very defensive.
So, Claire, why doesn't... I don't know which organization you're... Is it Hart or... Yes.
Why don't you concentrate on confronting doctors with the fact that they've overseen a period in medical history
when they've forgotten the basic ethics that go with being a doctor?
Why don't you say you cannot have obtained informed consent?
So that means you're in breach of the Nuremberg Code. Brilliant.
Yeah. I mean, we don't have a channel into asleep doctors.
We have lots of lots of awake doctors, but we don't have a way of getting heard by doctors that don't want to hear it.
I was in a group, you probably know it, Doctors Association UK, DOC.
Well, I still am in it, I think, but I don't go there now because I upset things a bit.
So anyway, when I mentioned... So they were pretty confident when I said, does anybody share my view that this is a fraud?
There were 17,000 doctors in this group and I got battered for an evening and I fought off all these doctors.
And so that was that. And then a few months later, we got to December 2020 and January 2021.
I think it was in... We were approaching December 2021 and it looked as though these vaccines were going to come.
And they did start in the UK, as you know, on the 8th of December. I think it was. It could have been the 7th.
And anyway, I said, as we're approaching the 8th of December, I said in this group.
So I kept I lay low for, you know, from whenever it was in 2020. I think it was April or May.
And then I made another appearance and I said, right, who knows about the Nuremberg Code?
And whereas previously everybody was piling in on me saying, you know, how dare you say that it's a fraud?
When it came to the Nuremberg Code, they knew not to do that.
And that told me that they actually knew ahead of the rollout in the UK of these injections that it was in breach of the Nuremberg Code.
They knew it. And that's why they didn't attack me. Nobody engaged with me.
Just they just it looked as though they were either that or I was shadow banned.
So it looked as though my comments had gone through, but nobody reacted.
What do you think of that? Guilty as charged, I think.
Yeah, I mean, I do. I think in terms of Nuremberg, I think.
The world that we've arrived in, where we have vested interests being allowed to experiment on humans is itself just, you know, we have to change that.
We can't let that carry on. That just obviously has been shown to not be an ethical thing.
But Claire, that's what the Nuremberg Code is about. It's about human medical experimentation.
Yeah, but I think there was a time when pharmaceutical companies were relatively good about doing this.
And there was a time in history when it was being done in a relatively, you know, a way that worked.
And it's gone. That time has gone. And we can't have people who are profit making being allowed to experiment on people.
Sure. But I remember the drug reps coming around to see the doctors.
And I remember saying to the drug reps, I don't think much of you study.
And they said, why, you know, they'd say, why not? And I said, well, just looking at the numbers, too few.
You've got too few patients in your trial. And that kept recurring. I happened to notice that.
So I did begin to wonder. But then we hadn't had Covid then, you know, are these being properly approved, these drugs?
It was just nonsense. Well, I mean, that video from June Rain, the head of the MHRA the other day.
So she this was she did a presentation probably back in 2020, actually, in some of all college Oxford.
So she's among her peers and she's relaxed and speaking freely.
And she. The whole presentation is about how she made the decision to change the role of the regulator from a watchdog.
These are her words to an enabler that she is not in a position to change the role of the regulator.
That's not something she has the power to do. But she was there stating that that's what she felt she had done.
And her name for everybody on this group is June Rain, Dr. June Rain.
She's a medical doctor in the UK and she should be removed from being the head of the MHRA.
So her name again is Dr. June Rain. She's a medical doctor.
Then she tells a story about how she was called into 10 Downing Street actually about testing.
But there's a whole group of people there who are all going to try and sort out the testing.
And one of them said, why have we got a regulator in the room?
And Boris Johnson pipes up and says, she's here to stop us killing anybody.
And her reaction to that, which she then was relaying to this audience, was to say, no, I'm not.
I'm here to help you keep people alive.
But her gut reaction to someone saying she's here to stop us killing people was, no, I'm not.
Like, well, what does that tell you? And and nobody then said, well, is there is anyone here to stop us killing anybody?
Because if you're not doing it, who is stopping us killing anybody?
And then she shows she jokes about how people kept asking her whether the decision to approve was difficult.
And she laughs and shows the graph from the Pfizer paper.
Difficult, difficult. Now, this should have been the most difficult period of her life by far.
She's a complete idiot. I've seen her.
Yeah, she was the making a decision under enormous political pressure, not just from in her own country,
but globally, because, you know, everybody had to sort of move at the same pace.
She had the pharmaceutical companies breathing her down her necks.
She had a really worried public who wanted a solution.
And it was her role to make sure this thing actually worked and was safe.
She had a really short time period, huge amounts of data to work through.
It should have been incredibly difficult.
And she jokes and says, you know, they're asking me if it's difficult.
Was it because I was a woman? They thought I thought that was difficult.
It's not difficult. Look at the graph. How ridiculous. It's really ridiculous.
Well, I've heard, Claire, I don't know whether you can use this, but I've heard on the grapevine
that the MHRA after Brexit was not fit for purpose because all the best people who were originally
in the European Medicines Agency in London moved to Amsterdam and the UK was left with the MHRA,
which, by the way, is a law enforcement agency as well as a regulator.
So and I have heard that the best people moved to the European Medicines Agency in Amsterdam.
And that meant that the MHRA was seriously undermanned and not fit for purpose.
Do you know anything about that? Whatever the purpose is.
I mean, the MHRA was always around in parallel with the ENA.
And actually, from my what did you say then, Claire?
The MHRA was in existed all the way through our time.
Yes, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency MHRA.
And in my previous role in diagnostics, I'd come across the MHRA in terms of their approval of diagnostic testing devices
and included in that artificial intelligence analysis software of tissue images.
And they were not on top of what the concerns were around that area.
But what I had learned from doing that was that the EU had come up with all sorts of really hampering legislation around diagnostics,
like completely ridiculous, which would mean that we had no ability to introduce any kind of a new test.
They wanted to have full clinical trials that showed that this new sort of hemoglobin measuring machine would produce the same clinical results as the old hemoglobin measuring machine.
Whereas, you know, it's a measurement, it's a number you can quantify in other ways and show that it's right without following the patients up.
So when we left, I thought, well, at least we don't have that problem.
But it turns out that that problem was the brainchild of the MHRA and the EMA had just adopted it from the MHRA.
So I think some of the worst ideas were actually British in the first place.
Yes. Claire, are you aware that we've got, well, we have got email evidence from the MHRA and I think the EMA, European Medicines Agency,
that says that the tests, you know, the PCR tests, we asked who had approved those.
It turned out that nobody and we got it in email.
They admit that the they well, they don't say they were never approved.
They just say that they were self certified by the manufacturers and quote, literally hundreds of these tests were manufactured.
What do you think of that? So the whole basis, you know, they then use those tests relentlessly, as you know, but they were never approved.
That's so that medicines and health care, sorry, medicines and health care products regulatory agency, that would have been their job normally.
Because as I've understood it, no, all tests have to be approved.
Is that right? But the the Covid tests didn't.
And they were self certified quote.
And that came from the Europe, sorry, the MHRA stroke EMA.
I can find the emails, but I think they're pretty important.
I've thought at the time they were very important and I was just waiting for a time to use them.
Are you aware? I think that is really important.
And I mean, the real the real problem with the testing was the lack of calibration.
Right. So that's the kind of thing the regulator would have been responsible for doing is checking that the measurements, you know, the kind of what you're calling a positive or negative have some clinical meaning.
And it doesn't, you know, the testing that we've had from the outset has been far too sensitive.
So when there's three or four virus particles in the sample, which could literally just be from the air in the spiritual tract rather than actually in a cell or anywhere near a cell, they were calling that a positive.
And labs would be failed on their external quality assurance testing if they weren't calling them a positive.
Whereas we know that you need 5000 virus particles in a sample that size in order to be an infection risk.
And, you know, if you're not an infection risk, we don't want to call you a positive.
Well, Kerry Mullis would say that PCR tests are not.
He would have said, had he been alive, but he was unfortunately he died in probably killed in August 2019.
He said that my technique, I sorry, the technique which he won the Nobel Prize for in 1993, he actually invented it in 1983.
That technique led to the PCR test and he was shouting from the rooftops almost that what first we didn't like Fauci.
And he said that he'd asked him to debate him and he would he wouldn't he Fauci doesn't know anything about anything.
And I'd say that to his face, I quote Kerry Mullis.
So he said that. But also, what was the other thing?
I've forgotten my line now.
What were you saying about being a legal body?
Sorry?
What were you saying about the MHRA being a legal body?
It's a law enforcement agency.
What do you mean by that?
Well, it's like the police.
So, so you've got the incredible situation that what it certainly was a law enforcement agency because I use this in my case against the M.O.D.
They were helping me allegedly, you know, with information.
So it was referred to.
I can't remember now for entities.
They had intelligence networks allegedly, but I didn't trust them because I did get on the phone to them a few times, you know, so taking them up on their offer.
And there was someone in the background who was kind of pouring cold water on the enthusiasm of his underlings.
So I think that, you know, there's a lot to look at in the MHRA.
So the other thing about the MHRA is that they are an offshoot of the Department for Health.
They're not independent.
Well, the government, that means.
Yeah.
But that's not true of any other regulator.
Sure.
So isn't it great to have a regulator which doesn't regulate or at least doesn't regulate the government?
Well, I have spoken to people who've been involved in regulation in other areas who are just absolutely horrified at how different it is for medicines that all the rules that they've got in other regulatory bodies and the strictness around it all doesn't seem to apply.
No, because they're representatives of Big Pharma, in my opinion, just as the FDA are.
We've got to move on with some questions, but very relevant and airline pilots are also regulated by government.
The Civil Aviation Authority is government.
So in Australia, government.
Anyway, Stephen, we've got lots of questions and then we'll come back to you, Stephen.
One more burning question, Stephen, before we get to Mark.
You OK?
Well, I was running dry.
So, yeah.
Good.
OK, great.
He'll replenish his questions, Claire.
Mark Dyer from, how do you pronounce that?
Why is Beck?
That's my daughter's called, Beck.
Closed, whiz beach.
Whiz beach.
Wow.
OK.
Yeah.
Who the hell knew it was beached?
Hi, Claire.
Thank you very much for everything that you've been doing.
I've been following you as much as possible.
You appeared on GB News on The Clash.
And right.
And you were up against Dr. Bararat Pacharnian from, I think, is it Sussex University?
Sorry, no, Southampton.
OK.
So a couple of questions.
Number one is, what was the process for you to get onto GB News?
The reason I'm asking is that I think you need to know who else is going to be in the room or in the interviewing at the same time, because I felt it was unfair on you because you did.
It came across as though you didn't know who it was.
I didn't know who it was.
So I have been invited onto GB News by a few different presenters who just kind of call me up last minute and ask if I'll do it.
And Mark Dolan has been one of the people that invited me a few times, and so I don't like to let him down.
So I wasn't quizzing them about who it was.
And during the interview, I regret not just shouting and interrupting because I was assuming he'd come back to me so that I'd get a chance to apply.
And he never did.
And the others got way more airtime.
Right.
He didn't.
Could I just a thought, throwing it out there, is I did write in and I've written in lots of times.
Number one is to say that the names of people should be displayed underneath all the time that they're speaking.
And number two is I think it's unfair for the question not to be posed as who finances you, because I think the moment that people realize that he had been financed by Pfizer or the Gates Foundation, then anything that he said was totally irrelevant.
The last thing he's going to do is say, hey, I don't I think the deaths rates are high or whatever.
And he actually said that the injuries or harms were very rare.
And I think a question could have been put to what can you describe what rare is in your opinion, because it obviously isn't what we think it is.
And maybe the way to put it across is to ask him how many people are you prepared to see die or disabled, i.e. have legs amputated, arms amputated before you're going to raise the red flag and say stop.
Yeah.
Right.
Yeah, but I think in the event that you have small bit of time.
If you know who's going to be on but you don't have time to look them up.
Please let me know I'll try and do as much as I can and I'll, and I'll send you the information so that you're, you're prepared.
I'm very happy to thank you.
All right.
Last thing that I will two other things very quick.
If I can get a meeting with my MP who is Steve Barkley.
Yeah.
Would you be able to help me because I can't get through to the guy.
He's, he doesn't reply to my emails.
He's, but I think if I was to say, you know, come along with a doctor.
Yeah. Right. And, and get it across to him because he just pooh poohs it.
Yeah, I'd be very happy to do that. I've not had any success with my own MP either.
I've not had anything responded to.
But yeah, if we could find some that might, then I'm up for that.
And with your previous comment actually that reminded me had shared some MHRA minutes from that's been published, which included way back before vaccines and intention that they needed systems in place in order to manage 100,000 adverse reaction reports.
Now they've had 500,000.
So if they they they're expecting 100,000 and set themselves for 100,000 how can they have five times as many and not pull it.
Right, and that type of thing should be in the public domain and the press should be asking questions.
Did you see that comment in the chat just then.
He just become the Health Minister.
Oh good. Excellent. Excellent. Now, now we can get the public. All right. I mean, sorry, but you know. All right. The other thing is, my wife, my wife's with me she's right.
She said, she's written to Lady Harlett for the public inquiry for the COVID public inquiry. Have you been approached to provide evidence.
No, so I wrote a very detailed lengthy submission around the terms of reference.
And, you know, some of the terms were changed a bit.
And there, there have, there was a lawyer or two who wanted to represent but I'm not sure where that kind of got to it because I haven't been on top of it and I'm not sure what point we have to say we want to be represented.
But we do have a challenge with that because in normal public inquiries, the people that have an opportunity to be represented have to be people who were in some way harmed.
Right, so the people, the lawyers are there representing the people who sort of injured in the, in the, in the situation.
Right.
And the people who were hurt weren't, we sort of want to represent people that were, but then you've got to got two layers and I don't know how that will be perceived.
Okay. All right.
Fine. As you, as I said I'm in Whist Beach.
If you need me to go and see some funeral directors or doctors or whatever, my wife and I, we're up for it.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Well done, Mark.
Well done.
Jeff, Jeff Pilot.
Are you Jeff the pilot or Jeff Pilot?
Jeff Pilot, that's a surname, not a, not a profession Charles.
Well, what a great name.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. So actually for Claire, my profession's a scientist and I design clinical trials for a living.
So your presentation was great and to see the, you know, the things like the confidence intervals, etc.
It was just, just truly shocking, you know, how that, you know, ever got passed.
And the first thing I wanted to do was just probably come back to one of Stephen's questions.
I think he asked, he asked about the pediatric dose and how we set that in clinical trials.
So it's a little bit complex, depends on the drug, the product, you know, the vaccine.
But typically you look completely at your adult program.
You get your effective dose and then you look at it in children and you base that on a, you know, milligrams per kig efficacy effect.
You're looking at your non-clinical data, looking at your PK, modeling, absorption, distribution, and then, you know, and basing it on body weight.
And you work your way downwards. You kind of go from, I think, 12 to 18 and then you go 5 to 12 once you've done that, you know, group of kids and then below.
And I'm wondering if, you know, they didn't really have all the modeling that they needed to, to decide on a dose.
Yeah, I think the thermochemical studies weren't done and the bio-distribution studies seem to have been really minimal.
And actually somebody was saying the other day around fat distribution might be really important because the lipid nanoparticles are going to go towards fat.
And is it that these young lean men, where most of their fat is around the heart, is that why they're having more problems with myocarditis and pericarditis?
Because it's beelining for the bit of fat that they have.
That's possible. The other sidetracking, I think somebody else mentioned to me, it could be due to the muscle in the shoulder.
Because, you know, some men, I don't want to include myself in this, but they have more muscles in the shoulder than women and the elderly.
So perhaps that's why particularly the athletes, you've got more muscle, more blood vessels.
Is it then being taken to the heart quicker?
And I don't know. But aside from doing all those studies, they kind of hidden time and cost.
And that's why I come in, is we have to do a lot of lab assays, but you can't just make up an assay.
I'm going to measure this and I'm going to do it tomorrow. You have to do the qualification and validation.
And sometimes I can take 1.5 years before you can even measure them.
So I'm kind of with you. I think they did not do a lot of stuff.
So I was a bit perplexed. I didn't look at their confidence interval numbers as much as you did, just the numbers.
And I was shocked they were going to the FDA with that.
So quite by chance, a friend of mine who's in yards, he was having a top Pfizer executive run for dinner.
And that was what his wife was. So he said, don't name names or anything like that.
So he said, well, don't worry, I'm going to ask them, you know, because I said I couldn't scientifically justify that.
The medics there can't. How's it going through? And came back and said, it's all the FDA.
It's the FDA that are pushing to get this through the system and approved.
It was almost like submit what you've got. It's going to get approved. Now, they didn't say that.
But, you know, I guess the medics have been there and they've submitted what they've got on paper.
You know, a confidence interval is a joke and numbers of the jokes.
Everything is a joke. And they say, well, we're not actually lying. We're putting it up to the regulators.
Yeah. And if they want to approve it, our conscience is clear.
And I'm sure that's the way they were thinking in the companies. But you're right.
It's it's it's taken it. It's marketing kind of driving this without any conscience of the impact it could have on the wider population.
But he said it was the FDA's desire for them to submit this data and get it pushed through.
That makes sense. It makes it because it doesn't make sense otherwise at all.
That kind of would make sense.
And so he went a little bit further and his wife's probably going to divorce him because he was pushing this person quite hard.
And, you know, you said, well, what's your thoughts then?
And not just you, but everyone else in Pfizer.
And she said, well, we don't think, you know, she speaks, she speaks for herself, but the general feeling was anyone below 30, they shouldn't be getting this, let alone kids.
You know, and even they were embarrassed with what they were submitting.
Yeah. But that's, you know, that that's where we are. And that's scary.
Really scary. Because, I mean, you can't expect Pfizer to object to having their products marketed for them.
So you've got a you've got a marketing agenda and you've got a political agenda and the two come together.
Yeah. Yeah. And it's kind of interesting because I was kind of thinking on top of my head, someone else you said, Steve, you know, when you've got the medical reps going to the practices.
Now, that used to be rampant in the UK years ago, and it became a lot more regulated about how many reps you could have, what they could give doctors.
You can bribe, you can say X, Y and Z. And I thought, you know, that's a good thing.
It's become a lot more regulated. So it's going to get to the doctors what they prescribe.
But this seems to be just taking doctors out of the equation, the decision making process.
It seems to be the regulators that are pushing through whatever agenda they want, along with, you know, the pharmaceutical companies.
And the regulators in the UK and the US are connected to government.
Yeah. And FDA is directed by government.
Yeah. Oh, and on that note, Stephen, the MHRA is massively under resource at the moment because we're putting through a few studies.
We've currently got a phase one study going through.
Well, that would fit with what I've heard that they're not fit for purpose.
Well, obviously neither is the EMA fit for purpose, but the MHRA were not fit for purpose because of lack of staff, lack of qualified and experienced staff.
And yeah, and before Brexit, you know, the UK used to be very attractive for phase one studies because it had a 28 day, I think, review window or approval window.
But they would look at your study within 14 days and come back to you.
And currently, as of yesterday, that's sitting at 60 days.
So to put it in context, they seem to be at least running at half efficiency to what they were before.
Well, yes, but maybe they can't actually do their job, even if they wanted to, which they don't because their government and governments have been subjected, have taken part in treason all around the world.
Yeah. Anyway, sorry, Jeff, can I ask you, the people questioning this guy at dinner.
So your friend and your friend's wife, is that right?
Who was actually hosting the dinner?
Yes, it was my friend who was cuisine.
So are they doctors or are they scientists?
No, no, but he's, you know, he's very well.
Well, he's on the same page as me.
We've looked at all the scientific literature, the peer review journals.
He's the one that came to me with the Lund study, for instance.
So he's smart and on the money, even if he's not medically qualified.
But a question, sorry, last bit.
And the actual question for Claire, I know I've diverted a little bit.
You mentioned that, you know, all the future vaccines could be, you know,
it looks like they're going to be approved or go through an approval cycle without any clinical trials.
And Pfizer is using this immunogenicity really to see if it's immune response, then it's effective in principle.
And I think I read somewhere, I want to check this is correct, that they've actually thinking of going higher with the dose
for the B4 and the B5 vaccine variant to get that higher immune response so that it looks more effective.
But then that coupled with no clinical trials or no testing would leave a real big safety concern.
So, Danny, if you knew that or if anybody else does, I think I read it in one location.
I wanted to check that was correct, that dose was going from, I think it was 30 up to 60 or something.
Jeff, what would you expect them to do if they wanted to increase the dose?
Double the dose, in fact.
Do we know what we should expect? That's the problem.
Anyway, it's all fraud.
Okay, so Jeff, thank you. Thank you for that.
Jeff, I think both you and Claire in separate ways should prepare affidavits.
Now, Claire, I urge you to prepare from this presentation that you've done tonight.
We'll get you a recording of it.
And if you prepare an affidavit, what you would bring to the attention of a judge and then we'll circulate that, Stephen,
to the lawyers group globally, hey, here's a resource.
Sasha has put her affidavit up on available.
And, Claire, and Jeff, same with you, Jeff, if you did an affidavit to talk about your experience
and you make it available to the legal fraternity, hey, here's this piece of...
And then you make yourself available to be cross-examined by the government.
And, you know, I think that would be a great practical step that both of you, each one of you could do in different ways,
because the other thought that occurs from all of this fraudulent data that we've had discussed in this group,
how to bring that before a judge in a way that they can't, that it's just compelling.
And then as you do this affidavit, Claire, because it's a different way of thinking,
then when you go before the media and Jeff, same with you, you can knock down these media guys in a flash,
because you've thought it through in the way that you preempt cross-examination by vindictive government lawyers.
Makes sense? So what you've shared with us, Claire, I think is so compelling,
it would fit into a nine, 10-page affidavit. And if a judge reads that, if it's well articulated,
and I could help you on that, you know, and then in fact, in her and Philip Haaland.
Todd Cullinder would help her. Indeed. Todd Cullinder would help her.
And Jeff, same with you in terms of as a designer of clinical studies.
All you have to say is my affidavit, this is a fraudulent study. Bang! You know, and it's fraudulent because of these factors.
And then, Claire, what you presented, okay? Yes, Claire, I do think that I get the impression
that you don't understand, I'm not criticising now, but you don't understand the fully, the import,
well, you do understand it, but I get the impression that you maybe think that, you know,
this is what I've thought of, therefore, you know, I'm not, it shouldn't be put into an affidavit.
And I think, you know, viewing it from my perspective, and Charles obviously thinks the same,
you should create an affidavit. Yeah, no, I'm happy to. I've done other affidavits.
Oh, you have done them? Okay. Around this stuff. Yeah, yeah. Very good. Yes.
And, okay, and both of you make yourselves available, say we're available to give evidence.
Sasha has already said I'm available to give evidence in any court cases. Yeah, yeah, 100% available.
So Jeff, if you email me, I'll put you in touch with Todd Cullinder.
Yeah, yeah, that'd be great. And you remind me, Charles, I was going to forget.
So Claire, if you need any help, you know, prepping anything or if I could help in any way, just drop me a line.
Thank you. Thanks. Well, I don't know whether Claire's got, has she got your contact details, Jeff?
No, she hasn't. So I'll send them to you. Yeah, if you send them to me, I'll pass them to Claire.
Great. All right. Thank you, Jeff. Codelia, our favourite pathologist, Claire.
Well, Claire's also a pathologist. Hi, I'm Claire's biggest fan.
And so what you said earlier about the pediatric trials with placebo. A bit louder, Codelia.
We can hardly hear you. Put your input up. On your microphone setting.
Microphone setting. Shall I come back later while I thought on my settings? Yes.
Yeah, just go to settings on your microphone and just check your microphone. Just move that slide.
It's quite easy to do, Codelia. Yes. And someone's pointed out that Roger Hodkinson is also a pathologist.
So we've got a pathologist for plenty. Yes. Hello, Roger. Hi.
Hey, Roger. You're causing trouble, Roger. What's that? You're causing trouble. We hope you're causing trouble.
I'm not in jail yet. Well done. All right, Claire.
Gerard Waters is a suspended, suspended GP from Ireland.
He's going to unmute himself, Gerard. Or Gerard, do you say Gerard or Gerard?
Everybody refers to me as Jerry. My patients, every kid in the town calls me Jerry.
So it's honestly why I shouldn't be called Jerry on this forum.
I think we all must agree that we are living in a dystopian world and Big Brother in this case is truly evil.
And the reality of this trial, according to Claire, it was a joke.
To think that, did I get it right, Claire, that they actually enrolled 4500 people in the trial and only 1500 had the third dose.
And eventually 225, they actually measured the outcome.
This has to be a joke. How it could go through and be accepted by any pathologist or any doctor, any statistician is beyond, just totally beyond me.
Yeah. I mean, I can't think of how it could have been worse.
Yeah. Thank you, Claire. You've done an excellent job.
And I know you used to be on Twitter or if you're still on Twitter, back in my Twitter days, I had a good run of Twitter and they eventually got me.
And I'm waiting for Elon Musk to resurrect me.
There was a number of points.
Earlier on, when you were talking about pilots and I think it was Charles mentioned, you know,
coerced consent in any other circumstance or in many other circumstances, coerced consent is rape.
Exactly. That is the reality.
If you coerce somebody into consent in a sexual relationship, it's rape and you go to jail.
I think these are the sort of things that we must catch on to and use that term in the court.
Catch on to and use that term regularly.
This is rape of the soul, Gerard.
Well, it's rape of the body.
You know, I could argue that injecting messenger RNA into somebody is possibly worse than injecting sperm into somebody.
You know, like there are so many overlaps, but the reality of it is at least sperm will only make you pregnant.
Messenger RNA is probably going to kill you.
Again, somebody asked about where these scientists are doctors that were on the team.
I think Claire said that they were a marketing team.
To think that they were a marketing team.
I've just knocked myself off.
To think they were a marketing team, it's quite obvious they were a marketing team.
Because for those non-medical people that are on this Zoom call, those of us that have been involved,
and as I say, I'm a GP and I've been involved as a GP for 40 years,
a child when they get a temperature invariably push up the respiratory rate and their heart rate.
It just happens all the time.
And a child with the most minor viral infection, a picovirus or a rhinovirus or any one of the dozens of viruses that they get,
they will invariably shove up the respiratory rate.
But to think that Pfizer considered that a severe infection was determined or defined by an increased respiratory rate and heart rate is truly scraping the bottom of the barrel.
You'd get away with perhaps in a marketing team, but how any doctor could consider that legitimate.
That's precisely why I asked the question, I asked Claire whether she thought, got the impression that medical doctors had been involved in Pfizer's process.
They couldn't have done it.
Exactly.
For any of us that are on the front line of medicine, it's crazy.
The other thing, another point, we talked about the politicians.
Again, I'm a great believer and a good politician has one purpose and that's getting himself re-elected.
And these guys, in Ireland here anyway, these guys can smell the wind of change.
And I think there will be, there is a wind of change.
There is a situation where people are beginning to watch the social media and that.
And I think we may well find that politicians will change or I hope they will in the next couple of months.
And, you know, I would just, I live in hope that the politicians, that there will be some politicians who realise that the sensible thing to do is to change sides and get on board with our thinking.
Did you see what happened with the Austrian Health Minister?
Yes.
Interesting.
So he had been ruthless about any doctors speaking out around the vaccine saying they'd be struck off.
And then he's now saying that any problems with the vaccines are the responsibility of the doctors for not having known their patients.
In my defence, when I was being suspended, temporarily suspended, what 16 months ago or 17 months ago from the Irish Medical Register.
I actually said, you know, like I said, I feel that eventually the medical profession will be thrown under the bus.
That we will end up being scapegoated.
I won't. But I do believe that when the truth of this comes out, and this is only at the launch of the messenger RNA, I felt in my heart that you cannot put a messenger RNA into people and get away with it.
That it was so absolutely unbelievably ridiculous that you would actually start putting in messenger RNAs.
And I was thinking from my knowledge of viral RNA getting into human genome and like Barrett's lymphoma or Burkitt's lymphoma and that.
Which I believe was caused by the Epstein-Barr virus getting into people, you know, the cervical cancer and those things.
And I was thinking, this is crazy. So I do believe that the medical profession, when the truth comes out, they're going to be scapegoated.
The last point I'd make is that we're talking about the cardiomyopathy, so myocarditis.
My understanding of it was that in the, you know, somebody with sort of cardiac hypertrophy, as you get with a degree in most athletes, professional athletes and that, they've all got very large hearts and they've all got very slow hearts.
You know, we've all come across people with a heartbeat of 32 or 40, you know, and you're kind of thinking, geez, you know, this is some sort of bradycardia or heart block or that.
And then you realise that they're athletes, they're out running 10 or 15 miles a day. And you know, but on X-ray as well, these guys are coming up with a big heart shadow.
You know, it's not pathological, it's physiological.
They say that, in fact, the reason why these guys are getting the heart problems is because they've got an increased ACE2 receptors.
And that is what I heard, that that is why it seems to be in the young male athletes that are being hit with a cardiomyopathy or a...
I think there's still quite a few theories around, aren't there?
There's also the testosterone theory, because there's a slight uptick in menopausal women compared with women that are slightly younger.
But they've got increased testosterone if they're very athletic, aren't they? You know, that's why they lose the periods and that.
Yeah. And I think we don't even know if it's a direct effect or if it's an immunological one, you know, whether it's autoimmune or whether it's actually damaged directly to the cells.
No, but it's real nonetheless. And it's very definitely related to the messenger RNA.
I don't refer to it as vaccine. I never referred to it in Twitter as vaccine. I always refer to it as messenger RNA of unknown purpose.
Because we don't know what the purpose is. And then when we find the FDA, we're actually behind it, pushing Pfizer.
Well, then you've got to believe that, you know, like, is this, you know, was this intended from the very, very beginning as a population control on the part of, you know, some agencies, you know, within government?
That's what you've got to come down to, because it sure as hell not a vaccine.
I find it very hard to believe that nobody would whistle blow if that was the situation.
Well, so do I. But here in Ireland, there's about five or six of us who put our head above the parapet, you know.
I'm the only one that was struck off. No, Anne McCloskey actually was suspended as well a while ago there.
So that's, you know, like two and a half thousand GPs in Ireland.
I'm the only one that actually said it as he saw it, which was the COVID is and was a hoax.
So, you know, when you say, you know, you find it hard to believe there isn't a whistleblower.
So, of course I do. But I also find it hard to believe that my colleagues, you know, are complicit in this crime against the people, against this treason, as I call it.
Yeah, I mean, I must admit that I've been waiting a long time to have other doctors join us and they, you know, only a handful have.
Well, they came on Twitter, a couple of them came on Twitter and kind of attacked me. But they actually never had any case.
They generally started off with an insult. I always reckon if you start off with an insult, well, then, you know, you're on you're on very shifting sands.
But none of them ever managed to debate or knock anything I said apart from Twitter themselves.
They didn't have to knock it. They just struck me off, you know.
Claire, you're not going to get whistleblowers when I only know I'm struggling to think of doctors in the UK.
So Cordelia is one, you are another. We're both pathologists as it happens.
I'm struggling to think of anybody else who's British.
There was the first one, actually, is Muhammad Adeel, who was a surgeon and was struck off really early on in 2020 and hasn't been able to work since.
There's Sam White, GP, David Cartland, GP. Ian McDermott, who's an orthopaedic surgeon.
There's Steve James, who's the IT guy at King's that, you know, spoke out on TV when Sajid Jabbid came to visit.
There are all the names there, Stephen. There's plenty. Vernon Coleman is...
Yes, but they don't get involved. They don't join together and you can't achieve anything on your own.
That's not the way human beings work best.
Well, you heard Alex Craner and the Thurma Elizabeth Holmes case.
One journalist, five whistleblowers.
But in that case, despite the linkages, the whistleblower publishing in the Wall Street Journal had a big impact.
And each one, we don't know, Vernon Coleman keeps publishing books on this.
And Jerry, you could be right that doctors will be held to account.
And Stephen has said to this group, and we've agreed, that this would never have happened if enough doctors had pushed back.
This would never have happened. So it's a salutary point to remember.
And Austria might be a good example to warn Stephen, doctors in the UK.
Hey, if you don't speak up now, the politicians are going to throw you under the bus.
I sent a link to the Austrian story to my MP today.
I didn't put anything in the subject and I didn't put anything in the thing.
I usually put dear Dave, dear whatever, you know, kind regards.
But I just put the link. I was going to put this is coming to the UK and to the whole world.
But what's happened in Austria is highly significant, I think.
Yep. All right, Jerry. Well done on your courageous fight and all those doctors on this call who do speak up.
Jerry, we don't.
I before a call over meeting at the Medical Council tomorrow, and because I'm not legally represented, I'm going in myself.
I'm going to give I'm going to try to give a couple of these guys a piece of my mind because they can only hang me once.
They've already done it, you know. So I actually have a meeting with the Medical Council tomorrow and should be fun.
Well, it'll be fun for me. It's not going to be fun for them.
Why don't you say we're coming for them, Gerald?
Oh, I will. Oh, I will. I, you know, I, I show them the video of the Australian Senator, Robert saying that.
I've got absolute contempt and disdain for any doctor who hasn't tried to protect their patients very on in this in this charade or this hoax.
I could see the figures coming out of Italy were wrong. It was so obvious to me. Exactly.
It was so obvious and an average age of 81.6. And I start saying that to my to the medical or to the I.C.G.P., my academic body.
I start writing to them. And the reason I was relatively arrogant.
Well, I'm arrogant anyway. But the reason why I was relatively arrogant with the Medical Council was because I thought I was protected.
I thought I've done everything right. I communicated all my thoughts to my I.C.G.P.
And the I.C.G.P. who are whose job it is to keep me on the straight and narrow, whose job it is to correct my error.
They didn't even respond to me.
So I thought they can't bring me before any sort of court or inquiry, because if I do, you know, throws the I.C.G.P. under the bus.
Nope, they didn't need to, because they brought me in.
No witnesses, no nothing. A kangaroo court and took me directly with two days notice into the high court and struck me off.
You know, it's as simple as that. The president of the high court who incidentally had was patrolling the corridors of the law library to see who was wearing masks at the time.
What barristers, what solicitors were wearing masks.
So that is the that is the caliber of the person or the thinking of the person that I was judged by or thrown under.
So at the end of the day, you know, they've been totally despicable.
And of course, now it's March, it's 16 months, 17 months later.
They have not. This is the first occasion that I've had a chance to discuss anything with anybody.
And so the longer they leave it, the worse it gets for them.
So what I'm going to say to them is, look, guys, eventually you're going to apologize to me.
Eventually, you're going to say I was right.
Eventually, you're going to compensate me.
So you might as well do it now. I'll accept an offer now.
Well, actually, the big threat in their minds, Gerard, is when the public turn on them.
So I would I would sow the seeds that the public will come after them one day.
Well, I've always said, you know, this has been yes, this is this was not the outcome of this may not be judged in a court of law.
This may be judged with baseball bats and slash hooks and pitchforks when you are in Ireland, hurly sticks.
When the people realize the crime and the treachery of the medical profession, the government and the media,
there is a distinct possibility that people will actually I got to admit if one of my grandchildren ended up with a myocarditis and was incapacitated.
I might just be tempted to go visit the doctor who had injected him in the absolute knowledge that he should not have done, that it was an experiment.
You know, like I, you know, none of my children, none of my grandchildren have been injected or none of my children have been injected.
So that's not going to arise. But if it were a thing, or if my mother or father had died in a nursing home and I had been kept,
I was allowed to look at her through a window, I might be pretty angry when I realized that the people who enforce that and cause it to be enforced,
like Tony Hullahan here in Ireland, if they, sorry, I'm messing here again.
If the people know and when the people know that the people who did this and enforced it, the public health doctors and that and
but that they knew at the time, and I will say they did know at the time, when your mother died without you by her side,
when they gave the messenger or nature children, they knew. And how do I know they knew? Because I knew.
I have no special sense. I'm not particularly a genius. Exactly, Gerard.
I'm just going on what we all knew or we all should have known. And if you didn't know, you were either remarkably stupid, remarkably, you know,
naive or complicit, deliberately complicit. So as I say, you know, it's I, you know, it's not a question of what I knew.
I know that some of us are complicit and deliberately complicit.
So when, as I say, you know, it's I, you know, there will possibly be a day when some of us will be sitting on judgment,
at a judgment seat to judge these people. And, you know, as I say, if somebody rolled out a guillotine, I think I'd be able to give them the tongue.
You know, that's right, Jerry. Jerry, we've got to we've got to keep moving. But well said. Well said. Thanks very much.
And there is an issue when you speak up tomorrow, you know, beware the man or woman who has nothing left to lose.
Oh, absolutely. I have nothing left to lose. And as I said on the meeting last night, I'm not a wealthy man, but I'm comfortable. I am. I've been wise over the years.
And I.
Gerard, you can tell them that medical doctors for Covid ethics is investigating them.
Well, I'd be telling them I'm invested. I would like to think that I will become the black beast of their dreams, the beth náir.
Is that the word, you know, that you are the beth náir? And I have put it to them before that I hope to become their worst nightmare.
Very good. Thank you, Jerry. Is Jerry, Stephen, he told us. Is Jerry not Jerry?
Well, my name is Gerard, but I am Jerry to everybody.
Okay, you're Jerry here. Okay, thank you, Jerry.
So everybody, we've got 35 minutes left for this session and Tom Rodman will put a link into the Telegram video call after this one ends.
If you want to keep the conversation going. Cordelia, let's see if we can hear you better.
Cordelia, you're muted.
Yeah, sorry.
Is sound okay now?
Yes.
Yeah. So question, well, two little questions for Claire.
You mentioned the placebo group in the paediatric trial.
Was there a placebo group in the adult trial?
Because I remember a few months ago, there was an article in the BMJ saying the vaccination stops you from getting ill and dying.
But when you read the small print, it said that that is only compared to the Delta variant, not to a control group.
So was there ever a control group in the adult trial?
There was in the original trial. Yes, there was.
I'm wondering where you saw that about Delta, because obviously some of the studies they've done since haven't been randomized controlled trials.
They've just been other measurements.
I think you said you just said there was a control group in the original trial.
But yeah.
But there wasn't one when it was rolled out to real people, wasn't it?
When everybody was injected, there was no formal control group, wasn't there?
You mean that they should have continued and made it a bigger trial in the real world?
When it was rolled out to the normal population, there was no formal control group, wasn't there?
Well, the basis upon which they decided to do that was from a trial that did happen.
But then when they rolled it out in the real world, there were all sorts of things you might have wanted in place that they didn't have in place in terms of follow up and careful watching.
And the second thing is it's more of a statement than a question.
There's a website, MRHA corrupt.
So if you just Google MRHA, you can see that there's a website that's called MRHA corrupt.
So if you if you just Google MRHA corrupt, it brings it to a website.
It's really interesting pointing out how corrupt they actually are.
And that's really helpful. Thank you.
No longer independent organisation.
No, 86 percent funding from farmers.
Yeah. Thank you.
Thank you, Cordelia.
Jim from the US here for you, Claire.
He also is a doctor.
Hi, Claire. Thanks very much for the presentation.
I came in a little bit late for so I apologize if I'm repeating anything or asking a question about something you covered.
You talked about the androgenic effects, men with high testosterone being more affected.
That was very much noticed by the Chinese and they treated with anti androgens early on.
They they treated with we've we've been finding that tagamete, semetidine actually may knock the spike protein off of the testicles or off the ovaries.
We also noticed in the Japan studies, the the the vaccine or the mRNA goes specifically to the ovaries.
So this is actually, you know, so and we've noticed abnormal menstrual periods in the people who are affected.
This spike protein, I won't talk about the virus or anything like that.
The spike protein that is created by the mRNA seems to be a weapon in and of itself and a racially specific weapon at that because the ACE2 receptors that are it's notably it binds highest to Italians, Irish, European, certain European stock, blacks, browns.
But noticeably, it does not bind to the K26R. K26R, that that that ACE2 receptor is found in Kazarians and some of the Kazarians are like people like Klaus Schwab, George Soros.
They may not be able to get the COVID and isn't that interesting?
Along with some of the people who are organizing the war in the Ukraine, Anthony Blinken may not be able to get the COVID and maybe even some of the Ukrainians may not be able to get the COVID like like or get bad forms of the COVID because of their K26R ACE2 receptor.
So wouldn't that be interesting if everything fit in like that?
There's clearly something that went on in Southeast Asia as well, which has worn off.
So the question is, have you analyzed the racial specificity and the fact that this binds so well to the testicles because their highest number of ACE2 receptors per square centimeter in the testicles and have you put all this together in if you show racial specificity, can't you stop this just because this harms protected classes such as blacks and Native Americans in the United States?
Can't you use that as your mechanism to say, hey, wait a minute, this spike protein could preferentially harm and that they're racially protected classes by the Constitution of the United States and this has to be stopped on that grounds itself.
And we must analyze the racial specificity of the spike protein if indeed black lives matter.
That's a really interesting approach.
Obviously, depending on finding a judge that would agree that there's been any harm in that.
But we know in every country that black people who have the TMPR-S2 more in their nose and have higher furin levels are all being devastated in their communities more than others.
We know it.
From COVID or from the...
From the protein in the virus and then the heart disease, the heart attacks, people dropping dead.
You see the black athletes dropping dead more than you see some of the others.
I guess I'm asking you to analyze that and figure out if you can bring that in and bring the racial specificity of the spike protein into your arguments.
All right. I mean, I haven't looked at that apart from basically officially and I think it may well be worth digging into more.
I would say from what you were saying about spike in the testicles that I think a lot of the focus that we've had on the spike protein might be missing part of the story, which is the lipid nanoparticles themselves, which are designed to go for steroid tissues like the ovary in the testicles.
And so if they're going to concentrate, they're just because of the LNPs.
And we don't know that the LNPs themselves are benign.
Yes. And the lipid nanoparticles may be a part of the story in going to the testicles, but the spike protein, the high concentration of ACE2 per square centimeter in the testicles, wouldn't that be a great weapon?
Because if you want to get rid of the males and you want to get rid of the warriors, you make something that attacks the hearts of the males, the testicles of the males, and you knock out your enemies, you knock out your enemies' warriors in a...
in an amazing manner.
Yeah.
Very good. Okay, Claire, there's a further question for investigation. And John Stone put into the chat that in Africa, it doesn't, you know, it doesn't seem to have gone rapid.
And Leo, Leo Biddle points out there's been no pandemic amongst the primates, which is odd.
All right, Claire, you know, it's 10pm. It's after 10pm for you. And Stephen, we've got no other hands up. I do urge you, Claire, on the affidavit, on the affidavit issue.
I think that would be of great assistance. Jim points out in some jurisdictions, your affidavit can be used without having to be cross-examined, but most common law jurisdictions always want to have the ability to cross-examine providers of evidence so that they test that evidence, but some jurisdictions may not.
Lawrence had her hand up. Put your hand up. I can't see. Your hand is not showing, Lawrence. Before we go back to Stephen for final questions.
Lawrence, where are you?
Hello, sorry, I thought I had my hand up. Hi, Charles. Hi, Stephen. Hello, Claire. Just quickly. Claire, Claire, I'm not medical. I'm a very frustrated investigative journalist. As you can imagine, nobody's getting any mainstream media coverages. The editors don't touch us.
Claire, my question is this. I just learned that you're a pathologist. The question is, have you or any other pathologists here in the call had access to this fibrous peculiar material that is being removed from arteries of dead victims, whether it's of COVID or whatever? They've all been vaccinated now. Well, jabbed.
John O'Looney is a mortician in the United Kingdom, and I'm sure lots of the group are familiar with John. He's extremely courageous. I was sent some extraordinary footage several days ago of on the mortician's table showing these long clots. I'm not talking about a clot when you pull a clot out, it breaks up, but elastic almost. Some of this material is white. Now, it's not just John O'Looney.
There are several pathologists or people throughout the world that have found this material, and I'm a bit concerned that there doesn't seem to be any conversation. There was an earlier question, and there was somebody was asking about why these athletes and people dropping dead.
I don't know. As I say, I'm not a doctor, but it seems to me that the heart is going and it just can't cope because the blood's not getting around because they're finding these people have been jabbed have got this very peculiar self replicating material within the arteries. I have some very strong footage. I don't know if it's been shared here. Basically, are you aware of this? And have you seen any of this?
So I am absolutely aware of it. I haven't seen any of it because I'm not working as a pathologist at the moment. So I haven't I haven't actually cut up a dead person since 2009. So I haven't seen it firsthand. I've seen I've seen it from other people describing it.
I'm aware that if you take vaccinated plasma, you can get close plots forming in the absence of the cotton factors like wouldn't want to. There's something going on with the cotton system that seems that the fibrin and the spike are enough without having the other things that you normally need.
And there's also the question of whether it's an amyloid problem. So amyloid is a situation where you have masses of one particular type of protein produced and the protein can produce it can almost bind to itself so that you get proliferation of a just a solid amorphous massive protein, which does partly fit the description of what we're talking about.
So that's what people have seen. And there doesn't be quite good evidence that there's some features of spike that are amyloid like, but Cordelia probably has more first hand evidence than I do.
I just I just want to ask why is there I'm not going to you personally but why are pathologists not getting a hold of this material and analyzing it. It's not good enough that one's looking at it or heard of it.
This is really, in fact, on the footage that I watched at least three doctors as they were pulling this stuff out a lot of it's really white, gluey type, synthetic. I mean, we're talking somebody pulled something out of femoral artery the other day because as long as the femur.
I mean, intact and each apart from bad language these doctors were saying this is not normal. What is this never seen it. I mean, it's it's it's almost extraterrestrial in the medical field.
So I would ask you please, if you're involved in any other pathologists here, we must go down this route. It's not enough just talking about spike proteins.
We need to see what are clogging up these arteries and they need to be analyzed and it needs to be in fact to Charles I was discussing with the others. Maybe we should prepare an information bomb.
We got those lists of Congress and maybe we're just going to have to force feed this footage to all the MPs all Congress all whoever's involved and if we bomb I don't know 5000 of them.
There has to be some response care. Thank you very much for what you're doing. Extremely courageous. We really appreciate it. Thank you.
Lawrence, could you send that film to me video.
I will do that.
Lawrence, I just had to mute you because I have feedback from your system.
Who says.
My something plugged in.
I'm so sorry.
Yes.
Yeah, I will. So I will send you the video Stephen.
Also, very, very quickly for Charles, you mentioned the Uruguayan case. It was shared with me by a Ganley who I invited here today. She's a researcher cattle farmer in Uruguay.
About very important they're going to trial tomorrow. So just so I remind you, if you ping a Ganley Uruguay.
If Charles could do that before you go off, she can give you the information about the lawyers involved on the case. Thank you so much.
Is she a lawyer Lawrence?
No, she's not. She's a researcher, but she's very involved with a group of very powerful women that have changed legislation. She took on Monsanto. She's actually listening. She's here in the chat.
She's here today.
Very connected and she actually sent me the Uruguayan Spanish article. We only know I only learned about it two days ago.
The important thing about this case is the lawyer that has asked for an injunction to the health minister and the government who are now trying to issue these jabs to small children.
They're not just asking. They've been given 48 hours. The judge has ruled that the government with Pfizer had, I think it was 48 hours to present all contracts, financial data research and the blatant question is there nanotechnology within these jabs?
I mean, really hardcore. So I will when I go off, I've got Charles. But if Charles can just ping Althea in a Ganley Uruguay.
She's got a very good connection.
Are you in New Zealand?
Yes, I'm still in Buenos Aires.
I'm still in Buenos Aires. Yeah. So if Charles needs any help, obviously Althea speaks perfect Spanish and perfect English.
She's very international. But if any help is needed, I've actually got the application content in Spanish. I can go in the next half an hour and translate it and send it to Charles to have what the application actually is that's been made to the court in Uruguay.
It's been very difficult. I've been trying for two days to get the email and the telephone number of the applicant attorney. So he might have gone to ground. Who knows because of this case. OK, if you need anything, you ping me, Stephen.
Thank you, Lawrence. Can I just ask you about, you know, the River Plate. Is that what separates Buenos Aires?
That's the that's the stretch of water. Very famous because that's the stretch of water where the Graf Spee was scuttled during the Second World War.
It's a big battleship of the Germans and he sunk it so the Brits didn't get it. Yeah, it's the water that crosses from Buenos Aires to Montevideo or Uruguay. It's a big it's bigger than a river.
So it's an estuary. Yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's a it's an inlet. Really. It's an inlet off the off the Atlantic. Yeah. River Plate. OK.
Thank you. Take care, guys. You're all doing a great job. Thank you. Lawrence, because Cordelia is about to say something. Cordelia, go.
Yeah. A comment about the post-mortem clots.
A standard coronary post-mortem will not examine the vessels of the limbs like the arms and legs.
Even if there's a deep venous thrombosis or in this case, an arterial component, which is unidentified.
If the legs and arms are viable and, you know, nice and pink, then you wouldn't examine the leg vessels.
May I answer that? May I help on that question, Cordelia?
The point is this. It's so graphic. The mortician was trying to inject formaldehyde for preservation and he couldn't get the cannula to inject the fluid.
It was blocked. And that's how he managed. He's actually presented this to the coroner.
So he is awaiting response from the coroner. But that is literally how bad this material is.
I wasn't disputing what you're saying. I'm just saying what I know and what I don't know.
So what I do know is routinely that the arteries or veins of the legs and arms would not be examined in a standard coronary post-mortem.
They're not being examined. They were obstructing. The material was obstructing the injecting of formaldehyde for post-mortem preparation, preservation of the corpse.
But this wouldn't be a standard post-mortem, would it?
Well, I get your point. But if you just let me finish. But post-mortem clots have always been around, you know, and I've seen them for the last 20 years.
And blood does clot after death. And I've seen them, even yellow ones, I've seen them in the aorta.
But I haven't seen them in the limbs because it's just not done, because you usually find the cause of death examining the internal organs.
So why are these funeral directors, the embalmers working for the funeral directors, I've seen this before, that they can't inject their embalming fluid into these.
I'm not disputing that. I truly believe that there's there's there's the observations must be right, because you obviously see the difference.
But what I'm saying is that it might it might be a realistic post-mortem phenomenon, but it might not have much to do with the cause of death.
But I agree with you that it needs more more research. I'm just I'm just talking about what I mean is that these the material that was extracted from
that I think Lawrence is talking about is was allegedly taken from arteries.
So I think the aorta, but definitely the femoral artery. I'm not not sure it's the same case, though.
But but actually, you wouldn't expect clotting to be in the arteries. You'd expect it in the veins, wouldn't you?
If the arteries are blocked, then the veins would be double blocked.
Yeah, but after death, blood will clot. And I do pull out clots out of the aortas.
But I have I have been pulling them out for the last 20 years.
So so I'm not sure whether there's a significant difference in the in the new clots.
So you're saying that it could be post-mortem changes?
Well, possibly. But I do trust and experience embalmer.
I do trust them that they're saying there's suddenly a difference.
Yes, so I'm not saying they're wrong.
I'm just saying it may not have much to do with a cause of death.
It might be a realistic realistic finding.
Cordelia in the present chaos, then we have to suspect everything, don't we?
And examine everything. Sure, sure we do.
But all I'm saying is that from my own observations, I don't see these clots in the in all in any of the other arteries like renal arteries or carotid arteries.
I don't see them. Not more than the usual post-mortem clot that normally slide out like a jellyfish.
So what's going on in the limbs? I don't know.
Just to answer your you know, to answer your question, what you said earlier about a question to pathologists.
Yeah, well, we know, Stephen, Stephen, Ryan Cole, right.
He showed us, right. He showed us it and it was white.
Right. And he said it's not blood.
Yeah, but I know. But, you know, after death, the red blood cells, they sink to the bottom and the rest of the serum together with fibrin will clot into a into a yellow clot like substance.
So it does happen.
Why would Ryan Cole not know that, Cordelia?
Well, he probably does. But does Ryan Cole actually still perform autopsies?
Don't know. By the way, Claire, could I just say I thought I heard you say that you haven't done a post-mortem since 2009.
Was that 2019, which I misheard?
You muted.
Sorry, no, it was, it was genuinely 2009.
Oh, it was that long ago. Yeah. OK.
Well, one thing that I need to mention to you, Claire.
So, Cordelia, thank you for that. Are we done with you, Cordelia?
And then we've got Dr. Truth saying, then Stephen, you're going to finish because we're finishing in 12 minutes.
Oh, you're going to ask the Uruguayan, was that what?
I've got a note of that, but not here.
Oh, yes, I see. I thought you meant on the call, yes, OK.
No, so Cordelia, thank you for that. Are we done with you?
Thank you. Thank you. Dr. Truth saying, here we are. Dr. T.S.
Yes, I just wanted to say that what the morticians are finding is something brand new that they have never seen before.
And they've been morticians, some of them, for 40 years.
So it's not that they're brand new and they don't know what they're doing.
So they are finding these strange growths in about, I don't remember, I think 40 percent of the cadavers.
I don't know. And originally, the information that came to them with the cadaver
alerted them that they were vaccinated or unvaccinated.
And one more addition said as soon as he made reference to the fact that the vaccinated were showing anomalies,
then things changed and the bodies that came to him were no longer identified as vaxxed or unvaxxed.
Nevertheless, he talked with with the morticians in his area and they were all finding the same thing.
And it was all post vaccination. And it is it is.
I mean, it's really monstrous when you see what's coming out.
So I think pathologists need to need to look into it. However, you do that.
I think it's important. But that's all I was. I just want to clarify that point. Thank you.
Thank you, Truthsayer. So so clear.
So last questions from Stephen back to you.
And then we'll let you go. We'll let everyone go in 10 minutes time.
And then we cross over to the other telegram group that Tom Rodman has put into the chat if you wish to continue the conversation.
Stephen, Claire, I don't know whether you're aware and I can supply these emails to you,
but I've got emails which we wrote when I say we, the secret back to and co and me,
wrote to the European Medicines Agency in early twenty twenty one just after the vaccine,
the sorry, the injection rollout in the UK and and subsequently the rest of the world.
And we were asking specifically about things, the risk of clotting and the science behind it,
which secret back to you, of course, knows about. And I think Michael Palmer and maybe others.
But the main one was to keep back to you. So and the third one I wrote with secret back to just him
because we wanted or I wanted to write a third to nail them completely.
And so those emails have never been used.
We were talking about clotting, but in particular, cerebral venous sinus thrombosis and disseminated intravascular coagulation
and paradoxical bleeding caused by the overuse, if you like,
of the clotting factors in the DIC, D-I-C, disseminated intravascular coagulation.
So kind of paradoxical bleeding. And all this was mentioned and the EMA couldn't answer us
and eventually just stopped arguing back. We wrote three letters to them.
I think they're extremely valuable. I think you should see them. Do you want me to send them to you?
Oh, yes, please. So I need to send you the emails to the MHRA about the tests.
You know, literally hundreds of these were self certified by the manufacturers and also the
the emails about the what we thought would be the results of these injections.
So they knew as well when you'll see the dates, they're kind of I think it's January, February, March.
Of 2021. So we were warning them then we were telling them that they should take them away
and they tried to answer us, I think twice. Maybe they answered a third time, but the second was so pathetic
that the third one was even worse kind of thing. So, but anyway, I'll send those to you.
And what else? Steven, while you're looking, Roger's got his hand up. Roger, a quick question.
Roger, go ahead, please.
Hi there. Hi there, Claire, Steven.
Could I ask a question that's totally off topic because it's a rare opportunity for pathology to pathology.
Sure, absolutely.
Would that be agreeable?
Yes, it's absolutely fine.
Claire, I was mortified, which is an understatement, by the College World Council of Health podcast yesterday or the day before on infertility.
And there was a passing reference to not really connecting many dots, but reading between the lines.
The possibility, and I use that word emphatically, that nanoparticles might pass the placenta.
Now, if that isn't the certainly evidence of nanoparticles in general passing through the placenta, but I'm talking about the vaccine nanoparticles.
Should that be the case?
My deep concern, and I'm interested in whether you have any information on this, is whether or not that could attack the female fetus ovary
and result in what could be, and I'm using these words underlined, could be, could result in not just infertility, but sterility,
which would be a generational thing that wouldn't be discovered for many years unless animal studies were done, which haven't been done.
I'm just wondering if you have any any information on trans placental nanoparticles.
So the thing that that reminds me of was something I was shown just this week, which I think was published very early on in 2020,
where somebody was claiming to be a leaker from, I think, Moderna, who said that that was what they were trying to achieve.
And I think perhaps people would have seen that in 2020 and just dismissed it as mad.
But now that we've seen what we've seen, it doesn't seem quite so mad.
And I think, you know, obviously there's been a lot of data out recently around birth rates falling through the floor.
Yeah, exactly. And there's also the data from the sperm counts dropping.
And so I think we have to just watch that data really carefully.
So if there was a problem with miscarriages, then that will last for the period that they were vaccinating and it should recover.
And if it's a gamete problem, it won't recover in the same way.
The one data point that has recovered is Hong Kong data.
I don't know if you trust Hong Kong data at all, given its all CCP, but they had a massive drop in February, March and then in April that had recovered.
And so I don't know whether that could have been people fleeing the lockdown and then returning after the lockdown had eased and having their babies back where they were before.
But obviously, that doesn't explain the European drops.
Nobody was fleeing Europe.
So I think we just have to keep a really close eye.
But yeah, I think what you're suggesting is a very frightening possibility.
I'm just wondering if you're aware of any literature on, I mean, relatively easy to do to take blood from female newborns of mothers who've been vaccinated to determine if there's any evidence of the spike protein circulating in them or the nanoparticles.
Yeah, I don't know how easy that would be to do.
I mean, the consequences are given, given the I mean, it's endemic, of course, right across the board, the failure to investigate all these potential risks.
But I mean, that one, that one of female sterility should shake up the whole bloody world.
We just don't know.
We don't.
We do know it crosses the blood brain barrier.
Right.
You know, if it's crossing the blood brain barrier, it seems highly likely to be able to get in.
The literature that I found on trans placental nanoparticles made up of different chemicals, silica, for example, titanium oxide, those nanoparticles do get across the placenta very clearly.
The potential outcome of that is just unthinkable and yet not investigated.
I mean, there should at least have been, you know, pregnant rats studies showing what happened to the offspring.
But Roger, we knew that.
We knew about this possibility before the injections were even started, didn't we?
I'm not saying that it's not a good question now, but we didn't know then either.
Well, I mean, that was those initial rat experiments with the Pfizer submission to Japan, right?
And that was really that was it, wasn't it?
Well, we also knew there were no animal experiments, isn't that quite true?
Yes.
And that's in violation of the Nuremberg Code.
Quite.
I'm just very worried.
I mean, it may be, you know, there was all that work done.
Identifying particular batches that may have been more associated with complications.
And then the more you read about the manufacturing process, the more it seems as though in the big vats that can be incomplete stirring, resulting potentially in a much greater concentration in some vials and others.
And that, you know, if a pregnant woman happened to get one of those with a high concentration of nanoparticles crossing the placenta, I mean, all bets are off for the the fetal ovary.
Exactly. Roger, I've just thought, would you be prepared to submit an affidavit to Todd Callander?
Because I think he'd be very interested on exactly what you're talking about now.
I'd be happy to chat.
To be very frank with you, Stephen, I don't do affidavits for two reasons.
Number one, they're so bloody time consuming and I've got so many other things to do.
But also, I do not consider myself an expert in anything.
You're an expert in the practice of medicine, aren't you?
Yeah, but I could be torn to shred on the stand about papers that pull out of thin air.
I don't want to be subjected to that.
It's an unfair pool.
But I'd be happy to chat with whoever offline that you know my email, Stephen, I'd be happy to chat.
All right. Excellent, Roger.
And the point is well made that experts, I mean, most jurisdictions get cross examined and as Roger said, they get torn to shreds by reports pulled out of thin air.
So our time is up. It's two and a half hours.
Claire, well done on your work. Thank you, Roger.
Thank you, everybody.
But Charles, that doesn't negate the need for affidavits because Todd Callender...
No, of course not. No, no, no, no. I didn't say that at all.
I just said Roger's position. I love being torn to shreds. So do you.
So does Gerry Waters. So let them. Let them try.
So does Claire. She goes on TV. Any of you torn to shreds?
A substantial CV does not make an expert.
Yes, but Roger, I think the public would rather trust you than any of the so-called...
Come on, Stephen, come on, come on. We're finishing.
At the end of the day, at the end of the day, I'd be on the stand with an opinion.
You know, the court's not interested in opinions. The court's interested in supportable facts.
Why would they not be interested in a medical doctor's opinion?
Well, I wouldn't get you on stating my opinion. I get torn to shreds on cross-examination.
OK, yeah. But the problem is, Roger, they have a burden of proof to say that you're wrong.
And they're experts, Stephen. They're experts in... We can find experts on our side for everything.
Roger's put his position. So come on. So everybody, please thank Claire.
You can go to bed now, Claire.
I shall.
Thank you. Great job. Thank you for your time, for your genius.
And keep at it. We're rooting for you.
And more importantly, we're two and a half years into a six year war, so none of us can afford to get tired.
So we keep fighting this war and all the different battle fronts that we are.
All of you, please keep doing so. This is one of the battle...
This is one of the rest stops Stephen has created.
This is the rejuvenation space. So we go back into battle, Stephen.
That's what I see this group as.
If anybody wants to write to June Raine, she's the doctor at the head of the MHRA.
I've got the email address if you want to write to me.
Excellent. Thank you.
OK.
Thanks everybody. Thank you.
Thank you, Claire. Very good.
Thank you, everybody. Thanks. See you on Sunday, Monday. Stephen, well done.
Thank you.