We've got Scott Atlas coming in, so that's a good thing.
All right. Good to see you guys.
Good to be here.
If it's only my picture, I'm here.
Very good. Scott Atlas, welcome.
I'm Charles Kovace here in the red, red for passion.
You're on mute. Come and say hello. We're just doing a hello to everybody.
Okay, I'm not on mute now. Hi, everybody.
Sam, I'll make you a host so you can work with Simon to add participants.
There you are, make co-host.
And Stephen Frost is here.
Well done, Stephen, for getting Scott Atlas here. Great job.
Thank you, Dr. Atlus, for talking to us.
Happy to be here. Thank you.
I thought I would do a presentation, but I'll go quickly through some of the slides because everyone here knows the data.
But I will do a share screen kind of deal.
Hopefully I'll be able to navigate that.
Yes, I can help you. I can help you on that, Scott.
It won't be that hard, but I mean, I can read, but we'll see.
A lot of people can read, but they don't see what they don't understand what they read, I guess. We know that.
So, Scott, why don't you try now to share your screen just to practice, because I've made you a co-host, so you'll be able to do that.
And the other thing, the other thing we've got, the beautiful look at that and then click the F5 and fill the whole screen and then everybody knows that the viewer, that that's it.
And everybody knows you can change the view as Scott is talking. Top right corner, everybody, just to suit your own eyesight as to how you want this to look.
I think there is the standards side by side speaker and side by side gallery, everybody, so you can make that.
All right. And then just go to the next page, Scott, just to check that it works.
Beautiful. Look at that. OK, so if you end that share screen, we'll say hello to everybody and we'll we'll get back to.
OK, we'll get back to saying hello to everybody. So just go to the top and stop share.
Where is that? Oh, here it is. No. Oh yeah, I see it. Yes, it's in red.
Like my jacket.
Hello, Stephen Frost.
Looking good in the land of Wales.
So, Scott, the one thing that we've got to handle is some steps by the World Health Organisation. How long have we got you?
An hour.
An hour. All right, so we'll be tight on. So you present what you know, whatever ideas you want.
I mean, I could go. Yeah, I could go. I could go a little longer. I don't have a hard stop on my end.
So. All right, because that would be great if you were here for an hour and a half and then we got questions and conversation.
And OK. And then at seven at one and a half hour mark, James Rogusky has to bring some information to us about what the who has got happening this week.
Stephen, you saw that John Stone said so.
So, Limeo and James Rogusky, it might be certainly relevant to what we're doing here and to understand what who is up to.
So that's the sort of game plan. Scott said we've got you for an hour and a half. That would be great.
You speak on what you want and I'll introduce you in a moment and give you a bit of a.
And James is actually here. So that's great.
And we've got Sam and Simon as co-hosts with Stephen.
All right. So everybody, welcome to Medical Doctors for COVID Ethics. Well done to Stephen Frost for starting this this this journey.
And Stephen, you might, you know, one you can tell Scott before he starts why you started this.
This is a group of a lot of professions here, Scott.
There are doctors, retired doctors, surgeons, lawyers, retired lawyers like me.
But I'm a legal strategist, engineers, writers, dentists, financiers, nurses, philosophers, journalists, investors.
And we are here in a true spirit of discovery is a free speech environment.
You can say whatever you like here. Anyone who's offended here can remain offended.
The most people here and almost all people here understand we're in World War Three.
Everyone, those of you who are new and there will always be new people, we go for two and a half hours at the two and a half hour mark.
For those who have more time, there is a less structured telegram video conversation.
As I said, there's no censorship, but there is proper mediation.
So so we make sure that this meeting runs well.
Part of this is to be willing to question this group is willing to question your beliefs.
Don't hold on to your beliefs like crazy.
It is about the development of science. We have lots of experts here who have pointed that out.
Anyone who says the science is simple, I think it was Michael Creighton, Michael Creighton in his book.
He said, if someone says to you the science is settled, hold on to your wallet.
That was a very useful, useful principle or or the majority of scientists agree on something.
Hold on to your wallet.
So the other principle that drives us is we come from love, not fear.
And we are we can't be fear will squash us and being in a space here of coming from a spiritual basis of understanding the spiritual game that's going on.
Love, not fear. Love will empower you. And that's where passion comes.
That's why I wear this red jacket, because I am a passion provocateur.
And all of you who are here are passionate about freedom, about truth, about justice.
And if we're not going to fight for it, then I think it was what was that?
What's the quote from Ronald Reagan? Dave, you'll know it.
You know, every generation has to fight for its freedom or words to that effect.
So welcome. Q&A will follow Scott Scott.
We are, as I say, you know, we know the data.
We are we're here to have a conversation with you and and we're delighted to have you.
And Stephen, do you want to say anything as to why you started this group, particularly for new people who have come on before Scott starts?
Yeah, so, Scott, I'm a radiologist as well as you.
And I worked with people you probably know in Sweden, Stan Kronqvist, head of Neuroradiology in Lund and Bergström in Uppsala, Akademiska Sjukhuset.
I don't know whether you know. But anyway, so as a doctor, I knew in March 2020 that this was a complete fraud,
partly because of the 2009 swine flu pandemic fraud.
I was aware of that and that it had been the subject of an investigation at the Council of Europe.
And anyway, I formed a group to try to understand what was going on, because I realized immediately that although I knew that it was a medical fraud,
I didn't know the economic background, economics background and many other backgrounds.
And so I formed Doctors for Covid Ethics initially and worked with Subrata Bhakti, Michael Palmer and a lot of scientists from Germany and doctors as well.
And Michel Shostovsky, who is a friend of mine, he's an editor of Global, he's the editor in chief of Global Research.
And he said almost immediately in March 2020 that the scientists alone would never solve this problem.
And he was right, in my opinion. And it's taken us, it took us about two years to come to a working understanding of what had gone on in the last two years and two and a half years now.
And of course, with any medical problem, you have to understand what you're dealing with.
In other words, you come to a diagnosis in medicine before you can treat anybody.
And well, yes. And so the same with this.
I think the better your understanding of the whole thing from several different, many different viewpoints,
the more likely we would be able to solve the problem and lead, hopefully lead people out of this.
But I didn't really know what I was doing.
And it was a shot in the dark for me. And it was a means of survival in North Wales because this North Wales was so woke.
It was unbelievable. No, nobody protesting or in any way standing against people.
So I thought I'll form an international group. I'd done it before.
And so there was doctors for Covid ethics and then medical doctors for Covid ethics because I realised that the doctors and scientists in the original group, which I also formed, weren't going to solve the problem.
And so I then went international, really international then.
So that's how it came about.
OK, well, over to you. Over to you.
We're in your hands and we look forward to being able to ask you questions and you go for 10 minutes or 20 minutes or half an hour, whatever you'd like.
And then then go.
Yeah, I usually. Yeah.
Yeah, unless I have a hard stop, it's fine.
We can keep going as long as as long as you want.
Well, thank you for having me.
And the point of my talk to me, for me, from my point of view is to not necessarily say things that people don't know, but to give you my perspective, because it's important to understand what I was saying to the president of the United States.
And I think this is I am sure I agree with most of what what everyone here believes, but let's just move forward and go through and also to show you what I say to audiences, particularly in the United States.
I think it's worth knowing that.
Doing the screen share and you know, this is the issue to me is that.
It's not really even about COVID, of course, as everyone knows, it's about the devastating exposure to what's been going on right under people's noses.
I don't think we were aware of it. It was exposed here and now we're left with a complete disastrous lack of trust in institutions, people and sort of expertise that I feel is very dangerous because we need as a society, as a free society, to have trust in certain things.
Let's see what happens here.
Hopefully my my screen will advance.
And it's not just America, but when America is gone, I feel like it's over for almost everybody.
And what do I mean by serious crisis? Well, it turns out to me, government and the what I call the credential class that is our leadership.
Public health agencies, universities, doctors, scientists, schools, the media have been exposed.
They've been exposed in two ways. They're not experts necessarily, and they are highly politicized.
Beyond the lack of freedom of speech is an unprecedented denial of fact in science and public health leadership.
I agree that science, vis-a-vis the intro here, is not kind of established or set or consensus.
On the other hand, the earth is round, for instance. On the other hand, we cannot deny fact when we're trying and people have been doing that.
There are things that there is evidence basis for what is said and what should be said. And that's been denied.
Moreover, and more fundamentally, the topic here of the moral and ethical basis of our behaviors as citizens.
As a society, we have broken the social contract with our most precious resource, and that is our children.
We have harmed them directly and we have grossly failed. We as a society, as their role models and fundamental free exchange of ideas
that is fundamental to all free societies is under threat in the United States and elsewhere, of course.
What happened, I think everyone here knows, but it started with the World Health Organization that you sort of mentioned in the beginning of this,
making claims that anyone with five minutes of experience and thought would understand were incorrect, highly likely to be incorrect.
And this was picked up. And then what I'm illustrating here is that this is the first pandemic or real crisis where social media is the way that people get information.
And it was repeatedly amplified mainly, but not exclusively by social media, but in concert with traditional media and with politicians.
And this is what was claimed as everyone knows that the virus has a higher fatality rate than the flu by several orders of magnitude, that everyone had a significant risk to die,
that no one has immunity because the virus is new, that everyone is dangerous and spreads the infection, that asymptomatic people are drivers of the spread,
that locking down stops or eliminates the virus, that masks will protect everyone and stop the spread, and that immune protection is only from a vaccine.
And I think that was false. We knew it was false in the spring and actually late winter of 2020.
This is not learned. This is not new information. I don't think the public understands this.
Huxley said facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.
And that's the point here that in the United States and much of the world, the U.S. enacted what I call the Burks Fauci lockdowns.
This was the 15 days to slow the spread. And why do I say Burks Fauci lockdowns?
First of all, the United States is highly influential to policymakers in other parts of the world, but in the United States specifically,
people never understood that Deborah Burks was the official voice of the federal policy.
The White House Task Force was coordinated and therefore directed on the medical side by Dr. Deborah Burks.
She wrote all the official White House guidance to all the states and visited the states before, during my three months and then after my three months of being involved in the White House.
Fauci was the public face of the task force. He was a media creation, partly on his own.
And then once Biden took over as president was named the chief medical adviser. They were the leaders.
This is a failure of leadership to abrogate leadership to bureaucrats.
But that's what happened. And their guidance was flattened the curve and then rapidly became stop all cases at all costs.
And that meant lockdowns. And the reason I'm saying this is because the people that are the lockdowners,
even when I was there in October of 2020, tried to back away from using the word lockdowns in the White House meetings
because it became obvious that this was wrong, even though I was the only one saying it internally.
And they said lockdowns and that policy in the United States by the data that they use was a failure because there has been more than one million deaths attributed to the virus under their policies that were implemented.
And as everyone here knows, their policies were directly causing massive death and severe harms, particularly to the families and children in middle class, lower class and poor families.
This was a class selective destruction. This is the data. If people want to go by what is accepted data on causes of death being covid.
If you look before and after the transition of Trump to Biden presidency, this is the United States.
It's a straight line. This is not a political administrator administration based failure.
It has nothing to do with that. There was no change in the accrual of what are called covid deaths in the United States.
The lockdowners own the outcomes. Their policies were implemented.
This is something that has to be said over and over again.
This is not understood by the American public and by the media who keep writing somehow that they don't have the accountability.
The safer alternative, as everyone here said, actually, in the beginning of this was known in March of 2020.
And that was targeted protection that was publicly written about by more than the people listed on the slide.
Johnny and Edie's David Katz and myself wrote separate independent papers talking about targeted protection.
Martin Kaldorf tried to get something in writing. He couldn't get it published in the United States.
It was written on CNN Espanol.
And then and that was increasing the protection of high risk group and opening society.
And this was known this was standard. This was the way to deal with pandemics.
Later in the spring, summer and fall of 2020, many people came out.
And then, as everyone knows, the Great Barrington Declaration was written seven months later.
At least it was something that people could agree upon.
At least it was something that people felt comfortable saying, yes, I agree with that.
The people that didn't come out and say it finally had something that was sort of official, which was very important.
This data, everybody knows.
It's not just that there's thousands fold higher risk of death in old people compared to children.
This is what's not talked about, which is that it's not just old people.
Two thirds of American deaths are people with greater than or equal to six comorbidities.
Healthy old people are not at major risk of death from COVID.
The reason I keep saying this is because I think this is something that's under emphasized by others who are speaking about this.
I know everybody on the call understands this data, but I think that the public still doesn't understand who is really at risk
because it's been minimized by the press and it was a failure of the Fauci leadership as the media face of the response to the world, really, and never saying this.
This was also known by the time I got into the White House for months.
And the first thing I did when I was there at July 30th was when I flew into Washington of 2020.
The first thing I said was, what's the lowest hanging fruit?
Okay, let's have an event saying schools should open in the fall of 2020.
And that was obviously the appropriate thing to do because healthy children don't have a high risk and the harms of closing in-person schools were enormous.
And frankly, as everybody here probably agrees, there's nothing more important to a civilized society than educating our children.
And that was also known with very deep detail, the failure not just of online learning, but of everything that goes beyond learning from books in school, socialization, conflict resolution, language, social skills in general, physical activity, and also particularly for lower income families, nutritional value, detection of hearing or visual problems, etc.
Again, all of these things are worse for minorities and the poor.
For some reason, the lockdowners somehow try falsely portray themselves as having the moral high ground.
And I think this must be called out repeatedly and directly.
America, as opposed to most countries in Western Europe, closed their schools despite the data that I just showed in the fall of 2020.
This is medical claims.
This is not survey data or opinion.
This is medical claims.
0% would be no change from the 2019 pre-lockdown world.
This is 2020 health claims.
Doctor visits by teenagers.
They all plummeted on physical disease because, of course, people were either afraid to go in or the hospitals and medical clinics were shut down under the lockdowns in teenagers.
But mental illness visits to doctors skyrocketed during the entire 2020.
Self-harm in teenagers.
Doctor visits for teenagers doubled or tripled over the previous year in the United States.
Psychiatric illness in college-age students exploded over 2020 compared to 2019 for anxiety disorder, depressive disorder, etc.
Drug abuse, substance abuse in teenagers exploded during the lockdowns compared to the previous year.
And, of course, the worldwide harms to children are almost unspeakable with more than 100 million more children exposed to sexual abuse and exploitation, violence, genital mutilation, childhood pregnancies, nutritional losses, and, of course, an explosion of the percent of children the chart on the right shows who cannot understand the simple phrase by age.
All because of policy, not because of the virus.
And I think, again, this has to be repeated over and over.
Somehow it's called the effect of the pandemic.
No, these things are not the effect of the pandemic.
They're the effect of leaders deciding to shut down.
It's a voluntary action that caused these things.
I'd like to say, repeat what Mandela said.
There can be no keener revelation of a society's soul in the way it treats its children.
We can't escape from this.
This is a sin, what was done in the United States and elsewhere.
And, of course, everyone here knows the data shows that the lockdowns failed.
They failed to stop the deaths.
That's the Bjorn Skaug study of 24 countries.
They failed to stop the spread of the infection.
This is the Stanford study from January 2021.
They failed to stop the deaths.
But worse than that, the National Bureau of Economic Research, this is a Rand Institute study,
and USC showed in June of 2021 the lockdowns caused an increase in excess deaths.
And once they were implemented, the deaths that were falling started increasing.
This is the data.
In January 2022, the Johns Hopkins study showed not only did lockdowns have little to no effect on COVID mortality,
but their conclusion was lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument.
This was known. This was known since the 2006 era, 15 years before this whole fiasco.
This is the latest study from April 2022 from University of Chicago and others,
where they analyzed in the United States the 50 states in three ways, deaths, economic harms, and educational harms.
And in their quantified detailed rankings, they show that of the 50 states, you'll notice in the top five or six,
two of the states that did open policies that rejected lockdowns are in the top group,
whereas the states in the United States with the most severe lockdowns are the biggest failures in objective analysis this spring.
As Feynman said, it doesn't matter who you are, how smart you are, what title you have, how many of you there are,
and certainly not how many papers your site has published if your prediction is wrong or hypothesis is wrong, period.
That's science. Lockdowns spared the affluent.
I think this is very important to understand, and the world either doesn't want to talk about it or they deny it.
This is change in employment by wage quartile.
And you notice the drop in employment was dramatic and persistent in the bottom quartiles of wages and yet did not mirror that in the upper quartile.
This is educational progress by income group.
Again, the bottom quartiles of income group had a severe, far more severe drop in educational attainment during the lockdowns.
And you'll notice that the job losses persisted.
This is US data, of course, but I'm showing you that there's at least a triple persistent loss of jobs in the low wage groups.
The same people who before vaccines were deemed essential workers and, you know, were exposed to COVID more than anybody else,
while the affluent class ordered in from Amazon.
That's why I call this as Sinatra Gupta is often saying, a luxury of the rich.
This was class warfare. This is really beyond the pale for any society that wants to pretend like it cares about poor people and low income people.
Economic harms equal lives lost.
None of the economists were saying this.
I was called up in the spring of 2020 by a University of Chicago economist, even though I work at Stanford, where, you know, supposedly some of the world's top economists are.
They were silent. University of Chicago economist John Birch called me up and said, Scott, you're writing about the lockdowns.
It's decades of literature that point out that severe economic harms cost lives.
And in the spring of 2020, we calculated that even by then, just from the three months of lockdowns,
there was a double the number of life years lost from the lockdowns than from COVID, from the virus itself.
This is US data. Lockdowns directly killed people.
I don't have to go through this just to say a couple of examples, really.
In the United States, 350,000 people have cancer and undergo chemotherapy.
Half of them skipped their chemo during 2020.
It's not just discovering new cancers by lack of cancer screening.
Half of stroke and heart attack patients were so afraid of using a medical facility they didn't call an ambulance.
Orchid transplants down 85 percent in the United States during the lockdowns.
OK, a million new US cancer cases went undetected because of people afraid to go in for screening.
And of course, this was known. It was written about in 2020.
I don't want to go through the data for the interest of time.
I want to focus on this, which is the case study in talking about a moral and ethical society.
And that is COVID vaccines in children.
In the UK, the people advising the government said back in September 2021,
And as everyone here knows, other countries were also talking like this.
Finland finally said people under 16 or not in a high risk group will not be vaccinated.
That's June 2021 and vaccination is voluntary.
Norway for children who are offered the coronavirus vaccine.
Parents must consent in vaccination is voluntary.
In Denmark, they finally said from July 2022,
It will no longer be possible for children and young people to get vaccinated.
Of course, unless they're in high risk groups.
This was reacted to by a particularly vicious American media in a bizarre way.
They did a fact check because they did not want, they the media,
did not want Americans to understand that other countries were against vaccinating children for COVID.
And the Associated Press wrote that the idea that Denmark banned COVID vaccines for children is,
And the rationale for saying that is because high risk children were still eligible for vaccination.
In the United States, and this is why this is a segment here,
There's a particularly unethical society underway.
The editor in chief of the New England Journal and the FDA advisor said,
But we're never going to learn about how safe the vaccine is unless we start giving it.
That's just the way it goes. This is on the vaccine approval meeting about children.
I never thought I'd live in a country where this kind of statement was uttered.
The clinical trials going on are unethical in healthy children.
This is the NIH website. They're doing a study on healthy children about COVID vaccines.
And these are people, as everyone here knows, with no significant risk from the illness.
Moreover, in writing, they're saying that they're going to do the study in newborn infants under six months of age.
They've already published data from this and their data in children five to 11 from places that are very famous,
Highly respected research medical centers like Duke University, my own Stanford University Medical Center.
And their conclusion on safety and efficacy is not only based on scant data, it's based upon blood tests of antibody generation.
They don't even have serious illness as an endpoint because the placebo group doesn't get serious illness.
In the United States, public health ethics, in my opinion, have disappeared.
This quote, if a school, this is a pre-vaccine quote,
If a school is implementing testing, testing should be offered on a voluntary basis.
It is unethical and illegal to test someone who does not want to be tested,
including students whose parents or guardians do not want them to be tested.
That statement was on the official CDC webpage on October 13th, 2020.
That statement is gone. The CDC took down that statement.
This is when vaccines didn't even exist. I don't know if everyone here understands,
but throughout almost every university in the United States,
not only is testing mandatory, but vaccines and boosters are mandatory,
or you cannot attend, let alone really set foot on the university campus.
I think we have to question why the public believe the lockdown is.
And that's because we live in societies where we trust credentials,
which, you know, on first thought makes sense.
But I like to say we're in the era where credentials alone do not demand trust.
In fact, they've been squandered by people with credentials.
This has been an era of fear, but not just of COVID.
It's been a fear of cancel culture, a fear to speak up.
The intimidation, the smear campaigns against people like me and others have been effective,
not on me, not on people like me, but they've been very effective on others to cause self cancellation.
And there has been a true demonization of those with opposing views.
And the lies that were perpetrated on the public were two.
One was if you're against lockdowns, you're choosing the economy over lives.
I've already showed you, and it was disregarded, that economic downturns kill people.
The second lie was that if you're against lockdowns, somehow you are for allowing the infection to spread without any mitigation,
the so-called radioactive term, the herd immunity strategy.
Of course, this was propaganda. This was lie.
This was perpetrated by the highest levels, including by Dr. Fauci and Dr. Francis Collins, the head of the NIH.
And the media, particularly in the US, promulgated the lies.
This was me with Jay Bhattacharya, Sinatra Gupta, and Martin Kaldorf.
I got them to come to speak to the Secretary of Health in the United States.
And we have a transcript of the meeting.
We never mentioned even letting the infection spread.
We never talked about the herd immunity, in fact.
Yet the reporters wrote an article that was all over the world saying the idea of allowing the virus to spread uncontrollably is gaining traction in the White House,
where Atlas is advising President Trump.
And this was in response to this meeting.
We even called the reporter, and the reporter would not change or even print what the meeting was about.
This was the narrative. It was an intentional lie by the media.
And America's media is highly influential, but it's also uniquely biased.
During COVID, during 2020, this is a study from the National Bureau of Economic Research.
It was quantified negative or positive by some researchers in the US.
And the US media stories were quantifiably negative.
Ninety one percent of 2020 on COVID, whereas non-US English speaking media was 54 percent negative.
Same story with schools reopening.
This was true even when cases were going down.
The US media stories of cases going up outnumbered the decreasing stories by a factor of 5.5.
There was an inexplicable, to me, intent to stoke fear in the public to the point of lying.
America's media censored the information.
We know this, but there's actually objective data that they said it and they said it proudly.
These are different articles talking about YouTube moderators trying to stop information about COVID and the pandemic.
And here I'm listing a couple of examples where I personally was censored.
Now, it's not that I think myself needs to be highlighted, but it needs to be highlighted because during the censorship,
I was the advisor to the President of the United States on the pandemic.
And so, you know, this is really, I mean, to me, completely irrational that the public shouldn't hear what the advisor to the President of the United States is saying about the pandemic.
Yet the people in the power structure of media determined no.
In fact, YouTube pulled down my interview about COVID in September when I was in the White House,
but they left it, they had left it up for four months before I went to Washington.
That sort of indicates the political nature of the censorship.
Twitter deleted my post in October when I was in the White House that simply quoted verbatim the language of the CDC,
the World Health Organization, the University of Oxford, and showed actual data on masks.
And then after I even left the White House in March of 2021,
I was asked to be on a panel with Governor of Florida, DeSantis, with Martin J.
and Sinatra answering questions about the pandemic.
And YouTube pulled it down as if these kinds of comments are not in the public interest to be heard.
By November 2020, Facebook had bragged in the Washington Post that they took down seven million posts on the pandemic.
There is some freedom in the press to call this up.
This is the Wall Street Journal editorial board that noticed and called it out that I was censored.
In their words, the public can be forgiven for wondering if Dr.
Atlas' appointment as a White House coronavirus advisor last month has made him a political target.
And by the way, here they go on, a group of Stanford faculty publish an open letter sliming their former colleague last week.
The Federalists said the same. In fact, this writer observed the fact that I am an advisor to the president alone ought to make it
vile that the public should be able to hear the opinions.
I mean, this is very frightening to me that we're living in this era.
But the real problem to me underlying almost all of this is academia.
This is the journal article letter to the editor that every one of us is aware of from February 2020 by a group of well-known virologists who wrote in,
quote, We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID does not have a natural origin.
This was written in February 2020.
Of course, no one could have known that.
In fact, it's probably not true, of course.
But in February 2020, this is non-scientific language.
There was no data in this piece, yet the Lancet felt that this was appropriate to publish.
And the only point of publishing this is to intimidate people from speaking.
I think this is really a complete error on the scientific community and the scientific journals now are actively blocking the free exchange of ideas,
which is the fundamental point about how science evolves.
Stanford University is a big violator of what their main task is,
which is to be as a university, the center of the free exchange of ideas.
But in this case, they are targeting what they perceive as political opponents, whether or not they're political opponents.
Ian Eadie, me and Jay Bhattacharya are all medical scientists at the same university, Stanford University.
We also have the exact same thing about who's at risk, the low risk to children.
The fact that recovered from infection means that you have protection, that masks don't work, that schools should be open,
that lockdowns are a huge error and that focus protection is the way to go.
We said the exact same things at the same time.
In fact, for the entire summer and fall of 2020, I was speaking almost every day to John and Jay.
Yet Stanford faculty, a group of them issued a censure and then they voted to Stanford Faculty Senate,
really, you know, using it basically character assassination to me.
This is harmful to the national interest and it's a really a horrendous failure of how to behave to our younger generation.
Why do I think it was political?
Because here's the voting of Stanford zip code, postal code, 94.7 percent Biden, 3.5 percent Trump,
while the rest of California was 62 to 1 Biden to Trump.
The National Review wrote a piece and the point here is to call out the universities.
I think that this is really one of the most fundamental things that has to be fixed.
It says here, disagreement and good faith ought to be accomplished by full and open discussion.
But that is not what the Stanford letter is trying to achieve.
Public health is now politicized heavily.
This is US data.
But if you look at the question, do parents support K through 12 schools opening in person?
February 2021, the Republicans, 94 percent supported, 6 percent against Democrat voters, 60 40.
There is a heavy politicization.
Science, share of Americans who said they had a great deal of confidence in science by party was always about the same.
And now there's a massive disconnect between the voting public.
This shows there's something wrong, not with the public, but with science.
I do believe trust in science and public health can be restored.
But the first and foremost thing is that we must restore the ethics of public health front and center.
These were broken.
I mean, severely broken during the lockdowns.
We have to have accountability, including admission of errors, which I'm highly skeptical will ever happen.
We need to work with government and with other people in figuring out and letting the public understand that the terms public health emergency must be defined with time limits.
We need to reset the role of health agencies to advisory, not law or rule setting.
And we need to look at transparency, but also decentralization of the control of research, the way research is funded.
The people who fund it control the policies and control the journals.
This is very bad for the public good.
A couple of other things I want to mention.
People ask me, what can we do?
What has to be done?
They're the problem.
The people are asking me.
I'm not talking about citizens.
I'm talking about people in leadership positions.
When the Stanford Medical School wrote this letter in the Stanford Daily, which is the student newspaper, kept pounding away at it.
No one at Stanford Medical School, people I've known for 25 years, stood up for me.
But Martin Kaldorf did.
He was the only one.
And he said he'd be delighted to debate this that I was right with any of the 98 signatories.
None of them, of course, took him up on the challenge.
But you have to have people like Martin, people that have the courage to rise up and be the leaders when they're in leadership positions.
Secondly, we need to get people that are independent in to government.
We cannot have government bureaucrats.
Anthony Fauci has been a government bureaucrat for 38 years.
Deborah Birx for 30 years.
I saw it with my own eyes.
These people are not scientists.
They're bureaucrats.
They withstand multiple administrations that are politically different, not based on being neutral, but being very skillful at how to navigate a very politicized environment.
This is what I did.
This is in the Oval Office.
The first week I was there, I knew I had to do this and it took me a month to get it done.
I brought in Joe Ladopo from UCLA, Cody Meisner from Tufts, Martin Kaldorf from Harvard, Jay Bonachar from Stanford.
This is August 26th in to answer the questions from President Trump.
That's the role.
We're supposed to be advisory.
We don't take over the policy.
We need to have people willing to come in.
Maybe you wouldn't be surprised.
There are plenty of people who are not even willing to come in and answer questions from the President of the United States.
We three, Jay, Martin, and I, have co-founded a new institute.
New institutions are needed.
This is the Academy for Science and Freedom under the wings of Hillsdale College.
That's the president of Hillsdale there.
Because we need to first educate the public as to the appropriate role of science.
We need to expose what happened and then we need to fix science.
Martin is fond of saying science is broken.
And I agree with that.
And we need to come forward and fix it.
This is a statement that we just published on the website.
I'm not sure how many people are aware of it.
Under this Academy for Science and Freedom, about 10 of us co-authored or a dozen of us.
And it's really restating things that are supposed to be known.
Ethical principles of public health.
Things that were overtly broken during this pandemic.
For instance, all public health policy and advice should consider health.
Not just a single disease.
And obviously the harms and the benefits of the measures themselves.
Public health is about everyone.
But first and foremost, we must protect society's most vulnerable.
That means children, low income families, the elderly, people with disabilities.
Instead what was done was shifting the burden of disease from the affluent to the less affluent.
Et cetera.
I'm not going to go through all these.
But I think it's very critical that we have an ethical foundation for public health.
Lastly, just to show you, this is Galileo.
This is the Catholic Church.
It took the Catholic Church 359 years to admit that the earth moved.
That Galileo was right.
I'm not confident we're going to beat the 359 years.
Certainly in the media in the United States.
The lastly, a final quote here by Churchill.
Truth is incontrovertible.
Panic may resound it.
Ignorance may deride it.
Malice may distort it.
But there it is.
Okay.
Thank you very much.
And happy to have a discussion.
Scott, great work.
I think that's beautifully expressed.
There were some wonderful, wonderful principles that you've reminded us of that I had forgotten.
Particularly the one that unemployment causes.
There are some 56 recognised studies that unemployment in America causes a massive increase in deaths.
You just used talking about that was just a wonderful reminder to me of stuff I was talking about in August, September, October last year.
And I haven't talked about it since.
So, secondly, everybody, just those who have joined us who missed the first part, we're now going to go to Q&A.
Please put your hand up in this group.
Stephen Frost, as the founder, always goes first on the questions, Scott.
And Stephen will ask you questions for two hours.
So, you know, he's got lots of great questions.
So, Stephen, are you listening?
You're not even smiling here for the moment.
But he will ask.
So, but Stephen first, be patient, everybody.
And then at the one and a half hour mark, Scott, we'll get James Roguski.
And I think you'd be interested in what he wants to share with what the who has got happening this week.
So, there's an urgency attached to their strategies relevant to what you were talking about.
So, hopefully you can stay just for that last 10 minutes after we do the Q&A.
So, everybody, Scott, great work.
I've got questions of you as well.
Stephen, if you go first, I'll ask one question that's on my mind for Scott in relation to the law.
We've got Warner Mendenhall here, Scott, that is useful for you to know.
And all of you, Warner has told us in the past and presented to us,
he's an Ohio attorney, that there are over 16,000 cases going through the legal system, Scott, in the US.
And we have over 16,000 on all elements against Covid.
And so just know that Warner is here.
Stephen, first questions to you.
Scott, it was a brilliant summary.
And I've written loads of notes here, so many notes.
I can't find the questions I really wanted to ask, but I'll just kind of wing it.
And so you were talking about the lockdowns.
My friend, I referred to him earlier, Michelle Shostovsky, said early on exactly what you said,
that if you destroy countries' economies around the world, then you destroy lives.
It's intimate. And that was never considered.
You're well aware that it was clearly planned all this.
It wasn't a mistake. It wasn't a failure to do the failure of people to do their duty in their various professions and jobs.
It was clearly planned. It was a global coup d'etat, in my opinion.
But worse than that.
So this is really shocking what has happened in the last two and a half years.
It's really shocked me to the core.
If someone had told me this three years ago that this would happen, I wouldn't have believed them.
So it's really rocked me. And I think everybody on this group, whether they realize it or not,
we've all been psychologically tortured by the lies.
I think the intention was to create a feeling of arbitrariness in the populations worldwide.
It was intentional. And they did it by lying to us.
Previously trusted authorities were lying, institutions.
And that was highly destabilizing for everybody, including me and Charles.
And I suspect you.
But if we're going to prevent this happening in the future, we have to really explore what it is that's happened.
And in my view, as a medical doctor, it was not so much a failure of science, although that it was as well.
It was a failure of the practice of medicine. It was a complete failure of the practice of medicine.
And the doctors who took part in this nonsense and went along with it should be really ashamed of themselves.
And I think that we have to identify the totality of the evil that has happened.
And people need to take responsibility for what has happened.
Otherwise, this will happen again, because we need to hold these people to account.
And after the Second World War, when human medical experimentation was taking place before and during the war,
the doctors were held to account and they were held to account by American prosecutors.
So the British tried some of those Neuroberg trials, the Americans, others, and I think French others.
I think the British and the Americans were most active in the military tribunals, the Neuroberg trials.
And so on the 2nd of June 1948, seven medical doctors were hanged for human medical experimentation.
They were found guilty of human medical experimentation.
And all these years later, here we are again. This is human medical experimentation.
What has taken place in the last two and a half years, in my view, as a medical doctor, is human medical experimentation.
The social distancing, the masking, the lockdowns and the dangerous injections were all, in my opinion, not just the injections.
They were all human medical experimentation. And we need to hold these people to account.
This was a medico-political alliance, just as in the Second World War.
And we're here again. And we have to stop this happening in the future.
And the only way we'll do that is to understand completely, or as far as human beings are capable, what has happened and then hold people to account and really hold them to account this time.
I don't know what you think. I don't believe in the death penalty, by the way.
OK, well, OK, there's a lot in there. If I can just, I'll be sort of quick, because I think I agree.
I agree. You know, we want to hold people accountable.
First of all, there's a couple of points I want to make. Number one, you're talking in past tense as if, and I saw some of the comments pop up.
This is not over. OK, this is far from over. I'm generally an optimist, but I don't believe that, like, this is done and now we're going to do the mop up here.
No, I don't see that at all. When the CDC says they're restructuring last week, they want more money and they want to block people who are speaking against their narrative.
They think the problem is, quote, misinformation still.
The California governor has a bill sitting on his desk right now, a new bill that says that they can go after people, doctors, medical doctors who spoke out against the narrative of COVID.
You know, this is not over. It's too optimistic to say that it's the time to do that. Now, that's one point I want to make.
The second, that's sort of a warning. The second thing, I don't know if Newsom signed it yet. I don't think he did. The Congress in California passed it, but Newsom didn't sign it yet, as far as I know.
Somebody wrote that just now. The, you know, the other thing I want to say is how do you hold these people accountable?
You know, my friends Jay and Martin and I, we were just at a meeting two days ago.
You know, everybody wants to have accountability.
Who does the investigation to determine this stuff? You know, when you have the government, I don't trust the government at all to do this.
There's no such thing as a government that is not biased, that is not politicized.
So I just don't, I don't see, I'm not optimistic that a true investigation of what happened can be done.
Maybe I wish I was more optimistic about that. I'm not.
I know that if the Republican side wins the control of congressional investigations, which this election is the first week of November,
they already have these so-called investigations teed up, okay, to call, you know, under subpoena people like Dr. Fauci, etc.
I'm not, I'm not very confident that anything will be done of any substance because everything is so politically charged.
And in the United States, everything is really very vicious, even I believe more so than the countries of the people on this call, frankly.
In terms of the public, you know, I live in California. Yeah, I had somebody come up to me in the gym yesterday,
confront me right in the gym and say all kinds of things. I mean, it's just really inexplicable and despicable.
So we have to stay strong, but I'm not, I'm not confident that there will be punishment per se.
I know people want that, but I do agree. We, we need to address these things from multiple points to prevent it from happening again as easily.
Am I thinking it won't happen again? I'm not so sure. I'm really not so sure.
You know, and the US is a very big place with a lot of different states and people, but it's very, and it's very heterogeneous in what people believe.
So I'll give you an example. In California, 80, 90 percent of people outside have masks on.
Okay. This is where I live. It's shocking in their cars alone, jogging outside.
Whereas in parts of the United States, this is unheard of and it's been missing for years.
So I'm not so sure how this is going to turn out yet. I'm not confident. Really.
Yeah. Well, just to very quickly, Steven, how many people in the outdoors are wearing masks in California?
Do you reckon? Okay. If you go to Stanford Shopping Mall, which is outside, I would say it probably 75, 80 percent.
Wow. It's an outdoor shopping mall. Wow. Wow. Not everywhere in California, but particularly in the University town.
Yeah, I put Cornell at about 30. Okay.
Next, Steven, next question. And by the way, Scott, the speed with you see all the hands up there. We'll get to them in a moment.
Okay, I'll be much shorter. But that's that's right. It's just sorry. I'm sorry.
Short because they'll then, you know, and everybody please have succinct points. But Steven, we're in your hands first.
So a difficult one, Scott. How can trust in medical doctors be recovered after this complete failure?
Yeah. As far as their patients are concerned. I think doctors are partly responsible for restoring that trust by admitting they were wrong and by having the guts to come forward.
They have been complete cowards. It's not just incompetence, which a lot of it. It's also complete cowardice.
It's a disgrace. And again, they violate ethics. So we need and we need we need people to question their doctors.
We need to end the intimidation that normal people generally have about asking and questioning their doctor.
Yeah. So what you said about you can't even get doctors who are eminently well qualified to advise President Trump to actually come and give evidence to President Trump, presumably because it's too difficult.
It's outside their experience and they don't want to do it. And we need to learn to take responsibility.
So I will say this, Scott, if and I'm sure there are others on this call and certainly within the group who would like to give evidence.
If ever you see an opportunity for me to say what I think about this as a medical doctor in the UK, what has happened and the UK, I'm told by people is the belly of the beast, whatever that may mean.
Then I would be very happy to give evidence to any committee.
And I'm sure there are others on this call who would do the same if they were asked.
But they're so unused to this, they don't realize that what they have to say about what has happened is extremely important.
Do you understand me? They don't understand their own power as a medical doctor.
Unfortunately, we had an extremely good professor at medical school who never lost an opportunity to tell us that we had huge power in our signature.
And we should make sure that we never forgot our responsibility to the country and society that we lived in.
By the way, that statement that I talked about with the ethics and public health, that's on the website and they're just still working on having people be able to sign on to it and agree.
I think that's going to be important, I guess. I'm not sure how valuable petitions are, but it's better than nothing.
One of the things I've noticed, Scott, is that there are people like, and I won't say any names, but there are people and I'm sure you know them.
They're so well qualified that they do not dare to take the risk to, even when they're on our side, to speak out because they don't want to lose their credibility.
So they self-censor themselves.
No, right, exactly. I mean, I think at some point you have to look at yourself in the mirror.
I mean, you know, the reason I went to Washington had nothing to do with politics.
People were dying and grossly wrong policies were implemented.
And it's my country. Okay, I mean, this is like obvious. It's a no-brainer.
I mean, this is like, to me, I think there's something seriously wrong with you if you're afraid to step up. I do. I have no tolerance for that anymore.
I agree. But what I was trying to say is that there are many people in this group who are not very well known.
So actually, they would consider that they have nothing to lose by speaking what they know to be the truth.
But you do. In your personal life, you do. There is a lot of fear and the fear is sort of legitimate.
But I just think we have to, you know, we have to lead an important life.
I mean, you know, you don't even get things in your life that come up frequently that are meaningful to that level.
You don't get the opportunity to be that impactful for good. I don't know how to say it.
I'm not a philosopher, but I'm just saying, you know, when you're there, you have an opportunity to do something important.
You better take that opportunity. I'm not sure what the point of living really is if you don't do that.
I really don't. I'm sorry to say it. I absolutely agree with you.
And yes, exactly, because one of the things you have to do as a father is provide some kind of model for your children or at least try to do that.
Absolutely. As an educator, as a parent, as an adult.
I mean, you know, this idea, OK, the vaccines do not stop the infection from spreading.
We know that. But this idea that even if they did, you're supposed to use your child as a shield for yourself.
I think this is so ignorant to me as a father. I mean, this is just completely unconscionable.
I'm the shield for my children. But isn't that what happens in all cults that the children end up being sacrificed?
This is very similar to a cult mentality. I sort of agree with that.
So when I joke with my the people around here who may or may not agree with me and I say the covid cult, I seem to make progress with that.
Whereas if I start to talk about the failure of the practice of medicine, their eyes glaze over.
Yeah, well, I mean, you know, a couple of people have said to me one of the most important things to do is to ridicule.
At this point, ridicule is a reasonable alternative to figuring out how to do this.
I mean, you know, these people are irrational that are walking around.
You know, the whole idea of masks on airplanes was completely irrational from day one.
The studies were not done without masks.
They were only done to say masks work because, look, the particles studies show it on an airplane.
They never compared it to without masks. I mean, I was there.
I was talking to the people at the FAA stuff.
I mean, it's really the whole the whole the whole system.
It's hard to even go and say how how bizarre this whole thing was.
But right now we have to deal with it.
And the pathway forward is to make sure people understand the truth matters.
People were killed and we can't let that happen again.
Yeah. And my last question and very briefly was so bearing in mind what I said earlier, that is the global coup d'etat.
I have absolutely no doubt about this was intentional.
It was a global coup d'etat.
All the countries, all the world's countries just about doing exactly the same thing in response to a so-called pandemic,
which wasn't a pandemic and it was obviously not a pandemic in my eyes.
And so the next question is, is this treason worldwide treason?
You know, I mean, I whether it is or it isn't,
I'm skeptical that these kinds of things will will be meeting the level of punishment that you're implying here.
I just don't see that happening because power is so entrenched.
It doesn't mean it can't be changed.
But honestly, for me, we need to have the public change it.
OK, really, grassroots organizations, even like this call sort of, and I'm not I'm not trying to say anything negative about it.
I'm saying it's positive.
The more we go out there, the more the public is aware, the more they actually come forward.
That's the only way things will change.
I don't think it's going to change on the basis of punishing treason.
I will say, I'll echo one thing for a move on.
In the United States, there were no there were no protests about lockdowns.
We looked at Europe and saw protests.
There were no protests here in the country that was founded on the basis of anti-government central power, individual freedom.
This was shocking to me.
The passivity of Americans.
This was this was so stunning to me and so it's so frightening to me.
Yes, exactly. It was shocking to us in Europe as well because we were looking to America for a lead in all this.
Nothing happened.
No.
So anyway, so great to have this conversation.
Charles, can you let the others go?
So before Gary, before we go to you, one question that I have just an intuitive answer to this question, Scott.
What to what extent and what percentage of judges in the US court system would you gut feel say are trustworthy to apply the law as distinct from, you know, being corrupt?
Because we've had Ryan Ofulmik on this tell us that the courts around the world are hopelessly corrupt.
What's your gut feeling on the percentage?
Yes, I'm I'm concerned.
I'm very concerned.
There's been a politicization of all American institutions, all.
And it's rapidly increased.
Once Trump was elected before Trump was elected, of course, but also it's just ramped up quite a bit.
I don't know.
It's frightening to think that the judiciary system is so politically corrupt.
But I and I think there is a certain level of that.
I don't know the answer.
I know, speaking to some of the attorneys that file, like, for instance, I'm friendly with Harmeet Dhillon, who's sort of a high profile attorney with these covid lawsuits in California.
And, you know, she she's very skeptical, even things that are I hate to put words in her mouth, but even these cases that seem to be slam dunks.
They're not slam dunks once the once the courts rule on them.
So I'm concerned about that.
Very concerned.
OK, thank you.
Gary Steele, then.
Thank you, Charles.
And thank you, Scott.
I just before I start, let me just say I tip my hat and salute you, sir, for all the work that you've done.
You know, I just want to pick up on where you left on the was it 150 years that you said it took for Galileo's science to be 350.
OK, so I once read a book, The Speed of Trust, and I just want to postulate that trust has fallen so low, it's going to take that amount of time to rebuild.
And I'm very afraid of where we're going now.
Clearly, you know, you talked about the tyranny in the way of censorship, medical tyranny, the cancel culture propaganda.
But there were there were other forms of tyranny, which I'm more fearful of.
A stolen election.
You may or may not want to comment on that.
But the fact that those that are in power know that there are many of us who want to who want accountability.
If they were able to steal an election, they're able to steal it again.
And when we're seeing them, the winners executing justice, executing winners justice, that's very frightening.
When we're seeing their actions of self-destructive, their self-destructive economic actions, it's very frightening.
And I just don't know what we can do about it, because the concept of we need we need to try and win the next election.
But the concept of, you know, however hard we try, they're not going to allow us.
That's that's that's what I'm afraid of.
I think we've in trying to answer what do we do next?
I do have I do feel that at least in some parts of the world, we've made huge inroads in breaking the narrative here in London.
I was on the London underground today.
And I'll tell you on the on the tube in the carriage that I was in, there was one person wearing a mask.
One. And this is underground in confined space.
So not a lot of people believe that, you know, the whatever you want to I won't use a rude word.
So I don't know. What are your thoughts on the on, you know, on these other surrounding issues and and how can you fix things?
Yeah, again, I just want to reiterate that this very regional in the United States with this obsession with masks.
I mean, they're you know, Florida has been living normally for two and a half years.
So for two years anyway, and the other parts of the US, they're not like this.
I'm living in an extreme part. Actually, the most extreme county in California is my county.
But yeah, I think that there's big issues and restoring trust.
And I think it's going to be a long haul. It's a challenge to restore trust.
But, you know, number one, we can't give up or it's finished.
I mean, that's point number one. And point number two is I'm not totally pessimistic about it.
But we need to a part of the reason people don't step up is because they're afraid.
And the more they're aware that others are stepping up, that empowers them.
I mean, this has been said to me many times by pretty close friends that the most important thing I did was show that, hey,
somebody does actually use common sense and say the truth. And other people were empowered by that.
So I think we as individuals have to realize somebody else mentioned our role, our power is to empower others.
I think that's very important. And when we do that, we can we can control the flow of information in terms of at least exposing it.
I think there are some good people in government, by the way. There are some we need to they need to be empowered.
We need to inform them. But also they need to use us as, OK, this is this person, you know, says this.
I mean, that that is a very legitimizing function that we hold.
So it's multifactorial. It's not going to be easy.
Thank you. Thank you, Gary. Excellent point. Speed of trust.
That was written by Stephen Covey or Stephen Covey's son, whatever it was. OK, her name in Medical Freedom Act.
Yeah. Good afternoon, Dr. Atlas and Dr. Frost.
Certainly my pleasure to be able to agree with you on everything that you've said.
And Charles, thanks for hosting us again. So just to touch on a few things that you mentioned, Nuremberg Code.
A lot of people are under the impression that Nuremberg Code is something that we can really enforce, particularly in the United States, which is not really true.
The problem is that Nuremberg Code, as the name says, code is international treaty.
But who's going to enforce it? Elements of it exists for research and other narrow enclaves in the United States, but not in a universal capacity that applies to medical practice.
And that's one of the core problems is we can talk about Nuremberg Code, but until it exists in the U.S.
CFRs, which are the federal laws. Unfortunately, it's not something that we can ever prosecute somebody for.
Like I said, there are a few little enclaves, like for example, the Department of Veterans Affairs has some minor references to things like informed consent, but they're generally concepts and not well encoded into law.
So without that, without it being encoded into the laws of every country, how does a judge rule on a law that simply doesn't exist?
So the other thing I understand about the Nuremberg trials is that they were military tribunals.
So they're a bit of a legal unicorn. They're not really based on the laws of the German homeland or even the United States.
Because remember that at the time, eugenics, which is what Germany was doing, came from medical experimentation and policy from the United States.
That's where they based all of their policies from in Germany.
So we're not really, in my opinion, going to have that kind of medical justice ever again, unless we have a full scale war.
And I really doubt that we're going to have that. And by the way, my background is military. I used to be a military pilot.
I was well versed in writing concept of operations in such military war schools and all that.
So my belief is that in the future, you're only going to have what is commonly considered surgical types of wars and not global wars.
Hang on, hang on, hang on. We've got to get to questions.
But Hernan, this is a war. That's the point.
I agree with you. Yes, yes, I agree.
It will be military tribunals who, it depends on the populations.
If we can empower people, as Dr. Atlas has said, and wake the people up and the people realize what has happened to them,
then their ire, their anger could lead to military tribunals. This is a war.
Well, and that's exactly my next point. And that's what I want to exploit.
So the purpose of us getting together should be to converge on a common framework of ideal proposed legislation.
So I've already began doing that. I'm working with several organizations and it's called MedicalFreedomAct.org.
So I implore everybody to please go read it.
If you have any additions based on your expertise, please let's agree on that common framework.
So our objective should all be collectively to push this common framework onto the general population
so that they can push lawmakers into it over the course of the next 20 years.
For example, you mentioned protections against medical censorship.
Well, that's already in MFA. MFA is based on historical events and recent events and everything else.
So please read it. I do beg that you please make suggestions to it and that we all coordinate together
to push this common narrative into politics. The only solution is really to change the laws.
If we have a war, OK, well, we're going to end up with laws at the end of the day anyway.
So we have to make sure that the laws are the correct ones.
So again, if we want to fix it, I ask again, push MedicalFreedomAct.
Can you email me? I don't know where to find your email address.
We've got Hernan Steven and Hernan, can you put your link, Stephen?
I've got Hernan's address. It's good.
And what Hernan is talking about makes excellent sense in terms of legislation.
So put the links in there, Hernan in the chat as you've done.
It's in there, Stephen, you'll see at the bottom.
All right, so everybody, we've got to keep moving.
So great work you are doing. Hernan Dave Collin from Cornell.
Scott.
Hi, I think I'm unmuted. I've been pressing Charles to cut off speeches.
That last speech was very good.
So I have a couple of, I know, no, you let it run. It was right. I learned a lot.
Scott, read your book. I have some questions, many of which are yes, no.
You don't have to elaborate. You can if you want.
First one, is there any chance that the response, is there any chance response was in good faith?
From what I saw inside, yeah, I think that the people in charge of the response by de facto in charge,
the Fauci-Burks people, yeah, they were, they were, you have to understand they're grossly incompetent.
I mean, grossly incompetent. People don't believe me. They are grossly incompetent.
So the answer is yes, there is a chance.
Encephalo mylitis.
We come out the US policy.
Encephalo mylitis getting butchered, blew my circuits. That, by the way, Fauci-Burks.
That was a Tiffany iceberg. Only a doctor would understand that.
Did high ranking medical authorities like heads of national pediatric societies and stuff who, who obviously were saying ridiculous things, would, do you think they thought they were not lying?
Oh, I don't, nothing surprises me about how people think or don't think.
Okay, we've all read Kennedy's book.
Do you have any issues with it? If you read it, if not.
Yeah, I didn't, I didn't read it. I spoke to him a couple times though in person about things.
I mean, I, my guess without reading it is that it's probably everything is, you know, not shocking to me.
From what I saw.
I'd like to recommend sickening by Abramson in case you haven't read it because it's an apolitical analysis like Kennedy's.
Do you think the politics is amping up dramatically relative to the baseline? You kind of answered this, but I want to make sure I get you on this.
Do you think the politics is getting disturbingly crazy now?
You kind of hit it. I just want to make sure I got it right.
You mean the politics about COVID or the US?
No, US politics.
I think it's, yeah, I, I'm very concerned. I think it is, is especially vicious here in the United States.
It's worse than my opinion. Okay.
It's worse than other countries for this, for this vicious politically based hatred of the other quote other side.
I'm very concerned.
How did Stanford end up so central? Was one of you, were one of you guys organizing a little bit there?
Stanford controls a huge percentage of the counterattack.
How did it, it isn't central. Stanford, Stanford absolutely does not endorse me, Iannidis, and Bhattacharya.
I know, but that represents about a third of the entire counterattack.
But your question is why, how is it that me, Iannidis, and Bhattacharya, and maybe the other side,
are at Stanford? I don't know. I mean, that's funny. I mean, just as an anecdote, I was asked to testify to the Senate back in spring 2020,
what is it, six months before I went to Washington. And at the same time, John Iannidis was on the same testimony.
We didn't even know each other.
Okay.
And I was asked to testify to the Senate back in spring 2020, six months before I went to Washington.
And John Iannidis was on the same testimony. We didn't even know each other.
And we said the exact same thing. And then we became friends because, you know, there was such insanity otherwise.
So I don't know the answer. I think it's just, it's just a fluke.
Just to dispel another statement I hear all the time, is it really just about the money? Because it doesn't look it to me.
No, it's not just about the money. I think that's a simplistic and often easiest route to explain things because we understand money.
The corruption is not only financial by any means. It's power. It's, there's a tremendous amount of narcissism in people.
There's a moral corruption. There is a moral bankruptcy. These people were into cover your behind.
And when I came there was so threatened because I came with a stack of papers, scientific data and papers that were published.
Fauci, Birx and everyone else in the task force, they had no data whatsoever to refute anything I said. Not once.
They knew nothing. They just did ad hominem attacks to my face in the room of the task force and then went to their friends in the media who they referred to by first name, by the way.
And they undermine me and all that. And, you know, I'm just saying that the corruption is far more complicated and actually to me far deeper than money.
Thank you. Why are the central players, Fauci, Birx, Lena Wen, you know, the group, why are they scrambling now?
Is there something causing them to, even Borla, they're scrambling. Why?
Well, I feel like number one, they know that the data shows this. There's been a lot of pullback in very small ways, but I say a lot of the, they're sort of like even these lay magazines are saying, well, you know, maybe closing schools in the US was a mistake.
I mean, you know, this kind of stuff, the tide is sort of turning on the news in the conventional news media here a little bit, way more than it was.
And, you know, they're all about their image, you have to remember.
Again, there are very few people that were so naive like I was or so like, you know, I didn't care. I was just going to say that they're not like that. They don't think like you or I do.
They don't. And so these people, they want their record, their image. They're very concerned about their image.
Last one is just a shout out. You mentioned Hillsdale College to foreigners and many in the United States. I'd like to point out that you should be paying attention to Hillsdale College.
Because it is a truly free speech proven college to the point that I want to send the president a recommendation of who they should hire.
A guy who had been canceled, dealt with, and I said, you guys ought to hire this guy. Hillsdale College, put it on your radars. I'm now done. Thank you very much.
Thank you. Just one minute. Me, Martin and Jay, we three just came back from Hillsdale, which is located in Michigan.
And we did a bunch of taping and videos that will be made conversationally about this pandemic and what it means.
Thank you. Thank you, Dave. Hillsdale College. I'm a subscriber to Hillsdale. I recommend it as well. Russ Hibbett.
Thank you, Charles. And thank you, Dr. Atlas. I'm always very appreciative of the comments that you've made in the media and speaking out.
I'm a former lawyer and former Conservative member of the Canadian Parliament. So I have a bit of perspective when it comes to politics.
But what I don't understand is President Trump was very proud of his Warp Speed program and bringing the COVID vaccines to the public.
Yet, as many people now point out, these shots have proven to be severely harmful to a significant percentage of the recipients.
While I'm not expecting you to speak on the president's behalf, do you think President Trump is beginning to recognize the harms of these shots and will consider distancing himself from them?
Oh, I don't know. I mean, I think he has bigger issues than this for his own personal, you know, as you've been following.
I don't think that anyone should even really think that that's important, honestly. I really don't.
I just think, you know, Operation Warp Speed was meant to address what was an evolving sort of, you know, emergency in terms of what they thought.
And he's not a scientist. I mean, he was relying completely on really people that were incompetent, but he didn't know it.
And I just don't, you know, I don't think it's relevant to him to even talk like that. I think his hands are much bigger.
His plate is much more occupied with other things. And I just don't. I think people would be disappointed if they expected comments like that out of him.
Fair enough. It's just that for many people, people wonder why he's so stuck on that program and how frequently he is publicly proud of it when it seems to be causing so much damage.
But I take your point. My second and only other question was, do you agree with the President's decision to not have a vaccine?
I take your point. My second and only other question was, do you agree with the likes of Dr. McCullough and Peter Bregan, who referred to the biopharmaceutical complex made up of the WC, FDA, NIH, WF, and so on,
as originating this catastrophe with planning done years in advance, or was it more of a mistake that just emerged?
Okay, this is just my opinion. I don't know anything beyond what everybody else knows with this. But my opinion is that I prefer to land on the side of instead of a big global planning thing, because I don't think people are that competent.
I really don't. You're giving them too much credit. I think though there was a confluence of interests that saw opportunities. That's different from saying there was a proactive planning of things.
I think there's a significant difference there. The result may be the same. But my opinion, I actually think it's more that there were a lot of organizations and a lot of individuals that had a shared interest in various things.
And when the opportunity presented itself, they capitalized on it. I don't know if they answered.
Yeah, no, it's an opinion. I appreciate it.
Very good. Thank you. Thank you, Russ. Avery.
Also a radiologist, Scott.
And Avery is muted. Avery hates being muted when he thinks he's not.
He's muted, Avery.
Dr. Atlas. You can hear me now. I just want to thank you for being here, being a guest. I've kept up with the entire quote pandemic.
But noting that we've had twice as many lives lost in 2021 compared to 2020. Actually three times as many. 750,000, I think, have been estimated.
And various sources, which are reputable, have indicated that this tends to follow and correlate with the number of shots that have been administered. I don't call them vaccines because they're not.
But, you know, a couple of the other individuals here have asked some questions that I wanted to make some brief comments about.
Now we're having a time for speeches. I want questions.
Okay. What do you think about Peter? I'll put them in question form. What do you think about Peter Dzak in 2016 being interviewed in the press?
I've seen the video twice indicating they were doing gain of function research and trying to manufacture or create a virus to the point that they could then test a vaccine that would be broad enough to take care of any virus.
And that this was a pre-planned issue, which I believe it was because he's basically stated that.
Moderna had their shots patented before the pandemic. I mean, those shots were already, the patent is already there.
So I just wondered on the pre-planning, maybe that's more of a comment and not a question, but it really concerns me.
And this couples in with another very important issue, and that is, and you've brought it up as well, and I know Senator Ron Johnson has as well, and Stephen has, educating the masses.
You know, it's been very difficult.
There's a lot of rejection by your friends, by your neighbors, even by fellow positions. I'm in Florida, so it's a little bit less, but there are pockets here.
And Florida is not as free as you think it might be. We still have laws that are encoded for quarantine by the state surgeon general.
However, we have a great surgeon general currently, but we may not always have that with Dr. Latipo.
So, you know, there's just a few of these little points. Another individual made a point about not being able to use the Nuremberg code.
I mean, we could always hope that there could be a Nuremberg code of 2022 or 2023. I don't think it's going to happen.
But we have numerous, as it was mentioned by Charles, up to 16,000 lawsuits, if not more than that, pending in the United States currently against various entities.
One against Spicer, I think for $3 trillion, if I'm not mistaken, for deception.
Scott, we've got the attorney here who is representing Brooke.
Warner Mendenhall was here. $3 trillion claim.
$3 trillion. And then one in Utah right now, Greiner versus Biden. But there are all these, those are high profile.
There are a lot of lower profile suits that will be coming as a tsunami. I'm just sort of letting you know we have plans for that.
And I'm involved intimately with the groups that are in with this Todd calendar and some others.
You know, I don't see a solution to division in the United States, Stephen, you know, Europe.
We're going to keep moving. Question.
Okay.
Well, I agree. I just want to say I agree with Dr. Atlas that the United States has an insufferable division.
I don't see a solution to it. And unfortunately, and I'm so glad that I wasn't born yesterday to have to navigate the next however many years of a life.
And I just, it hurts for my grandchildren to think of my grandchildren in the United States.
I never would have thought America would reach that point, but I believe we've reached that point.
I want to thank you for being here. And I assume you knew Rod Evans and Bob Stanley and Mo Targado and those individuals at Malinkrod Institute where I was educated in radiology.
I'm semi retired at this point. Thank you for being here, sir.
Sure. Thank you. Thank you, Avery. Excellent.
Avery, excellent. Glen Macco now. Thank you, Avery.
Glen, you are mute too.
Can't hear you, Glen.
You're not muted.
My point of interest is relative to the legislative branch.
Some believe it is hopelessly varied.
I think we're in a standard time that happens only every two years, just before the elections where there is some potential to break congressmen and congress reps out of their lock of their party caucus, which is an awful part of government in general, but we only get this window very rarely.
So I do have some questions relative to your impressions from the Democratic Party.
But before I give that, I just want to indicate that I think if President Trump actually repudiated the vaccine, that that would take away a lot of hesitancy that we see out of independents and Republicans that might come in and vote in the next election.
That's exactly what happened in the Georgia Senate elections in January 2021.
So there is capability to do that.
President Nixon did a brilliant admission of fault around contra.
What's the other phrase?
The Iranian contra payments and that led him to a landslide and boy, we could sure use the help now if you have any way to influence his family toward that end.
Now specifically, I want to ask about Congress and the need Democratic Party and its current members.
Clearly, the Democratic Party in general has walked away from being traditional supporters of working class and supporters of free speech.
Do you believe there's enough remaining Democratic members that can come back to being righteous, come back to voting in both their conscience and the opinion of their districts?
And in particular, whether there's any potential for getting I mean the mandates, the vaccine mandates have virtually no support among the public.
Is there you think there's any chance of getting the mandate bill passed to to outlaw the federal mandates, especially on the military.
I think that anything can be can be successfully legislated.
But the incentive you have to remember, I think it always must remember the only important incentive that the politicians have is they're going to lose their job if they do the wrong thing.
That's it.
This is my opinion.
It's very cynical.
That's their incentive.
If enough people are threatening their reelection or their election by voting for the other way, they will change their opinion.
I don't think many politicians are willing to stand up for anything if it's against what the voters say.
So it just goes to my point is that the bottom line out to get things changes by from the people.
That's how it works in the United States.
It sounds naive, but it's actually not.
It's actually it's very true.
These guys that a lot of the politicians have no core beliefs.
A lot of them.
A lot of them have no knowledge whatsoever.
And so, you know, I've been I was an advisor to Governor DeSantis since spring of 2020 as well as the Kristi Noem, the governor of South Dakota.
And they're they're smart people because they're actually listening and trying to figure out things.
A lot of people don't even do that.
They just are worried about the vote period.
So that's the answer is it's not about assessing politicians on one side or the other.
They're sort of all the same with some individual exceptions.
They respond to pressure from the upcoming vote, the upcoming election.
But you would agree that if we were able to mobilize the public on that topic, the next seven weeks are a crucial period where we could have influence.
Yes, I think people are already more more.
There's a lot of people.
There's a stronger libertarian bent now due to the stuff that happened in the U.S., including the education curricula.
People are worried about their kids and the control of them over their kids.
These are the hot button issues in the U.S.
I'm not sure the vaccines alone are as important as if you can make the case that slam dunk case about children vaccines, for instance.
I think that's where people are very, very clear on what they believe.
Well, not not so much outlawing the vaccines, but outlawing the mandate.
There are many people that believe.
Yeah, I understand.
I think there is a trend toward more libertarianish views, but I think there's a lot of people in various parts of the country who still think that you're a danger to them if you don't get vaccinated.
Believe it or not.
Don't you think that the thing could swing it in these circumstances in the United States if Trump was to appeal to the patriots in America?
Because from my perception of the Americans in this group, they are very disappointed in what has happened in the United States.
And so are many non-Americans.
Well, Trump's home message is about patriotism, really.
Exactly.
I mean, people have called him a fascist because he says make America great again.
You know, I was in an Uber in Paris a while back, but the taxi driver in Paris asked what I did.
I told me pulled over.
He came up to my window and opened the window.
I was a little bit afraid.
And he said, I just want to shake your hand.
I wish we had a president that said make France great again.
So I think the patriotism is very strong for people who are thinking people.
There is a very large, this is my opinion, a large anti-American bent in the United States from Americans.
And I think this is a very big challenge.
All right.
I think the point that Glenn was making was that a lot of people would like who would be prepared to vote for Trump.
They would like him to say that the vaccinations, which weren't vaccinations, were wrong, you know, that he was badly advised.
He just.
OK, I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't agree with the premise of the question that that's that meaningful for Trump to do.
I just I don't agree with that.
And A and B, he's not going to do that.
I'd be shocked if he did that.
I understand.
All right.
So, Stephen, Glenn, thank you for that question.
Very good.
The people we've all said in this group, unity is strength.
Now, before, Stephen, I go to you.
I've got a time problem.
Warner, while we've got Scott here, I would like you just to comment on that three trillion dollar cap.
That's running.
And then, Scott, I'm going to get James, Stephen and Roger.
You have to wait.
I'm going to get James Rogusky while we've got us to tell us what the who is up to.
We must be across that.
But Warner, while we've got Scott here, could you just give share that case that you're running and anything else you want Scott to know?
Well, I apologize for jumping the line, Stephen and Roger.
But, yeah, Scott, it's my pleasure to meet you.
I read your book.
I was very interested in the machinations in the White House.
I represent Brooke Jackson.
She's the Pfizer whistleblower.
And the number that we came to the three trillion based on the penalties provision of the False Claims Act, plus a tripling of damages in terms of what the United States has spent on the shots so far.
So that that's where the three trillion.
It's actually it ends up being about three point six trillion, give or take a few hundred billion.
But regardless, the largest case ever run anywhere in the world, isn't that right?
The most optimistic view of damages is the largest case ever brought in the world.
And obviously, we've got everything arrayed against us in many ways.
I saw Biden's statement that he's been fighting pharma all his life.
And I'm like, well, we haven't seen you yet.
Come fight with us down in Beaumont, Texas.
I'm in Ohio, by the way, but the case is in Beaumont, Texas.
So but what did you want me to address besides that?
I just wanted Scott to be aware that you're here.
And Warner's got a group of hundreds of lawyers, Scott.
And it's Warner who shared with us that number of the number of over 16,000.
Six thousand cases. Yeah.
It's really amazing what's happening.
There's no almost no press about what's happening.
There are all kinds of successful lawsuits all around the country.
Just so you know that I have I have a very positive view of the courts.
I understand, you know, that there is this and that influence in the courts.
But but we're getting a lot of good rulings.
I mean, the most difficult thing, the most difficult thing we deal with is the same thing we're all dealing with is judges who have accepted this narrative that the shots work and they're good for you.
And I mean, I don't even believe they're vaccines.
I think they're genetic therapies.
But, you know, and I'm very concerned and I do have one question for you.
I might as well get my question out of the way, guys.
I we we really see a ton of injury.
I mean, I'm seeing it in my practice from the back of my head.
From the vaccine injured. I mean, it's just it's absolutely horrifying.
And we have an big amount of health care workers that are literally disabled and no longer working because of the mandates that they all faced.
And, you know, what is your position? What do you think about these injuries that we're seeing?
I mean, to me, I'm hearing every day about sudden cancers, you know, neurological problems, you know, disability claims every single day now due to the shots.
And it seems to grow. I mean, if you were into the boosters, I think it's even worse.
But what's your what's your thought on how dangerous these shots are?
And I'm going to preface it with one more thing.
I believe these trials are what I'm calling Potemkin trials.
They are fake.
We have taco stand people doing the injections down at the site in Texas.
OK, no training, no medical training, complete unblinding informed consent forms were actually filled out and signed by other people, not the people receiving the shot.
And or they were signed by the people, but after they'd already received the shot, which could completely eliminates informed consent.
So I just want to give you just a tiny insight. I'd be happy to send you our brief.
It's forty six pages long. It details what we see wrong in this clinical trial.
And I want to say this, too. I have the same information on Moderna.
I have the same information on J&J. We have the same kind of stuff going on with Novavax.
So the clinical trial system in this country is has broken down and at this point is not giving us effective data with which to make decisions.
So I'm really concerned about it. It isn't even close to functioning in the way that we we think that it should be functioning and it's not protective of the public.
Yeah, I have a couple of quick comments.
Number one, I completely agree. The informed consent principle is completely broken, wasn't used, isn't being used.
And this is one of the biggest ethical breakdowns in modern medical history.
Number two, in terms of the vaccine, I think the biggest point in a bigger kind of top overview comment I can make is that there's been over a billion doses of the vaccine.
I don't know the exact number and we still don't have a highly detailed quantitative, reliable complications, you know, expose.
I mean, that is a huge breakdown of expectation of what our free societies should have.
I think it's a it's a it's a disgrace. It'll go down. I don't know how historians will look at this as ever having happened.
And three, I want to mention because I'm sort of out of the corner. I'm looking at the comments that are popping up.
I want to say this before I make sure I don't forget is that so I have started I work at Hoover Institution, which is one of these academic think tanks at Stanford.
But on the side, I have started a new institute that is not a replication of an academic think tanks, academic think tanks have failed or we wouldn't be in the position we're in.
It's called the Global Liberty Institute. And here's the difference. First, it's headquartered in the U.S.
I have not revealed this really widely in the U.S. and Switzerland. I feel these problems are universal.
Of course, if the U.S. fails, it's probably over. But Switzerland to me is at least one of the independent visions of how to function in society still.
And so I have multiple national chapters. We have a consortium of of private sector, public sector and policy people involved.
We are action oriented. It's about it's not about COVID. It's about all the big issues preserving, restoring and preserving individual economic, social, political freedom, including
eliminating this woke takeover of our universities, the non objective media, the lack of health care, autonomy, economic freedom.
These are very big issues and I'm working very hard to get this done. And you'll see some of this coming out.
I just want to mention this because we are the competitor to the World Economic Forum and all the poisonous, harmful stuff that comes out of these really nefarious international organizations.
Well, it's not your question, but I wanted to mention it. I'd love to see the brief, by the way.
Can you private message me your your email or something?
I can send it to you.
Okay, I'll get it.
Yeah, Stephen has my email.
Yeah, all right.
Okay.
Write to me and I'll forward your message or whatever.
Yeah, we'll get it. So, okay. Now, Scott.
And copy you in.
Every time I look at every time I look at the book on my shelf Atlas Shrugged, I'm going to think differently about Ayn Rand.
Now, everybody, we need while we've got Scott here because this is important. James Roguski, are you ready to go?
Because with the World Economic Forum and the WHO, Scott, I think what James is going to share with us is relevant for all of us while we've still got audience here.
James, are you ready?
Great.
Ready or ready to go. Would you enable me to share my screen or not?
I'll fix that now, James.
Okay, I'm going to put a whole bunch of contact information into the chat right now.
And one of the things that I always do wherever I go is I give everybody my phone number and I ask everyone to call me.
I'm in the United States. So the country code is plus one, three one zero six one nine three zero five five.
And I mean it. This is a dense, complex issue.
And anybody who wants to discuss it further than the time we have here, by all means, text, call, signal, telegram, WhatsApp.
It's all good.
Repeat that one more time.
Three one zero.
Sorry.
It's in the chat.
Three one zero six one nine three zero five five.
There are also three websites that I have on this topic.
Screw the who dot com. Stop the who dot com and declaration of demands dot com.
There's an awful lot of information there.
And hopefully you all can see.
Yes, we can.
Okay, wonderful.
I'll try to rip this off in five minutes and get you back to your questions because I know everybody has more questions.
Unbeknownst to most people, okay, there are two tracks of international negotiations going on, all involving delegates from not just the United States, but from 194 member nations.
Most of which nations, the people in the United States and everywhere else have no idea who is purporting to represent them in these negotiations.
Track number one is something called a pandemic treaty.
They don't call it that.
They call it a convention agreement or other international instrument because that comes under Article 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the WHO Constitution.
They clearly have stated that they want to create a legally binding international agreement to give the WHO governance over whatever they put in that treaty.
Okay.
Track number two is also legally binding.
This is what we stopped the Biden administration from doing in May, which everybody said there's no how, no way that you can, but we did.
And they want to amend something known as international health regulations, which are an existing body of work.
It's the governing international agreement all the way back from 2005.
And so there's a schedule of events and September is pretty hot and heavy and busy with things that are going on.
Okay. And so right here on September 15th, what is that? Nine days away, not even a week away.
The delegates that are purporting to represent you and every other nation in the world have been told by the intergovernmental negotiating body to submit written proposals for language for this treaty by the 15th of September.
On the 16th of September, I'm going to be doing everything I can to get as many FOIA requests to what is it that they, you know, in the United States submitted.
We've had some entertaining things come from the UK, where the UK actually admitted. Yes, we have papers that you have requested, but we're not going to give them to you.
Because if we gave them to you, it would harm their relations with other members of the WHO, which only makes me want to know what is in those papers even more.
On the 30th of September is the deadline for all of the delegates to put their written proposals in for amendments to the international health regulations.
And this track, quite frankly, is even more worrisome because it's the fast track. These things could be presented. They say they're not going to present them until 2024, but they've also hinted, oh, it could be done much faster.
These amendments to international health regulations could easily be adopted in May at the 76th World Health Assembly.
Okay. Now, moving forward, what has recently happened is the WHO and recent by recent, I mean, Friday. Okay, so Friday morning, today is Tuesday.
The WHO made a simple little change on their website, and they said that their new version of a public comment period will be that people can record a 90 second video.
And starting this coming Friday, the 9th, going till Tuesday morning on the 13th, they will at some point put up on their website a means by which people could submit that video.
They're going to cherry pick them and pick out whatever they want. My conspiracy theory hat wearing part of me says that the relevant stakeholders of which they have a list of three, 400, the groups like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and so forth, they're busy crafting their statements.
And what is going to end up happening is on the 29th and the 30th when they have their meeting, they're going to present a three hour compilation video on Thursday, the 29th and another three hour compilation video on the 30th, which will be approximately 240, one and a half minute videos that I'm sure they're going to cherry pick and very little truth will actually be presented.
And what I'm working to do as an activist is let me see right now there's 82 people here. I would love to get 82 emails or text messages tomorrow from people who take their phone and make a 90 minute recording of your attitude, opinion, whatever it is you would like to say.
90, 90, 90 seconds, not 90 minutes.
I keep saying that send me a 90 minute one too as well because what we're actually trying to do is flood the internet with people just speaking up. Right. So I encourage everyone listening to this and I challenge everyone listening to this to go to the links that I put in the chat.
Okay.
So I had, if you still hear the Medical Freedom Act, I absolutely want to speak with him. I got his email. I'll be sending him some information. The declaration of demands.com is an organized list of the things that the WHO is absolutely not addressing what they are addressing and they have a 19
page working draft of their pandemic treaty that they published on the 13th of July. They're not talking about, you know, the safety of the injections or early treatment or whether or not lockdowns and none of that any in any of the things that you would think actually apply to
health is absolutely not being discussed. You can find all of that in declaration of demands. They're simply talking about surveillance, compliance, governance, and money. They want lots and lots of money. But mostly what they want to do is they want to have a legally binding convention or agreement, or they want to have a legally binding changes to the regulations because all they're really doing now is operating under the
under Article 23 of the WHO Constitution, which is they make recommendations that have no authority, no basis in law, but everybody is so hypnotized. They just go, oh, you know, the WHO said so, so I got to do it. And then various legislatures, you know, on the national, state, county, you know, local level, put in these ordinances or whatever it may be thinking that because the WHO said so that, you know, it's law and order.
It's law and it must be obeyed. You know, they're they're wonderful hypnotists. They confuse people into thinking that they have power. They would not be seeking a convention agreement or other international instrument to give them authority if they already had the authority.
It's a power grab, pure and simple. They'll deny it and they have all kinds of fancy words. But now, especially this week is the time to publicly speak up. It's your phone, it's your computer, record a 90 second video, send it to me and send it to the WHO. But you know, record a 90 minute video record a 10 minute video record, just go to stop the who calm learn what they're doing.
And speak now or forever hold your peace. Thank you so much. I appreciate the time.
Thank you. Thank you, James. Now, James is presented to this group. For those of you who don't know that with Rima Levo. Scott, do you have any questions of James from what he shared?
No, I mean, I'm aware also of what's happening with this treaty and it's there. I'm extremely concerned. I don't know how binding anything will be or would be. I don't know. You know, lots of things are.
I don't know what's going to happen. I think the US election is very important in terms of America's future with this sort of thing. So I it's a huge concern.
All I ask of you is that my information is in the chat. My phone number is there. Please take it. And if there's ever anything I can do to help you, just let me know.
Very good, James. Thank you for that, Scott. I'm delighted that you're still here, James. We've recorded your message. We can do a cut about that and share that, Stephen, to the broader group so people are aware.
And Kat Linley is here as well. So let's go. Warner, thank you, Stephen and Roger. Let's go quickly while we still got Scott. Stephen, you go.
Thank you, Scott. It's a real privilege to be on this call with you. I wish I was a fly on the wall. I wish I was a fly on the wall when you showed the ivermectin research to Fauci.
You know, I'm assuming he had no response at all to what you said to him. But what I wanted to say was I think it's a good thing that there's a fight in the US. And the reason I say that is I'm here in Madrid. I'm a Brit.
But I was, I think one of the most disappointing things in Europe was there was no fight. I mean, if you count the number of anti lockdown parties, even minority parties in Europe, I think it's probably two or three out of 30 countries.
And I spent most of COVID wishing I was in the US, because at least in the US I had a choice. Right. So I mean, you know, you guys are still the beacon.
No, I agree with that. That's why we can't let the US fail with this. I agree.
Secondly, and this is a question now.
In Europe, I don't know if you can answer this or not, but you were in an administration which was quite anti China, I would say.
You know, compared to the previous administration and probably the administration that's now in power.
How did beyond you know the the the reported facts, which was, you know, there was Trump was pro stopping flights from China.
How did you view what was coming out of China in terms of propaganda, and we touched on this, we had a call with Dave on on Sunday where I mentioned you know the videos of people falling.
You know, falling to the ground in the street in Wuhan, right. And, and, you know, the minute I saw that I knew it was bollocks.
People were falling to the ground. But, I mean, did you know what was going on? I mean, I'm talking this is a personal question, I guess, at this point.
Yeah. So I didn't go to Washington until July 30 or 31 of 2020.
And I left middle of November 2020. So, but early on, I, I.
Is this myself. I'm not speaking for anybody. I don't believe anything that comes out of China. I don't think.
I know a lot of people here where I work and live. A lot of our friends are Chinese born, but American citizens now and their families still live in places like Shanghai, their Stanford people, these people, a lot of people around here.
And so when I hear what's happening now with these sort of new sort of series of infections
and new lockdowns and things that makes me think, I don't know, I don't think they, first
of all, I don't think they know what they're doing at all.
I really don't.
I just think, but I don't believe any of their data, anything.
I don't believe anything.
I think that what I've read about indicates that people like Fauci and Birx, particularly
Birx and Fauci too, I think they were a combination of incredibly naive, like believers and stuff,
as well as particularly for Fauci, because he was so intimate.
It seems like he was so intimately involved from the NIH side of things in funding Wuhan.
You know, there's a lot of cover your behind.
Okay.
CYA.
So I don't know.
I just sort of feel like there's so much moral corruption going on.
I don't think you can believe anything as sort of face value, especially coming out of China.
I just don't believe stuff.
So in terms of what was being said in the White House, I don't know.
I wasn't there.
From what I heard, people say who were there, there were people that didn't want to shut down the Fauci's of the world,
did not want to shut down incoming traffic from China.
And people pushed that and decided that that should be done, even though, of course, it was, you know, everything was way too late.
All that. I mean, that's ridiculous.
But so but I wasn't there.
There was a lot. Everything was sort of ad hoc, you know, based on very little information, little knowledge, little critical thinking that was completely missing.
On every level.
I mean, I think that's that's that's kind of a I'd rather think that than the whole thing was, you know, planned all along.
I don't know. I just don't know.
I think, you know, again, like people don't understand the moral corruption, the complete lack of competence.
There's such little critical thinking going on from people are entrusted with such power.
I mean, some things are so simple, but they don't see it.
It was insane what I saw. I tried to get that across in my book.
I mean, these people were really low level.
Thank you. Thank you, Stephen. Roger.
Yeah. Hi, Dr. Atlas.
Big fan of yours, sir. I'm a Canadian pathologist.
I'm a Anabash Trumper.
I wish we had one up here.
I'd like to try on you my global take on this whole mad episode in human history to see at what point you might disagree.
I believe this was not planned.
I believe it was an accidental release that was that was taken incredible Machiavellian efficiency took over the exploitation of an unexpected opportunity.
And it was exploited in all kinds of ways.
One of the ways it was exploited was by the Democrats in the states.
And I think that's how Trump lost the last election.
Absentee voting was called dangerous and the Democrats knew they could milk that fraudulently and he lost it.
I think he could lose the net. I disagree with you.
I think he could lose the next one because of it, because the Democrats are going to laid once the over the next day.
Wait, wait, wait. You disagree with me? I don't I didn't.
I don't disagree with anything you've said so far.
OK, no, I'm talking about the next election.
I think he I think he could well lose the next election.
I do too. I do too.
Because of because of Covid and the Democrats laying it all at his feet.
I don't think it's because of Covid, but go ahead.
Well, one of the elements, but I think he's stupid by not putting his standard in the ground and saying on television, I'll fire Fauci on day one if he was still around.
Anyway, my global take on how it all started was this.
We had a failed little man with all the power and money.
You know who I'm talking about who failed with his HIV vaccine, looking for glory at the end of his career.
We had him pitching to a narcissist who was also looking for glory.
What Fauci knew and what Trump didn't know was that the delivery vehicle, the nanoparticles, was ready to go.
All that had to happen was package it with mRNA.
That could be done quite quickly.
He didn't tell Trump that because he wanted to be one of the heroes.
So Trump sucked it up, put line and sinker.
And for that reason, I think we're in this massive problem because he lied to Trump.
And you know, you you saw it.
Paul Alexander saw it and so on.
It's a great concern to me because if Trump does go down in twenty four, the rest of the world goes down.
The dystopian future that is going to be exploited is unthinkable.
Do you disagree with me in any of that analysis?
Well, I would say yes.
The answer is yes, I disagree.
And here's where I disagree.
Number one, I think that the United States needs someone who has the capacity to push back.
I'm not sure there's only one person that has that capacity.
I think there is more than one person.
I'll give you an example.
I think Governor DeSantis is would be an excellent president.
I'm not a political person in terms of my world that I want to live in.
But I think I don't think everything hinges on on any one person.
But I think it's probably true.
There's only one hand worth of potential people.
I don't think that the election, I think it's overly simplistic to think that the election,
this coming election will hinge on COVID.
I don't think so.
I think there's other issues going on in the United States.
I showed that curve of deaths from COVID attributed to COVID.
This is the definition here that they're using.
I mean, there's been no decrease under Biden.
I just don't think the Democrats think that's a good way to run.
They're not putting that out there.
I don't think that's their strategy.
Their strategy is the whole fascism strategy, whatever their name calling is.
This is what's going on.
They're running against my opinion.
They're running against Trump no matter if he runs or not.
Their strategy is to run against Trump, period.
If Trump was dead tomorrow, they'd be running against Trump.
But I don't think it's necessarily true that Donald Trump needs to be the candidate.
There are other people too, including Governor DeSantis.
What I'm getting at is I agree with you completely.
I follow American politics fairly closely.
There are other contenders, but as likely as not is going to be Trump.
Now, the Democrats were incredibly smart and efficient at using COVID last time around.
When the general public become acquainted with what I'm calling now the big kill,
when the numbers start getting better quantified and penetrate the mass consciousness of the scale of what's happened,
I do believe that that is a turning point for American politics.
Yeah, I don't want to give up though in the country, but I feel like we'll see what happens.
I think it's going to be very close in this midterm, this congressional election is going to be very close.
I do not agree with people who think this is some kind of a slam dunk win for Republicans at all.
But I do think it's very problematic if there is a unified single party rule of the United States still.
So we'll see what happens.
I'm not sure if there's only one possible candidate, by the way, that's going to win.
I don't know. I don't think so.
I think DeSantis has a significant chance, no matter who runs against him.
I think he's very smart. He's very good. He's not afraid.
He's a, and like I say, I know him pretty well. I've been talking to him since spring 2020.
He's a man of action. He doesn't just sit there and accuse people of being liars or frauds.
He actually has policies that combat these things. So we'll see what happens.
All right, Roger. Thank you very much.
Two more questions and then back to Stephen Frost.
And then we're going to, Scott, let you go.
Go ahead. Thank you.
It's wonderful that you're still here. Back to you, Dave, quickly. And then Tessa.
Very quickly. I've been crawling all over Pharma for 40 years of my career.
And I got to confess, I did not see at all evidence of the corruption of the FDA.
When you were just a Stanford schlub, just trying to do your job,
did you see that level of corruption or is this something that sort of came on to your view recently?
Or do you disagree with the premise?
I thought the FDA had some issues, of course, but I assume that,
and mainly that they were sort of too slow on clinical trials,
this cost too much money to get new drugs developed, all these things.
I wasn't sure about corruption that much.
I knew there was some Pharma, you know, unhealthy relationship between Pharma and all kinds of things.
But on the other hand, the U.S. pharmaceutical industry has been the most innovative and efficient,
or at least quickest at delivering new stuff.
And so, you know, I had a more positive view of things back then.
I got a question that you can shape.
What most surprised you about Trump and or how did your opinion change about Trump due to the exposed contact?
Because there's a ton of people who think they know Trump because they see him on TV.
You are an insider.
I used to communicate with Navarro, but we've lost contact and so I can't ask him this question.
So I'm asking you.
OK. I think President Trump was he asked a lot of he asked the right questions when I spoke with him.
He listened to the answers he thought about and understood the answers.
So and he knew what questions to ask, like I say.
So I think that's all very positive.
Generally, he was very thankful for me to come in and.
You know, at personal sort of exposure.
And so that was good.
And. You know, I don't have negative things to say.
I think he has a side of him that is not visible to the public.
Absolutely.
And I mean that in a positive way.
You know, he had he had a sense of humor, one on one and all that.
And I think the most important relevant thing is that he you know, when I brought in the people, the other people who are experts and myself, he right away, he took it very seriously.
He knew what questions to ask.
And, you know, if you can ask me a question, what do you think about this?
What about this?
And I would say, you know, in very bullet point fashion, this is how you understand this.
One, two, three, four.
You know, he got it all the time.
Very good. Thank you.
Very good. Thank you, Dave.
Tessa.
First of all, Dr. Atlas, thank you so much for your work.
And I have a very good question.
So a new script surfaced from, I think, ABC, and they're talking about the Pentagon officials briefing the White House about COVID as early as November 2019.
Then it seems like they kind of walked back and said it never happened.
But then, if it was in China in 2019 and it's proven, then it was probably here without causing much havoc.
So I wonder what your information on that is.
I don't have any personal information because I wasn't around, but I have heard Redfield, who was the head of the CDC at the time, say that there were ongoing meetings that involved the Department of Defense, Secretary of State's area for many, many months.
I don't know when they first began.
I was not privy and I never heard anything like that.
I was not in those meetings.
I never heard of anyone, by the way.
It never came up in my presence talking about or even commenting on the origin of the virus.
Never. Not once. Not when I was there and not in my meetings.
But I don't know. So I only know what I've read or heard.
And I know there were discussions for many, many months during 2020, but I don't know when they began, if they began in November 19 or not.
I just don't know.
Okay. Thank you.
Thank you.
I don't know if I inserted this on Sunday. It had to be a hog, but I have a guy I call a friend now who was at the World Economic Games, World Military Games in October.
And the athletes all got sickered in hell.
There was a massive sickening of the athletes at the World Economic Games.
The World keeps saying World Military Games, a huge athletic event.
You said the athletes got sickered now at that athletic event.
Yep.
In October.
October 2019. Yep. You did mention that, Dave, and it's relevant.
Okay. Last person to ask you questions is Stephen Frost.
And then our two and a half hours is up.
Stephen, can you show your video? You're still there, I hope.
Oh, sorry. Yes. Just two seconds.
Yeah. So, Scott, did you meet a while you were at the White House, did you meet a guy called Pottinger?
And what was his importance?
I heard, but I can't remember from whom I heard this, that Pottinger was absolutely central to what happened in misleading Trump, as I understand it.
Yeah, I didn't know him. I know the same stories that you're referring to.
I think Birx, I didn't read Birx's book. I don't like fiction that much.
I don't know much, but Birx did say that Pottinger was the one who got her hired and instituted or convinced people about the lockdowns initially.
But that's all what I heard. I don't know anything. I never met him.
So what I heard was that he was undermining people like you behind the scenes and without people realizing he was manipulating everybody within the White House.
Well, yeah, but I mean, he was effective early on. I think by the time I got there, they didn't need Pottinger to undermine me.
They had Fauci and Redfield and Birx undermining me. It wasn't to have to be done. It wasn't done behind the scenes.
But early on, I think it's most relevant early on because I think from what I heard, he was the convincing voice to do what, quote, do what China did, lockdown, because, quote, they controlled the infection.
And he, you know, Birx bought into this and others did. And that was the story that I heard.
Nothing happened while I was there because I came months and months later.
Birx has been mentioned a lot today, but not Walensky. Is she important in all this or not?
Well, she took over CDC under Biden. She's horrible in terms of her level of knowledge.
She's a co-author of a paper that was written to Lancet saying that there's no evidence of protection from this viral infection after you recover from it.
So she's been quoted as saying very strange, emotional things as head of the CDC that are just completely just inexplicable.
And so she continued on after Redfield in a shameful beating of the world's most important public health agency.
Shameful incompetence. And other than that, I don't have a strong opinion.
Yeah. So, yeah.
So did you hear much talk about the PCR test and the complete uselessness of it?
Oh, I didn't just hear much talk about it. I brought in the papers on the lack of, on the massive false positive nature and the wrong way to do PCR testing and the inappropriate role of PCR testing.
I brought in the data and distributed it. I had copies made and distributed the papers to the people on the task force at the task force table.
They had nothing to say about it. They didn't know it, I'm sure, because they were, again, like very low level knowledge people.
They certainly didn't comment on it. They didn't refute it. And it never even was discussed, even though I said it and brought it up at the task force itself early on.
And also, were people aware of Kerry Mullis and who he was and how he very much disliked Fauci? He said of Fauci, Fauci knows nothing about, he doesn't know anything about anything.
And I'd say that to his face. And guess when he died?
Yeah, I know I saw that.
August 2019.
Yeah. No, I know he's the inventor of PCR.
No, the discussions were, no, that was not discussed.
But did anybody say the crucial point that the inventor of the PCR technology didn't want that technology to be used to diagnose a viral illness, not just COVID-19?
Well, it didn't matter to me what anybody said. We had the data. I didn't speak on, see, once you get into, this is just my opinion, I hate to talk like this, but once you get into the game of saying, well, this person said that, you're doing exactly what they do.
That's not the basis of anything. I don't care what Kerry Mullin said.
I look at the data, the PCR testing was used wrongly. It was 97 plus percent false positive for contagiousness, and it should have never been used. And I had all the studies that proved it.
I don't really, I think it's a logical fallacy, if you believe in reading what the key fallacies of logic are, to ascribe someone as an expert to verify your opinion.
It doesn't matter what they say, because then you're doing exactly what they do. You got to be very careful about that. You look at the data. I don't care what anybody else says. These are the facts.
And do you think it's possible as a medical doctor, Scott, this isn't tricking you or anything, so if you don't want to answer it, that's fine.
But as a medical doctor, do you think it's possible, so you don't have to be certain, but do you think it's possible that no such disease as COVID-19 existed and that it was actually a failure of diagnosis?
So there was no symptom that was pathognomonic for COVID-19, although they tried to say that loss of taste and smell were pathognomonic for COVID-19.
And the other thing, you do not test for a viral illness in, as I understood anyway, before January 2020, before, what's that guy's name in Germany?
Drosten, Christian Drosten, who's one of the perpetrators.
I know who he was.
Yeah. Okay. So do you think it's a possibility that there was a failure, this was a failure of diagnosis in the practice of that?
No, I think COVID is a disease.
I think it's not accurately discussed at all.
Completely, you know, I have a whole talk that has mainly data on it, but everybody here knows the data, so it didn't bother.
But no, I don't think it's, I think denying that it exists at all is wrong.
And it's also unnecessary to do that.
But that's besides the point.
And Drosten, I think as a pediatric, I think he did a great disservice and will go down as one of the, as a disgraceful, disgracefully wrong interpreter of the science.
When he said that children have a serious risk from COVID, healthy children, that was when he was one of the seminal researchers that caused this frenzy about children.
And I don't know, I'm not in Germany.
I didn't, I don't read German, but I saw the translations of all the journal backlash against what he said.
And that was a, that was a huge, hugely impactful, erroneous stuff that he wrote.
So the PCR test, in my view, the PCR test and the failure of diagnosis, correct diagnosis of COVID-19 enabled them to psychologically torture the population.
The population, population.
No, fundamentally the PCR testing, the way it was used and misused and misinterpreted was one of the great, one of the most fundamental problems that led to everything else, including tabulation of COVID illness, tabulation of COVID hospitalizations, tabulation of COVID death, the inappropriate role of testing.
I tried to stop that several times.
You know, it's, it's sad what happened.
It's a tragedy.
I don't know how to say it any other way.
And Scott, can I ask you a question which you may prefer not to answer?
Why did you leave the White House?
Was it because Pottinger and others made life terribly difficult for you or?
No, I had nothing to do with Pottinger.
No, I didn't even see him there.
No, my position was a specified, it's a type of government position called an SGE, special government employee, 130 days, term limited, specific position that was known to automatically expire.
It had nothing to do with anything else.
You know, I said that, but it wasn't, you know, you can't even get the facts out.
It's so hard in the media.
But yeah, that was not, there was nothing complicated about why I quit.
And I quit.
I wasn't fired or anything.
I didn't quit under any kind of reason.
It was simply that it ended.
But you were the special medical advisor to Trump.
Were there how many special medical advisors were there?
Or were you the only one?
Well, I was added in to start on like the last day of July and for 130 days as a advisor.
There was nobody else who was appointed like that.
He had, you know, he has a doctor in the White House.
There's a lot of people there.
But yeah, I was the only one.
I was the only one that was on the task force and the advisor to the president.
Yeah.
So everybody else was different.
Did you get the feeling that he was listening to you most or that there were other players he was listening to more?
I think he listened to a lot of people.
He said stuff about ending lockdowns and opening schools months before I even walked in.
It's just that that wasn't the official policy of the White House because the official policy of the White House was somehow
delegated to the task force.
So that's the problem.
And the task force was being led astray by the WHO and that was happening all over the world.
OK, I don't like to blame other people.
I think the people in charge of the task force were the ones who were in charge of the task force.
And that means the person on the task force who was the head of the medical advice was Deborah Birx.
Vice President Pence was in charge of the entire task force.
And, you know, it's not good enough to say they were listening to somebody else.
No, that's not what they're there for.
I don't I don't like that sort of I'm not I'm not arguing with you.
I'm trying to say what I what I believe is that you are responsible for what you're supposed to do.
If you can't do the job, then quit and step down or get out of there.
They did they did the job.
They are accountable for what they did.
They cannot blame the WHO.
Everybody in the streets who ever has a half a brain understood what was going on.
I didn't need to listen to WHO.
I questioned the WHO.
But you see, Scott, we've had people who've been helping us with the real people behind this.
What they suggest, because it was a complete mystery to me as well, was that the IMF and the World Bank was systematically going around government saying that, you know,
we're going to do these with the lockdowns are coming up.
We're going to get the money from we will lend you the money if you do this and that.
OK, but that you know, but that's not first of all, that's not how I mean, everybody who knows President Trump, he's not he's not that's not his motivation.
Nobody's controlling him on that level.
I think there were political concerns that were far more local, meaning US based that were influential on what was done and what was said.
But I really find it extremely difficult to believe that anyone was controlling that.
I don't think so. I think I don't think that's how it worked here.
Yeah, and I get the impression.
I'm not saying there weren't influencers.
I'm not saying that.
I'm not saying Bill Gates is not an influential person.
What I'm saying is that I just didn't see any evidence of that really.
Yeah.
So would it be a mischaracterisation?
You keep going for three hours.
OK, yeah.
Well, I just wanted to ask this question.
Would it be reasonable to say that actually Pottinger could well have influenced the lockdowns?
And then once the lockdowns, the disaster lockdowns hit and masking and all the rest of it, the only way out was the the injections, even in Trump's mind.
And so he was he was locked into Trump was Trump didn't think didn't believe in the lockdowns.
He didn't believe in the universal masking calls.
He didn't believe in schools should be open.
I mean, be closed the entire time.
It had nothing to do with anybody else.
He spoke about it.
If you listen to his press briefings, it doesn't mean, though, that he's it.
But the problem was that there was in a funny way, I was just like two different parallel messaging going out.
The White House policy was the formal capitalised letters.
White House Coronavirus Task Force.
That was the White House policy.
President Trump was talking.
It didn't it didn't matter.
What was implemented was the Coronavirus Task Force lockdowns.
Yet somehow he's blamed because he was against the lockdowns for the failure of the lockdowns that were implemented.
And people like me are blamed for the failure of the lockdowns when I was criticising the lockdowns because the lockdowns were implemented.
So it's a very complicated sort of Pottinger.
I don't I didn't see Pottinger.
I don't even I didn't know who he was when I was there, but he was in the beginning.
From what I read, Birx said in her book that he was the one who gave her the information about the lockdowns working.
I don't I didn't see or know of anything about Pottinger by the time I got there.
You know, you have to realise they were working on this for six months before I walked in.
I don't think Pottinger was running anything at that point.
Exactly. You were out in July, end of July.
By that time, the damage was already done.
I know, he came in July, November.
I came in. Yeah, my first Task Force meeting was something like August 10th or something.
You know, I mean, everything was was, you know, everything was totally messed up by the way.
Thank you so much, Scotty. Absolutely fascinating to talk to you.
How many books have you sold?
Oh, I don't know the number. It's between 50 and 100,000.
But, you know, all these things are so complicated these days.
You know, I don't know if no one even knows this, but the buy button on Amazon for my book was made invisible for the entire most of December pre-Christmas when the marketing was going on of 2021.
I mean, there's so much corruption and it's insane what's going on in this in this world.
So, you know, we don't give up and we keep we keep knowing that there's a lot of good people out there that are inspired by hearing more and more other people say what they believe.
I speak all over the country. I just want to finish with this, if I may, is that, you know, I was in a state called North Dakota, which most people that probably have never been.
I've never been there. It was 20 below when I landed, 20 below Fahrenheit.
And I mean, it was called. I had something like 350 people come to see me speak and they were just regular working people.
They came out and they we had these long tables. People were in there working clothes and things.
And all these people said, yeah, they knew what was going on the entire time. They understood the data.
I think it's very important that we have some faith in regular people.
They're not easily as persuaded. They just don't speak up.
And so we should maintain that attitude because I think it's true. I think most people agree with what's being said generally here.
Very good. Everybody, please buy Scott's book if you haven't read it.
Scott, thank you for being here. Thank you all of you for being here.
Our two and a half hours is up. Scott's magnificent to have you. Thank you.
Give us your time. And so we will be in touch with you.
And everyone, please say thank you. Scott, if you go, you've got to go to elsewhere.
No, thank you. Thanks for having me. We appreciate it. Thank you, Scott. Excellent.
Good luck, everybody.
So, everybody, we're going to Tom Rodman has put the link into the Telegram video chat for those who have time to go on.
We haven't got time for more questions where I really want to keep this so that you can plan your life that for the crucial two and a half hours.
We're so lucky to get Scott. Stephen, well done for getting that off.
Posted into the chat this week's physical leaflet, the distribution. There'll be another one next week.
Same process. I will be the it's designed to be simple.
You print off 100 copies, deliver it to letterboxes, physical delivery and Tom Rodman's done some work.
I know in the US and different countries have different rules in Australia.
You can put them into letterboxes. Most places in the UK, you can put them in the letterboxes.
I've put that in there.
The journey of what we're on.
This is designed twice a week so that you are inspired to do what Scott said, what Bobby Kennedy said, what Dave Colum, what all of us are saying.
Choose the hill you're going to die on.
And I thought Scott's comment to us that says, how could you live a life where you're not willing to stand for anything?
How can you do that? And that, you know, I think that's an inspiring question.
That's why I'll say to me, you passion gives you the courage to stand up for what you believe in.
And if you don't believe in anything, you'll fall for anything.
As they say in the classics.
All right.
But also your life is pointless.
Yeah, very good. Pointless.
Because if you don't believe in anything, your children don't believe in anything.
So, yeah.
Now, Jeremy, before we go, you've got your hand up.
Something you want to raise with the group before we go to the, for those who've got the time to go to the Telegram group that Tom put in there.
Go, Jeremy. And Jeremy's doing a great job editing the chat to make it very usable.
Go.
Thank you for that, Charles.
I was going to ask Scott a very simple question that I was kind of connected to.
I was going to ask him if his tenure at the White House overlapped with Dr. Paul Alexander's, because I understand he was, he was recruited to the task force at some point.
And if it didn't overlap, did he get to know him at all?
Because I used to call on his, his boss and his mentor, Dr. David Sackett, who kind of was a self-proclaimed world renowned evidence based medicine guy at McMaster University in Canada.
So that's what I was going to ask him, as well as thanking him ever so much for being here.
So, Jeremy, it took so long to put your hand up.
You missed your chance to speak to him.
Yeah.
All right, Jeremy.
Anyway, no criticism. Roger, did you want to say something?
Sorry, Charles.
So if I could tell.
Yeah, I did.
I did want to say something.
And I was going to ask him this question as a follow on question.
As a pathologist, I can say this with categorical certainty.
There should have been no testing anywhere for anybody for anything, except at presentation to hospital with a syndrome that could be COVID.
And at that point, with a much reduced volume of testing, it should never have been done by PCR with all its many faults that we're all well aware of.
It should have been done by the gold standard method with categorical accuracy called Sanger sequencing that could be scaled up with liquid handling systems to accommodate the much reduced volume period.
That's everything that should have been done on the testing side.
Agree, Roger.
Yeah.
I might disagree with the having to test people when they're entering hospital, because you could say that it should be diagnosed clinically if it was an entity.
Not a presentation to hospital with an acute belly.
No. If you have a syndrome consistent with COVID, that's the only time a confirmatory test should be done.
And it should be done by sequencing, never by PCR.
But the problem from their point of view, they wouldn't have had any cases.
I recorded that, Roger. That's right. As Stephen says, or as Peter McCullough said a long time ago, it's a pandemic of diagnosis, not of symptoms.
So thank you, everybody. Roger, do you know how to get to the Telegram chat? It's in the Telegram group.
You can keep talking for another five hours. For those of you who have the time, there it is.
Thomas, put it into the chat again, everybody, please. You just go there. It's very simple.
Thank you for being here. Stephen, can you remember who's on Sunday?
No, I haven't. I haven't thought about that yet, but I'll try and get someone good.
No, we're good.
Can we get Scott Atlas's PowerPoint?
Oh, that's a good question.
We'll send him an email. However, it may be not but, everybody remember, you can, the recording, which will make available to anyone who wants it, the PowerPoint is articulated there beautifully.
So you get the same benefit by having the recording, which will be up on the Rumble channel.
So what would be helpful, Charles, because it would be if the people who are on at the moment would like to put their suggestions of guests, then I'll try and get them.
I'm trying to get Rand Paul and also, what's his name?
Ed Doud.
Archbishop Vigano and Jordan Peterson. I really would like to get him.
That would be great.
Also, I just sent you an email, Charles and Stephen, an email for Catherine Engelbrecht in the US who is the founder of True the Vote.
There's a whole lot there. It's in the email. You can read it for yourself and make the decision if you want to invite her to the group. I think she'd be a great speaker for us.
Excellent. We've had Jessica Rose. Thank you, Avery. We've had Jessica Rose, but who up to date thinking. So that's the other benefit, Stephen. We've had some. You see David Icke, we need to get a game.
Yeah, there are lots of people. Yeah, Robert Kennedy Jr. Robert Kennedy. Yeah, the development. Yeah, quickly. No, James, quickly put your hand up. We've got to go. Is there something you want to say? Just quick.
I just want to encourage everyone to look over the information on Stop the Who and consider recording a video for public sharing of your attitude of what the WHO is up to. Thank you. And thanks again for having me.
Thank you, James. Thank you, James. All right, everybody. Thank you for being here. See you on Sunday. Glenn's got a quick announcement.
You're muted. Technology.
No, I can't hear you. You're muted.
No, he's not muted now, but we can't hear him because he got. Yes. Okay, so Charles, I couldn't see the PDF. You repost the PDF for your plant pamphlet. Thank you. I'll do that now. Very good.
That's that's this week's pamphlet, your freedom defenders everybody.
There it is. I'll put it back in. Anyone who wants that pamphlet, just send me an email. I'll email it to you. I'm getting good feedback and the next one is underway. But that's this week's. So let's get it out there and we'll move the needle.
We'll move the needle. Thanks, everybody. Have a beautiful. What day is it now? Wednesday morning. Look, it's 748 in the morning on on Wednesday. My grand, my first granddaughters seventh birthday today, Stephen. So she turned seven.
Very good. Yeah, that's a good age.
Yeah, bye everybody. You're halfway through the weekend. Charles. That's right. Correct. And Tiger would started playing golf at three. So I better get my granddaughter onto the golf course so I can retire quickly. Ha. Yeah. All right. Thanks, everybody. Thank you.
Thank you.
Charles, can you send me the chance? Yes, Stephen will do.
Daria and others who have sent me notes. Happy to do that.
Thank you so much. Appreciate it. Pleasure.
All right. Bye.
Bye bye.