So everybody welcome, whether you're here live or watching a recording to Medical Doctors
for COVID Ethics International.
And today's discussion this group was founded by Dr. Stephen Frost, during the darkest days
of the COVID scam responses with a desire to pursue truth, ethics, justice, freedom,
and health.
I've stood up against government and power over the years and has been a whistleblower
and activist.
His medical specialty is radiology.
I'm Charles Covess, the moderator of this group.
I'm Australasia's passion provocateur.
I practiced law for 20 years before changing career 30 years ago.
And over the last 12 years, I have helped parents and lawyers to strategize remedies
for vaccine damage and damage from bad medical advice.
I'm also the CEO of an industrial hemp company and I urge you all to have hemp seeds on your
breakfast cereal and salads and hemp seed oil in your salads.
We comprise lots of professions here, including doctors, lawyers, homeopaths, journalists,
scientists, filmmakers, professors, peacemakers, and troublemakers that were from all around
the world.
Many of us thought that vaccines were okay.
Now many of us proudly say, yes, we are passionate anti-vaxxers.
If this is your first time here, welcome.
Feel free to introduce yourself in the chat.
If you publish a newsletter or a podcast or have a radio or TV show like I do on TNT radio,
or you've written a book, put the links into the chat so we can follow you, promote you
and find you.
Most of us understand we're in the middle of World War III and that there are various
battle lines as part of this war and the medical science, the medical medical science debate
is only one of some 12 battle lines.
Most of us understand the development of the science and that the science is never settled.
Some of us believe in viruses, some of us do not.
Some of us are on the fence.
The meeting runs for two and a half hours, although Tanya Klemenko, our guest today,
we only have her for an hour.
And after the two and a half hours, for those with the time, Tom Rodman runs a video telegram
meeting.
We'll turn to Tanya Klemenko for as long as Tanya wishes to speak and then we'll have
Q&A.
Stephen Frost asks the first set of questions.
There's no censorship.
It's a free speech environment.
Free speech is crucially important in our fight to preserve our human freedoms.
If you're offended by anything, be offended.
We are genuinely not interested.
We reject the offense industry that requires nobody to say anything that may offend another.
We come with an attitude and perspective of love, not fear.
Fear is the opposite of love.
Fear squashes you.
Love on the other hand expands you.
And the great challenge is loving those who have different views to our own.
These twice weekly meetings are not just talk fests.
An extraordinary range of actions and initiatives have been generated from linkages made by
attendees in these meetings.
If you have a solution or a product or links or resources that will help people put the
details into the chat.
The meeting is recorded and is uploaded on the Rumble channel.
And now welcome to our guest this evening and this morning wherever you are in the world,
Tanya Klemenko.
And we thank you Tanya for giving us your time and sharing your wisdom and insights.
And thank you Stephen Frost again for creating this group and for organizing Tanya to speak
to us today.
Tanya, we are all yours.
Stephen, I've made you a co-host so you are able to share your screen if you wish.
Yes, good evening.
Thank you for inviting me.
I will want to share screen for a couple of reasons.
One is that I will have some papers which I put on slides or I will show those papers
and I will have links to papers so in case there is interest I can, you know, I know
it's recorded but if people want to have copy of the slides with the links to papers so
I want to show it in context.
And the second reason is that you can hear English is not my native language and even
so there are a variety of English flavors probably in this room judging by the names.
It might take time to get used to one's accent so if I'm saying something particularly medical
terms I would like you to be able to see the word, you know, spelled out on a slide
or in paper so that there is no misunderstanding.
Now I also understood from the introduction that we have a diverse group of people here
so I need to perhaps warn people in advance.
My slides are quite technical.
So I guess if it's not, I believe we have enough doctors and scientists in a room to
correct me if I'm saying something or to stop me or ask me additional questions but I apologize
in advance to those of you who don't have the, you know, technical background and it
might be, I might talk gibberish occasionally to you so that hopefully can be clarified when we
come to questions.
I have 15, 14, 15 slides and couple of questions so hopefully we go through all of them.
I will try to share my screen and you will tell me if I, wait a second, screen two and I want
just part of screen two. Will it let me do it? Let's try.
Yes, it's time to share genetic vaccines in the immuno.
Yes, prophylaxis. Okay, fantastic. Thank you for confirming. So the reason why I didn't share
an entire screen is because I want to be able to move between tabs and so I want to leave part of
my screen open but what I always say to my students at this point is that I have two screens.
I'm going to be looking at a screen where I have my visual aid so I may struggle to keep
track on, you know, people in your little screens so if you have questions please do interrupt me
because I may not be able to see reactions. Well, what we do is we will listen to you
and then when you finish we will, we're used to doing that and asking the questions at the end,
okay? Okay, okay. So go for it. Okay, good. Right, so well just to make sure they're all on the same page
the two main platforms which were used to create genetic vaccines for
immunoprophylaxis of COVID-19 used in developed countries, in western world countries,
were adenoviral platform and liposome mRNA platform. There were some other platforms used
to a much lesser extent, for example protein-based Novavax or there is a large
number, well we are talking billions of people who are also or at least hundreds of millions of
people who are also injected with standard vaccines like coronavax. So I'm not talking
about any of those, I'm talking today about genetic vaccines and more specifically about
adenoviral platforms. So these are Johnson and Johnson and AstraZeneca and Covishield.
These vaccines are similar in the type of technology but they are quite different in what
viruses, what adenoviruses were used and I will spend a lot of my slides, a lot of my talk
will be spent looking at difference between these viruses. But before I get to that point,
before I dive into more details of what's the difference between adenovirus 26 used in Johnson
and Johnson vaccine and Chad Oaks one used in AstraZeneca, before I go in there I'd like to
do a short detour into adenoviruses as vectors or as platforms for drugs. If there are oncologists,
doctors who are treating cancer patients in a room, they are most likely familiar with
attempts to create oncolytic viruses and use oncolytic viruses to treat cancer.
Well the treatment of or attempts to treat tumors with oncolytic viruses
have never really gained widespread use. There are only few examples of these drugs being
consistently used beyond the clinical trial or some small applications. One of them is in China
and we don't have much data about it. I put a link on a slide which talks more about this vaccine
because it's an example of commercially successful adenoviral based drug.
There were fewer successes if any in Europe. There were some applications to approve attempts
to register adenoviral drugs in Europe but you can easily verify it but it's easier to find
an unsuccessful application than a successful. So this in some what I try to say with these two
slides is that this platform has been like a promising platform for 25 years now and it's
built trials for various diseases and several companies were trying to make it a commercial
success and with not much breakthrough. One of the examples of a failed adenoviral vaccine for
infection disease is a failed attempt to create a vaccine against a human immunodeficiency virus,
HIV virus, which was led at the time by Dr. Anthony Fauci and these attempts resulted in
clinical trial which generated data that showed what homosexual men who were given this vaccine
were actually at higher risk of contracting a virus 18 months after the injection. So this paper
is from 2014 and it's published in a high impact in a very reputable and widely read and cited
journal science and so it's a negative data. It's not those of you who've published papers know what
negative data is not always easy to get published so one of the reasons it got published is because
they've suggested a mechanism of you know they felt in that paper that they found an explanation
to this clinical failure so what will lead to improvement in the future. The observation they
made is that men who had highest risk of contracting HIV 18 months after an injection
were those who had high level of pre-existing adenovirus 5 antibodies. Now adenoviruses are
human viruses, we encounter them, they are part of our ecosystem and majority of population would
have experience is being infected with these viruses or at least encountering it and developing
some sort of immune trace and so they found what in those people who had pre-existing antibodies
against adenovirus 5 and they used this adenovirus to create this HIV vaccine they had highest risk
of becoming infected. So the idea was but it's because we have these antibodies and these
antibodies enhance them upon contact with the target virus these antibodies enhance their
probability rather than lower it and as an approach to solve it several groups tried to
change the protocol one of the groups which tried to change the protocol is a group
led by professor Andrew Pollard and for those of you who are not in the UK he is the father
of the AstraZeneca vaccine and one of the people who got I think knighthood for
for developing this vaccine. Before the COVID-19 vaccine what they were working was vaccine against
Ebola and this what they tried to do to overcome the problem of these pre-existing antibodies which
will diminish the ability of the vaccine to generate response they tried to do a
a hybrid protocol where first dose was human adenovirus and they used a different serotype
adenovirus 26 it's a rarer serotype compared to adenovirus 5 and second dose a non-adenoviral
vector so idea was what this will help to overcome the problem of pre-existing antibodies or
or stimulating production of antibodies from memory cells in circulating in those individuals
the clinical trial was briefly stopped due to serious neurological side effects in two
participants and also there were fairly high side effects in general so systemic side effects
were observed in 77 percent of the group versus 46 percent in placebo group and well non-systemic
side effects the difference was even higher however as we are talking about Ebola which is
a virus of which is a lot more dangerous pathogens and for example SARS-CoV-2
it was concluded that the side effects don't warrant the stop of this trial and so the
conclusion of this paper was to proceed to a third phase of clinical trial and this vaccine
got emergency use authorization in July 2020 luckily we did not have any emergency related
to Ebola yet and therefore this vaccine has not been used yet but these you know first five slides
should have hopefully given you an idea but while this platform had been attractive or was perceived
to be very attractive for a couple of decades there were no solid examples of success
and the fact that these vectors this platform was pushed through with during the COVID-19
pandemic and as a as a prophylaxis against SARS-CoV-2 infection it can only be really explained by this
relaxation in how the approvals were made there is no solid or you know unequivocal data
behind the development of this platform which would guarantee success of vaccines on these same
adenoviruses I am giving you an example on this slide of adenoviral vaccines which are used in
vaccination against COVID-19 vector five is a it's a vaccine which was developed in Russia
it's a vaccine which was developed in Russia and because Russia had fairly strict COVID mandates
at least 100 million people were getting this vaccine I don't know how many of them really
got it or were able to you know get the certificate of vaccination without getting the injection
but the fact that it's a large country with large population and majority of them were
and they could only get vector five it was considered to be national pride or almost
exclusively except for people who were traveling and some other things but it was almost exclusively
vector five vector five is adenovirus 26 and second dose a human adenovirus 5 so 26 is a
less prevalent stereotype and adenovirus 5 is a widespread phenotype which in case of that HIV
vaccine failed due to most likely pre-existing antibodies this large-scale vaccination large
scale injection did not result in lots of specific reports so there are clearly some reports on
you know side effects and anecdotal reports on desk but there is no
there is no data in open source which allows to scrutinize this vaccine comparative to the other
vaccines and the only thing we can say is that human adenovirus 5 because it's a virus which
naturally occurs and we encounter it in our life and we know quite a lot about it it has
strong tropism for cup for cells these are microphages in the liver and adenoviral infection
in clinical terms it has hepatotoxicity so one of the more severe manifestations is
problems with which can be described as hepatotoxicity problems
neutralizing antibodies against this particular
serotype are in between 10 and 90 percent of the population and again I don't it there is no
good data in ready available for most of the countries but this is what you can find in the
literature the johnson and johnson vaccine is a high dose one dose of adenovirus 26 and again
adenovirus 26 is a human virus and it has a wider tropism so it has this virus likes to infect or
goes and infects tissues in kidney in brain and in lymphocytes so this is where a spike protein
would be expressed if someone got infected got injected with johnson and johnson vaccine
spike protein would be predominantly expressed in kidney brain and lymphocytes
astrazeneca is a very different story we don't know
how prevalent the antibodies against this virus in that part of earth where humans and chimpanzees
share ecosystem but clearly in europe or in united states or in canada we don't have chimpanzees
don't have chimpanzees living in a wild and so we don't have any natural way to be exposed absolute
majority of us has no natural way to be exposed to this virus and the antibodies neutralizing
antibodies would be barely present in the human population if at all and i don't have i don't have
any data for this i don't i could not find anything published in relation to this but
take into account what as a team which developed astrazeneca vaccine this is the same team of
scientists who tried the other two adenoviruses and they did not get you know results weren't
fantastic i think the rationale was what we will take a serotype which can infect human
it can infect humans so it's a virus which is guaranteed to replicate in human cells
and generate spike protein and generate immune response but there will be no
um pre-existing antibodies in the population and therefore this vaccine would be more likely
to provide this robust immunity against sars-cov-2 and not enhance the probability of
um actually contracting the virus now this calculation uh unfortunately was wrong
it's particularly clear in the uk data because unlike other countries united kingdom were
first to approve astrazeneca and it was first uh anti-sars-cov-2 vaccine approved in the uk
and this was the vaccine which was used at the start of drive to vaccinate and as a result
almost half of uk population uh which received a vaccination were vaccinated with oxford astrazeneca
vaccine at least the first dose and on the oxford uh in the research group uh which developed the
vaccine proudly published data about 24 millions of people have received full um course which is
two doses of astrazeneca because we had in our population a lot of people who would only had
astrazeneca it was very obvious within first half a year that astrazeneca alone
provides weak protection which quickly goes down so here if you look at these
gray circles this is protection against omicron because while we had delta predominantly
circulating astrazeneca was providing with some decent immunity but as soon as omicron came around
this protection um became clearly inadequate and moreover within 20 weeks from vaccination
if you've received two doses of astrazeneca you were actually more likely to contract
sars-cov-2 if you compared to someone who did not receive any vaccination
so despite the fact that this particular serotype was chimpanzee specific and humans would not have
antibodies against the actual adenoviral vector unfortunately the observation was similar to the
observation made by antony fauci nine years or eight years prior with hiv vaccine where after the
injection sometime later 18 months in case of hiv half a year in case of sars-cov-2
you lose any protection at and even moreover you become more susceptible to contracting a virus
this I think is already quite dumb in itself because it's another example of failed
adenoviral vector-based vaccine but and just one more slide I'll go quickly over this slide to move
to more interesting stuff the same is so it's not it's not just a chimpanzee
adenovirus human adenovirus you remember johnson and johnson used adenovirus serotype 26
and it's a human backbone and this blue curve here shows what the protection afforded by
afforded by johnson and johnson vaccine veins quite the veins quickly also the same about
20-24 weeks this paper does not show what it goes into negative but we have data from some large
cohort studies from nordic countries which confirm the observation made in uk with this
vaccine enhances your chances to contract sars-cov-2 several months down the line now
these observations this fact but this is not protecting from contracting sars-cov-2
is already not good news but then there was this additional observation already in february
2021 within weeks of start of administration of this vaccine
doctors recorded numerous instances of very unusual syndrome which they called vaccine-induced
immune thrombocytopenia and thrombosis vitt and doctors in a room will correct me if i'm wrong
but from what i understood the reason why it's called vitt is because there is a similar
clinically similar similar syndrome which developed on rare occasions by people who receive
heparin therapy and it's heparin induced thrombocytopenia and thrombosis
hitt or short abbreviation is h i t which inspired the name because clinical presentation was
similar and it's the
fast developing syndrome which is very dangerous particularly if
thrombosis occurs in cerebral parts of the if in in cerebral tissues or cavities sorry more correct
um description or correct term will be cerebral um not the tissue but in cavities or in vessels
now this um thrombosis with thrombocytopenia
was described as something what occurs pretty much once per half a million people
now again i just don't it's definitely more not my area of expertise i don't know how prevalent is
the use of heparin and you know whether it's something so rare with no doctor in this room
ever encountered h i t t i don't know whether it's something what you know everyone encountered but
the data i found what this syndrome before start of vaccination with astrazeneca vaccine
or the prevalence was one case for 400 000 people
well with astrazeneca particularly for people under 50 years the estimate stands at about one
case per 25 000 doses we know and i'm sure you've discussed it in this room many times
how under reported the vaccine injuries are so this is just the official data i i don't think
anyone can know full picture of full prevalence but official data is 21 per 25 000 doses
now most of the time it occurs after first dose and most of the time the syndrome develops within
days or first couple of weeks after first dose the mortality diagnosis is 22 percent as described
in this paper and i have a link to a paper here and if it's a cerebral thrombosis and the risk of
death increases significantly in the uk there were a couple of high profile cases including
one popular and fairly young bbc presenter whose death due to astrazeneca vaccination
made it to front pages and already in april 2021
in here in the uk this vaccine was no longer offered to anyone under age of 30
and by may 2021 this vaccine was not offered to anyone under age of 40 and pretty much
they stopped offering it because of the way the vaccination was organized elder people were
vaccinated first and so by the time you know by may june it would be that age category which would
be under 30 under 40 who will be in line to get vaccinated but they were it was no longer they
were no longer offered this vaccine unless it's stated in guidelines guidelines there is no
alternative so if there is no other vaccine present in that vaccination clinic then we will
administer astrazeneca otherwise priority were given to phaser or moderna simultaneously doctors
and scientists were looking at the molecular mechanism of this vitt and as i mentioned already
because it clinically was very similar to hitt clinicians started to look for antibodies against
platelet factor 4 because that was a well-known well-described mechanism of hitt now one of the
things which is important to stress is that these antibodies which are characteristic for hitt
are not the same as autoimmune antibodies which are characteristic for vitt and what i'm trying
to say is this paper which is a paper from the uk and it's looking at the natural history of this
vaccine-induced immune thrombocytopenia and thrombosis and what they say here is what
many laboratories in the country
converted their assays which were used to diagnose hitt or hitt to a certain immunosay
which are not sensitive to the itt cases so you know unless you knew to send it somewhere
where we will be looking at the specific antibodies just screening with a readily
available test for antibodies against platelet factor 4 in complex with heparin would give you
negative it it you know it might be clinically presented as thrombocytopenia with thrombosis
but it won't be classed as vaccine-induced because there will be no pf4 antibodies detected
and a lot of it can be probably explained by the fact that most laboratories used a test which
would miss these antibodies now going back to the
the understanding of molecular mechanism
this idea of antibodies autoimmune antibodies against platelet factor 4 so platelet factor 4
is crucial for blood clotting it's naturally occurring in our plasma and indeed out antibodies
against these factors this protein factor is very bad news and if in case of heparin-induced
antibodies we know what the reason why they develop is because heparin forms a complex
with platelet factor 4 and this complex is an unusual substance for our immune system so when
it's not recognized as self so pf4 platelet factor 4 even so it's been synthesized by our
bodies but in complex with heparin it's no longer recognized as our natural molecule it's recognized
as something foreign and that's why antibodies are developed to it but they are in fact auto
antibodies autoimmune antibodies because pf4 is still human our own it just because of the complex
where it's mistakes our immune system is mistaken and early on when we discussed
this in similar groups people were floating an idea but it's probably complex you know of pf4
with something related to this astrazeneca vaccine and fairly soon december 2021
there were already first publications characterizing this particular complex of
platelet factor 4 with that something in astrazeneca vaccine well this paper looked at all three
adenoviruses deployed as vaccination vectors so i've mentioned them previously adenovirus
serotype 5 adenovirus serotype 26 and adenovirus which is this chimpanzee chard ox1 and they saw what
uh some uh so with these three adenoviruses they're very different and characteristic of
the surface and here is where it's probably my most technical slide so i hope i can have at least
you know some of you staying with me on this slide and please do ask me questions after so this is
the rendering of the icosahedron so that's the adenoviral particle this is one adenovirus here
and this is a rendering of its surface and this is a colored representation of how different proteins
form this capsid this surface now these
elements then form that they are formed out of these individual building blocks and here is a
individual building block of astrazeneca vaccine and this is individual building block of johnson
and johnson vaccine and also a first dose in russian vector 5 vaccine what it shows here is a
charge on the surface and you can see by color intensity difference in color intensity what
these two proteins they have different surface charge electric charge and what it results is
that if you look at this red dots here red dots here represent platelet factor four so platelet
factor four will barely recognize adenovirus which is adenovirus stereotype 26 that's our normal
human adenovirus but they will recognize and bind to a protein this capsid protein of the
astrazeneca adenovirus it's because this astrazeneca adenovirus has the most negative charge
and and platelet factor four has strong electropositive surface potential so they're
drawn to one another naturally and this complex of adenovirus vector which is injected straight
into well it's injected into a muscle but it easily gets into bloodstream indeed
indeed and this is where it encounters platelet factor four and then this complex is formed
and this complex on a in essence is similar to that heparin platelet factor complex which induces
autoimmune antibodies and the fact what human virus doesn't do it is probably an illustration
of you know i i'm sorry to say but i think you know big oxford brains were not able to outsmart
evolution this virus has evolved to live with us without causing deadly syndromes but this one was
forcibly brought into human population through injection and with no human body would have no
chance to build defense against it because it's like an introduction of novel pathogen we don't
have defenses against it we have not co-evolved with this virus it's it can cause deadly effect
approximately the same time there were some articles because everyone at the time everyone
was trying to figure what's happening with this vi tt it was a hot topic for publications and
you know a lot of publications were at the time biased towards everything to do with covid and
covid vaccines and other topics were very difficult to publish so there were lots and lots of groups
looking into it and one of these groups is this i have this paper here it's it's greek group and
what they found is that 67 percent of people who were injected with AstraZeneca have developed
these anti-pf4 antibodies well the prevalence of these antibodies after vaccination
it can be disputed by others because if you look at what you know if you look at other publications
like this publication looks at this pf platelet active pf4 antibodies and it finds them in 11
eight percent of people injected with AstraZeneca but we also say what five and a half percent of
people injected with Pfizer would also have it so basically this paper argues what it's not it is
specific more specific to AstraZeneca but it's not something what is only predominantly result of
AstraZeneca injections and this paper finds what anti-pf4 antibodies were present in between 18 and
26 percent of people injected with AstraZeneca so despite huge amount of publications on
AstraZeneca i struggle to find you know systemic large studies and observations worry however
all of them indicate what risk of developing pf4 antibodies is higher if you were injected with
AstraZeneca as compared to when you weren't ejected at all or if you were injected with a mRNA based
vaccine is that a question or would you like to hold your hand until the end
we'll wait till the end and you keep going okay okay thank you right i only have couple of slides
more we are almost there and another reason which i think i'm pretty sure you've discussed
in this room many times is that we have questions regarding the reports of side effects during the
clinical trial and we have questions i mentioned already one problem with that method which is
used in majority of nhs diagnostic labs to detect the platelet factor four antibodies which would
not pick up antibodies if they were detect if they were developed as a result of AstraZeneca
vaccination but you all i'm sure you all know Brie's story from AstraZeneca trial and there
are reasons to suspect what people who developed severe side effects after first dose were excluded
from trial on some well without explanation on some explanations which are not related to the
actual side effects now i just wanted to so that that's last slide but i wanted to go to this
paper here just before before i wrap up is this paper says what they've used standard method to
detect platelet factor nine heparin antibodies and modified
antibodies and what we said what what this paper says is what we were able to
detect some signal even with this unspecific method so i guess what it tells us is that
depending on the level of your response because i think the sensitivity of this
method would be impaired if it was looking only for antibodies against platelet factor nine
heparin version of this autoimmunity and and even if if you are unlucky you know if the person i
stopped sharing so what i can see you now and if you are unlucky to develop very high level
of these antibodies you are then you will end up in this that's the person would end up in these
papers but i guess until we have large scale studies which would look at
uh seroconversion after vaccination for antibodies against pf4 and chad oxone complex until we have
these studies we can just say well it's anything between eight percent and 67 percent in population
and so the people who and and we also don't know what additional factors influence
someone's propensity to develop a very severe syndrome if we say let's half half of those
injected would have developed antibodies what are those additional factors which increase someone
someone's chance of developing full-blown vi tt where it's very little about it if anything at
all and i've been trying to keep up with the literature so i think it's just due to lack of
studies but we don't have this information so that's all i had prepared for today well tanya
thank you for that now because we've only got you for a few more minutes so steven if you take 15
minutes we've only got so so a couple of questions i suggest steven and jerry's got his hand up
so tanya this is so important is it possible for you to give us a little bit more time for the
questions i if you if can you can you bear with me i'll turn my camera off and i will
oh you you muted yourself to my children sorry i'll turn my camera off and go speak to my children
and try to bargain for yeah bargain with kids jerry jerry will know how to do that bargaining
with kids i've got i've got five who did we work out got the most children in this group
steven i've got five who's got more than me um bertrand russell had six four four
he's not alive the two jerry's up there we got four bertrand had never on this call steven how
many have you got three three yeah well three oh no julie very good julie how many of you got
two very good okay we have to bargain we have to bargain with kids now just while we're waiting
for tanya i have subscribed to the washington times at a dollar a month everybody for six months first
six months so you'll soon see whether it's worth it worth it but i'm enjoying reading the physical
version of it 25 cents a week um i consider to be a good value and supporting the physical version
charles how have they got that to you so quickly it's on the um on online the
literally the physical newspaper you can flick through it's excellent
all right okay so it's not you can't touch it though charles you look at it yeah correct it's
all digital yeah yeah but but it's the whole experience of reading newspapers which is
which is very good so they've got a good system
so anyway i reckon i recommend it and that's how is tanya how did you go with your
negotiation tanya uh quarter is it okay if i stand till quarter past and and they all
they also got permission to uh if i'm desperate to come in i have uh you know i have virtual
background so hopefully they won't distract you if if they're desperate to talk to me very good
all right steven let's go to has you go first steven and we'll be we'll be tight with our questions
so essentially tanya you tell a story i'm not saying this is your interpretation but it's my
interpretation you tell a story of the uh british government playing god is that right i i think
it's not government uh well i politicians is a of course a whole different problem but i think
the root of the problem here is uh actually scientists who did not get enough checks and
you know balances and steamrolled yeah and they're just steamrolled and and hailed us uh you know
savers and so i think the root of it is what you know i i told you it's this hubris of big brains
where they so human hubris in oxford yes in particular and who is also yes pollard pollard
yes his his uh group um so can you think of any reason why pollard should have been uh awarded an
knighthood on this performance well the official would get the sack for this isn't it most people
will get the sack for this but he got a knighthood this is uh well i don't think we need to i i think
we are pretty much on the same page uh on this i don't i don't know how much we need to discuss it
just but uh you know i think for me um i'm taking part in these discussions for uh you know
uh two and a half years now even more uh because uh i believe but we need to keep brainstorming and
we need to keep trying at least try to create some record of alternative interpretations or
requests for additional studies or you know something perhaps not for this time but for
later when people will want to look into it and will have genuine desire to understand what happened
and and what lessons can be learned yes so um tanya you mentioned the other day on the uk
doctors group um so you're not a doctor i'm just clarifying for the audience so you're not a
medical doctor but you are a phd doctor um so you said that they decided in the uk
to take away uh the recommendation for people under 30 in was that april 2021
7th of april 2021 is when this vaccine stopped being recommended for anyone under 30
and within a month they said they decided to take it away for those under 40 it was the wrong way
around in a way because the under 40s got vaccinated during that month in april um yes okay
and the under 30s presumably wouldn't have got vaccinated do you understand so they've actually
made two mistakes there yeah so um but then miraculously so essentially that was the end
of astrazeneca and then um the british government thought it was a good idea to get rid of their
stock which had accumulated because of for all the wrong reasons and they sold it to third world
country is that right or third world countries in the plural uh you know there is several uh
sub-stuck and a conservative woman and trial site news articles on this topic and i recommend to read
sonia elijah's investigation on this topic and from her publications it looks like uh
the not just the remanence talk but also you know the uh because they were geared towards production
and so this was shifted towards third world countries but how is that morally how is that
morally how can you defend that morally not you but how can anyone say uh well well um i can i can
tell you the um yeah instead of destroying they donated to the world but you see i don't think uh
they were ready to admit what it's something would uh um deserves to be destroyed that's that's the
thing um and i think this is criminal tanya this is criminal activity it's clearly a criminal isn't
it to to decide that the british population should not get a vaccination for people under 30 then
under 40 and then to say okay we're going to sell it to someone else and probably market it as well
i i'm not defending um you know british government's decisions uh just by default but to
uh explain the logic between under 30s first and under 40s later uh is pretty straightforward
logic and i don't think uh it was just a mistake it just younger people had a lot less risk of
developing severe disease so for them um benefit risk ratio would be particularly unfavorable
that's why when they were still thinking what prevalence of vi tt is about one in hundred
thousand one in sixty thousand we felt what for anyone under 30 that's my explanation what
happens and we felt what anyone under 30 would run a risk of uh you know contracting something
severe with vaccination which is higher than contracting a virus at that time because it was
already um time when we you know delta yes but tanya from your statement steven we can you
haven't got you haven't got 15 minutes today well i'm sorry this is very important charles
everything you say is important from your presentation tanya um you said
now i've lost it charles so very good thank you i've finished thank you jerry waters then jerry
brady and then yeah uh tanya thank you that was a brilliant presentation i as a gp i i i was a gp
for 40 years i was struck off three years ago for refusing to go along with the covet hopes and that
that was a brilliant uh presentation and i understood pretty much every word of it so
if you got to a gp you got to pretty much every doctor so thank you for that um i there's a number
of points i'd like to bring up there are quite a number of people on this very forum who disagree
with the very existence of a virus there's a number of people who say a virus doesn't exist
now you seem to waste the last 26 years of your your life as a viral pathogenist pathogenist as a
molecular biologist um with your ridiculous belief that a virus exists i happen to believe
that a virus exists but there's quite a number of people who have discussions on this very forum
saying viruses don't exist could you possibly you know confirm as far as you're concerned
after 26 years do viruses exist or not well in in these last three years i've been talking to
a huge number of people who uh who don't believe in viruses and i think i've developed this sort of
disclaimer when i say you know there is no point in trying to waste our time on trying to argue
this can we talk about something what can we talk about something what unites us so if say you
believe what this is just uh some sort of toxin which was injected if that's what your preferred
interpretation i'm fine with it because it is ended up to be a toxin for at least some people
but uh yeah obviously i mean it's a rhetorical question for me yeah you're more diplomatic than
i am obviously but from my point of view viruses exist fundamentally from my experience of 40
winters of of seeing people coming in sneezing and coughing and then me picking it up and then
bringing it home to my children so there is some some vector there is some infective organism that
i actually managed to pick up and bring home to my wife and children that to me is good enough for
a virus can i just ask you as well what did you think of the pathogenicity of the sars-cov virus
initially was was there a pathogenicity well i've always said that from a gp from somebody
working on the on the front line that there was no pathogenicity worthy of the lockdowns worthy of
of the the whole pandemic and definitely not worthy of trading with a a a vaccine even though
i'd rejected it was ever a vaccine it was ever intended as a vaccine so that's the other thing
is the other thing i'd ask you could you comment on the usefulness of the pcr test and whether
quite apart from it being cycled you know 15 20 times more than it was recommended to cycle
so you know given that the whole pathogenicity of and deaths and cures and everything of
covid are based on the diagnosis of covid by virtue of the pcr test could you just give us
a comment on that please and thank you well it's quite far from the topic of my today's
presentation because i think a discussion of pcr usefulness in diagnosis is it warrants a
more in-depth discussion so you know the simplified version of it when people say pcr is useless or
you can amplify anything you like or you cannot do you cannot do a test if you run over 25 cycles
whereas there is some kernel of truth in all these statements if you look into it and more
in depth and more holistically the biggest problem with how it was used in majority of the western
countries is not what it was run to 40 cycles we always run qpcr to 40 cycles in a lab but it's
what it was used as a standalone indication with no clinical representation
and it and it was basically computer says yes or no and of course the huge in my opinion waste of
resources well uk wasted 39 billions on track and trace so that is more in my opinion this is
bigger problems and there were several different pcr tests and the one which was used in the uk
was not the worst in terms of detecting pathogen but it's how it was applied because it was not
we didn't use here drosten test drosten test developed in germany by was by far the worst
example of you know high background and not not adequate specificity but it's always just in any
state again sorry the guy who invented it the guy that pushed it was less than savory to say the
least in the uk absolute majority of diagnostic laboratories use different tests so you know a
lot of this discussion is oversimplified and you know distorted and black and white and it makes it
easier to attack people who are critical about the response to cove it 19 or critical of government
policy because people do tend to make claims which show what we probably don't really know in depth
what we're talking about so i wouldn't be you know as categorical as saying our pcr test was useless
it just we do use pcr for diagnosis of viral pathogens but as part a complex
uh you know element of a complex measure and as i say the biggest problem in my opinion is
huge waste of resources and also what we sidelined national committee for screening
this population of screening has always been subject to not only cost efficiency analysis
but also ethical analysis and this was all sidelined and put aside and circumvent and
very people you know very mainstream people who were quite keen to get vaccinated so they were
not contrarians but these professors who were on that committee for national screening were the
first mainstream people here in the uk to say but you cannot just do it this way you cannot throw
out of the window 40 years of development of a special selection process for whether certain
test makes it into screening program or not so the problem with pcr is not pcr itself but how it was
used how it was streamrolled how it was um just uh forced down everyone's throat and was used as a
final say in whether you are infected or not and and that's that's where i think more useful
discussion is to be held thank you i i would disagree with you i would disagree with you i
we're gonna we're gonna we're gonna jerry we're trying to get on yeah thank you thank you very
much thank you all right next jerry oh i tell you thanks for coming today just two questions
um and they're related the first is on your graphs where you show the drop off of
of uh vaccine effectiveness for over 20 weeks with the astrazeneca vaccine i presume that your
vaccine effectiveness number on the on the on the scale is antibody persistence am i correct
uh so the study on uh u.s veterans was actually a symptomatic disease and death
so the graph you showed on the drop off of effectiveness on vaccine effectiveness you
showed the drop off for the astrazeneca versus the Pfizer over 20 weeks and yes yes that was
antibody persistence um well it's pcr so it's uh i'm just checking i'm making sure my uh what
i'm saying is correct so forgive me i am looking sideways on that graph no it's pcr positivity so
the graph i showed because it's just one of the graphs there are several graphs in that paper
and link is on my slide the graph i showed is a graph for pcr positivity which uh well we just
talked about pcr so it doesn't mean person is necessarily ill but whether pcr positive
i don't think we're talking about the same graph sorry i'm going to share it back i'm going to
share it back in case uh yeah not that one the previous the previous one the uk uk one
uk one yeah that one there that's the one yeah oh that's also no that's also pcr positivity
uk used pcr positivity as the only surrogate point well not only uh for for this particular
one because this was a surveillance study they were also recording some symptoms
but you could have been referred to the test if you were symptomatic but you had exposure
as you know so this graph here does not necessarily include people who had any symptoms
it includes anyone who was deemed to be pcr positive and i i agree with what dr water said
about the use of pcr test as you know but it was pushed to a limit so this but this is pcr positivity
if you have it could you put in the chat the link to those graphs the the paper so i can have a read
i need to look at this uh yeah if you can no absolutely i'm doing it straight away thank you
and this is on my slides oh yes and the second thing is in regard to relative risk reduction
versus absolute risk reduction and how and how this is used as a way of promoting vaccines
when they have very low absolute risk reduction on a population basis
um do you have anything any comment to make on on that subject
i think uh again they are most likely absolutely on the same page here the
absolute risk reduction was minute for absolute majority of population and in autumn 2020
i was showing my students papers by professor ianidis ianidis who showed the
you know risk for anyone under age of 70 below single digits right it's like the fraction of a
percent and i remember showing it to my 20 years old biomedical science course students who were
afraid of getting on a train because they were so petrified these young people were so petrified
they were so you know that the whole atmosphere of fear uh was really enormous it was huge strain
on their um young brains so that you know it was in 2020 this is a huge just sorry a huge subject
i agree with everything you said this is a huge subject which has been pushed aside but the whole
world of um vaccine development and the scientific world behind that seemed seemed to be blind to
this distinction and from a doctor's viewpoint a clinical doctor this is the most important thing
of all but they persist with this relative risk reduction numbers and it's disingenuous um it
doesn't give people the right information um so i'm glad to hear that you agree it's
disgraceful um i mean john ianidis spoke very strongly about this in the early 2020 um and we
had the numbers for the diamond princess in february 2020 i mean all of this should not
have happened um so i think this relative risk reduction absolute risk reduction issue is huge
and needs to be brought to the attention of of the scientific community because they seem blind
to it they're not the militians they don't think in terms of population basis i don't think so uh
thank you for commenting and i just see that you put that paper up oh thank you i'll look at the
paper all right very much thank you jerry tanya what is your yes just gonna pick what i wanted
you can you have the last question steven um tanya did you put your website you mentioned your
website did you put your website link into the chat yet no i don't have a website sorry if i if
i said but i i can absolutely email my slides to you or to steven if there is a way for you to
circulate it if you email that we can share that we can share that with people beautiful all right
steven last questions to you and then we'll let tanya go thank you so tanya i hope you will forgive
me for being excited um and i'm sorry charles for criticizing your moderation but uh i am absolutely
outraged by what has happened in my country and and this is what happens when scientists think
that they can practice medicine so i think that doctors all around the world every doctor in the
world should have known that there was no medical justification for any of the measures taken in a
purported pandemic which was not a pandemic furthermore the diagnosis of covet 19 was not
appropriate appropriately arrived at it was flawed in my opinion there is a real possibility
that there was no disease called covet 19 so what was it that the british population the british
20 year olds that students you were taught teaching to why were they psychologically tortured
by the british government ruthlessly ruthlessly why was that i know you can't answer but all i'm
trying to say tanya is that we have been working on this for the last four years many of us here
and so um when people come on and they say and not don't want to say that this is criminal
of course it's criminal of course it's criminal it was happening all over the world at the same time
it was clearly planned so furthermore uh just to explain the diagnostic bit the pcr test we knew
from kerry mullis who unfortunately died in august 2019 we need to find out how he died
um he said that the pcr test the technique sorry for which he won the Nobel prize
in chemistry in 1993 for his discovery of the pcr technique in sorry uh yes development of that
technique in 1983 by him he said that his technique should never be used as a diagnostic test for a
viral illness but that's if you believe in viruses and then next thing he's dead uh he was dead in
august 2019 had he been alive this could not have proceeded so the whole thing was a fabricate a
tissue of lies from beginning to end and they psychologically tortured especially the british
population um with the the uh the nudge group you know the nudge group into a state of stockholm
syndrome in my opinion as a doctor and so it's unforgivable and then you the the the astrazeneca
we listened to you talking your presentation it was clear to me that the real reason for the for
the british government to say in april 2021 no one under 30 should be offered this vaccination
in inverted commas and then in may 2021 no one under 40 it was clear that the real reason for that
was not about whether they were less at risk it was they knew then that it was dangerous and what
did they do they thought oh we must get rid of this stock because otherwise we'll be criticized
by the british public or whatever and sell it to someone so they sold what was dangerous to a third
world country that is outrageous that is the icing on the cake of this human hubris this story
of human hubris i'm sorry that's that's all and thank you so much tanya for coming on i do think
we should have if you're agreeable we would love to have you again to explore this with the doctors
to talk about it because we need to be in a position that never again do medical doctors
with medical ethics get circumvented and stopped from speaking out in a so-called medical emergency
which was not a medical emergency in my opinion okay it's not your fault tanya i'm just very
angry about it i'm sorry i i i appreciate uh it impacted many of us i appreciate the passion and
pain which many people feel it just i think uh we are scientific well uh i speak for myself i am
not a doctor i am scientist so the best i can do is to try to analyze the situation and data and
try to influence what sort of conclusions are drawn and i think i'm not sorry sorry may i may i
finish and i think it's not um and i uh and you might uh you know withdraw your invitation after
i finish but i would i would like to finish by saying but i don't think it's particularly helpful
to just go over the things which have been done to death in these circles you know for three years
we are talking same talking points we have the brains we have the knowledge we have the ability
to look at the data the best use of our time is by trying to provide some interpretation or ways of
explaining it better or you know and i don't find it particularly useful to agree with you
and i mean and claim what governments are criminal and yes it's not it's not gonna help
it's not gonna help people need to be held to account all right because tanya has to go the last
question i'm gonna ask tanya are you available tanya for those around the world
who may wish to use your expertise in court cases
this is tricky i i would love to say yes but i've already worked on
expert testimonies and it's huge amount of time and i just don't want to commit to something i
won't be able to deliver but depending on a case but we've written an expert testimony with dr
expert testimony with dr claire craig who i'm know i'm sure you all know she must have been in
this room on on many occasions so that's the answer is i would love to help where i because i think
steven but uh court cases like the one in the uk where the climate claims that astrazeneca vaccine
was defective and that's why the waiver of liability provided by government does not apply
because it was provided on a basis what vaccine is as described and they are claiming what vaccine
is defective and i think this is uh this is something what in my opinion worth pursuing
like looking into why we think it was defective uh was it because there was a stereotype which
was particularly dangerous to humans and humans have never been exposed to it and clinical trial
did not pick it up so at the end yes it ended up being defective so this is where i think i would
be really happy to try and contribute wonderful tanya that's very that's very helpful and lastly
when i started university many many years ago tanya i fell in love with a ukrainian librarian
at the law school her name her name was krisko ending in ko and my name started with ko so there
i was so having this ukrainian influence all through my adult life so lovely to be with you
steven thank you for organizing tanya we would love to have you back because we like to have
vigorous debates here and and um thank you so much and thank you for giving us extra half hour
and say thank you to your children for us as well thank you thank you thank you thank you for all
you do thank you for your stamina and your persistence and people in different time zones
i admire you thank you very much okay bye thank you thank you thank you tanya
all right um so my so we'll leave the recording on now because tanya has gone so we can have
put your hand up for commentary and if you want me to pause the recording because you don't want
this to be shown in the recording just say pause the recording if you want to talk about something
that might be sensitive uh jerome i spoke to ian plimert last night i was with him last night and
i've linked you two together so so i i expect you to to do some pretty clever stuff and for those
of you who weren't on the call on on sunday night uh jerome coursey and i have both got this wonderful
book about the fraud of climate emergency green murder by where's your book jaron there it is you
see this is a wonderful wonderful book on the fraud of climate emergency so um it's it's a
great book and i i got your email it's been a busy day but i was just in the process of responding
when i thought well that the that's why i decided to come on do they remember you were meeting so i
was just responding to you when i came on this came on the zoom i will respond later today and
i'm very anxious to get to meet him and to start working with him it would be great
he's brilliant his work is just brilliant he is it is indeed so so the mainstream media of course
in australia has silenced ian plimer because he dares to question the climate emergency
well the uh the you know just to do one sentence from him it's the whole book is
so magnificent in terms of uh you know debunking this climate scare said if activism achieves its
aims the third world will remain in poverty western countries will become impoverished
and even more reliant on china which uses climate change as a weapon against the west
and uh he just goes on from there many green leaders have an unhealthy obsession with death
killing catastrophes totalitarianism and restrictions of freedom and i've said it's a
depopulationist movement it's neo-marxist at its core and i'm delighted to be connected with him
thank you very much excellent thank you jaron all right so so thank you jaron that's excellent now
all of us um hands up and we'll as i say if you want to pause the recording please say
um steven no just leave it running chance and then we can always cut it out the q a afterwards
yeah all right jerry first then simon i just wanted to revisit um steven's point that doctors
don't practice science and so i said that because doctor yeah exactly i agree with you jerry sorry
i'm changing it a little bit so doctors don't practice science and scientists don't practice
medicine this is really important we haven't become infected as a community as a society
into thinking that scientism is science and we've also become infected with the idea that medicine
makes all its decisions based upon science it doesn't it cannot do that and i always give the
best example of many surgical techniques almost all surgical techniques have not been subjected
to any scientific examination there are no clinical double blind trials you don't run a
surgical procedure with a blind surgeon compared to a surgeon procedure who has who has vision
you don't uh you don't uh look at not treating people with severe surgically correctable
conditions we we practice medicine very very pragmatically when we confronted with the threat
of many many many conditions you can't run clinical trials against the vast amount of
medical practice you just can't do it we are practitioners of medicine and we're very similar
to a carpenter so when a carpenter is a building a house he's been taught from his trade how to
build a house when he comes to build a certain piece of the house he doesn't go off and consult
a whole lot of clinical trials about building the corner of the house in this way versus that way
and no no he just thinks i'll try it this way and oh it looks good and it works well and the
profession of carpentry has always done it this way for hundreds of years this is very similar
to medicine and what in medicine in medicine we have the added extra we have to do what we do
ethically the ethics in carpentry there's no great consideration of ethics to build a corner of a
house but in medicine everything we do is ethically constrained we have to always consider that we are
far more ethically constrained than we are scientifically constrained people have to
understand that okay so this confusion now has been i think deliberate to destroy
faith in the medical profession and it's been very very successful
any comments on that from anyone jerry you're absolutely right on i wish i could say it so
calmly myself but as i can imagine that you felt exactly as i did listening to that tanya is a very
good uh very very nice person but it's very difficult to listen to a scientist who doesn't
understand the practice of medicine when we've just gone through a pandemic which was not a pandemic
and people have been psychologically tortured all over the world i think she does understand it but
she wants to stay in her lane of being a scientist which i think is good i think it's very important
for her to stay in her lane and be the scientist and not and not to extend that into the world of
of the population where where we work or we i used to work with you used to work we used to
work with the whole population we don't work with a small group who turn up we will we we have to
look after the whole population everything we do has to be ethically constrained in terms of
anyone who can walk into our office and we're thinking of the entire population all the time
we can't run so we can't run experiments on our patients although sometimes we have to
but generally speaking we avoid experimenting on our patients we don't do that so therefore we're
not scientists by definition we're not using experimentation okay so uh this is very important
to discuss because if you destroy the medical profession um you destroy the group that our
society goes to when they're suffering serious conditions illness ill health and death and
you're really destroying your society when you do that so i'm a great supporter of the of the
medical profession but they've also lost their way in all of this they've been misled they've
lost their way i'm very disappointed in my profession now very uh but i'm nearly 20 years
out of it of course retired 20 almost 20 years ago but these these important these are very
important things we can't maintain a civil society uh if this continues we have to have these
discussions and they have to be public we have to publicly discuss these jerome i think could
contribute publicly to this discussion um but i'll i'll that's i just very i remember you saying to
me i said remember you saying to me in 2021 i think it was in those dark days you said one thing
i can do um i can't remember the exact words but one thing i can do is talk to people and i knew
exactly what you meant because that goes to the very heart of the practice of medicine you have
to get a good history and people who have not been to medical school do not understand the importance
of a of a good medical history it's absolutely vital you cannot get a good medical history if
you can't talk to the patient and yes there are some people in medical school who should never
got in but uh hopefully but mind you having looking around in the uk over the last four years i do
wonder how how it is that uh there are so few uh real doctors around because goodness knows what
they were thinking about with no informed consent for any of these injections um nobody knew what
was in the injection so it was impossible for any doctor to obtain informed consent i agree steven
the whole three years has been absolutely disgraceful in terms of the behavior of the
medical profession the leadership has been uh absolutely disgraceful terrible i'm just so
disappointed in what's happened and we've had chief health officers say things which are just
completely anathema to what it means to be a doctor and they've never came out and explained risk
to people uh informed them fully no nothing i can't believe what's happened it's uh clearly
clearly constructed to destroy our whole civil society not just the profession but the whole
of civil society here i think is at risk yes so if they've got no doctors to go to then people
will be really consumed by fear no doctors they can trust correct and even i'm dealing with myself
i'm dealing with that problem every day now steven i'm having people contact me
who and tell me stories about what's happened in consulting rooms i am just staggered staggered i
am rendered speechless when these people call me and tell me what has happened to them doctors
treating them like as if if they're idiots i mean it's just horrible what's going on it can't
continue we have to open up that discussion this discussion of you know where is the trust
in our medical profession if we don't have that we have no civil society and um we've now got
free speech under attack we've got freedom of medical autonomy under attack um our whole civil
society is crumbling around us right now we have to fight every day to preserve it every day yeah
absolutely jerry i'll wait so anymore yeah sorry jerry i'll just say this that um i've always felt
that you um uh you you seem to have had a similar training to me and i would be very happy to be one
of your patients i've always thought you're a wonderful talker and very wise and thoughtful
and these are the qualities which a doctor should have it's good judgment more than anything else
applying the knowledge which you've been given at medical school um and questioning some of that
knowledge maybe especially after the last four years but but actually um it's it's no use having
the knowledge if you're not able to apply the knowledge in an ethical way and of course they
can't do it ethically because they've got evidence-based medicine which creates a kind
of monstrosity a monster uh of its own which actually ignores medical ethics you know because
every doctor has to do the same thing which is ridiculous if i can comments excellent comments
if i comment just quickly and jerry i did get your email and greatly appreciated it i've responded
um in the united states the fifth district uh court of appeals just rendered a decision on the
fda the fda had um really trying to prohibit the uh prescription of hydroxychloroquine for covid
because they wanted to favor the more expensive vaccines and it didn't want this simple remedy
what the district with the circuit court said was that the fda had overstepped its responsibilities
and it's an authorization because it was not in the business of telling doctors what they could
or could not do but the and they specifically said it was aimed at eliminating off-label
prescriptions in other words the doctor has the ability to take any fda approved drug and apply it
to any patient for any particular need that the doctor thinks is appropriate now that's the way
medicine should be practiced it's in line with your completely correct comments that medicine
is a practice of medicine and requires the judgment and experience of the physician as well
as the honesty and the history of the patient but it is a judgment call it is a in part intuitive
determination of what needs to be done what the government wants to do is to make it strictly
rule driven it can only prescribe what the computer tells you to prescribe in which case we do not
need physicians a machine could do this and in fact i think the entire dehumanization
of medicine is pivotal on this point and we need to go back to you know the physicians who knew
your who knew your mother and father who knew your grandparents and could take one look at you and
have a good idea where you were and we need to return with the technology we have we should be
able to allow people to access physicians from wherever they are and have continuity with them
and this should be returned to the the doctor in charge of medical practice not the government
and i i think this entire discussion is appropriate and very important i think it's the crux of the
totalitarianism we're battling every day so i thank you for those comments jerry it is and
you just mentioned transhumanism it's all linked to transhumanism and then ultimately to technocracy
technocratic transhumanism is at the very core of this and i want you all everybody on this call
to go and research a company called technocracy incorporated look at its origins and look very
carefully at what happened in canada i won't say any more that was in 1931 to 1933 and the influence
of technocracy incorporated upon the world of nazi germany at the time this is that this is the
beginnings of what we're dealing with now is the idea that humans can be regarded as nothing but
machines disposable machines that's what we're dealing with technocracy linked to transhumanism
linked to the whole movement of eugenics so we're dealing with this all now it's a hundred years old
the battle is a the battle is a hundred years old i agree with you jerry sorry i've taken too much
time i'm sorry no it's very important that you say what you've been saying and please stay with
us no it's a i think it's a i think it's a good conversation because it's it's really bringing
these different threads together in the chats the comment is made and many of us have said
evidence-based medicine and protocol-based medicine and what jerome you just said
it is a disaster it's clearly a disaster and we've also steven you know you've you've said this this
requires as jerome said the practice it's an art as well as scientific elements of it and the game
plan i think a number of people have said in this group the game plan is to get rid of doctors out
of the equation so it's all driven by ai guys you are becoming irrelevant the robots will do the
operations and steven you know the ai will do the diagnosis or based on protocols but charles the
the people don't and don't believe the ai so they will miss their doctors because they do want they
do want to believe that there are people they can rely on and those people have been undermined and
it's evil what they're doing because what they're trying to do is to generate more fear so so you
know so people are literally on their own now when they're ill because they don't know which
doctor to go and see who they can trust the first question i'm gonna i'm gonna i'm gonna
scotland to see karen steven yeah i didn't know karen was a doctor sorry karen
i have
that's what i specialize in i'm not a doctor
there you are charles i'm also a college lecturer so i have two degrees in education as well
oh sorry i thought that charles thought you were a medical doctor i see he realized you weren't yeah
well i think that was your but charles it was because we all need to be careful you know when
you're ill you really need someone you feel you can trust anyway and and you know all these people
dancing on the graves of doctors and the medical profession you know um they might regret dancing
on those graves uh shortly um when they realize that they're all on their own
i would like to say that there are lots of good people practicing medicine but after the last four
years i'm not so sure in the uk anyway
and in the u.s for that matter from my knowledge of what's going on in america
well in united states attempt what's going on is pushing the doctors into hospital practice or
medical group practice large medical group practice and they're not doing anything
where they're situated in front of a computer and told what they can do that's very bad they
shouldn't be talking syndrome they should not be sorry i agree i agree what they do is they
they send you off to do a variety of tests largely blood work they read that into the
computer and then the examination is that they look in front of the computer and read the numbers
and try to prescribe how ridiculous you know medications at the end they might uh take out a
stethoscope and see if your heart is beating but that's at the end not at the beginning
and the doctor might not even actually look at you the entire thing can take five to ten minutes
and you're gone you're just a number and uh it could be done by a machine well it it is what
we're talking about these you know the the final point of all out of this which is very anti-human
has no regard for human beings as individuals or looks at us all as useless essentially for
except for the oligarchs who want to have all of everything to themselves with their machines
merged with their machines and um you know the climate movement i often say we we exhale
carbon dioxide so they want to look at us as the blight on the earth human beings and the best
thing we could do for them to just commit suicide and save everybody all the trouble
but if we don't insist upon committing suicide then we get read to a machine what we can and
all the personal touch all the intuition you know all the ability of a doctor to
begin the healing process simply by talking to a person that's when the healing process begins
when the human contact is made and the and the healing process is as much an intuitive process
of understanding the person and and using your creative creative powers to figure out what you
might best do because this is not something that's like a mathematical equation that you
can enter the variables and machine can tell you the calculation results because the variables all
require um very difficult subjective judgment it has to be experientially based it has to involve
knowing the person and caring about the person if medicine lacks this element we will lose a
fundamental part of who we are as human beings i often point out that jesus christ began his mission
by healing people and many of the people who came to see him were not coming for spiritual
guidance they were coming to get better the fundamental human need is to be healthy
and if we don't have a a doctor's trained doctors that are capable of practicing medicine
that are truly driven by their own intelligence and experience we will let this to the government
the end result will be transhumanism and it will be what they want which is depopulation and it's
tough to get your mind around that the many of the actions governments are taking today are
intentionally designed to destroy that's neo-marxism that's going on is is understood to be
a malware for the brain and once it infects people it will end up in destruction and anarchy
that's why it's being propagated and those are hard concepts to believe that our government
it recently came to light that in 1970s henry kissinger signed a national security memorandum
200 and made depopulation the official national security policy of the united states government
that document just recently came to light so we've had since the 1970s a depopulationist
agenda behind much of what the intelligence agencies have been doing so again these things
have to be fought and we're at we have to be at the front lines of fighting this co-vid made it
clear that they were willing to go very far to produce untested vaccines that were reasonably
known immediately to have adverse effects especially on heart conditions and other
age problems but specific very detrimental to women in pregnancy and yet they were administered
on a mass scale and people told that if you did not take the vaccine you were going to be damaging
society because you were going to be infecting others when the vaccine had no proof of actually
preventing the disease and the whole purpose was to take a bad flu lock down the world and infect
them with dangerous agents that would potentially kill millions of people now we've got to realize
that that's what they intended to do that was not accidental and that's the hard part of the
realization that we are fighting a fundamental evil agenda that is deeply committed to destroying
humanity except for a very few who will be allowed to merge with their machines and control the
resources of the earth and then extend their lives i mean the three elements here transhumanism
artificial intelligence and perpetual life extinction those are the goals and it is absolutely
anti-god and it is fundamentally evil but it is in control of many of the governments of the world
goes along with censorship you can't speak out against it cancel culture we're in a very
dystopian period of time and it's essential that we fight back on it i'm writing i think the only
antidote is truth it's the only antidote and our goal has got to be to bring forward the truth
regardless of the consequences
great speech jerome thank you
oh i'm sorry who's my so simon go ahead i didn't realize
thank you steven i was just i was just thinking about i've missed a large part of all these
fantastic meetings here when i was in belgium and they were a bit too late oh no i think it
was in the winter in australia yeah when it was four o'clock or five o'clock in the morning
but coming back to it i think a lot of the things that actually always stay the same is i mean i
could say you know i'm a science doctor and i did over 50 projects for the medical companies in
belgium including pfizer and and and jansen's and so on even on the on the vaccine stability
but it really doesn't matter where i come from and what my background is i think we spend so much
time in in i wouldn't say patronizing but kind of defending our corner in this group of what we
believe and what we don't believe i think there's enough that we have in common that we believe is
wrong and that we have to communicate somehow to the rest of the of the people without things which
really don't matter i think to other uh to the to the general public i mean i think the talk of
today was really nice that she said you know i agree on saying it's called a toxin whatever it is
you want to call it a virus fine we don't want to call it vice fine there's been damage done and
that we can report and we agree on the damage that has been done in the same way a lot of the a lot
of the things are where it comes from and who is is guilty and so on it's important maybe for us to
have some discussions on friday night or buy the barbecue but it's not going to change the actual
communication that we have to do and i think there we have a responsibility to find new ways just
like she said today to communicate to the large public to see if we can make changes
and help people to realize they should help us stop this whole bigger picture so i don't know how
to go ahead with it but i think it's really a thought to see how we can have a different way
to communicate what is mainly almost 80 percent the same in the last three years that we've been
discussing here it's always been about absolute versus uh absolute versus uh real uh protection
or it has been about it is it toxic or not or is it genetic or not uh how can we actually group
together and and find a way to to make new ways to communicate and have results and measure the
results that we we actually uh bring awareness to the people that something is going on i think
so in answers i think a lot of people have found it very complex uh all the things all the parallel
things which are going on and it's only now that i for one um i'm beginning to uh able to sit back
and look at the whole and think about what it is that we need to transmit and how we transmit it
so that's how i would answer it but i don't know how other people would answer that
so through this group we've we've had the chance to develop a deep understanding of what's going
going but you could criticize the group because in a way we've had too much information and so
there's been a heck of a lot of information to digest and then kind of think about and
and uh decide what it is that we think each of us thinks is most important and so i've had
i said long ago that we need to tell the people what's gone on but it's only now i'm beginning
to think i could actually sit down and write one side of a4 which would resonate with at least the
british population yeah great great it's fantastic i have a group so fantastic it could be an
interesting thing to have somebody speak about how to actually promote the message like that
or how to have the most results and so i think we all have to i mean you could all well exactly
so i don't know who is good at that the problem is um so people like uh um what's the name
kui David Charalambas JJ Cooey but he um and there are others as well uh Jerome is very
important because he can put it all together uh he's thinking big picture there are others like um
James uh what's his name the the uh Planet Lockdown Guide James Patrick um and then
Mats Palswig uh Lars Johansson there are just loads of these people that we need to kind of
get together and have a i don't know what we do um yes if we're all in different places literally
but also we're in different places as far as our understanding goes and what we're interested in and
what we need is it's maybe 10 people who are who are very interested in everything the big picture
and then thrashing it out what it is we need to get out which would be most effective in waking up
uh populations around the world what do you say Jerome well i think that's a good idea i think um
you know it we have to the the key is for me has always been able to take these complex ideas and
try to put them in a format where the average person can understand them and sometimes it's
difficult when the material is scientific but uh again the concepts are explained and the importance
of the concepts are explained most people will get it uh so i've you know i've had i've spent
much of my life figuring out how to communicate things and it's been uh you know in a sense
it's trying to get an idea down to what are the most important points that are going to impact
people i like professor plimmer's work because he really has a focus on this climate he's saying
this is a destructive detrimental agenda that is based on false science
when i was in graduate school at harvard i one of my thesis advisors was arthur southerland jr who
was the historian of harvard law school and he um had been a clerk to oliver wendell holmes well i'd
written a draft of the thesis and i went in to see him i was probably 20 years old
and um so well mr courseley i'm glad you only wrote the one side of the paper said well why
is that he said well because then it's not a total waste you can turn it over and use the other side
and so he said he would permit me to begin when he could come back and give him my thesis in one
sentence and he was going to cape cod for the summer so i worked that entire summer and i
came back with one sentence and he said now you can begin that was a very important exercise
because it forced me to really figure out and the complexity of what i was thinking not only
what i was trying to say but how i could express it down to a cogent thought that was powerful
enough to make an impact and i've tried to do that with my writing ever since the point is
it requires a great deal of ability to think through these issues and it requires the
uh you know the there's um one of the things i've always admired in the ancient greek
philosophy was when they talk about megasukhia which means great solidness
and that is to think a human being can achieve a point where they're no longer
self-interested and they're not interested in the general will which is this collectivism
but they begin to realize that this is a spiritual experience and the sacredness of every human being
now once you internalize those kinds of concepts you can begin to see how barbaric
many of these government procedures are and how much we're lied to so i've i've spent the last 20
years trying to convince people to show people the extent to which they're being lied to and
they're living in a constructed reality that the intelligence agencies are constructing for their
own destruction and we have at our ability with the technology that's been developed to
live a thousand years in peace and it's it's absurd that we are spending this time
enriching the pharmaceutical company to produce fraudulent dangerous drugs and we're enriching
the arms industry perpetuate endless war for their own profit and we need to advance beyond this
in order to get to a higher spiritual level which is nothing fundamentally different
than it was 2 000 years ago so i think that you know these are the things i've the book i'm coming
out with on the jf kennedy assassination i've spent all day working to get a small group
together where we can tell the story to the american people and once i've gotten out five
people who will we're going to go to the you know public it's very david mantick who did the
optical density measurements douglas horn and two or three others michael cheser who confirmed the
optical density measurements these are people of great courage because they are going to tell the
truth and i think we've already made an impact because i'm seeing signs that the
government is can no longer contain the lie they just allowed paramount to show a parkland doctors
hospital that's up on the internet right now and it shows the parkland doctors for the first time
filmed saying that jack kennedy when he came into the operating trauma room and parkland hospital
obviously was shot from the front and they did not in that broadcast try to refute those doctors
they let that narrative stand that's the truth and that it reflects to me that they know that the lie
has been exposed and it is the the truth that is the only thing that we that is the only antidote
against what we're dealing with today because we're living in a complete age of disinformation
that's constructed to intentionally to cause us to fail as human beings
to reduce the mass numbers of human beings in the face of the earth and put control in the hands of
a few who believe they can perfect themselves into a uber mensch nician trans human state by
merging with their machines and it's fundamentally evil so i think that you know excellent true
it's complex question but i but my bottom line is this is not easy and it requires
not only the skill to do it thinking through it to do it but also the courage to do it exactly
so it's not easy i agree with you and and also jerome i think we've only got one chance to get
this right otherwise if we don't get it right um bulletproof right then if we proved wrong later
then we we we've lost trust as well so um and i think the message of that we should put out about
john f kennedy is that look what the politicians have done they've lied to the american people and
to the world about something that was so close to people's hearts for 60 years so what else have
they lied to us about well covet 19 for a start and it was a massive government cover-up it was
not it started in the pentagon at the heart of the pentagon kurtis lame and others who wanted
to go to war with nuclear war with russia thought we could win a nuclear war it included the cia
it co-opted the secret service they in turn got the justice department to stand down and they
persuaded the media to cover a false story blaming lee harvey oswald so this was a
the cover-up involved massive lying and techniques of suppressing the truth the doctors at parkland
hospital were told that these were you know dr malcolm perry who did the tracheotomy was
30 some years old he had young children just beginning his medical practice he was quite
brilliant and the secret service and other agents the government told him that if he didn't go along
that he had mistaken the frontal shots for they could well have been from the rear
they would bring him forward before a medical board and he would lose his
certification to practice medicine so he faced the end of his career
at a young age having worked to get his medical degree and trying to support a family
and they broke him psychologically that's that the they told me if i didn't take their plea deal
in the muller examination i go before a jury in washington that would put me in convict me of all
their counts and i'd be in prison the rest of my life well i finally told them i cannot stand before
judge and swear before god and before judge to a lie just to keep myself out of prison so i guess
you'll have to put me in prison the rest of my life and that's when they didn't indict me you
know and that's again the fear that they can the the fear biblically the one of the admonitions
throughout the bible is fear not and and that is very difficult because you will be facing with
you know severe threats to go along with a lie and it requires i mean just one more comment i mean
early on in the cove it there was a paper pre-publication where the virus
coven virus had been all the gene analysis had been done of it i remember the paper distinctly
and there were certain sequences of the genes that were obviously done in the laboratory
and these were identified and they came in through the receptor that affected the heart and the lungs
and it had been crafted in the laboratory and we came out with that and also we found papers
that Fauci had done where he had supported chloroquine as a remedy to these SARS type
viruses which was known it had been known for many years and the government suppressed it all well
that's when i started working with dr zelenko we that's all gotten telemedicine we decided
we would offer this and the department of justice examined the program and i've defended the program
on the basis that the doctors had the ability to prescribe off label this was legitimate and we
weren't telling them what to do doctors were in control of the medicine and again they they let
the program run they threatened to bring me before congress and expose this as having profited from
the virus well they didn't do that either so the you know the what we're facing is a massive
lying with a population that has been conditioned to accept the lies and you know mark twain said
it's easier to propagate a lie than it is to be willing to admit that you have been duped by a lie
and that's part of the problem so again i i this group bringing forth the medicine i think is
extremely important and while i have not i'm not a medical doctor i didn't have any medical training
i've learned a lot of the medicine simply by reading it and it's clear to me how completely
fraudulent a great deal of medical and scientific literature that's being published today is
simply because if you don't agree with the current narrative the consequences on your academic or
professional career are severe so people make up data publish lies and peer review fraudulence
will not accept even a well done well documented paper that is deviates from the narrative so we're
in a very dark place when when truth is not the standard any longer professions that
demand truth in order to be functional your own is there any possibility that you and i and simon and
and a few others could sit down and well obviously we're in different places but
work together to produce a side of a4 that would be understood by the public and would
get the reaction that we're looking for it uh you know sir sure i i think hans i've been yes and i've
been giving a lot of thought to hans's paper on the um nord stream and he's right and i've been
giving a lot of thought to how to get that out what's the best method to get that out
i haven't resolved it yet but he jerome i didn't say anything to you but i thought that uh hans
benjamin's presentation to us the first presentation and later the second but the first
one was the one that did it i thought this is just brilliant and i agree with you uh it's very
convincing and nobody's answered him that's the that's the giveaway they they haven't answered
him because they can't answer him well it's brilliant and the seismic evidence is um is
indisputable that's that's the key is you cannot dispute that scientific evidence there's you have
to explain that scientific evidence and there's only really one explanation and he's right
thermonuclear device was detonated and but we were thinking at the time jerome that there could have
been other um uh other uh reasons for them doing that uh you know a warning to europe to strengthen
nato a warning to sweden you know you need to get into uh nato um because they weren't in nato at
the time although the decision that turkey was resisting i think finland of course is in nato
now amazingly um and whether they are and the other narrative was to break germany as well to
get germany to understand that actually they were not so powerful and they needed to uh obey the us
or whatever you know nato um and um so we were discussing all that you see i said i know sweden
very well i'm married to a swedish woman and um and um i know the country very well um i would
know it better if i was more in love with the language um but anyway um i know that they're
very good on statistics and those measuring sites in sweden they picked up the uh the nuclear
disaster you know the nuclear power plants in in ukraine i think it was or was it belarus no it
was belarus which got all the fallout yeah or most of the fallout um and um so the swedes have
great measuring devices there's no way they're not aware of what hans benjamin is saying so why have
they kept quiet and why have the germans kept quiet that's treason in my opinion not to alert
their populations as to what has happened there's uh i texted hans this morning the the um there's
a move to make the baltic sea the nato sea getting all the countries around the baltic sea to be part
of nato and there was an incident with a um chinese cargo ship that evidently lost an anchor
and they were saying it cut cables but again what is going on is that the nato countries do not want
russia and china using the baltic sea now if you take the baltic sea away from russia and deny its
access to the atlantic through the uh to the north that's an act of war just as denying russia
access to the atlantic through ukraine the black sea is an act of war and uh the nato countries
don't seem to care um and again it's hard to imagine that they want war and i think hans is
right that that that that device was detonated to show russia that our military and intelligence
agencies are ready to go to tactical nuclear war i think that's been one of the demonstrations of
how this battlefield uh the electronic battlefield has made conventional warfare obsolete and um
i'm trying to figure out the right formulation of these ideas that can put them together in a
way that will make the impact that has to be made so it'll take a while to figure out how to
best sort them out and get it down to one sentence but hans is right and that's
and what he's brought forth needs to be known and when it is known it will be immediately
threatening and it will be considered a conspiracy theory but again that we have to invite that in
order to stimulate the controversy to get a bigger platform for hans to explain himself
so i i invite these kind of controversies in order to expand the awareness of the issue
yep very good all right we've got 20 minutes 15 minutes to go everybody thank you jerome and
hands i apologize for being not being shorter than comment that's that's look that's that's
wonderful and we we've all got we've all got time so we you know it's the it's the it's all
excellent stuff now we've got three hands up mark then jim then tom we're finishing in 15 minutes
thank you charles uh i've uh i've posted this all right anyway i've posted it in the chat
it's uh absolute zero it's a document called absolute zero it's in the chat um and what i'm
trying to do with my wife is we're trying to wake up the people locally now we've been um to
peter borough and we have been to huntington we've done um uh we have here some questionnaires to ask
people some very simple questions just to try and find out whether or not they are awake
and what we have found is that the biggest thing that they um know about is the restriction of cash
the thing that they are least um interested in was the world health organization which of course
is something that as a as a group we're very interested in combating to make sure that we
keep our sovereignty etc so um having said that about the um the the survey i want to go back to
this report i think this report is actually key because in this report um they have some key
messages and one of the key messages is that we are not talking about net zero net zero
we're actually talking about absolute zero and there's a very good quote in here on page four
the public concern about climate is too well informed to be sidelined by political trickery
sorry is somebody uh austin can you
i don't know what's happened can you still we can we can we can we can hear you fine
okay okay okay sorry sorry okay so uh right i was saying too uh too well informed to be
sidelined by political trickery on definitions in writing this report we have therefore assumed
the target of zero emissions is absolute there is no negative emission option or meaningful carbon
offsets absolute zero means absolute emissions and the next paragraph it says the uk is responsible
for all emissions caused by its purchasing including imported goods international flights
and shipping um and on page uh six and seven it gives a uh this is a this on six and seven i've
posted it in as well it sums up it has um what we have to do by let's say uh 2049 and i think
this would wake up the the you know the public food beef and lamb is phased out well i like beef
and lamb i don't want it phased out i think that's how we want to get to people we're talking also
about people having their journeys reduced 60 percent what is who what is it who produced this
document uh this is a document sponsored by the government is uh by uk f i r e s i put everything
in the chat but what this sounds like this sounds like some insane asylum has published this document
which could be the u.k government the author the authors are from cambridge university bath
university nottingham university stratton university oxford university and imperial
college so i would agree with your statement thank you you put the link in there we'll move on
so that's that's the level of the pressure everybody you ain't seen nothing yet as i say
in classics that as gerome says there's a deep well we've all said there's a depopulation agenda
so get rid of electricity you will definitely get rid of the population okay we're three hands up
we got 10 minutes to go jim thank you uh thanks of coursey um
you're uh you're working on the jfk issue um i just put in something in the chat i'm not sure
if you talk to uh dr red duke um he's a trauma surgeon at at uh university of texas houston
um he's the uh trauma surgeon who who attended jfk or one of the trauma surgeons that attended jfk
and uh and treated connelly and was credited with saving connelly's life um he died in 2015
um and he was an exceptional uh exceptional guy who uh ran for sure was appointed was once a
candidate for surgeon general just wanted to make you aware of him if you weren't aware of him i
wasn't aware of him and did you put him in chat i'm looking for him now i can send that to you if
you yeah send it to just send it to me i think everyone here should have your address i'll put
my email in the chat okay and then um yeah so so i i gave one of the uh a one your your inspiration
for a one sentence summary um in the chat as well where the this seems to be a depopulation agenda
run by the the department of defense intelligence agency depopulation agenda um in the name of
climate change and uh that's the real uh question who's allowing this um how did how did our
intelligence organizations allow this and uh who and why uh without allowing the uh without
notifying the american people and this doesn't seem to be a government of the people by the
people and for the people so uh um i also want to make you aware of some uh documents that were
there they're they were kind of uh gotten by uh project veritas a couple years ago and senator
johnson made a request to see these documents there they show that darpa knew that hydroxychloroquine
ivermectin and interferon would work against the sars-cov-2 spike protein
so those are it's kind of important documents that they knew as far as early as april 2020
and they suppressed the uh the information and uh and so the question is why were they allowed to
do that and even now uh senator roger marshall is looking for the origins of the covid when they're
not asking for the origins of the sars-cov-2 spike protein and that's a very important
distinction robert cadillac k-a-d-l-e-c the head of manhattan kansas uh bio warfare labs wrote a
paper called muddy waters and uh and in that paper he says he'll never know who invented the sars it
seems to indicate that they they they say they'll never know who invented the covid when in fact they
may be able to figure out who invented the sars-cov-2 spike protein and we talked about
last time when you were here uh if they say they don't know who did it that means the intelligence
community did it yeah the glycoprotein 120 which was at the uh the key ingredient of the spike
protein was uh was patched into the sars virus that was one of the unique aspects of it and uh
and and fauci has patents on glycoprotein 120 he has on that glycoprotein he has patents
yes there's one more aspect and that's the furin cleavage site and it's a p r r a sequence and the
furin cleavage site was from a bacteria rather than the virus so the so the real smoking gun
may be the furin cleavage site uh as well because i believe it is i believe it is yeah i think you're
exactly right now uh my email is very simple it's joram corsi small small letters the number is
6554 at gmail.com i'm having i've got a direct message in here i can't put it in the message
forever jake joram corsi 6554 gmail.com and i'd like the information on that doctor we've got in
the book quite a few doctors who knew jack kennedy was shot twice from the front and it's very clear
in the x-rays and he shot once from behind two shots came from the grassy knoll and this book is
will demonstrate this to the american people i've been especially today working on it all day
trying to put together the coalition of people who are going to go forward to get this message to
the american people and to find out the right place to position it to break the news so it can't be
suppressed and one of the people who was involved with that was serol wecht do you are you in touch
yes in fact um yeah very much so and serol wecht was very good um dr chester will support dr
mantek peter jannie has just emailed me this afternoon he's um he is extremely good he did
the book of mary's mosaic on mary meyers who was cordmire's wife until she had an affair with jack
kennedy and um there's a small group here which will carry the message i like small groups of
people that can carry the message and defend the bull but when the american public sees this
it's going to change a lot of things and are you putting in anything are you putting in anything
about arlen specter and uh there's tons lots about arlen specter are you putting anything about him
being the guy who covered up for the 200 pounds of uranium coming in from uh from pennsylvania
into the middle east no i didn't do we did we stayed strictly with jfk we didn't get into other
things we just stayed strictly with jfk to not invite you know people picking up a stray thread
and making that to discredit the book which they're good at trying to do this book's going to be hard
to discredit all right on we go jim thank you we're out of time tom and then julie and then
we're finishing okay so i'm kind of just going to parrot some jj cooey he seems to be on a run he's
trying to do uh a twitch thing every night first thing um he um he followed the this week in
virology guys last night and um they're talking about gain of function and he he debunked that he
also debunked this wasting disease and deer the prion disease and basically his attack on these
virologists is that they have these oversimplified cartoon models and they all just kind of nod their
heads yeah we understand when in fact it's so like the prion protein folding is so complicated
um there's a apparently a law in congress to stop gain of function and that very much upset the
12 people this week you know vincent wreck and illy and so forth um then there's something i might
as well jump into this this confuses me this is one of his means he believes that the gain of function
is a big confusion point that it's just it's not real and i need somebody in this group to explain
to me why jj keeps focusing on that so i don't have an answer but he just thinks that's a big
way you very quickly has this crazy analogy where you have this wonderful high-speed train coming
into a station and you've got this team of athletic people that all line up because the brakes don't
work in the train so these athletic people all line up and they put chalk on their hands and they
they work really hard to slow down the train well the train is just fine but you get all these
impressive experts which is all the propaganda so there was no spread there's no pandemic is
is in a sense what he's saying and then with from denny rancourt another big meme is there's no
spread there's no spread of sars-cov-2 and that's hard for me to get he doesn't think that sars-cov-2
spread worldwide it it couldn't in his opinion so those are some talking points um very good thank
you i'll take those comments thank you tom that you put those in the chat as well i saw earlier
so for all of us to think about julie yeah so real quick jj couey covered that meme on his
presentation what two weeks ago charles we had that one jj couey here he covered that meme and
that answer to the gain of function so real quick circling back on iceland so i put three articles
that say okay iceland banned the covet vaccines just recently so that i wanted to make sure that
i covered my reputation on that clarifying that they did just do that and sasha lots of pova
broke that news and you can take her to the bank usually um real quick i also wanted to cover you
know i'm the one here advocating and representing the injured right i'm vaccine injured by moderna
i worked in health care my career blew up and yeah i woke up to this whole thing and
the people responsible for jfk are responsible for 9 11 so i guess 60 years from now we get a book on
9 11 and 60 years from now we get a book on covid but anyway so my doctor is now me i'm my own doctor
right for the most part but i do trust now the wellness company that's dr peter maccala dr drew
dr james thorpe their new organization everything's gone telehealth and they do an intake form where
they actually ask me what are your vaccine injuries so it's kind of refreshing but what i
was able to purchase is this medical emergency kit there's eight anti there's eight pharmaceutical
products in here so you get this nice little thing and it's a medical emergency kit so when you get a
little book so what's in here is a zetra myosin i'll read it um amoxicillin azithromycin doxycycline
the metronidazole a generic background ivermectin generic dipole can generic zofran and then it just
is a little book so when i i literally got kind of nauseous a couple weekends ago hold this out
i look up nausea and it leads me to you know take the zofran here's my and it's in its 30 day supply
249 and they have a similar one just for covid that includes the hydroxychloroquine and a nebulizer so
yeah highly recommend that group is my go-to now they're my doctors i don't trust a one here in
chico there isn't a one that i can trust not even my neurologist who diagnosed me with the you know
vaccine injury so yeah it's pretty disturbing that our medical community is now bought and paid for
by pharma um and also i just wanted to let steven frost know again this group's really amazing so
you guys connected me with sandra martinez who's in this group right she's in san diego southern
california i'm in northern california she and i hit up the board of pharmacy call last month
and gave them a couple public comments that they didn't want to hear and so i'm going to publish
on my rumble channel tomorrow and we're going to go back in at them every month and be there on
public comment and telling them what's this garbage and what the react you know the problems are
and i talked to her this morning we're going to actually do some survey work too and send it out
to the community and try to again really focus laser focus on this california board of pharmacy
because again it's just a multi-prong attack right you know we can't cover it all but
we're we're kind of wanting to laser focus in on the pharmacy you can't have these pharmacists try
to prescribe drugs like paxlovid which is black label or be the ones now that are you know
injecting little children with stuff so that's what we're going after so yeah you guys are doing
good work by connecting us all so thanks much for the call today julie i think that's a that's an
excellent point and i say that in the introduction that one connection from a meeting like this
who knows where that goes and so you know that's that's the value and we invest it each one of us
invest the time we get ideas here we get ways to express our ideas better jerome joins us and
suddenly that creates different connections and we're in the game so well said um can you julie
put your link to your rumble channel as well into the chat if you haven't done so if you have to
leave it there but if you haven't please put it in there so people can follow you there all right
everybody guess what it's two and a half hours so this is your opportunity to get on with your
life um steven has gone to sleep as you can see and there's 33 of us left so it's time to go
thank you all of you for your contributions uh jeremy are you when are you going to be ready to
sing us a song to exit i don't think you really want to give me a form for that but uh maybe tom
can help me set up the proper microphone system here that i can convey a little music to you i'd
be happy to do that very good so tom liaise with tom for that steven we're up there two and a half
hours we're going so is there any final comments you want to make so i just wanted to apologize
uh charles um i had to make a phone call that's right i've just finished this second so i so sorry
about that no dramas no dramas i had to pop out to make a phone call as well we all do that we
come in and out come in and out like i've got a good metaphor for that but i won't be rude at
the moment all right everybody thank you for being here have a wonderful tuesday night wednesday
morning read all the links stay passionate fight the fight and tom rodman has for those of you with
the time and uh tom's put the link into the telegram video chat if you have time to stick around
go there and we will be back with you on sunday simon the wolf you and i have some stuff to talk
about we will get there lots of other stuff to talk about on we go fight the fight thanks for
being here bye everybody geroma oh is gerome yes i'm sorry yes i'm still here yes i'll try to
i'll try to email you if i look as though i might have forgotten could you email me
just so that and your email is hold on a second is steve