BIG STORY - PLEASE SHARE: 'Virus' test revelations with David Icke and Andrew Kaufman
|
Time
Text
♪♪♪ ♪♪♪
♪♪♪ ♪♪♪
Hello. I want to talk about a remarkable development with the test that is deciding,
so the authorities tell us, who is infected with the virus and who isn't.
It's called the RT-PCR test.
And I've been saying for months and quoting medical professionals who've had the courage to come out and speak honestly about it.
That the test that's deciding who has the virus is not testing for the virus.
That is the scale of ludicrousness, the scale of the hoax, which is unfolding all around us.
First of all, the virus...
SARS-CoV-2, they call it, has never been purified and isolated and shown to exist.
So how do you test for it?
But the RT-PCR test, which the creator, Carey Mullis, won the Nobel Prize for it.
He developed it in the 1980s.
The creator of the test said that this test should not be used to diagnose infectious disease, which is exactly what it's being used for.
And that's where all the case figures are coming from.
And the more you test, because it's not testing for a virus, it's testing for genetic material that vast numbers of people, potentially everyone, has in their bodies.
The cases are not cases of the virus.
They're cases of the PCR test.
Testing positive for genetic material that is not a disease and it's just part of the body.
And this is why 85% plus of people that test positive with a PCR test for the virus have no symptoms.
Why? Because there's nothing wrong with them.
And if you test positive with a PCR test that's not testing for the virus, Then when you die, subsequently, of anything else, COVID-19 goes on your death certificate, and that's where the deaths are coming from.
So, here's the new development.
And I'm going to be talking to a man, a very courageous man, and a very learned man, Dr.
Andrew Kaufman, shortly, about this.
And I saw this story on the peaceofmindful.com website, and this is the headline.
Bombshell!
World Health Organization coronavirus PCR test primer sequence is found in all human DNA. The writer of the article has identified That there's a genetic sequence that everyone has in their body that this PCR test, in part, is testing for.
And therefore, they're testing for a sequence of human genetics, not a virus.
And if you test positive for something that's naturally in your body, they say you've got the virus.
This is the scale of the scam.
And we're going to develop this with Dr.
Kaufman shortly. So the story goes on.
The sequence, it's an 18 character sequence, which is obviously named in the article.
It's an 18-character primer sequence found in the World Health Organization Coronavirus PCR testing protocol document.
The primer sequences are what get amplified by the PCR process in order to be detected and designated a positive test result.
So if you want lots of positive results to increase your illusion of virus cases so you can say, oh no, too many people have got it, we've got to lock down this city or this area, which is what they're doing now and around the world, then test for something that is naturally in everyone's body.
and you're gonna get lots of positive tests you really couldn't make it up
And you don't have to because these people do it all the time.
It just so happens, the article goes on, that this exact same 18 character sequence verbatim Is also found in Homo sapiens chromosome 8.
Not a virus.
A sequence found in Homo sapiens chromosome 8.
As far as I can tell, this means that the WHO test kits should find a positive result in all humans, or they can if they test for that particular sequence.
Why is it that the World Health Organization and the medical operations in all the different countries, including Britain and America and so on, Have said the way to deal with this virus is test, test, test. Everyone must get tested.
We've got advertisements and videos being put out by the British government saying if you want to go back to normal, then you've got to get tested.
When actually, they know the more you test with this PCR test, not testing for the virus, the more positive cases you're going to get.
And thus, the further from going back to normal we become, because they say, we've got so many more cases, we have to have more lockdown.
So I'm going to talk about all this to the American doctor and psychiatrist Andrew Kaufman.
I'll give you some background. He's a doctor of medicine and former medical instructor in hematology and oncology at the Medical University of South Carolina.
Bachelor's of Science in biology at MIT. Assistant Professor of Psychiatry and Licensed and Board Certified in Psychiatry and Forensic Psychiatry.
And actually, having chatted to him before, he's also got experience in computer modelling, so he knows how easy it is to get the computer model projections, like Professor Neil Ferguson at Imperial College that produced projections of all these people are going to die so we have to have lockdown.
What you put in as data dictates what comes out as projection.
So Andrew Kaufman has the experience of covering all these different areas and he has been A magnificent exposure from a medical point of view.
Of how this whole COVID-19 scam works.
So I talked to him about, well, many things, but starting out with this extraordinary revelation that part of the sequence that the PCR test is testing for is a natural sequence in everybody's Human body.
We'll find out now from the expert, but it seems to me that is one heck of a story.
And I know, Andrew, when I mentioned it to you, you said you knew about it and that you were going to research this some more before talking about it.
So give us your verdict.
Yeah, well, thank you very much for those nice words, David.
And I knew this was a very significant thing.
But I wanted to take my time and verify it and learn a little bit more about it before speaking about it.
As I told you before, I actually tried to do this kind of research back in April because I suspected there would be serious overlap between some of the target sequences they're looking for with the PCR test and our human genome because of this confusion about exosomes and what RNA comes from what source and all of this.
I looked at a different protocol than the one published here.
I looked at one from Germany, and this one is from the Pasteur Institute in France.
But it really confirmed my suspicion, and I was glad to see it, that basically one of the primer sequences in the PCR test, according to the Pasteur Institute protocol, is an exact match for a sequence in our own human DNA on chromosome 8.
So I thought it might be helpful to take this because it's a big thing.
It means a lot, but it's difficult to kind of understand what are the real implications of a finding like this.
So I thought it would be really helpful if we could just understand PCR a little bit better first and just the basics of how it works.
So bear with me here.
I want to share my screen.
And I have a little video here.
And this is a mainstream video about the PCR test for COVID-19 specifically.
So I'm going to play two different parts here.
The first part, they're talking about where they get the sample from.
So listen to this. The swab of a person with COVID-19 will contain a mixture of human cells, virus particles, and other microbes.
So did you hear that?
It will contain a mixture of human cells, virus particles, and other microbes, which could mean bacteria or fungi or other microbes.
So it's not a clean sample.
And if we were testing for human DNA or RNA, we could find it because there are human cells in there and also fragments of human cells, such as apoptotic bodies or exosomes, or sometimes there's even free human DNA circulating in some of our fluids.
So this is not a pure sample, and it certainly contains human genetic material from the beginning.
So if we test for it, we could find it.
Now this is another segment of here, and this shows sort of the mechanics of how the test works so you can get an idea.
There's not enough viral RNA to detect directly in the patient's sample, so a process called reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction, RT-PCR, amplifies many copies of a segment of the N-gene.
So what they're saying is that there's a tiny, tiny amount of the RNA that we're looking for in this sample that's really messy and contains a lot of stuff.
So in order to be able to detect it at such tiny, tiny amounts, they have to amplify it or make multiple copies.
And that's really what the PCR test does.
Short, single-stranded pieces of DNA called primers recognize unique RNA sequences within the viral genome that bracket the target region of the N gene.
After the first primer binds, an enzyme called reverse transcriptase extends, synthesizes, a single-stranded DNA copy of the viral RNA. Okay, so I want to stop here because this really shows the important part that we need to pay attention to.
That you see on the bottom right hand, there's this short primer, right?
So that's the only thing that we have identified in advance, like we created the primer.
We could make a primer for any sequence, for any organism.
And then when we put that in this reaction, basically we're looking for a piece of genetic material from some organism that matches it, is the complement, okay?
Because when these two strands go together, they have a complementarity.
It's like a plus and a minus that attract each other.
And it's G's and C's and A's and T's.
Okay, so this is going to look for a specific sequence in the sample that we're trying to find.
And what the long strand that you saw in this video is, that's the sequence that could be from another organism that we're identifying.
Now, since the primer, at least one of the primers that we have been talking about, is an exact match for a sequence in chromosome 8, then it could identify a piece of a transcript from chromosome 8.
Rather than some genetic material from another organism.
In other words, it can detect our own DNA. So I'll just want to share one more thing here to verify to everyone because it's really important to make sure that this information is correct.
And so this is right here.
The sequence of interest.
This 18 letter code and it says it's from the RDRP gene in the virus.
Now I don't know if I can show both of these on the screen at the same time, but I'm going to try my best.
So this, scrolling through right now, is from GenBank, which is part of the National Institutes of Health, where they store all of the sequences from the Human Genome Project and also from other animal genomes.
And so you can see Homo sapiens is human, chromosome 8.
And then all this gobbledygook here is just basically how they took the cell, all the DNA, and split it up for sequencing.
And this is the primary assembly when they did it this way.
But if you look to the bottom of this, and it gives some references, here's the actual sequence.
And that matches exactly this sequence here, which is from...
Sorry, you're in the way.
Where does it say? The Pasteur Institute.
Sorry, it's listed on the top in the file name.
But this is the Pasteur Institute protocol from the World Health Organization.
So you could see those sequences match up perfectly.
So we're in a situation then, correct me if I'm wrong, where the PCR test here is testing for Potentially for material that's in the body as a matter of course.
And if the PCR test gives a positive, they're calling it the virus, SARS-CoV-2.
Is that correct?
Yeah, that is, well, it's a little bit more complicated than that because there's more than one primer that they can use.
So this whole testing thing is very, very heterogeneous around the world.
So in other words, there are different protocols in virtually every country.
And a lot of them are recommended through the World Health Organization, but there are some from other bodies, too.
And they can use different primers.
So, and even when they do just one sample, they're not going to use just one primer for a test and say if that one's positive, it's positive.
So it's not exactly that clear cut.
But what we're talking about here is at least one of the primers that they're using in one of the tests tests for our own sequence.
Okay, so this could come up positive in any human regardless of the presence of any virus or anything else.
So it adds another level of confusion and obfuscation to how do you interpret the results of a test like this.
Now, I still think the most salient point is that we don't know where these sequences came from because there was never a Purified particle of a virus where they had a bunch of them together in one sample, and they could characterize those and pull the RNA material right out of those particles.
They never did it that way.
They only looked at it in this dirty sample, which was a mixture of many, many microorganisms and human cells.
And they pulled these sequences out of there because they thought the sequences belonged to the family of coronaviruses.
But that was based on only about 80% sequence identity between those samples.
And, you know, when I looked and did that research previously with the other probes for a different protocol, for the Germany protocol, I found that many of those primers in that sequence had 80 to 85% sequence identity with stretches in the human genome as well.
I just didn't find a complete match.
Actually, I did find 18 in a row that matched, but those primers were 24 bases long.
So there's a lot of overlap in this.
And then if you also look at the nature of the PCR test itself, is that the enzymes that they use to copy the RNA make mistakes.
And so they could Give you a lot of false positives.
And this is one of the problems that's always been known about this test.
And the more you amplify it, because you do this test in cycles, right?
In each cycle, you double the copies of that piece of RNA that you're looking for.
And the more times you double it, the more false signals that you get because you're also amplifying like the noise signal, which could be other sequences that are partially matched and they're not detectable until you amplify them so many times and then it's like everything that is an artifact in there is also detectable and that gives you a false positive.
And that's one of the main reasons why Carey Mullis did not recommend using this as a diagnostic test.
Because of all those false positives.
But, you know, in my opinion, since we don't know what the origin of this sequence is that they're testing is, other than now we know one of them may come from our own sequences, like the human sequence, then there's really no way to calculate any accuracy.
So I would say, you know, there's 100% error rate with this test.
Well, let's just take a deep breath because we need a few deep breaths given where we are.
We have positives and therefore case figures around the world based on, in many cases, pure symptoms diagnosis and the symptoms can be from many other sources.
We have a test, which I don't even have this phrase in America, but we call it in Britain a dog's breakfast.
In other words, it's a complete mess where we don't know what they're testing for.
They've never isolated, purified, and showed to exist the virus they say they're testing for.
And now we're finding that there are sequences that are part of the human body that are sequences that this is testing for, at least in part.
So that would make the case figures, and of course what's happening now around the world, not least in Britain, is that having new lockdowns, of cities and areas, and in places like New Zealand too, based on cases.
And those cases are coming overwhelmingly from this test.
So if you've got a fraudulent testing system that's completely without credibility as a serious testing mechanism, And then you are saying every positive test of that is a case and the cases mean you have to lock down.
You've got a fraudulent test, you've got fraudulent cases, and you've got fraudulent reasons for lockdown.
Absolutely. Absolutely.
And, you know, it's even more than that because they're sometimes counting one person as more than one positive, like because they do confirmatory tests, right?
And there have been some health professionals who have said that they're reporting both positives as additional cases.
So these numbers are really inflated.
But, you know, what happened, David, is that there was a relatively brief spike in mortality, in excess mortality.
Virtually the same time around the world, but in the United States specifically, it was basically the end of March until mid-May, about a five or six week period.
And after that time, there were no excess deaths.
And the media, if they would report that, then they would have to end the pandemic status and go back to normal.
So they switched their reporting from deaths to cases.
And you could just manufacture cases by simply doing tests.
So you heard, like in the U.S., all these states around the country said, we're going to increase our testing, increase our testing.
Well, that was very predictable that that means you're going to increase your cases.
But by and large, they're testing healthy people.
So whether a healthy person tests positive or not, what does that really mean?
Does it mean anything significant because they're healthy?
Right? So healthy people don't spread illness.
There's no evidence whatsoever that any asymptomatic people can spread any illness in this current pandemic situation.
So we're talking about just a way to justify continuing and increasing these policies that infringe upon our rights.
Well, I can give you a great example of exactly what you're talking about, because my home city of Leicester, where my brother still lives, was re-locked down because the cases went up.
And the difference between the number of cases before and the number of cases afterwards where they said, oh, we've got this spike in cases, we've got to lock down Leicester, was the number of testing centres they introduced.
They introduced a lot more testing centres, they got a lot more cases.
So, We have this kind of bizarre situation where something like 85% of the last figure I saw, a plus, of people that test positive with this test, which is clearly irrelevant, they have no symptoms.
But it would seem obvious they have no symptoms, Andrew, because there's nothing wrong with them.
That's exactly right.
I mean, it's amazing, actually, that in our modern healthcare system, many times we're told that we're sick when we're perfectly healthy.
And, you know, people worry about this a lot.
And so it's not that surprising that they would believe this.
But, you know, if you feel good, you are not sick.
But you also see this other scam which is connected to this.
I mean, it's scam.
It's a network.
It's a tapestry of scams wherever you look with this whole COVID-19 hoax.
But if you are...
Tested positive and you have no symptoms.
There's nothing wrong with you.
This scam says, ah, there's nothing wrong with you, but you can pass it on.
You can pass on something that you haven't got, but this is how they're justifying locking down healthy people.
You know, aside from the fact that there's no empirical evidence, they haven't shown that someone got sick from someone who was asymptomatic.
They even did one study where someone was exposed to over 400 contacts, and not one of them even converted to a positive test, let alone showed symptoms.
So there's lots of empirical evidence that there's no transmission of this, whatever it is, by people who are not sick.
But if you go back and like look at how they tell us viruses actually cause disease, they say basically like they could be in our body in like a quiescent state where they're basically not reproducing.
So they're really, really hard to find because they're at a tiny, tiny level.
And even they talk about this like with hepatitis C, for example, when they do a quantitative PCR test and they say that there are zero copies.
Now that means the virus is still in your body, but it's not active.
Okay, and then when it's active, then it makes just billions and billions of copies and floods your body, right?
Now, if we're testing people who are sick and it's from a virus, wouldn't they have billions and billions of copies of that virus?
They'd be everywhere, right?
And it would be concentrated in their lungs if it was causing a lung illness.
So why do we need to do a PCR test to amplify It's going to be so abundant if it's actually causing the disease.
It doesn't make sense.
We should just be able to detect it straight away without amplification.
It was a great line.
I heard someone ask, why do you have to test people to see if they've got a deadly disease?
It is a stunner.
And this other area that People use or the system uses to say, oh, someone's positive.
These antibody tests.
So we've got the PCR test, which is extraordinarily discredited in ways you've described.
It's basically next to useless in Getting the case figures, which of course become the death figures because the system says if you test positive for COVID-19 or SARS-CoV-2 with a test that's not testing for it, then if you die of anything else, you go on the death certificate as COVID-19.
This is happening all over the world.
It's such an unbelievable, unbelievable scam.
No, David, there was an article in the Daily Mail a few weeks ago where there was a gentleman who had a positive test like two months before his death, and he actually was hit by a bus.
That's how he died. But they marked his death as a COVID death on the death certificate.
So you're right. Anyone that has a positive test on their record, when they die later on, it could very well be labeled a COVID death.
So that is another way they're inflating the numbers potentially.
So putting it simply, before I come back to the antibody test, they're getting the cases overwhelmingly with a test not testing for the virus and with symptom diagnosis from something that can be caused by endless other sources and causes.
And they're getting the deaths by re-diagnosis of COVID-19 of people that have died from something else.
Almost anything else once you've tested positive with an irrelevant test.
Absolutely. It's a stunner.
So the antibody test, Andrew, how does that work and what relevance is it to people being ill?
Well, I'll tell you, you know, compared to the antibody test, I would say the PCR test is accurate.
The antibody test, it's really, really difficult to talk about because I have not seen any published studies.
And, you know, it's really important to know that the regulatory agencies that are supposed to approve these tests, like in the United States, the FDA, In order to get a new diagnostic test approved, you have to do validation studies to show that it actually works.
You have to compare it to a gold standard.
And in this case, like for a test for a virus, a gold standard would be to actually isolate the virus directly.
So you have to compare the test to being able to isolate and purify a virus.
And we know that's never been done for any of the diagnostic tests for COVID because they've actually never done that.
They've never even done the gold standard at all, so they've never compared it to the gold standard.
And in order to get FDA approval for a diagnostic test, you have to do that, and the studies would have to show that it's pretty close to the gold standard in terms of the error rate.
These tests did not get approval from any agency.
The FDA calls it Emergency Use Authorization, EUA. Basically, because we're in a manufactured crisis, but a crisis nonetheless, they say, well, we need something to test, so even though this is really no good, we'll let you use it legally.
But it's not approved.
We're not saying that it works.
And in fact, they issued several guidances.
And in the guidance directly, they said that it is not accurate for diagnostic purposes.
So right there, it should never, ever be used at all.
Because why would you use an inaccurate test?
That even the FDA, who has a low bar for approval, even they say it's not accurate for diagnosis.
So it just shouldn't be used at all.
Well, I think it's akin to Professor Neil Ferguson and his computer models.
They're not bothered about accuracy.
They just want the right outcome.
And if they can use an irrelevant test like PCR, To get the apparent case numbers and an antibody test that, as you say, has never been shown to work, to get case numbers.
And they can use computer models to get projections of numbers which suit the agenda.
That's all they're really bothered about.
I mean, it seems to me that anything to do with pure medicine It is just irrelevant.
It's the outcome that they want to suit their agenda and it's nothing to do with health and protecting health.
You're right. And I think it's important to bring up the HIV test as a historical precedent because, in many ways, I think a lot of how the science and policy was handled around HIV and AIDS was kind of a dry run for this situation.
Like, they tested out some techniques, I think, there.
And the antibody test is one area you consider this.
And Robert Gallo created this antibody test and patented it.
It was never FDA approved because, once again, it was not compared to a gold standard.
And now, you know, 30 years later, we know that it gives you a positive result in over 60 unrelated conditions.
Like after you have a vaccine, if you're pregnant with your second child or third, like all these conditions can give you a positive HIV antibody test and they're all false positives.
So I guarantee that they created these antibody tests with the same goal in mind that they wanted a certain false positive rate.
And you know, even with the HIV test, It could be 100% positive of the population, but they actually have to specially dilute the samples to make sure that there aren't too many positive results.
Just people that say, what's going on?
Yes, exactly. I mean, how these people sleep at night, I have absolutely no idea.
So, in summary of all this, Andrew, basically...
The figures are a nonsense, both the death figures and the case figures, and they bear no resemblance to reality.
Absolutely. They're just leading us on a false path.
And, you know, people are so afraid that they're going along by and large, although a lot of people are starting to realize things more and more all the time.
So... Given what you've explained and the knowledge that you have accrued, and of course you have great experience in medicine, what about your colleagues?
I mean, have they not sussed this as you have?
Well, you know, it's really complicated to look at other medical professionals and especially doctors because they have a lot to lose.
By going against the establishment.
Like, you've heard of State Senator Scott Jensen from Minnesota.
Yes, absolutely. Right?
So, I mean, he was very brave to come out and talk about some of the injustices with the difference in billing, COVID, and ventilator versus non-ventilator, non-COVID. And he ended up getting investigated by the State Medical Board for his license.
Now you know that doctors around the country who were thinking about coming, you know, going public about this, they are seeing that kind of thing.
So there's a lot of risk associated with it, right?
I myself, you know, ended up getting fired from my last regular mainstream medical job as a result of going against these policies.
So, most people, it's just they would have to turn their life around and they're not willing to take that risk.
But also, I think that most of the doctors around are just completely ignorant to the science.
Like, they learn medicine more as a vocation, they're practicing clinical medicine, they're trying to, you know, pay back their loans, make a living, you know, do what the hospital demands of them, and they don't really think too much about big issues.
And it takes a lot of discordance for them to start thinking about things.
But it is happening. I have a good friend who's a nurse in an operating room in a hospital here in New York.
And, you know, he's been, from the beginning, the one to, like, not take any precautions.
And everybody knows he's kind of a little bit of a conspiracy theorist and such.
But what he's found is that now, quietly, some of those doctors and surgeons are approaching to him and saying, you know, what do you think about this situation?
And he was telling me about this, that there were a couple of them asking him, and he said, you know, it hasn't even satisfied Koch's postulates.
And they were like, what's that?
They didn't even know what Koch's postulates were.
So, and these were surgeons.
So it could just be that they're just as mixed up as everyone else and maybe they're afraid and they see everyone wearing all this protective equipment around them all the time and maybe they're not interacting directly with those patients to see that there's nothing going on.
But they may just be going along with it and not really thinking about what they're experiencing.
Do you get the feeling, I'm looking for optimism here, Feeling that more and more, as we go along this road, and obviously the fascistic nature of the impositions justified by this hoax, COVID-19, become more and more severe, and what comes to light becomes more and more obvious that what we were told about this deadly virus is not true.
Are you finding that there are more people in the medical profession that are moving towards Coming out and going public with it?
Yeah, you know, it's really hard to answer that definitively, but I certainly have been seeing doctors speaking out here and there, sometimes even at like town halls or, you know, hearings, like Senate hearings and things like that.
But you know, like even a lot of the times I see those doctors, right, they're not MDs
from the mainstream allopathic. They're like doctors of chiropractic medicine where, I mean, I know most DCs are probably not
fully aware of what's going on either, but they seem to be much more open because they learn about natural healing.
You know, so it's really hard.
I don't, you know, even the doctors that I know personally have some, it's like, it's kind of like this, David.
I was supposed to testify at a hearing for a matter in my county because I was doing expert witness work and this is the last time I ever did this and it was about a month ago.
And I told the attorney in advance, you know, that I wasn't going to wear a mask for the hearing, and they arranged it in a place that was big.
But they still wanted to shoot me with a temperature gun in the forehead, and they wanted me to use hand sanitizer, and they wanted me to answer a health questionnaire and wear a mask to walk up the stairs into the conference room.
And I refused to do any of that, as you might have said.
And I was walking away from a big paycheck, and I knew that I was the main witness for the county and that they would not be able to be successful in their matter without my testimony.
But nonetheless, I'm sticking to my guns.
I mean, I'm not going to ever bend on these issues.
And when he came outside to talk to me, you know, he's like, you know, Why don't you want to do this?
And I explained to him, I said, I don't think that what they tell us is going on is going on, and I'm not going to give up my freedoms and my rights, and nothing you can say will change my mind.
And he said, you know, I kind of agree with you.
But what he didn't say, which was the second part of that is, but I'm not ready or willing to do anything about it.
Except maybe give you a little bit of proper respect, even though you're kind of messing up my day.
The point being, while we acquiesce, it will get more and more extreme.
With every acquiescence, something else is coming around the corner.
You brought something up, actually, that I just wanted to finally talk to you about.
Andrew, the masks and also what I call the unsocial distancing and all these other measures that are being imposed on the basis of health.
But as well as being a doctor of medicine, you are obviously a psychiatrist, an expert in psychiatry.
From where I'm sitting, this looks like behavior modification, not protection from health.
What are your views on the psychological impact, not least on kids, of this mask, social distancing, new normal?
Yeah, well, you know, this is something I'm extremely concerned about, and I certainly will not ever put a mask on my children.
But, you know, it takes away our communication and our ability to socialize.
I mean, you know, we have all this nonverbal communication, and much of it is through facial expressions.
You know, we have something like a hundred muscles in our face so that we can make all these different expressions, right?
And you know, like the people that you have a relationship with in your life, all you have to do is look at their face and you know exactly how they're feeling, right?
Now, when you cover all that up, you can't tell.
Like, I noticed that a simple thing when I go out to a store, and of course, I'm usually the only one not wearing a mask unless I get a shopping group together, which I've done, I can't even recognize people like I'm I sometimes see people that like resemble someone I know but I can't even tell if that's the person you know and everybody is looking down and avoiding eye contact because it's basically in this case covering the face is giving you the message that you're dangerous and that other people are dangerous to you right so there's fear of the other That's going on and this is even happening within families like so many people I talked to that their relatives won't even come near them I mean, it's really, really disturbing.
So think about the implications of affecting all those relationships like that.
Now, if we go back to a psychiatric point of view, I would say probably the darkest emotion that exists for people is shame.
And there's a lot of shame among patients that seek psychiatric care because they're miserable, right?
Because when you're ashamed, you're pretty miserable.
And always one of the clearest indicators of someone carrying around a lot of shame is covering their face.
And they would do it in a number of ways, with hairstyles covering their face, with big sunglasses, with piercings, all kinds of things.
And it's always a dead giveaway pretty much.
And by covering up your face, it's like you're creating shame of yourself.
You're going to get other people sick.
You can't even be seen in public.
I mean, all of these things come up.
Now, when we're talking about for young children, now young children, especially infants and toddlers, I mean, they look to their parent, and if their parent's face is covered, they may not even recognize them as their parent.
Because of certain cognitive aspects of their development so it could be extremely devastating and I know that there's not too many parents you know wearing their mask all the time at home with their baby but they're going out in public and they're talking to people and then they pick up the baby and the baby sees them with their face half covered and you know what kind of reaction is there going to be?
Certainly, the policies in the schools are going to completely ruin a generation of children.
I can't believe that parents would really consider...
For me, whatever I would have to give up to not send my children to school, I would do it.
And in fact, I think...
You know, not wearing a mask is really, really vital.
And I always do that and set an example.
But I think that even possibly a more important example is that we need to start homeschooling our children.
And not participate in this lunacy in the classroom.
And I know that in my area alone, in one school district, and this was a month ago, and I know more people are joining the homeschooling bandwagon, there was already a threefold increase in homeschooling children in that school district.
So this is one of the things that could really, really save us in the long run because we have the opportunity to teach our own children how to see through this stuff and think for themselves and not be indoctrinated in that system.
It's about not participating with our own enslavement and our children's enslavement.
It's funny what you just said, Andrew, because I've got a book over here which is about, in part, The way that very young children, babies and very young children, they get their whole early perceptions of situations from their parents' faces, i.e. if their parents look as if they're anxious because of something that's happened, then the child will react to that and vice versa.
So cover the face.
Where's that gone? You're absolutely right.
Right. I mean, you know the game peekaboo, right?
So we cover our face for a second and then it reappears, then it's humorous to the baby, right?
But what if it just disappears and doesn't come back?
That is going to be extremely stressful.
It's like a compass has gone for a young child.
A reality compass.
That's right. And one final question.
I've been saying for years that this, what I call the cult, the global cult behind this, is actually its big target is the human subconscious mind to plant perceptual patterns there which become conscious to people as what they think of their own thoughts and I mean, I said years ago in a book, before any of this, just walk through any town or city.
And just check how many times you're given an instruction.
Just walking through a town or city.
Well, crikey, what's happened now?
You can hardly move outside your home, especially in a city, without being given an instruction.
And the subconscious is absorbing all these things, isn't it?
Yes, it is. So, you know, you've hit on the reason why our job is so hard to try and bring the truth to people because they don't realize that they've been indoctrinated in this way.
And, you know, like, for me, the germ theory issue really...
It brings this home because that's one of the deepest, deepest things that's ingrained in us since we're babies.
You know, that we can pass germs around and get each other sick and it's well ingrained and it's really hard to get at that and people, you know, Think about it as if that it's been completely scientifically proven, right?
But they've never actually looked at any of the science around it, of course.
They've actually just been told it since they were really, really young children, so it's been part of their almost identity.
And of course, the bigger or more broader aspect of this is that we are taught to get our information from experts, designated experts and authority figures.
In school, in compulsory schooling, they tell us what the truth is.
There's no inquiry.
There's no discovery.
There's no research. There's no critical analysis.
It's pretty much being told information and then you're said to be smart if you memorize that information and can regurgitate it back.
But there's nothing around critical thinking.
And so we have now basically like a population of adults without critical thinking skills and without the wherewithal to question things and to understand what dogma is so that they can uncover it and And not necessarily, you know, follow along and make decisions based upon it.
But it's a real big uphill climb.
And, you know, I'm not sure why some people are able to see things or not.
But when you're trying to interact or communicate with someone that's indoctrinated in that way and they're not aware of it, you can't have a rational discussion.
Because they can't objectively consider information.
And this is why it's very, very difficult.
And I look at it, you talk about the Sabbatean cult a lot, but I feel like the general population has been indoctrinated into a cult.
And it's really, really hard to deprogram.
Yeah. I heard a quote once about so much intelligence simply being memory, which is the regurgitation of what you've been told to believe and you think that you are choosing to believe it when actually it's just a program.
Do you, however, finally remain optimistic that we're not Irreversibly destined for this black hole we're heading into?
Well you know I'm very optimistic actually and I know sometimes people are confused about that because you hear me talking about all of the doomsday scenarios but the truth is is that we are completely in power over our own destiny and if we You know, try to do the right thing, try to work on ourselves, improve ourselves, try to see the bigger picture and realize that we are much, much more powerful than we give ourselves credit for.
That we can actually have a better future for ourselves, because this is an opportunity to remake our culture, our form of governance.
100%, yeah.
Right? And so, you know, I'm trying to develop ways to do that for myself and my family, and I'm not waiting for the rest of society to join me necessarily, right?
I welcome them to join me.
But I'm not going to sit around and wait and suffer under this tyranny longer than I have to.
Yeah, I think a simple way of questioning is to realize that authorities lie to you.
They don't lie to you here and there when there's an R in the month.
They lie to you.
It's their reflex action response.
And if that penny drops, then you start to question everything they tell you because you know they're lying to you.
And it is an extraordinary thing how far we've gone that if you invert, reverse...
Virtually everything authority tells you, almost in any area of authority and institution, you're going to be much closer to the truth by inverting what they tell you than if you accept what they tell you.
It's been a real pleasure talking to you.
It's been great to be on video with you for the first time.
Same here. It's about time.
For everything that you've done, because you have been pivotal in your research, forensic research, in unraveling the nuts and bolts detail of how this scam has been played.
Well, I'm trying to do everything I can, David, and I also want to thank you because you have put this whole thing together in the perspective of what you've been saying for the past 20 years, and no one else has done such a comprehensive analysis.
So it's been really great to be able to see that and understand all the implications of it.