All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 1, 2020 - David Icke
46:17
David Icke talks to Dr Andrew Kaufman about the UK government's colossal testing scam
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
♪♪♪ ♪♪♪
♪♪♪ Hello, I was contacted by Dr. Andrew.
Andrew Kaufman this week from America.
Andrew, of course, one of the great challengers from the medical point of view of the official narrative of the pandemic hoax.
And he's become very well known for his forensic dismantling of that story, not least the Tremendous inadequacies of the testing process.
And he said he wanted to make some points about something called Operation Moonshot.
Now this was revealed in leaked documents to the British Medical Journal, the BMJ. And it is a UK government plan for a colossal increase in testing.
And the more you increase the tests, the more cases you get, actually fake cases will get into that.
And so the more excuses you then have for more lockdowns, because we've got all these cases with a test that's not actually testing for the virus.
So this enormous increase in testing, they want to be testing 10 million people a day in Britain.
By early 2021 is going to produce an equally extraordinary number of fake cases.
And so the cost of it alone is fantastic.
It's estimated in these documents to be about 100 billion pounds at a time when people are increasingly struggling to pay the rent and put food on the table.
But never mind. Control is what this is all about.
So anyway, we had a chat a few minutes ago, myself and Andrew, and this is how it went.
So, Andrew, welcome again.
Operation Moonshot, where do you want to start?
Well, you know, first of all, thank you for doing this with me because I found out about this and that it's in the UK and I thought it was really important because, you know, this is the first time we have actual evidence from the government directly about exactly what they're planning in the near future.
And this was published in the British Medical Journal, which is where I found it.
And Operation Moonshot is basically a plan, I think, from Boris Johnson to ramp up the COVID testing to a scale that's unimaginable.
In fact, they want to, by 2021, test the entire population on a weekly basis.
And there are many, many implications for this that I want to discuss with you.
But I thought to really understand how this will affect the population, it would be really helpful to just clear up some things about the test.
Because especially the false positive rate, which a lot of people talk about, I realized that, you know, people don't have a general conception of exactly what that means and how to apply it to the situation.
So I thought I'd give a little bit of lesson on that.
And then apply it to Operation Moonshot to see, you know, exactly how many people are going to be affected by this and in what way.
Okay. So I'm going to share the screen here because I have a little slideshow.
If I can find it here.
There it is. And this will help guide us through my little lesson here.
Okay. So the test itself, we'll talk a little bit about, is not really an accurate test because when you develop a new diagnostic test for a medical condition, you have to do what's called a validation study.
In other words, to determine if the test is valid.
And to do that, you compare it against a gold standard.
So in this case of a viral illness, the gold standard would be the presence of an actual viral particle.
But they've never compared the PCR test to that, to any gold standard.
So there's no known error rate for this test at all.
And so you can't calculate a false positive rate because you would need the error rate.
So in other words, how many times does a person who really has a virus causing an illness have a positive test?
And that has never been studied.
So we have kind of a problem and throughout this talk I'm going to have to use some imaginary numbers because there are no real numbers.
In other words, there's no firm diagnosis for COVID-19.
There's not like an autopsy that you can do and you find a certain thing under the microscope and you say 100% sure that's COVID-19.
They don't test anyone for the presence of virus particles other than like two or three people here and there in a published study, but it's never been done on a large scale.
So we really don't know how many people have this disease.
And we don't know what the error rate of the test is.
But what I'm going to do is use government numbers from the the UK government because they put out estimates for all these things and we'll just use their numbers to calculate what it would mean.
So they put out this document that's referenced on the bottom from the Government Office for Science where they said based on these past studies of other viruses and other PCR tests The error rate would range, sorry, the false positive rate would range from 0.8 to 4%.
But they said that the median or the middle value is 2.3%.
So they would say use that number basically as an estimate of the false positive rate.
Now most people think what false positive means is that the number of people who have a positive test, that 2.3% of those people, it's not actually positive.
But that's not what it means.
What it really means is, of all the people who don't actually have the disease, how many of those people would have a positive test?
Okay, so if you have a rare, relatively rare disease, like let's say it affects 1% of the population.
Okay, so one out of 100 people.
That means that you have 99 people who out of 100 who don't have the disease and 2.3% of those people are going to give you a positive test.
So approximately two people.
So you can see when you have a disease, even as rare as one in a hundred with a 2.3% false positive rate, you're going to get three positive tests for every hundred people, but only one of them is going to actually have the disease.
Okay, so this is the kind of analysis that I want to walk you through.
So here are some of the government numbers that we're going to plug into this kind of mathematical formula here.
And this comes from the ONS. And of course, this is also an estimate, but they have a protocol that is trusted by some other scientists who have written some articles.
So I want to use their numbers.
And what they said, the most recent week that I could find, September 13th to 19th, they said that 1 in 500 people had COVID-19, or 0.2% of the population.
And in the summer when it was less common than it is now, there was one in 2000 or 0.05%.
So we're going to use those two numbers to see what they would mean in like an example group of 10,000 people.
So let's say we use the numbers from the fall and we have a group of 10,000 volunteers who are going to take the test.
Now we know from the rate in the fall of 1 in 500 that there would be 20 of those people out of 10,000 who actually had the disease.
So how many false positives would there be?
So if we take the remaining people who don't have the disease out of the 10,000, which is 9,980, so almost the whole group, And 2.3 of that number is going to be 230 false positives.
So we have only 20 people who really have the disease, but we have 250 who gave a positive test.
So you can see that the headline could read there were 250 new cases, but really there are only 20.
Now, if we take that a step further, because this is the question that most people want to ask, like their doctors.
So if I have a positive test, what's the chance I really have the disease?
So we can calculate that by taking the number of people with the actual disease and dividing it by the number of people who tested positive, which is 250, and you see that is only an 8% chance that if you have a positive, In the fall that you actually have the disease.
That's very, very low.
Okay? So this basically gives you an exaggeration factor of 12 and a half.
So it exaggerates the number of cases by 12 and a half.
Now, if we go back and do the same analysis for the summer, where it was less common, it was about one-fourth as prevalent, right?
From one in 500 to one in 2,000, and use those numbers.
Now, if you have a positive test, you only have a 2% chance of actually having the disease, and this is almost a 50-fold exaggeration.
So you could see when they're reporting the testing results in the summer, which they used to cancel a lot of summer events and make policy decisions, they were exaggerating the number of real cases, if you believe that these numbers about the test are accurate.
By almost 50 times.
So you can see that could really scare the public and get them to go along with almost anything.
And I'll tell you that there was one published paper that was later withdrawn, where they also tried to estimate the false positive rate.
And in that case, they estimated at 80%.
So you can see that if we plugged 80% into this, it would be like a 500-fold increase in the number of false positives reported.
Since we don't know what the number actually is, we're just using these numbers, and I think these numbers vastly underestimate the real error rate of the test.
So now I want to apply this to the plan for 2021, which is set out in Operation Moonshot.
Okay, and so here's the British Medical Journal article that I mentioned earlier.
And quite interesting, David, look at the publication date.
Yeah. So, you know, is that a coincidence or not?
I'm not sure. But nonetheless, so here we have the plan for Operation Moonshot is to ramp up the testing over the months in the fall, and by 2021 they're going to have what they call full rollout, which essentially amounts to 10 million tests each day, and in one week that will cover the entire population of the UK, which is about 67-68 million.
Now, if we use the most recent numbers from September, where the prevalence is 1 in 500 people actually have this illness, that would amount to 20,000 out of 10 million people.
Okay, so that's still a pretty small number.
But if we look at how many false positives it would create, we can see that it will be almost 230,000.
False positives. And so they would basically say out of 10 million each day, there would be a quarter of a million new cases, except only 20,000 would actually be real cases.
Okay, so we're talking about 250,000 people.
I'm sorry, 230,000 people a day who are mislabeled as having this disease, but they're actually healthy.
Okay, that's quite a lot of people.
So this amounts to one and a half million false positives each week and one in 43 people.
So each week in 2021, one out of every 43 people will be mislabeled as COVID positive when they actually are perfectly healthy.
Now, they further outline in this plan that these testing results will be put into some kind of digital passport that we'll be required to have, and it'll keep weekly information about our testing results and probably other personal health information.
And this will affect your ability to access a variety of services and activities in society.
And this is laid out right in the plan.
So this is the language right out of that publication.
So attending medical appointments, being able to work, being able to access a venue for entertainment or other purposes.
They specifically did mention a football stadium.
And being able to travel.
And they mentioned specifically to visit elderly relatives, which, you know, is the only semi-reasonable part of this.
But they mentioned specifically flying, so that you will not be able to travel internationally.
Unless you have the appropriate negative testing data.
So, but we're talking about that the overwhelming majority of people who have a positive test are false positive.
So all these people are going to be basically stuck in quarantine and it's going to be a lot of people, right?
One and a half million people every week can't go to work.
The fines for not isolating when you have a positive test are already phenomenal.
So, you know, you can see that it would get to a point where basically, you know, you leave your house and you can't actually do anything unless you have this passport and it says the right thing.
And even if you have it, there's a good chance that within a year, you're going to be positive whether you're sick or healthier or otherwise.
So essentially, this operation really amounts to fascism.
100%. I see in the BMJ document, it actually talks about when you have a test, it gives people assurance, at least for a limited time, that they are unlikely to have the virus.
And therefore, you're looking at constant testing of the population ongoing.
Absolutely. It's one thing if someone comes in with the appropriate symptoms of respiratory distress to the hospital or another healthcare setting and you offer them a test.
If you believe that the test is valid, that is an appropriate use of the test because you want to confirm that they don't have some other form of pneumonia and that it's this.
If you trust the test, it can give you that information.
But even on the package label from the manufacturer for the PCR test, and I looked this at Roche's product, so R-O-C-H-E, one of the largest manufacturers of these PCR tests, and on there it says that this is a test for the virus RNA. It says it right there in plain English.
And it also says that you should use the results of this in conjunction with other clinical factors in order to make a diagnosis.
So in other words, what they're saying is the test by itself is not enough to give you a diagnosis, even in someone who is symptomatic.
So when you apply this to the healthy population, then you're going to get this huge error.
Huge, huge error.
Because even if you get a false positive on someone who's sick, they still need treatment anyway.
But if you label healthy people as sick, and doing this, you know, one and a half million people in the UK each week, it's gonna, I mean, first, obviously, for individual freedoms, it's a total travesty.
But it's going to shut down the society.
It's going to bring productivity down really substantially because that portion, and it's more than 1% of the population, each week is going to be out of commission.
Yeah, I did have to smile, Andrew, when I saw this.
It's talking about The need in Operation Moonshot to have a whole range of new ways of testing because of the amount of people that they want to test.
And it says that the PCR test Will be the most accurate of them.
And that these other tests will not be as accurate as the PCR test.
So, I mean, you're in the world of madness where you're going to have endless, quote, positive tests for people who are perfectly well and healthy.
That's going on now. But if they're bringing in tests that they are saying here are not as accurate as the PCR, Then it's insanity we're looking at.
That's right, because, you know, as I've explained, the PCR test is not even close to being accurate, right?
So if you introduce even more error, then, you know, of course, you have a big risk of labeling even more people incorrectly.
So, yeah, this is, you know, it's really crazy.
And, you know, I thought this was so important because this is the actual government telling you exactly what their plan is, you know, straight out.
And if you look carefully at the government documents about this test, you can see that they know it's not accurate, right?
None of these diagnostic tests have been approved by any government agency, right?
Like the FDA in the United States who approves all diagnostic tests.
They only received emergency use authorization.
And in the guidance from the agencies on that, they basically discuss how they don't really know the accuracy of the test, because it would take years to do the testing.
Appropriately validating the accuracy of the test.
And there's, you know, obviously time is short.
I agree with that because everything happened quickly, but nonetheless that doesn't change the reality that you don't know anything about the accuracy of the test because there hasn't been any tests, any studies done.
Like there's no studies published.
On the accuracy of this test.
Whereas for all other diagnostic tests, they take, you know, years to develop and they have all the studies, they get approval from the agency, which means that they had to demonstrate that it's accurate.
This has not been done at all.
So the fact that they are tying so many important things to a test that's not accurate at all, you know, we could easily see who is sick.
And those are the people that if there really is contagion, which there's no evidence of, but those would be the people who would transmit it.
Even, you know, experts like Dr.
Fauci have spoken over and over again that people who are not sick are not going to keep a pandemic alive.
The momentum can't come from them because if there is transmission, the rate is so low that it's essentially unimportant.
I mean, we've reached the point where whether the virus actually exists or whether it doesn't has become close to an irrelevant debate in the sense that the numbers, the official numbers, are so low And the ratios of infection to fatality so unbelievably low that even if you accept it exists, I do not.
Then what is being done in its name bears no resemblance to any kind of rational reality.
And therefore, obviously, it's being done for another reason, which is nothing to do with protecting people's health.
Absolutely. And this is why I think a lot of more physicians are coming out now, like you have this big group in Germany and Spain and in South America, because they, you know, it might be too difficult for them to look closely at the existence of the virus itself, but they can certainly now with so much time and, you know, I mean, if you're a doctor and you've been in the hospital all this time, you've been in an empty hospital.
So, you know, how long can that go on before you say enough's enough, and I got to start speaking out about this, that this is something else is going on here.
And so that's what you're seeing more and more.
But, you know, I'll tell you, I watched the, and I got roped into this because it was kind of torture, but I watched the presidential debate last night.
Right. And what I realized is, because I generally, you know, avoid any kind of mainstream political, you know, programming, but I realized that if you are only looking at the TV to get your information and you're not independently researching or looking at other sources, They've got you so scared about what's going on.
And these are the official people, and they're speaking, telling things as if they're facts.
And you can tell that they don't even really know.
They don't understand any aspect of this, those presidential candidates.
They're being told what to do, I'm sure.
But I could see how the average person is just, you know, totally misled.
I mean, it's amazing.
The story that they're telling, there's like no basis in reality.
I mean, Joe Biden made this comment to like all you people out there who have an empty chair in your kitchen table because someone died of COVID. I don't know a single person who has that situation, right?
But given how they're acting, we would expect it to be every household.
Yeah, and you know, those that do have a mind of their own and do look for information elsewhere, it's probably difficult for them to appreciate how anyone could not see it.
But you're absolutely right.
When you then talk to people who only get their information from the mainstream media, the BBC, CNN, whatever, then that's all they've ever heard.
And you see these opinion polls where they're questioned, how many people do you think have died of this?
How many cases are there?
What's the percentage of young affected compared with old?
What people say is extraordinary in its inaccuracy, but they're just repeating what the media says.
It's been an extraordinary psychological programming of perception over the last few months that has basically gripped the minds of the vast majority of the population.
Absolutely, and including highly educated professionals all the way down to homeless people.
Yeah, I talked to someone today.
I was talking to someone in a cafe, actually, and pointing out about, you know, the mask is A, not protecting you, and B, is potentially, cumulatively going to give you health problems.
And someone at a table said, that's not true.
And I said, well, I gave him chapter and verse of the The background that it was true.
And what was coming out of his mouth, which he thought was his own opinion, this is the conceptual deception that goes on, where people hear this stuff coming from the government, then they recycle it, but in recycling it, they perceive it as their own opinion.
And what was coming out was the government narrative, and he would have only ever seen that.
That's right. No, I mean, there aren't too many people who really make their own opinion about things.
You know that certainly repeating what's in the media is very common and then also many people, you know, just pick certain I would call grandiose other who they look to and basically whatever opinion that person has, they adopt. Right?
And also feeling that it's their own opinion.
And perhaps they did initially be attracted to that person or that particular side of the political spectrum.
They would watch the liberal media or watch the conservative media.
But nonetheless, it's the same thing.
It's just the information. This is what we're trained to do in compulsory schooling.
We're trained to take in the information given to us by the authority figures and the designated experts.
And memorize that and regurgitate it, not critically analyze it, not compare different opinions, not seek other information, but to accept it and, you know, regurgitate it.
And that's exactly what you see people doing.
And you do that so many times, and it's the only thing you know.
So, of course, it feels like it's your own opinion or your own thoughts, because you're so far...
You know, gone from critical reasoning that you don't remember what it's like to synthesize, you know, your own opinions or to have that intense curiosity that you have to find out what is going on behind this issue, you know, and you're going to dig every hole as deep as it goes to find that out.
And that's the kind of Way that I think we need to have organized a new way of living so that everyone is able to be responsible.
Not that everyone has to know everything, right?
But everyone has to learn about something important to them.
And everyone doing that together can really solve so many problems and collaborate successfully.
I have a starting point from which I observe everything.
Governments lie. Authority lies.
It's their job. It's what they've always done.
Occasionally they'll tell you the truth and then you are pleasantly surprised.
But if you start off from the perspective that governments lie, therefore anything they tell you must be questioned.
Then you start to develop your own perception instead of getting it off the shelf.
And from my experience, your experience, over a lot of decades, when you question and research what governments tell you, it is invariably a lie and usually a colossal whopper.
Which these people are fantastic at coming out with.
I just wanted to mention something else about the PCR test.
And that's the cycles of amplification.
Because I saw these figures.
It was in a New York Times article, actually, funnily enough, staggeringly.
But from a New York State lab, 43% of positives at 40 cycles, because you will explain how they amplify the test.
The test sample, 43% of positives at 40 cycles of amplification would have been negative at 35, and at 30, 63% would have been.
And a Massachusetts lab, at 40 cycles, if you take 40 cycles of amplification, and then you compare that with 30, Then at 30, 85 to 90% of positives at 40 would be negative at 30.
And the National Health Service in Britain, coming back to Operation Moonshot, is according to its own document using 45 cycles.
So what are the misrepresentation implications of that?
Yeah, well, I mean, this is really critical.
There are so many sources of error with the PCR test, you know, just inherent in the test itself, like you're talking about, with how the procedure is done, and then also with respect to the specific thing that it's measuring.
It's really designed as a research tool and it can find tiny, tiny little fragments that there's, you know, only one or two copies of, of a gene sequence, right?
So you could learn about an organism that's rare or hard to find or a gene that's not very much expressed and you amplify it.
So what you basically do is you have a little, like, thing that matches certain sequences or a little part of it, kind of like a key that unlocks a door.
And you tag those sequences out of your mix.
And each cycle, you double the amount.
So if you only start with, like, let's say, two copies of this sequence, after doing one cycle, you have four.
After the second cycle, you have eight.
And then, you know, 16, 32, 64, And so on and so on.
And you know that once you get through a certain number of cycles, that number gets huge, right?
Like 10 to the 20th power, huge, right?
One with 20 zeros after it.
So if you have one with 20 zeros after it and you double that, right, you can see you're going to get a much, much bigger increment than going from two to four or four to eight.
So what happens is that the more you amplify it, the more chance that you'll get a false signal, like that some noise in there that doesn't actually match the sequence you're looking for will give you a positive result.
And the absolute upper limit that's recommended in the literature is 45 cycles.
So you're basically getting the maximum amplification without having 100% positive.
Because if you went beyond that, you would get 100% of your samples would be positive.
So you see that, let's say that you're designing this test and you want it to yield a certain number of positive results.
All you have to do is adjust the number of cycles of amplification, like you pointed out, and more cycles and more positive results, less cycles, less positive results, right?
So since just the cycles affect it, you can tell that that doesn't mean that the virus appears in new people.
Right? It's just an artifact of the test.
And so if you wanted 30% to be positive, you set it for 30 cycles, right?
If you want a higher positive, you set it for this.
And when you decide your protocol, you can basically tweak it to whatever outcome you want.
And that's essentially what they're saying in these protocols.
And this is why there is no centralized protocol for this.
Every country and even within countries, different municipalities would have different protocols, different manufacturers would have different protocols in terms of which primers they use, the number of cycles, the specific technique, all of that.
It's a big mess.
Whoa! I mean, basically, it's a manipulator's charter, isn't it?
I mean, they can make it appear to be whatever they want with the cycles, the PCR test in the way it's being used.
Right, and also how you prepare the sample is another way.
You can dilute the sample before you put it in there, or you can leave it concentrated.
And depending on what you do there also is going to determine the percent positive.
So even if you keep the cycles, you know, unified.
So there's many ways you can Sort of fix this test to give you the outcome that you want.
It's just really like fixing a sporting event or some other gambling operation that you tweak these things behind the scenes and then you get a different outcome.
If people stop being tested and they stop fixing the death certificates by putting COVID-19 when it's another cause, what do you think would be the Well, I think that no one would realize that there was anything going on whatsoever out of the normal.
I mean, you know, if you don't look at your TV and don't see people wearing masks and acting weird, there's no indication whatsoever that there's any crisis going on.
You don't see people sick.
You don't hear people sick.
You don't see hospitals overflowing.
You know, where there's really nothing to observe other than the TV. And, you know, I call it every time I go to a store, it's filled with surgeons.
So it's the surgeons and the TV. That's the only indication that something's going on.
Well, I live on an island just off the south coast of England, the Isle of Wight, and there are a lot of old people who come here to retire.
There's a lot of care homes.
There's a lot of people that just retire here who are elderly.
And we should have people, according to the official story, going down like ninepins everywhere with this thing.
But we haven't.
It's been, you know, nothing.
And when you say to people, well, how do you explain that?
They say, oh, we've just been lucky.
Everywhere is the same story.
In America, everywhere is the same story.
You know, there's a few isolated places, right, where people died, I think, due to policies and hospital procedures, right?
Like New York City was one of the biggest places.
And I heard, you know, from someone else that Peru, there may have been some areas of Peru that were like that, right?
Because perhaps they picked regions to make sure that there was something to put on the news that would scare people.
But if you, like, you know, that's not how a virus would work.
If everywhere people were affected, they would all have similar outcomes.
You know, especially within a country where every, you know, there's a similar standard of living and cultural factors and the same healthcare system.
So, you know, within the United States, you saw like California had a very high case rate, a very high hospitalization rate, but no excess deaths.
Whereas New York, Had, you know, similar case rates and hospitalization rates, but a huge death rate because of what they did in all the hospitals and care homes in New York.
You know, I think, or perhaps there was some other thing going on specifically in New York, but why would you have the same prevalence of the illness in two different places that have the same healthcare system and the same culture?
In one place, a bunch of people die.
In another place, nobody dies beyond normal.
You know, so nothing fits with this.
But that was only during a limited time period that that happened for about five or six weeks between the end of March and the beginning middle of May.
Since then, there's really been no signal at all in terms of mortality.
All of the information that's driving the policies is all related to this test results.
And what they call cases.
And it's not a case because a case means that you have an illness.
What they're talking about is people with a positive test that we don't know the accuracy of or what it really means.
So essentially it's meaningless.
But what we don't see is we don't see the hospitals full and people sick and dying.
And that's what you would have with an actual pandemic.
How do you see, Andrew, finally, it moving from here through the Northern Hemisphere winter?
Because the flu figures in Australia for 2019, because they've been in their winter, are like that.
And the flu figures for 2020 are like that.
And in South Africa, The flu has basically disappeared.
The last time I looked about two weeks ago, the biggest or the province with the biggest city Johannesburg in the capital Pretoria had one case of flu, but the figures for SARS and COVID were rising.
So how do you see this going through the winter?
Because it seems we're going to see a lot of redesignation once the classic flu respiratory season and the normal winter diseases start to unfold.
Well, you know, I mean, partly I think it's a good idea to look at the southern hemisphere because they're coming into the spring now.
And, you know, Australia is, I think, a model for how this might play out in the northern hemisphere in times to come, which is a really scary proposition.
And they also have had really hardly any deaths or any, you know, real effect from an illness.
And I also think that this Operation Moonshot really gives us an idea of what's going to happen.
So they're going to take what they did last year at the end of the flu season, and they're going to obviously optimize that as much as possible.
So by giving all these tests, basically out of those one and a half million people each week, Anyone in that group who dies is going to be blamed on COVID, and then that's going to be used to inflate the numbers, of course.
So they'll continue that, but this time they'll have much larger numbers because of the testing.
But it's possible that they might, you know, unleash something that would really make people sick.
I mean, there were some hints of that from Bill and Melinda Gates.
But, you know, I think we have to see.
But, you know, it seems that the plan to ramp up the control of society towards the fascist state is still going strong.
Big time happening here.
Big time. And you know they have a huge playbook.
I mean, if you look on that World Economic Forum website and look at the organizational chart, you know, you see that it covers anything you could possibly think of.
So, you know, what might be pulled out?
I mean, what do you think might be coming, you know, this fall and winter?
Well, I think the The happenings in Victoria, Australia, are a blueprint in terms of the fascism.
And we're moving there so fast now in Britain.
Because they have a script, they have an outcome, and they are just producing fake excuses to justify the outcome.
And what I was going to mention to you is, just before Offabration Moonshot really kicks off, The British government says it wants 30 million people in Britain to have a flu vaccine, including children.
Or you can have it free, or you have to pay for it.
So I can't help but think that's significant.
Well, you know, that is an interesting point because, you know, I've recently been...
A lot of people send me information about some of these theories that there's an engineered virus and germ warfare, and there's this Chinese scientist who's speaking out recently about that.
And so I got to thinking, knowing how that would actually play out in the laboratory.
And essentially, this is kind of similar to how they manufacture vaccines, is how they might make such a thing, because they're basically putting poison tissue from sick animals or humans into a cell culture.
And in this case, perhaps they're looking for certain genetic sequences that they think represent an HIV virus or something else, you know, that they think is dangerous.
But essentially, they're making a toxic suit.
And, you know, I don't think there's any evidence that anything like that could be deployed in the air or that it would spread from person to person, but certainly you could inject it into people.
And make them sick, right?
And this is essentially what has happened in the history of vaccine research that, you know, like if you look at the Salk vaccine, for example, it's a great example of that because, you know, so many people got sick from it actually getting polio and paralysis from it that they took it, they had to basically get rid of it.
It was too toxic. So they could make a concoction like that and it could potentially end up in a flu vaccine.
And then the people who get that vaccine would end up very sick and of course they would be labeled as COVID. The only, you know, problem with that is that it would probably be recognized because there would be this correlation.
Everyone who died of COVID got a flu shot because there were theories about that in the spring and there were some studies looking at that and they didn't really find a strong correlation.
So that would definitely have to be, you know, a careful strategy.
But we know that the flu shot already, just the way it is, without anything else added to it, especially for the COVID pandemic, is already very toxic.
In fact, it's one of the vaccines that has the highest rate of Guillain-Barre syndrome, which is basically paralysis or partial paralysis of your body, and sometimes it's not reversible.
It's persistent.
Like, we've all heard stories about the swine flu vaccine, which had a really high rate of those kinds of problems.
So essentially, you know, already have the flu shot making people sick, and it certainly would be an easy place if you wanted to make more people sick to put something into any kind of injectable medication.
If it were snuck in there somehow, that could have profound effects on health.
Well, it's kind of maybe significant and appropriate that Sadiq Khan, the mayor of London, just had a photo opportunity of him getting his flu shot with, you know, the person just about to put it in.
And then when you have a close-up, the top is still on the needle.
It hasn't even...
Yeah, of course.
Yeah, so...
There was probably just salt water in there.
But, you know, there was... Back in, I think it was 2014, there was a doctor, a PhD of marketing and public relations, who did a presentation at the CDC. Basically, I think it was like seven steps to get people to take a flu shot.
And one of those steps was to show famous people or important people on TV getting a flu shot.
So that's actually a marketing tool to encourage people to take flu shots.
Yeah, funny enough, there was a story of the World Health Organization Employing a marketing promotion company in America to identify famous celebrities to place their opinion, which was backing up the official story of the COVID narrative.
They use them all the time.
But anyway, we're not going to fall for it.
And lovely to talk to you again.
And I'm sure we'll be talking again soon, Andrew.
▲
Export Selection