All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 9, 2024 - The Truth Central - Dr. Jerome Corsi
46:04
Inside the World Health Organization's Dangerous and Aggressive Power Grab with Dr. Kat Lindley
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This is Dr. Jerome Corse and this is The Truth Central.com We're doing a podcast every weekday.
And we have a guest today with a very special guest, Dr. Katarina Lindley.
And Dr. Lindley has been doing really outstanding work on the World Health Organization.
This is a very important topic.
World Health Organization is making a power grab and talking about disease X and the ability to shut down the world and another lockdown on the authority of the WHO alone.
And Dr. Lindley has been an expert on this, really giving testimony around the world and her Very, very prominent on X, a lot of good information being posted, and it's going to be a real pleasure and honor to talk with her today.
So, Dr. Lindley, welcome.
We're glad to have you with us.
Thank you for having me.
Thank you.
So, give us the background here.
What is the World Health Organization doing?
What's currently in motion?
In 2021, several governmental heads and the agencies got together and said, we need to do something.
If pandemic happens again, we need to coordinate our responses and things like that.
And that's when they came up with this idea of negotiating the pandemic treaty.
At the time, it was called the treaty.
And along with the treaty, they started negotiating amendments to international health regulations.
Now, these are two different documents.
The International Health Regulation that was actually adopted in 69 then amended in 2005 and in 2022 they had a few amendments that also passed.
Those are already part of a Laws, treaties that we've negotiated.
So those kind of go through a different set of ratifications through our member states and in actuality they actually don't need to be ratified.
Once they are amended they just need to be enacted.
We have about 10 Months after they are amended to opt out.
Otherwise they're kind of automatically, were automatically opted in.
So they started working on those, but at the same time they started working on this pandemic treaty.
And pandemic treaty is the one that's usually in the news.
They've changed the name from the treaty because people kind of reacted to that.
So they called it at one point Accord, CA++, Zero Draft.
And more recently, they're going with the word Agreement.
Because I think they're kind of trying to get the public to be more amiable to it and agree to it.
But essentially, like you said, it's really a power grab through different Adoptions of the rules and these amendments on how they would, you know, tell us what to do in an event there is a new pandemic.
It's fairly comprehensive.
I mean, they're really wanting to, it's not just setting a few rules, it's really gaining control of everything.
I mean, why don't you, let's go through some of the features.
First of all, Under these new set of, whether it's going to be rules or treaty, whether it's going to have to go to Congress or go through, you know, for ratification or however they slip this through.
First of all, the Biden administration is working actively on this with the World Health Organization.
Isn't that true?
Yes.
The HHS, the Health and Human Services Department is the one that's negotiating through the amendments and the treaty for the administration.
So in other words, I want to look at this as really a cooperative effort with the Biden administration.
And if that's the case, you know, you've got the U.S.
government trying to give power, in fact, sovereignty over us to the WHO.
Because if I'm right, the WHO on their own authority could say that there is a pandemic or another crisis related to health that requires a shutdown.
Am I wrong about that?
So most of the amendments in particular were actually submitted by the United States, so you're not wrong.
And they would give the authority to declare a lockdown over some pandemic or some illness that the United States would have no choice but to comply with, is that right?
So a couple of things have changed.
In the Article 1 of the amendments, they crossed out the wording, non-binding recommendations, and left it as recommendations.
But then throughout the document, you have 168 times, it said that the parties shall do this.
The parties shall do that.
So these become now obligatory rules that we have to follow.
In particular, Article 18 of the amendments is the one that, for me, is very important to understand.
So, let's say there is an outbreak.
I always use Brazil and my friends in Brazil.
They always ask, why Brazil?
But anyway, let's say there is an outbreak of something in the jungle of Brazil.
And, you know, WHO finds out about it, they send a team or whatever, and they decide to call this Public Health Emergency of International Concern.
Now, Brazilians can say, you know what?
This happens all the time.
We're not really concerned.
It's not a big deal.
But it doesn't matter anymore.
Because this Article 18 will give Director General powers to proclaim the Public Health Emergency of International Concern, whether the country agrees or not.
Now, once he proclaims this P-H-E-I-C, then there are certain things that he can put into play, and some of them are specific exams, diagnostics, therapeutics, vaccinations, restrictions of travel, quarantine, isolation, and ultimately border closures.
Now, if you look at that, first of all, Now you have WHO who will tell doctors how to treat and what to do with the patients.
And it's interesting because in Article 44, they talk about censorship.
So for example, if I was to say to you, I think we should be doing this, or I write it on X or something, because of the censorship, they will ask member states to enforce it.
So anything that goes against their narratives Um, would be enforceable by the member states and physicians and others could lose their licenses like it happened this past pandemic.
And then if we go back to that Article 18, I, you know, the example I always say, now you're going to have WHO in the exam room between patient and physician, and there won't be any more that individualized care.
We will have to comply with what they want us to comply with.
And then if it comes to sovereignty itself, if you have this entity telling a country that they cannot travel, they cannot, um, It actually talks even about closing the borders when it comes to trade and exchange of goods.
So that does affect the actual sovereignty of the member states themselves.
And there's no check.
Let's say they say that climate change and global warming is a health emergency and to reduce carbon dioxide they're going to shut down the industrial world and everybody's going to lock down until the climate is controlled.
Would they have that power?
Yes, they actually have been pushing this narrative that the climate crisis is a new health crisis.
And throughout the pandemic treaty, they have this language of One Health.
I believe it's now Article 5 of the pandemic treaty.
They kind of keep on shuffling the number for the articles, but I believe it's under Article 5.
And One Health essentially says that the human health is as equal to plants, animals, and it's all under the control of climate change and other things.
So they're already trying to introduce this idea that everything is one health and throughout the documents there is a lot of And what about human rights?
Is there a right to refuse to take one of their vaccines?
I mean, UN has a universal declaration of human rights.
Essentially, under the guise of one hell, they will control every aspect of life on Earth.
And what about human rights? Is there a right to refuse to take one of their vaccines?
I mean, these are, we're supposed, the UN has a universal declaration of human rights.
Are they writing that into this WHO new power grab?
So they actually took it out of, with one part, and I believe it was in the treaty that they took it out.
And then they kind of inserted it later somewhere.
But if you look at it specifically, yes, it would definitely affect human rights.
But even if you look at that Article 44 that I mentioned on censorship, that goes against the United States Constitution and human rights, because it would take away our freedom of speech.
And they could force you to take a vaccination.
What if you refuse to take one of their vaccinations?
That's the question, right?
People always say, how will they enforce this?
So it's kind of interesting to, you have to look at this from different perspective.
You can't look at it in a bubble.
So you have WHO negotiating the treaty and the amendments to the international health regulation.
And then you have, In June of last year, the WHO actually signed an agreement with the European Union, who had the digital vaccine passport that they enacted during the COVID pandemic in Europe.
So now you have this collaboration with the WHO with the digital vaccine passport.
But then look at the United Nations, right?
The United Nations is what I like to call the mother Ship of World Health Organization.
United Nations is working with Central Bank on introducing CBDC in different areas and European Union is having some trials and they're different countries.
They're doing trials on CBDC.
If you truly combine this WHO initiative of digital vaccine passport and the CBDC initiative from UN, we are really not far away from the social credit score on China.
And in the past, people would say, this is a conspiracy theory, right?
But it's really not anymore.
You just have to look at their initiatives.
You know, it's not us talking about it.
We are very close to it.
So, in other words, if you disagreed with the, say, this is not a health epidemic, you know, the climate change is bad science.
It's not true.
They could then censor you.
And if there's central bank digital currency, CBDC, in place, they could cut you off from your money.
They could.
You know, I was just traveling in Europe and First of all, in DFW Airport, they use biometrics when you go.
So the ticketing agent will look at the passport.
But once you get boarding, they don't look at the passport.
They use the biometrics to, you know, make sure that you're Your face and the passport the line so they don't even look at the passport at that point anymore and then when I was in I believe it was Heathrow
In London, the same thing, they actually never look at my passport.
They specifically said they're looking at biometrics and the same thing happened on the Irish side.
So, you know, they're already introducing a lot of these components into our daily lives.
The other thing is when you're buying tickets, specifically in Europe, here is not as much, but in Europe, if you're buying airplane tickets to go somewhere, you see this thing about carbon tax.
They talk about carbon tax and then they'll say like, do you want to pay towards your carbon tax?
At this point, it's all voluntary type of a thing, but it's been happening for a long time.
Even if you think about our debit card, right?
We used to have to show the debit card, show the license.
And then we got to that point where you just, you know, you put the debit card in the machine.
Now, even beyond that, you don't have to put, you just kind of lay it on top of, or you can use your phone.
So we've kind of, along the way, agreed to a lot of these social contracts without realizing it.
And, you know, with international travel, we're doing the same thing with biometrics.
So we are closer and closer to that state where they will be able to say, OK, you don't have enough carbon credit to do this, so you cannot fly out of the country or do something.
And it's interesting to also watch what's happening on the food side with this net zero The climate crisis is a health crisis because they're pushing this whole narrative how eating meat is bad.
And we're seeing farmers all over Europe kind of push back on the whole net zero.
Well, the net zero is also a ridiculous idea.
I mean, the cost of going to net zero would be trillions and trillions of dollars.
The grid is not ready to handle going heavily towards wind and solar.
The electric cars don't work.
I mean, this entire climate change is aimed at destroying the modern industrial state and killing billions of people.
And this, again, these control mechanisms are the same.
I mean, as I've read some of the provisions of these treaties. I'm not sure I've seen the
most recent, but it even allows WHO to sample and keep various pathogens and keep all kinds of, to
collect pathogens and to experiment with them and then to try to develop vaccines.
We don't know the vaccines are going to be gene modifying.
We don't know what the nature of them are, but it's kind of a license to, for the WHO
to go into the biomedical lab business, as I read it.
Is that correct?
It is.
So, I think that's it.
So, throughout the treaty there are different articles and the same with amendments.
They talk about surveillance, they talk about sharing the genetic codes, they talk about, you know, doing research and creating products, sharing patents, and things like that.
Now, one of the things people have to realize, and this is why I say we really are Probably 70% already into this without realizing it.
First of all, One Health You can look in the HHS and kind of just do some searching.
You'll see that there is already one health department and one health wardage inside a lot of different HHS policies that they're doing.
And I've spoken with the Senate Health Committee here in Texas, and CDC is giving a lot of money to the states to do surveillance.
So they already are doing these things that the treaty and the amendments are asking for.
It's really, you know, once this is approved and it goes through, which I do think some versions of it will, it's not like, oh, now we need to build a network.
They already have it.
It's pretty much plugged in into all of our countries and it's just going to be turned on and we're going to have to go along with this.
It's very important, you know, to push back.
As you know, I testified in New Hampshire on a bill that would actually allow the state of New Hampshire to say we will not comply with the recommendations from the WHO.
They don't have really power over the health of our state.
And I think that's very important because we don't want this entity to be making decisions, the health decisions that affect Our families and our state are based on this whole idea that we're going to live for the rest of our lives in the perpetual state of pandemic.
And for that novel pathogen, hey, we're going to create not only different products, but medications.
And as we've seen, you know, people always say follow the money, but it's really true.
There is a lot of money to be made in this business.
Well, the thing with surveillance, what are they surveilling?
I mean, are they just tracking people they don't like or they don't agree with or are not on their narrative?
No, surveillance has to do with the pathogen specifically.
Okay.
They're looking for new pathogens and then they want to share the codes and, like you said, create new products for it.
And you have to worry about the whole gain-of-function research, obviously, because that's what we've seen has happened and the potential, you know, if they were not so freely sharing these things, I don't think we would be where we are currently.
Well, and, you know, surveilling to get the pathogens, You know, we say, well, all this is being sold as it's being, you know, to protect us, that they're going to try to protect you.
But what's to prevent them from surveilling pathogens to find the most lethal and replicating in their laboratories to try to make it a bioweapon?
Exactly.
I 100% agree with you.
Interestingly, you know who's fighting back against some of these provisions?
It's actually pharma, because there is a whole, um, Different language in the treaty about sharing these things and sharing patents and make it all equitable, right?
So Pharma doesn't like this idea either because they don't want to share their patents and products with the rest of the world.
It would almost be like the governments of the world go into the bioengineering business.
They become, take it away from Big Pharma.
I mean, Big Pharma served its purpose.
Now the governments control the medicine.
And what if, you know, we went through COVID and they demonized hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin.
So again, would you be able to even get other remedies which might work in some of these diseases or would you be prohibited from using them?
You wouldn't, because specifically in that Article 18 of the amendments, it says that we would have to use therapeutics, diagnostics, and different products that WHO says we use.
Okay.
And the language, like I said, has changed from recommendations to obligations.
So with the powers they've given themselves, which is powers to compel compliance and universal surveillance and universal watching of everybody, They produce a very dangerous pathogen.
They get this pathogen out in the world and people start dying, getting sick from it.
They deny you the remedies to the disease and propagate a new vaccine that's gene modifying, which further kills people.
I mean, is this a formula to depopulate, to really reduce the population of the world by billions?
Should they find the right pathogen?
I don't know, you know.
I think if you look at the base value of everything that's happening, you could say that.
I am still trying to be hopeful and kind and say no, but I think the evidence is stacked against them.
Well, I'm reluctant to give any government powers, assuming or hoping that they're going to be benign in the use of those powers.
Because the historical experiences of government gets powers, they use them, and they don't necessarily use them in a benign fashion.
But this is even beyond the government, right?
This is where WHO would have that power.
Right.
And as we've seen, you know, as we've seen With past three years they've abused that power, and they haven't done the right thing.
And one of the interesting things is, I don't know if you followed much of this, but recently, sometime this summer, they introduced John Kerry's daughter, who's also a physician, as their climate czar.
And there is this whole huge push to push this whole climate crisis as a new health crisis.
So we have to be very weary of what's happening because they are convinced there's going to be a zoonotic disease that's going to cause the next pathogen and it's all going to be due to the climate change and that's how they're going to control all aspects of life.
They're talking about this disease X.
And they haven't specified what disease X is.
And it would have to be, I would think, a more lethal disease than COVID was.
I would expect that when they introduce disease X, it's going to be with the same type of propaganda.
We'll see hospitals filled with people.
We'll see corpses piling up in the corridors.
They'll be talking about crematorium, which they did on COVID.
And it turned out to be a Truman Show, a staged So, Disease X, they don't know what it is, but it's going to be 20 times deadlier, and they already are in production of creating the vaccine for it.
were really getting sick and the hospitals were probably killing people. Do you agree?
So, disease X, they don't know what it is, but it's going to be 20 times deadlier,
and they already are in production of creating the vaccine for it. CEPI has gone into a
collaboration with Oxford University, I believe.
So, as I said, and if you watch Tedros and listen to him speak on different things, he loves to say, we have to act now.
If we don't act now, our children are not going to forgive us.
And there is this unknown disease that is coming that it's going to be much deadlier.
So we need to do something.
The world depends on us.
That's essentially his message.
And he is pushing that message because he's trying to put pressure on the member states to agree to it.
In all honesty, if member states agree to give WHO powers, they're going to keep on, like I said, keep us in this perpetual loop of pandemics so they can exert even more power on the states.
And we're going to live under global governance.
There's no doubt about it.
Because if WHO can call public health emergency of international concern in any area, you know, they can decide You know what?
South America is being a little bit too free, you know, with the new governments that are putting out there.
Let's, you know, let's see if something's going on.
And they call this PHEIC and all of a sudden they close their borders.
We'll learn once you start closing the borders and have lockdowns and things like that, the economy goes down.
The freedom is taken away and more and more of our rights are taken away.
So, I am one of those people that actually pushes back lately when it comes to WHO.
Not only do we need to exit WHO, we'll need to defund it, exit it.
And then WHO should be, each country should be in charge of their own health and do the best they can for their citizens.
We can share data and things that are happening around the world without having to have this supranational agency run by bureaucrats.
I understand the need for public health.
I have friends who have degrees in public health.
I have some great friends who are really good public health officials.
But there are many that are abusing this notion of public health.
I'm a clinician.
I see patients in my office.
You know, this morning I was in my office taking care of them.
And every time someone comes to see me, we make decisions best for that person.
It's one-on-one risk and benefits.
What are we going to do?
What's best for you?
When it comes to public health, and this has been abused, I think, in the past doctors were going into public health.
Now you will see less and less physicians going into public health.
So you have these graduates look at data And people become numbers and statistics.
And it's very easy to decide, well, based on this, you know, percentage, based on this curve, we need to lock down this area.
We need to mandate this thing.
But no one looks, you know, during lockdowns, who suffered the most.
It was children and elderly.
And we've allowed it.
We just went along with it because everyone was afraid.
We need to be very vigilant and we need to push You know, this whole issue of pandemics, if you look at human history, we've had some very bad diseases.
The Black Plague killed a large percentage of the population of the world, but it didn't kill everybody.
And the Black Plague had a certain number of people who had an immunity to it, and they were not affected.
Ultimately, these lockdowns, are they beneficial to get your immune system stronger?
Or are they actually the wrong thing to do in the case of a pandemic or a disease that's going through the population?
What our health department should have done Is put out the messaging on how each one of us at home can take care of our health and strengthen our immune system.
That would have been easy messaging to do.
Um, and that's what we need to do going forward.
We need to make sure that we keep ourselves healthy and our family healthy.
And there are lots of easy things you can do.
You don't even have to, it's really not rocket science.
Um, This idea that pandemics happen all the time, it's not the real, it's not the truth.
The pandemics, they don't happen.
It's a changed definition of pandemic.
And now the, you know, definition of it is a lot less stringent than it used to be.
So From my perspective, we just have to make sure that we establish a good relationship with your doctor to make sure that you do everything you can to live a healthy lifestyle.
Diet is extremely important.
As Americans, we all are aware that our diet hasn't been good, but there are a lot of things you can do at home to make sure that you keep your family healthy.
Lockdowns were not healthy for the immune system.
We're with Dr. Katerina Lindley, who's done a lot of work here on the World Health Organization, traveled around the world giving this message.
I want to focus in on this idea about pandemics.
I mean, as you look at pandemics in history, these viruses, or whatever they are, start out strong, but by the time they work their way through the population, they weaken.
They kill the host that they're living on.
They have a hard time migrating.
And there's never been a disease that's wiped out the human race.
I mean, you know, for however long we've been here, we continue to improve our immune systems or adapt our immune systems and still are here.
So if you're talking about disease, that's why this gain of function is so disturbing.
Why are we trying to make diseases more deadly?
I mean, why would we want to gain in a laboratory the strength of a disease that has the potential to kill you?
I mean, it seems like it's a satanic idea.
It's completely contrary to the World Health Organization, not the World Depopulation Organization.
Yes.
So, in nature, the viruses, as they mutate, they become less virulent.
So, like you said, they're not as strong.
So, this idea that viruses are just going to wipe the whole population in large numbers doesn't make sense, and it hasn't been shown throughout history.
The only way you can achieve that, I would say, is through gain-of-function and doing research.
And this is where this whole idea of surveillance, you know, when you think about surveillance and you say, okay, sure, we want to see what's circulating out there, I can see That is being fairly benign.
But if you start saying, well, not only are we going to surveil it, we're going to isolate and then share it across the world.
That's when you start getting into the mess, because then you can start having people doing different research on it to make it stronger and to make it more infectious and virulent for the people.
It seems like an insane idea.
It's all under the guise of we're here to protect you.
We're here to make sure you remain healthy.
If we don't take these measures now, we'll have a disease that will be out of control.
We won't have time to do anything.
All of these are fear factors.
These are all fear issues.
And manipulating fear, I think, is one of the worst Of human qualities in terms of gaining power by manipulating fear.
Because I'm saying these are not realistic fears that we don't have diseases that are this powerful.
And if we did have diseases powerful, would it probably be engineered in a laboratory to be this powerful?
I'm not even sure that would work.
Because the nature of viruses are living creatures and they are going to have a living life cycle themselves.
I mean, am I wrong about any of this?
It's all about control, right?
If they can make us fear something, they can control what we do.
And I do find what World Health Organization is trying to do is this ultimate way of controlling how population responds and what they do.
I understand the idea of trying to protect someone, but I don't believe that that's their real intention.
So how can we bring the public to be more aware of this?
How can we stop this from going forward?
As far as the United States, I think Everyone should look at work that Dr. Meryl Nass is doing, or they can follow me on Twitter, follow you and some other people who are writing about Poor Health Organization, and then make sure that they share some of these concerns with their legislators.
You know, you can email.
Actually, the best way to do it, it's called the office, and you And just say, I'm concerned about this.
Are you even aware?
We'll actually find out that most of them are not aware.
And the ones that may be aware will say, it's not going to take away our sovereignty.
Those are just, that's just misinformation, disinformation.
It's not true.
If you truly read it through these documents, Raise this potential to take away our sovereignty because in an event of health emergency, the WHO will take over and make decisions for us.
And I would say that that's taking away country sovereignty.
So that's on a federal level.
On a state level, it's kind of the same thing.
The states are actually in charge of the health of their people in the state.
I think it's important to start introducing legislation into the state legislation into the state sorry and I'm gonna look up my testimony on New Hampshire so I can give everyone the number of the bill that was filed in New Hampshire and they can use that as a template they can send this state members and say hey look at this bill can we write something like that so the bill in New Hampshire it's in the state it's HB 1156
Essentially, that language says that in an event of a health emergency, they would be under jurisdiction of a World Health Organization.
This bill actually went as far as saying that they wouldn't be under jurisdiction of CDC either because they lost trust in CDC as well.
But introducing legislation into the state is very important.
So, you know, I would contact reps or your state senators and you can send them this HB 1156.
It's a very simple bill.
It's, you know, this big in a document.
It doesn't take much of a page and it's a very simple language.
Those are things that we can do right now, because the World Health Assembly is going to meet in May, at the end of May of this year.
Whether they pass the pandemic treaty or just the amendments, there is a huge concern here that we will have to comply.
And, you know, people will say, well, how will they enforce that?
They can enforce that in different ways when it comes to different trades, sanctions and things like that towards the country.
And once they pass the amendments, unless Congress rejects them, they automatically go into effect, right?
The amendments to the health rules.
The amendments don't have to go back to Congress.
What would have to happen is most likely HHS, the administration, would have to opt out.
So they will have 10 months from the time the amendment is to say we are not accepting them.
If they don't say that, then they will go into effect 12 months.
Well, actually, I think it's like one month after they all sign it.
But yeah, it's very confusing and very concerning.
It amazes me that they're going to all this trouble to create this legal structure.
In other words, the pandemic, they just did it.
Now they're trying to say, look, we've got a legal structure.
I mean, it's Satan wants to make this look like it's all legitimate to increase compliance.
So we went through all these procedures.
We had all these conferences.
We had all these meetings.
We passed all these things.
Now we're acting on what you already agreed we could do.
And then how are you going to resist that?
Because it was, we've got all these laws in place.
We've got all these, you know, surveillance and censorship and collecting diseases and studying diseases and making, we've got all these pieces in place.
Why would we go through this elaborate structure if it wasn't intended to be used?
You really need to start looking into global governance by United Nations.
I believe that this, uh, the WHO treaty and amendments are a tool to achieve the global governance.
And, uh, between, you know, WHO and then the central bank, they will be able to achieve that.
Why do they want to, you know, govern over all of us?
At the end of the day, I think we've learned throughout the history, it's all about power and decision making control.
They like this idea that we're all on the same page.
You just have to look at the European Union.
You know, I remember Before, I'm from Croatia, so I remember like before Croatia became part of the European Union, it was always something like, oh, it would be so great to be part of something bigger than us, right?
And then little by little, they became part of this European Union, and now we are to the point where, and I'll talk about Croatia specifically, and I was in Ireland, so it's the same thing.
They don't have their national money.
The actual monetary exchange is Euro.
They still have their flags, but their flag flies with the European Union.
They are losing every day, every year, they're losing more and more of their national identity and becoming this one big Europe, Europeans.
And I would say that, especially in a sense of Croatians, but even Irish, they don't want that.
They're proud of who they are.
So if we allow these two instruments to go through, and on the financial side, you know, for those of you who are really good at finances, you need to watch this whole push for CBDC.
They want us all just to become global citizens.
And we've seen that with immigration, with the war on farmers, with the WHO treaty and amendments.
They are trying to hit us on all fronts.
I think what we don't realize is that this has been going on for so long that they are not that far away from reaching the goal.
I think maybe some people think Oh, if this doesn't go through, you know, we're going to win and stuff like that.
Sure.
Every little thing counts.
Even if we delay the vote for next year, we're winning.
I'm all for it.
But this has already, you know, they are 80 steps ahead of it and we're just catching up to them.
And, and, and I don't think we're even catching up.
And I'm not being an alarmist, just so you know.
For those who know me, I'm not an alarmist at all.
I share your concerns.
I think we need to be alarmist about this, because it is alarming.
And there's certain times when these demons announce what they're going to do, and they put it in place with a structure, then they do it.
And this has all been telegraphed.
We're watching a Truman Show.
We're living in a reality that's been constructed with us.
And we'll be told that the dangerous ones are the ones who are not vaccinated.
The ones who are, just like we were before, they're the ones who will get you sick.
So it's the unvaccinated who are being irresponsible.
So we need to make sure we have passports and everybody has to be vaccinated.
And if forced vaccinations, like they've done in the military with vaccination mandates, these are also the next step in forcing compliance.
And if you don't want to be vaccinated, you resist it, they can restrain you and vaccinate you anyway.
And this, you know, there's no control over your body.
There's no control of rights.
These people act as if human rights are intangible, therefore they are non-existent.
And it's frightening.
And to think that we now have the technology and the capabilities to put such an agenda in place and impose it upon the whole world, or at least the whole industrial world, the whole world that is utilizing this technology, you know, it'll be impossible for people to resist.
And the resistance will be carefully coordinated to look as if the resistors are the dangerous ones.
The freedom fighters are the real villains here.
And that's part of what frightens me about this agenda.
Dr. Lonay, as we conclude, is there anything you'd like to discuss that we haven't discussed?
Any message you'd like to give in conclusion?
I think my only message is don't believe anything I'm telling you.
Go read it for yourself, right?
I think once people read the documents themselves and they will realize that what I'm saying is the truth.
And I think it's important to get as many people around us to be aware of it, whether that's, you know, on a state level, on federal level, or whatever it is.
See it with your own eyes.
Read the documents.
You will have concerns, same concerns that most of us have.
These past three, four years, I don't even remember the count anymore, is it's been a war on faith, family, and freedom.
And now I added a fourth F, which is food.
They do want to control our way of life.
And for, um, you know, I'm in my, I just turned 51.
So, um, You know, I lived a good life so far, and I hope to live much longer, but my kids are young kids.
I don't want this for their future.
Now, this is the time for us parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, to really Take a step back and say, is this what I want for my children?
And I would venture to say that most of us would say no.
And it's our time to make a stand and say, you know, we've had enough and now we need to Take charge of our lives, take our power back, and we can do it in so many easy things, whether it is to take care of our health, or our finances, our children's education, our children's faith, just spending time with them, really returning back to common sense more than anything else.
Well, that's a great conclusion, and thank you very much.
We've been with Dr. Katarina Lindley, a physician who is fighting this battle, and I think we'll have her back many more times.
We're going to be trying to get this word out, and we admire your intelligence, your bravery, your courage.
To get this word out, and we'll do our best to help you get as many people to listen to this message as possible.
So, God bless what you're doing, Dr. Lindley.
This is Jerome Corsi, and we're going to conclude this.
They say, in the end, God always wins.
God will win here, too.
God did not create the human race to fail.
God is supreme, the spirit of 2 Chronicles 7.14, we have to repent.
We allow the world to get to this place.
We allow these demons to have the power they do have.
And we've got to return to God, our families, and understand that we're here for a spiritual purpose, not for control, money, greed, power.
In the end, God will win.
We're going to have a fierce battle here.
The judgment of God is going to be severe.
But we have all we need to win, because with a God, all things are possible.
Dr. Jerome Corsi, thank you for joining us at thetruthcentral.com.
We're broadcasting podcasts every weekday.
▲
Export Selection