James catches up with his old friend, big pharma industry exec turned poacher Sasha Latypova. On the menu: rabies isn’t real; cows don’t ‘catch’ TB; our governments are deliberately trying to kill us with vaccines, as Sasha is hoping to testify in a landmark court case in the Netherlands. https://sashalatypova.substack.com↓ ↓ ↓If you need silver and gold bullion - and who wouldn’t in these dark times? - then the place to go is The Pure Gold Company. Either they can deliver worldwide to your door - or store it for you in vaults in London and Zurich. You even use it for your pension. Cash out of gold whenever you like: liquidate within 24 hours. https://bit.ly/James-Delingpole-Gold
↓ ↓ How environmentalists are killing the planet, destroying the economy and stealing your children’s future.
In Watermelons, an updated edition of his ground-breaking 2011 book, JD tells the shocking true story of how a handful of political activists, green campaigners, voodoo scientists and psychopathic billionaires teamed up to invent a fake crisis called ‘global warming’.This updated edition includes two new chapters which, like a geo-engineered flood, pour cold water on some of the original’s sunny optimism and provide new insights into the diabolical nature of the climate alarmists’ sinister master plan.Purchase Watermelons by James Delingpole here: https://jamesdelingpole.co.uk/Shop/↓ ↓ ↓
Buy James a Coffee at:https://www.buymeacoffee.com/jamesdelingpole
The official website of James Delingpole:https://jamesdelingpole.co.uk
x
Well, to the Delipol, with me, James Delipol, and I know I always say I'm excited about this big special guest, but before we meet her, let's have a word from one of our sponsors.
Have you seen what the price of gold has been doing recently?
It's been going bonkers.
And I hate to say I told you so, but I did kind of tell you so.
But if it's any consolation, I didn't buy nearly enough.
It's like when you go to the casino and you win on 36 and you only put down a fiver and you think, why didn't I put down 50?
If you've got that feeling that you haven't got enough gold, or if you haven't got any gold and you really feel you ought to get some, the place to go is the Pure Gold Company.
They sell gold bullion and silver In the form of coins or in the form of bars which you can either store in London or in Switzerland or you can have it delivered to your own home if you can work out where to store the stuff.
I think that gold, what do I know?
I mean I'm no expert but I've been right so far.
I think gold and silver right now are an ascent, maybe even more so silver actually because silver I think is yet to take off.
Just my opinion.
I'm not a financial advisor.
I reckon that it's worth holding both of them at the moment.
And you don't want them, of course, you don't want to buy paper gold.
You don't want to buy paper silver.
You don't want to buy ETFs.
You want to buy the actual physical thing.
Go to the Pure Gold Company and you will be put in touch with one of their advisors.
And they will talk you through the process.
Which you want to do, whether you want to have it in bullion or in coins.
I mean, there are advantages to having coins, because coins are considered, well, Britannias anyway, are considered legal tender.
Which means that you don't pay tax, weirdly this, but even my accountant didn't know this, you don't pay tax at the moment on your profits.
Go to the Pure Gold Company.
They will talk you through all these things.
And follow the link, follow the link below.
Follow this podcast and it will give you all the details.
Go to the Pure Gold Company and they will give you what you need, be it gold or silver.
Do it before it goes up even more.
I think you'd be mad not to.
Welcome back to The Delling Pod, Sasha Latypova.
Already, I know this is going to be the best podcast of the year.
Already?
Well, no.
I mean, there could be better ones.
I can't guarantee this is going to be the best, but I am quite excited.
A, because, as you know, I love you very much and you're always interesting.
But B, because the thing we're going to talk about is, which isn't going to be in any of the newspapers, because the newspapers are all part of the kind of the deception machine.
But imagine if newspapers did their job and they were reporting on this.
I mean, it'd be like dynamite, wouldn't it?
Oh, yeah, I would be.
I actually feel a bit dynamite about several things that I'm writing, and have reported, and have, you know, the stories I broke, and analysis I did, and they're all ignoring it.
Actually, they're not ignoring it, they're reading it, apparently.
I had several, you know, almost hour-long conversations with the writer from New York Times.
And what, over this story we're about to discuss?
That was mentioned, but we mostly talked about the citizen's petition that I have written with CHD, which we can also discuss, to revoke BLA licenses from mRNA shots, and also about the PrEP Act.
So they reached out to me specifically about they wanted to know about the PrEP Act and they wanted to talk about it and the whole COVID pandemic countermeasures issues.
And yeah, we had a Lansing conversation.
They promised to write an article.
I mean, they said well, we're writing an article and we want to know, so they promised to write an article.
Then the second time they called me, we also talked about the petition.
Again they said oh yes, we're still planning to write an article.
Very interested, Had a lengthy conversation.
Wanted to talk about my conversations with RFK Jr., of course.
And never published anything because they can't.
They can't publish this stuff.
No, they can't.
I mean, do you think they're just, are they bad people or are they just kind of weak people who are compromised by having to earn a living and having to be part of the system?
Well, I think it's the same thing, really.
Ultimately, as an outcome measure, it's the same thing.
Yeah, hold on.
i'm just i'm just trying i'm just going to try and work out whether it's i can hear better it's coming out of my crappy um let's have a look um Output.
input should do you want me to try to use it no it's not you it's my well um you're saying input is where i speak no yeah it's big and output is where I hear it.
So if I try and listen to it through, speak to me again.
Uh, dust, dust, dust.
No.
No?
That's even worse.
Oh.
No, no, it's, as you know, as you know, Sasha, I'm not going to, I'm not going to be in the new year starting a new technology podcast advising people.
I'm handsome.
Yeah, I'll have to do it.
If you want to set up a podcast, this is what you need in your studio.
This is the equipment you're going to use and this is how to get optimal.
that's not going to be me um yeah um i just very briefly before for people who haven't met you before just like how do you tell us about yourself How do you know this stuff?
Yeah, so my name is Sasha Lotypova.
My computer is dying and I couldn't Type "Latypova" into the screen because the keyboard is dead.
Yeah, anyway, so I am now an independent writer on Substack and a researcher in all Mostly, I started writing and speaking because of the COVID atrocities that started in 2020.
And by 2021, I've had enough as far as I understood this was all evil and intentional.
And then, of course, the mRNA shots was the main issue I started speaking about because that's my professional background in pharmaceutical research and development and regulations.
And I knew right away that these products were, first of all, very toxic, toxic by design.
Everyone involved knew all of this, that these are very, very toxic and will produce millions of deaths and injuries.
And my main issue, I was trying to understand how are they able to get away with all of this?
They, meaning pharma companies.
Together with FDA.
I didn't realize at first that the FDA was in on it.
And later, you know, through my research, I discovered that the FDA regulators, the government is leading this COVID project, and pharmas are suppliers of poison.
So that became kind of my main topic of research.
I write on many other things now, but that was my main topic of research.
I've been speaking and writing about it since 2021.
And now my publication on Substack is, you know, pretty popular, despite suppression and censorship and all that.
And so, yeah, that's what I do.
You've got loads of followers.
I'm kind of envious, actually.
You've got like 60,000 or something.
Yeah, actually, interestingly, so since this is the news reporting about the Dutch case, I've had a pretty large uptick in subscribers, even though Substack removes my subscribers continuously.
So they apparently put a ceiling on how many I'm allowed to have.
And so if I reach that ceiling, then they will remove a bunch.
And that's what's going on.
I think we're all experiencing that.
I don't know whether you follow Agent 13711.
Yes, I have.
He did some research and sort of, actually he mentioned my name, I don't know whether he mentioned you as well, but he gave us as examples of people whose traffic has been obvious, followers have obviously been suppressed.
Suppression device, isn't there, in the algorithms or something?
Yeah, there's algorithms.
So one of them is they want to put a ceiling on how many subscribers you have.
They periodically change that depending on what's going on. I think one of the criteria they're looking at is where you rank as far as the top publications.
So I was in 23 or so, 23, 24, I was number nine in science.
Of all sub -stacks.
With number one being fake AstroTurfed account from CDC, Of course.
And, you know, and a few others also looked kind of suspect to me because they were not writing about anything interesting at all.
And anyway, but I was number nine and they don't want that because then you show up in the first, like if somebody is going to explore what are the top sub stacks in this category, you're going to show up.
It's like above the fold in the newspaper, right?
Yeah, And so they want you to be down on page seven where nobody will look.
So that's how they push you down, based on those stacking criteria.
Well, I can see that you'd be a threat to the science category.
I can't imagine what category I'd even be in.
I mean, they don't have a sort of that shit crazy.
You declare when you know which category because it's...
Oh, do I?
Yeah, yeah, because you have to declare yourself which category, which is your primary and secondary category.
Oh, right.
So you should look it up and then see the leaderboard.
Yeah, I need you to organise me because I do sense that kind of slight...
It's like, do you not realise, tone in your voice, that I get awesome from my wife.
There's so much that I just kind of miss that goes over my head.
Yeah, well, shall we?
We can always skitter around, but I think we should talk about this story.
So it's about...
I mean, I was amazed when I read it.
about a court case that's happening in the Netherlands. Maybe you can explain to me why it's happening in the Netherlands and nowhere else, is it? And it's all about the Javs as a bioweapon, as a, not just an accidental bioweapon that they stumbled upon in their earnest desire to improve the lot of humanity,
but a deliberate Well, right, so it's actually,
it's a little bit misleading because that's not how the case is structured or how it, you know, these allegations are part of characterizations by plaintiffs as far as How they view this project, COVID. There are seven vaccine-injured plaintiffs, is that right? Yeah, so there are two cases, actually, one older and one newer,
and brought by the same lawyers, but the plaintiffs, in the first case, there were seven, and then in the newer case, there are three. Out of the seven, one already died from their injuries. So, So the lawyers are now in the process of trying to merge these two cases because, I mean, they're the same class.
The civil procedure, so this is also used against us as expert witnesses and against this case by the propaganda machine, by the, you know, government state propaganda machine.
I mean, a lot of especially anonymous accounts that are ostensibly, the controlled deposition accounts that are ostensibly on the, you know, the health freedom side, but they vehemently attack this case, all of the witnesses, and especially myself.
But they vehemently attack this case, all of the witnesses, and especially myself.
Are we talking about Jiki Leaks?
Are we talking about Jiki leaks?
Jiki Leaks, yes.
Jiki Leaks and his collective of anonymous trolls and a few named people as well in the health freedom community are attacking this case.
And they are attacking it saying that, well, you can't say this is genocide.
You can't say this is bioweapon, this is just emotional and crazy, and you're just overreaching, and you can never prove it in court.
And, well, they are not telling you that this case is actually, well, you can only debate.
You know, really prosecute genocide or try to prove it's genocide in an international tribunal.
We can't do it in a civil procedure in the work in the Netherlands.
And that's not the objective of this case.
It's not a target.
Like we don't have to prove genocide.
We don't even have to prove that these are bioweapons.
The case is different.
The case, the main claims of the plaintiffs are that the defendants misled them, they lied to them, both about the nature of the project, the nature of the pandemic, the causative agents of the pandemic, all the government measures, and obviously, of course.
the nature and the substance and the ingredients and the effects of the countermeasures, or the shots and the treatments. Bill Gates is one of the defendants. And so those are the main claims of the case. And that's what defendants want. They want justice for themselves and other victims,
and they want compensation, obviously, for their injuries. So as part of the plaintiff's case, the way they present it, They're describing these activities as a potential genocide or democide, and so forth, and the products as potential weapons or bioweapons or chemical weapons, and psychological weapons,
too. There is a whole part of the case about the psychological operations of NATO and all that. And then the three plaintiffs filed a new case in March of 25,
and I was approached, and Catherine Watt also was approached at that time, to become expert witnesses for this new proceeding, but now these two are going to be merged together. It's very ambitious, isn't it? Yeah. At the same time, I can imagine if I were a normie,
and this case were reported in the newspapers, I would be thinking, these people are just crazy. I mean, sure, mistakes were made. Sure, these vaccines, there's something not quite, I sense that because I know of so-and-so who was never quite the same after he had his two jabs. Seven jabs or whatever. And they're getting on so far, and they say, but really,
to suggest that the United States government and the European, I mean, I know they're bad. I know that I, obviously, politicians have their thoughts. But the idea that they would conspire deliberately to kill their citizens with bioweapons in the form of vaccines. Come on,
this is absurd. Wouldn't they? Well, yeah, of course, that's what every, you know, deluded person thinks. It's a narrative line that people incorporate to do multiple things. For the perpetrator class,
which is doctors, nurses, pharmacists, everybody who injected or continued to inject or pushed it on pregnant women, pushed it on children, those are all perpetrator class. Pretend that they're good people and that they are doing great stuff and that they are,
you know, healthcare dedicated and so forth. That's their coping mechanism. And for the victim class, the helpless victim class, the willfully helpless victim class, which are the normies, that's also a coping mechanism to say, well, You know, no, nobody's trying to kill me. It's just that, you know, sometimes mistakes are made,
right? Yeah. That's how it works. Actually, yeah, I was, I think our mutual friend, you know, Doc Malik, right? Yeah, yeah. Yeah, So our mutual friend, Doc Malik, put me onto this awesome book, which I recommend, and if you haven't read it, please read it.
It's called The Basic Laws Of Human Stupidity.
Actually, hold on a second, I'll show you.
Yeah, Sherry.
So, she...
It's tiny.
It literally, like, very small.
Okay, yeah.
The basic laws of human stupidity, right?
And this is awesome because it explains to you these behaviors of, or you can actually, you know, understand what the person's characteristics, what pattern of behavior they're exhibiting, and also map narrative lines to this.
This guy, I think he already passed away, this professor.
He was professor of economics.
He passed away?
Or what?
Well, this was in 2016.
I don't think it's nefarious here.
But I think he was just old.
So he devised this two-by-two matrix, which all economists love.
And it says, you know, basically over a period of time, it doesn't mean that you're stupid, but it just describes your actions on average.
And if your actions on average are helping others and helping yourself simultaneously.
that's the only behavior that's defined as intelligent behavior. If your actions are helping yourselves but hurting others at the expense of others continuously, then that behavior is defined as you're a bandit or you're an evil person, right? And in between, you have people who are either helping others but hurting themselves, and those are helpless,
basically, helpless victims. You know, people who are hurting themselves and hurting others simultaneously. And those are stupid. That's a stupid behavior. And so he said,
another basic law is that we always, always, always underestimate how many stupid people are around us at the time. And also the probability that you're stupid or acting stupid is independent of any other characteristic about you. So,
it's the same number amongst Nobel Prize laureates as the same numbers around, like, jungle dwellers, you know? So, you can be an intelligent person who's really stupid. Exactly. So,
that explains to you the behavior of those big-brained MDs and PhDs who all ran off the cliff to self-harm. To self-harm and to harm others. Because it's irrespective of their credentials, of their titles or whatever.
The stupid behavior versus intelligent behavior, it's always the same distribution.
And is it just a matter of luck?
No, it's not a matter of luck.
You need to be conscious of your...
Well, first of all, it's not a matter of luck.
The problem is that in a modern society, which is all praying to scientism, pretty much, right?
It replaced religion.
Not that, you know, I'm not saying that religion is the savior of everything, right?
It also has a lot of problems with it, especially when we talk about institution.
But what has been kind of systematically dismantled is the moral compass.
the ethics, the humanity, as far as you shall not harm other humans.
There is no, you know, the inexcusability of harming other people has been removed systematically.
So now it is okay to harm other people if it's for the greater good, if the science says so, if authorities declare that this is for the biosecurity, biosafety, again, for the greater good, we know better, the state decides.
So all of those, you know, and many, many others in between.
But what we can see is overarching in the last, you know, 100 years or so or 200 years is systematic dismantling of principles that we are created unique by God, magnificently made that.
you know, that God is the ultimate authority has been replaced with, you know, the state as authority, the science is now as authority. And so that's where we are. And so where before people that would be like, the line that will stop most people from committing harm to others to others is this principle that I just can't harm other people, because I will I'm just not a good person if I'm harming others. Well,
now it's replaced by, well, sometimes it's okay, and if the state says so, and if they mandate, and if they send you a paycheck, it's totally fine. So, let me get this right. Catherine Watt's done a lot of research into this. I held on the podcast once,
I should get it back if she's still doing podcasts. She's looked into the legislation going back to, what, the 1940s? Actually, she looked back to late 1700s. Right, From the late 1700s.
So they're all in on it, even the ones we think of as sort of the greats from a bygone age where values are different.
And they were the founding fathers.
Yeah, they were good people, these good people who who, who were members of the Hellfire CLUB, like like Benjamin Franklin and yeah anyway um, she's looked over all this period.
That embedded in the legislation is the right of the governing class that, whatever.
to Poison us and kill us in whatever way they want for the greater good. So what I'm suggesting is that even if my imaginary normie person, Even if this, this story, was to be printed in the newspapers, the normally would read it and go, this doesn't make sense.
Oh, I know, I know how to make sense of it.
The reason that they're doing it for us is is for the greater good.
They've they've looked at the evidence and they've realized that they've got.
They've got to bump off ladies office.
And what can we do?
I mean, that's what the experts say.
Who am I to?
Yeah yeah, exactly that's exactly what the Normies have been programmed to do, and and the reason i'm saying they're enormous, but they have, as I said, the probability that somebody is stupid.
Also probability that somebody is intelligent is independent of any other characteristic.
So you know, on the opposite side of what I just said about acting stupid, you can choose to act in intelligent ways, and I always always, encourage my readers.
the reason I write about these very, very complex topics in a very accessible way, and that's my number one goal, is to tell people, you are capable. God gave you the brain, you can read, you,
you know, everybody can read now, we're all literate. There's nothing you can't understand. Nobody can say, especially when it comes to your health choices. And if somebody says, you know,
you must inject this because the government says so for the greater good or, you know, biosecurity or WHO says something, you must reject that because they're not the authority. Again, removing the direct link between us and our creator as far as we make our choices because he made us so wonderful. That was the detrimental part. And yes,
it goes back all the way to like late 70s, I mean, maybe even before, where the government systematically removed that idea that we have that direct link and replaced it with, no, the government knows better, the experts know better,
the science knows better, and the science is so complicated that don't even try to understand. I'm saying bullshit. Everyone can understand. And everyone can understand that that science, the king is buck naked. They have nothing. You know? Do you know the story? I've mentioned this occasionally, Me about the response on the publication of Principia Mathematica.
When when, when Newton published it, most people were thinking, I don't, I don't know what this, what this does it, does it make sense?
I, I don't understand it.
People going yeah, but it, but it's Newton, he's really, really clever.
He just like just just trust, trust the Newton, that's the Newtster, he knows.
And it sort of became accepted as this thing.
Everyone, everyone accepted that they didn't understand it, but it was probably because they weren't clever enough.
Even the clever people thought this, yes, that's how the game works.
isn't it? Exactly. It's exactly how this works. I constantly have debates with, you know, people that I During that process, I realized that, especially people in academia, have no idea how to prove anything. They have no idea about the scientific method. Especially in those areas that I cover, and that's why I'm debating with people about this, you know, virology,
genetics. People who you, you know, and I'm shocked. I'm like, I thought you knew that to prove something, especially causality. You need to test the null hypothesis. This is like basic stuff that they teach in middle school. You need to formulate the null hypothesis and test it with controls. That's all you have to do. And they are arguing and arguing and arguing about how,
"No, no, no, but we really don't need to. It's for these other people, but not for us." Sasha, I wish you'd been there over Christmas. We had this lovely family, Family friend round for lunch and he's a lawyer.
So he's, I mean okay, whatever you think of lawyers, he's not.
He's not stupid, is it?
And he's a bright, bright chap and I was talking to him about statins his his, his.
I said, why are you taking statins, you what?
You may as well be taking cyanide.
Well, what he said.
Well, my doctor says yeah, but how do you know that your doctor is not just regurgitating some crap that he's picked up in medical school from somebody equally ignorant?
How do you know that the pharmaceutical industry is not pushing this toxic substance on you and telling you it's good, good for you?
He said well, I'm not an expert.
I said you're, you're a lawyer if you get, if you get mugged is is being a lawyer a prerequisite of knowing you've been mugged, or do you think anyone can work it out?
And he's also.
He's also a, a Christian, he's a Catholic, which is almost a Christian.
Well they, he does boast about not reading the bible.
He says we Catholics don't read the bible.
But I said to him, look well, we moved on to vaccines by this point.
And I said to him, um, when god you, you do believe.
right, your question, that God has made man in his image, yeah? He said, yeah, I think I'm sort of, well, I mean, I believe in evolution, but anyway. Right, that's Christian. I said, look, when God made us in his image,
Do you think what he did was, okay, I'm going to make man, but I'm going to make him a bit shit, like his immune system isn't going to be working until, until Edward Jenner comes along and develops this this, this thing, a sort of vaccine, which is going to suddenly cause the health of these creatures that i've created in my image to to come on in leaps and bounds.
Before that, they were dying in droves, but suddenly, thanks to medical technology which i'm going to invent, in what?
The sort of the the?
The 18th century, late 18th century suddenly things are going to improve.
Do you think that's how God thinks?
It's all right?
I don't really know.
Well, I'm not an expert.
I'm not a theologian.
Yeah, I'm not an expert.
Yeah, so that's another narrative point that has been inserted into everyone's head as a coping mechanism, which your friend has exhibited.
I'm not an expert, I defer to experts.
Well, you shouldn't defer to experts.
And that's, again, the purpose of me writing and communicating to my readers is you are as intelligent or even more intelligent as those people in academia who are just regurgitating the narrative.
if you start questioning and reading and investigating, I'm going to help you. I'm going to put the materials in a more, you know, digestible manner, decipher their BS, abracadabra language that they have created to just, again, obfuscate and pretend like they know more than you do. And actually, when you start looking into it and peeling the onion, turns out it's just a bunch of made-up words. And a bunch of made-up computer models,
that are so complex that these idiots themselves don't understand. But they just know how to spew this language confidently at you, so that you are snowed with this, like, "Oh my God, I don't know what he said, and so I'm just going to defer." That's fundamentally the problem that we're having with all these normies, the helpless ones, and the more clever ones,
and the perpetrator class. Being trained to, in a working bird style, to follow and trust the science, now follow and trust the gold standard science, whatever that is, there's no standard for gold standard, and then trust all the experts and authorities and call all of us conspiracies and just crazy and, you know, grifters or whatever. I mean,
And so there's this whole narrative designed around this.
My first glimpse of this was when I was fighting the climate, the climate wars.
And I started coming into contact with these professors of environmentalism, professors of climate change, etc.
And it didn't take me long to realize these were very, very low grade intellects.
They were just sort of like like bad actors.
I mean, not even sort of not even actors capable of being in a soap opera or a bit part, but more like sort of crisis actor level actors, just just just able to to to parent their line.
They've been given no, no intelligence there at all and and no, no moral authority.
No well, I mean just, I think, to do one of those jobs you've really got to have no morality Or you'll be so stupid that you're not even aware of what variety is.
Yeah, and those people are not stupid, like, by definition.
I mean, they're stupid by definition of this book that I said, because of their actions, But in terms of, you know, IQ, if you want to use it as a descriptor of intelligence, no, they're high IQ, high educational attainment, they can speak. Fluently and convincingly,
and they can act intelligent. But yeah, those people are hollow. They've been hollowed out. Their intelligence is only superficial. It now resembles more and more and more the intelligence of LLMs,
of AI, which is, again, a superficial level of intelligence. They're good at next-token predictions, so they can fluently reproduce the next token ward that you expect in a sequence. All these people do. They're essentially, they're training themselves into being automatons. Which is what their ruling class wants. They want a whole bunch of subservient, trackable, traceable,
controllable automatons that they can verbally spew whatever the next token that you want and be ultimately easily controlled, And these people are complying, They're coming together and and they're volunteering for this.
I was thinking we would just just briefly go back to this.
Um the court case.
Yes, i'm thinking.
What I mean?
Does it have any chance of of getting anywhere?
Um, is there anything special about the Dutch system?
That a little bit, yes.
Um, there is a little bit of special about the Dutch system.
Um, although I don't know how much it's going to matter at the end the the Dutch system apparently allows you to introduce the concept of moral law alongside the codified law.
So these um this, you know, as I said, characterization by the plaintiffs as activities of the state, as pre-planned genocide or democide, or use of bioweapons, they fall into that category.
So you are allowed to discuss things that are not you.
you know part of the codified law on the moral principles and that's a positive thing so this is the only place where you know these kinds of well the only jurisdiction i'm aware of like the major western jurisdiction i'm aware of that you can bring this kind of a case and that's maybe why that it's it it's succeeded so far so far they haven't been able to dismiss it They haven't been able to get out of it. And as the latest ruling,
which was issued in late November, the court said that the defendants, including Bill Gates, Albert Burla, and the state officials, must show up, represented with their lawyers, for the court hearing. And the court hearing will be scheduled sometime between May and October of this year. Every time you mention Bill Gates and Albert Buller,
I start cracking up, because I suppose they can depute one of their body doubles with the mask to turn up, because that's what they do anyway, isn't it? I'm pretty sure they're going to try to not show up, and yeah, I don't know, maybe there will be a double, I have no idea. No. Well, anyway, Albert Borla can shapeshift. Have you seen that his lizard,
Or is it?
He's like a kind of he's reptilian I don't know.
The footage of him on the internet with with he's clearly not not altogether human.
I mean, I don't know about that.
I it's like like you can also do a lot of things with AI on the internet.
So i'm not.
I don't usually that that is a very good point.
I don't usually watch those videos.
I mean, I I treat him as a, as a human being who is a very evil human being and he needs to account for his actions against other human beings.
Yeah well, it would be very nice to think.
wouldn't it, that those seven, or rather six now, now one of them's died, original plaintiffs, would make a Fortune, and then there'll be a kind of fund for everyone else to kind of pile in. But mostly, as we know, from your research and Catherine Watt's research and elsewhere, that the vaccines, if that's what we should call them,
were deliberately arranged so that they were not subject to the regulations of a vaccine, but they were just kind of a special measure for an emergency situation.
What was the classification they were called?
It's called countermeasure.
So this is the word that everybody needs to learn and understand and repeat frequently.
Because, yes, so my research and Catherine Watt's research demonstrated definitively that these products are not vaccines.
They are not even pharmaceutical products.
They're not even medical products.
They are countermeasures.
And it's a completely different class of thing.
In fact, so both me and Catherine already submitted our written testimony to the court.
And this was submitted as part of the appeal last year.
And, you know, the court is trying to avoid taking it into account.
but it has been submitted. So we will see how they're going to handle this going forward, you know, with scheduling this oral hearing. It depends. There's supposed to be a conference, I think, with both parties on the 14th of January, and then after that they will be scheduling the dates, so it's evolving. But we have submitted testimonies already,
and I've published both. Global warming is a massive con. There is no evidence whatsoever that Man-made climate change is a problem that is going to kill us,
that we need to amend our lifestyle in order to deal with it. It's a non-existent problem. But how do you explain this stuff to your normie friends? Well, I've just brought out the revised edition to my 2012 classic book,
Watermelons, which captures the story of how some really nasty people decided to invent the global warming scare in order to fleece you, to take away your freedoms, to take away your land.
It's a shocking story.
I wrote it, as I say, in the well 2011.
Actually, the first edition came out and it's a snapshot of a particular era, the era when the people behind the climate change scan got caught red -handed tinkering with the data, torturing till it screamed in a scandal that I helped christen Climategate.
So I give you the background to, to the skullduggery that went on in in these seats of learning where these supposed experts were informing us.
We've got to act now.
I rumbled their their scam.
I then asked the question, okay, if it is a scam, who's doing this and and why?
It's a good story. I've kept the original book pretty much as is, but I've written two new chapters, one at the beginning and one at the end, explaining how it's even worse than we thought. I think it still stands out. I think it's a good read. Obviously, I'm biased, but I'd recommend it. You can buy it from jamesdellingpole.co.uk forward slash shop. You'll probably find that,
Mike, just go to my website and look for it, jamesdallingpole.co.uk and I hope it helps keep you informed and gives you the material you need to bring round all those people who are still persuaded that, oh,
it's a disaster, we must amend our ways and appease the gods, appease Mother Gaia. No, we don't. It's a scam. You know, we're scheduling this oral hearing. We're not expecting to be testifying yet at that hearing,
but it depends. So far there's supposed to be a conference, I think, with both parties on the 14th of January, and then after that they will be scheduling the dates, so it's evolving. But we have submitted testimonies already, And I've published both.
So you've got receipts demonstrating that as far as the the perpetrators of these vaccines are concerned, there was never any intention to produce a substance that would be beneficial to human health.
They were quite deliberately and manifestly a weapon delivering poisons in different ways.
So, my testimony is exactly that. So, my testimony looks through Well, it's 60 pages long and it has a one gigabyte of attachment from FOIA documents, from all the publicly available documents. And it's different. So I'm looking at this from different perspectives, from the financing, contracting, legal, regulatory,
regulatory applicable law in regulations and factual sort of, you know, the What these products have generated as a result of, you know,
harms and deaths. And it's definitive that, you know, you can conclude from all this evidence that these injections are indistinguishable from weapons. So we don't have to say they are bioweapons or biochemical weapons. They're just indistinguishable from weapons. So,
just like you can say, well, I have a handgun in my house, it's used for decoration. Well, you can use it for decoration, but it is a handgun, and it's going to be regulated as a handgun by the state, as far as, you know, you buying it, or if, you know, there's a break-in in your house, and you use it, or somebody else is using it. The way the courts and police and everybody else will look at it, it's a weapon,
it's a potential weapon. Yeah. The same exact thing applies to these shots. Yes, they can be labelled as whatever you want and claimed whatever you want, but the way the law and regulation treats them as a potential weapon,
they're indistinguishable from weapons. You can't make a distinction. And this is a hard question, but how bad are they? I mean, how many different ways have they got inserted into them to make them deadly to us? It's almost infinite,
again, because nothing can be definitively known about their composition or composition of every dose as dispensed to every person at every time that they receive the dose. So there is such an enormous variation allowed and actually infinite variation allowed by the frameworks that are applied to them,
legal and regulatory, that it's not known. There's an infinite potential to hurt you in a variety of ways, and it all is variable dose to dose. So that's, again,
that's another characteristic that makes it indistinguishable from a weapon, because neither the consumer nor the healthcare provider who is administering this shot knows what they're doing. And they're injecting a substance into the person. It's the same as if you walk in the park and there's a syringe line on the ground, you pick it up and inject in the next passerby. And then the courts are going to say, well, he was just trying to save his life. It's, you know, it was pandemic. No, they will treat you for attempted murder,
right? They would. It's the same exact thing. If you'd been foolish enough to succumb to having an ejection yourself,
what would you be most worried about? Well, I also tell people not to freak out. I mean, I have now a number of people approach me, the people that I knew and I told not to take the shots. Yeah. And they obviously worried and they read my sub stack and they obviously worried. And So my response is,
did you have any side effects? Was anything happened? Did you have any side effects? Did you have any effects? And if you didn't, then, you know, thank God that you didn't and then just don't do it ever again. And it's most likely that you got a dud or your system cleared,
whatever it was, and it shouldn't be any issue. Especially now, time is on your side. If three years ago you got some shots and now you understand that this was foolish, well, okay, that's good. Good lesson. Let's move on. But help us by discussing this, communicating, telling people the truth. Other than that, you shouldn't be really worried. But if there are some side effects,
then it's depending on the nature of the side effects. Then that's what you need to worry about. And unfortunately, there are a lot of victims. I just came from, and they continue, the victims, it's still going on. I just came back from a holiday party, the New Year party, from friends, like long-term friends, and the wife didn't recognize us at first. And we're long-term friends and neighbors,
and she didn't recognize us because she's having rapid onset Alzheimer's. And, you know, another person had a stroke. I know another person had cancer, another person. And this is horrible. It's absolutely horrible what's going on. But they're still not discussing it openly. They're still not. While you see that they're acknowledging that, you know, maybe this had to do something with this, but they're still like,
don't want to talk about it at all. And that's what I encourage people. You can't just. Wall it off. You can't. You can't escape this. You have to talk about this. You have to acknowledge. And you have to help us. Help us, you know, find resolution and accountability for this. It's weird, Sasha. I think in the last five years of my life,
I've known personally more people who've died Leading up to those the last five years and you could say, oh well, James is 60 now and and, and it's what happens when you get to that advanced age, you suddenly.
In the 1800s it was advanced age, not.
Yeah, I'm thinking this is not right.
I mean, people are dropping like flies and people I I talk to people that hear anecdotes about people who who treat I don't know Massage therapists or people who've used craniosacral treatments or whatever,
and they report back to me that it's off the scale, that they've got healthy people suddenly develop, well, since they got the vax. I know people who've died of cancer, like dropping dead of heart attack, you know, and their widows are going, well,
I didn't expect my husband to die this soon. Mm-hmm. And it's not because they were being unduly optimistic. I think they were reasonable in their expectations. And now here we are. And everyone's still going, La, la la, wasn't it great?
There's no COVID anymore.
Yeah.
And they continue pushing these shots, and they continue pushing the drugs.
And the whole vaccine schedule is getting converted to these monstrous products.
So you asking what's in them?
Well, what's definitively not in them is, you know they're claiming all these synthetic biology, synthetic genetics.
They're also snowing people with the oh, we're going to edit the genes and we're going to live forever.
And, you know, cure every disease, including.
You know they're also pushing a marinade now to cure cancer.
Right, the?
And there is, you know, I also published on this and I will be writing more about this, but there's nothing compatible with life in these products at all. I, in fact, published a list of chemicals that are used to make synthetic DNA and RNA. And it's absolutely laughable. And again,
you don't have to be a chemist. You don't have to be a PhD scientist to just read this list and see that it's a toxic. chemical sludge. There is nothing compatible with life there. There are actually corrosive acids,
explosives in that list. And I mean, the huge amount of toxic material that's not for human use and is considered extremely hazardous. But they're claiming that by combining all these things together, they're making parts of you. You know, they're making parts of human cells, or these proteins that code for things,
and this is nonsense. It's absolute nonsense. They do nothing except massive poisoning. That's what everybody should understand. They're herbs and chemicals. They're nothing to do with nature or biology or anything. But the programming is so strong. People go,
But surely, and then they'll cite polio or smallpox or tuberculosis or whatever.
They want to cling on to this cope that some vaccines are good.
No, they're also, yeah, so they don't understand that, again, I've reviewed several foundational works of Koch for the tuberculosis.
Pasteur for rabies, Pasteur for other things, other people wrote about Jenner, which was horrific.
First of all, Jenner, the great inventor of vaccine, killed his first child with it.
and did not vaccinate his second child because he knew he was going to kill him. They do like to sacrifice their firstborn. I also agree with you. This is part of the ritual to advance in the hierarchy of these satanic worshippers. But if you don't want to,
you know, for audience who doesn't want to subscribe to these ideas, I'm just saying, here's the fact. It's a fact that nobody tells you. They're just telling you Jenner was a hero. Here is the statue of Jenner in Hyde Park. Okay, but the guy Actually murdered his child. Do you,
um, when I was at my boarding school, when I was about nine or ten, one of my greatest fears, as it was, I believe, in all my classmates, Was catching rape, being bitten by a rabid dog.
Because we all knew, because we'd been told, this was the rumour, that The rabies injection was the worst injection in the world.
You had to have it through your stomach to get to something or other.
And rabies was terrible.
But does rabies even exist?
No.
As far as rabies virus, no, it doesn't exist.
And even the rabies illness itself is extremely, extremely ill.
It's like a finding leprechaun, basically.
I've written an extensive review about rabies and the whole development of the rabies shots by Pasteur, which was just horrific.
There is a very good book, it was written like 150 years ago, and I read it and I reviewed it in my publication. The person, I think his last name was Thomson or something, a doctor, he was a practicing doctor in the UK,
and he He was very much against what Pasteur was pushing, and he wrote this whole book to try to dispel it. And he collected a lot of very good public health data for that time. He reached out to French authorities,
to the British, like collected from there, and also even Russian authorities at the time, everyone who was treating animal bites. He demonstrated that this was not an issue at all, like the development of the brain condition, or they called it at the time, they called it hydrophobia. Yeah. So it wasn't rabies. It was hydrophobia,
and it was this condition where people had a hard time swallowing water. You see my Pavlovian reaction there? Yeah, uh-huh. And in most cases, actually, it resolves. So this practicing physician who wrote about it, he said, you know, I've treated hundreds of cases of bites. At the time, it was, you know, the bites by animals were very,
very common. There were stray dogs everywhere. Nobody was training their dogs. The hunting dogs are hunting dogs. They're not like trained like house pets, right? So they can bite you too. And so it was very common for people to be bitten by dogs or even wild animals like wolves or bears or, You know attacks by foxes and things like that and uh.
So there was a good data collected about this and it demonstrated that it wasn't an issue even back then.
It was maybe you know the whole the whole country of France had maybe 20 cases of uh, death of of illness and then death resulting from bites uh, and it was common like that throughout, and he also demonstrated that this the most of the time, vast majority of these cases were complete.
Nothing happened at all.
You just needed the wound care and cleaning of the wound uh, and even if some, some infection developed, it was treatable and so only very small percentage resulted in any anything dangerous uh.
And he also demonstrated that was different by what kind of bite and where so, and nobody tells you this today.
right? So today the fear mongering is any bite by any dog, no matter how tame and whatever, it will result in rabies. That's not true. He's demonstrated that bites to hands were generally not dangerous, or legs, generally not dangerous. The least dangerous bites were through clothes. So if you're bit through clothing, nothing would happen. The most dangerous bites were to the head, face,
or neck. And that's not surprising because that is where the saliva can enter the cerebrospinal fluid and the brain. Those are the areas. Also large animals like wolves, yeah, that's a problem. Dogs, not so much.
And so that's what he demonstrated.
And the reason for like bites through clothes are not dangerous because saliva is wiped off by the clothes.
And the problem is not the virus.
There's no virus of the rabies.
The problem is the proteins that enter directly into the bloodstream.
So we are not supposed to get any proteins directly into the bloodstream.
We only consume the proteins and then we digest them.
Then they're broken down and that's how the products enter into the bloodstream.
Nothing can enter directly the bloodstream.
And if you have saliva which carries protein, especially if animals were feeding on something, you know, like or something rotten, or just like meat or some products the animals were feeding on, that can produce an infection, or it can produce anaphylaxis, which is another thing that I wrote about and we talked about. Yeah,
so that's all there is to rabies. And also, I think that there is a problem also with aggression. So, when the dog is aggressive, they have high levels of cortisol, And it's possible that the saliva becomes a little bit more poisonous under those conditions and under conditions of fighting distress or aggression, you know.
So that's I wish.
I wish my son were here listening to this conversation, because he he he, believes the rabies.
Well, I mean, I think most young men do it's most most, most young men and women.
It's just I've got to ask you another question.
I'm related to it well, tangentially related to this, which is that last night I went to visit a farmer, a farmer's wife.
To pick up my eggs and she was telling me about how she was.
She dreads this time of year, because this is the time of year when the man from Defra comes round it's a government department to do with farming and checks their cattle whether they've got Tb or not.
And i'm not sure that I believe that there are these that that cattle need to be slaughtered because of this deadly disease called Tb, which is spread by allegedly by badgers.
I think there's something, there's something not quite right about this.
Am I right?
Or is this?
Or is Tb real?
Uh, Tb is also.
Well, Tb is an illness.
Yes, it's real.
Now, what it's spread by is a whole different issue.
Uh, the the i've reviewed also call the the Father Of Tb.
Right, the the?
You know he got the Nobel Prize and all of that.
Uh, by the way, Do you know that Koff, Robert Koff, ran slave camps in Africa where he experimented on people?
Is this the guy, Koch's postulate, that guy?
Yeah, that guy.
Yeah, so.
He ran a slave camp so he could experiment.
Well, I mean, that's fair enough.
Yeah, so he ran a slave camp.
We all do that now and again.
Yeah, they all do it, right?
So he was one of those who experimented on imprisoned people in Africa, who of course, you know, and sanctioned by the imperial government.
What nationality was he?
He was German.
He was German?
okay. This is in the 19th century? Yes, early 1900s. Oh, was this in German South West Africa, Namibia? Yes, yes. Terrible things happened there. The Germans were awful. So yeah, so as part of it, yeah, he had his own concentration camp medical experiments program,
running it on these people. So this is kind of the mindset of the class that is involved in this kind of science. Now, he's credited for discovery of tuberculosis causative agent with this TB bacilli It's supposedly identified and discovered. Now,
I've reviewed whatever is available. It's very, very hard to find foundational papers. Even when you find them, they're in German, never translated to English for some reason. Well, we'll know for what reason. And sometimes they're not even available in anything that can be translated with AI tools or something, Like some blurry screenshots from newspapers.
That's all you get.
And so, but whatever I could find about this discovery of TB, I've summarized in another article and basically what he did.
He did a whole bunch of contortions in the lab and it took months I mean, actually took a couple of years for him to do it.
He, he wanted at that time.
It was the craze, the race.
Like today, there is an AI race.
At the time, the race was for germs, germ hunting right, They all set out, like all of these guys, the Pasteur, Koch, and everybody else who was involved in this, Jenner, although, you know, slightly different time period, they all set out with, diseases are caused by germs.
Presumption.
None of that is proven, but they all presume that they're caused by germs, because I'm going to catch that germ, I'm going to name it after myself, or name it with some bullshit name, and then I'm going to sell cures. So that was the business model. And I'm also going to work with the governments because the eugenicists in charge very, Very much like this approach and because it helps them enslave and control the populations.
So i'm going to get the government power to uh, both finance and then, you know, provide liability shield for like these experiments on prisoners and things of that nature.
So uh, that's what they were all doing, and so he set out with the idea, I will find the positive agent the, the germ of the Tb.
And so he went through inordinate amount of contortions in the lab, you know boiling staining reboiling restaining blah blah blah, until he was able to stain in pathology, to stain these, what he called bacillus, so some sort of a product of cell collapse, as usual um, in the virology stuff.
So they just pick up some cells, the cells are dying, the cells died, and then they identify some feature and say oh, this is the causative agent.
The cells died and then they identify some feature and say oh, this is the causative agent.
Uh, and that's what he did.
And that's what he did.
And so these, so these brown things within this blue field, are the bacillin.
And so these, so these brown things within this blue field, are the bacilli.
And then he declared that this is the bacilli.
And then he declared that this is the bacillin.
And then he was like lauded as like, oh my god, he found the causative agent.
And then he started selling a product called tuberculin uh, presumably curing tuberculosis.
It became a huge sensation.
He was sought out by like the kings and the aristocrats and very rich people, and his cure was selling for, in today's money, something like 35 000 per dose.
Wow yeah, and it killed a bunch of people.
And then he said, wait!" I'm going to reformulate it. I'm reformulating it. Now this version works. Again, started selling for huge amounts of money. Killed another bunch of people, including somebody rich this time. And there was a scandal. And after that,
he stopped selling this thing, but nobody held him accountable for anything. And so he stopped selling this thing, but he still proceeded with, you know, his BS about TB, and nobody He questioned his research or his claims or anything. It became enshrined in with Nobel Prize and with all the, you know, accolades. And so to date,
he's one of the greats in the virology. One of the problems I have when I'm arguing this sort of thing with Normies is that they've read so much Victorian literature and so much Victorian history in which Pallid figures waste slowly away of tuberculosis. And they think,
well, how can you say it's not real? Everyone was dying of it. So and so lost their chance. This famous person died of TB, blah, So what is the counter to that? Well, it depends on when. I also am a great admirer of 1800s, early 1900s literature. Huge collection. Almost all of this is Russian literature from that period. I'm trying to think who gets TB in the Russians,
who dies of TB. Oh, you know, you just read Dostoevsky, half of them do. Oh, by the way, Tolstoy or Dostoevsky? Well, Tolstoy, yeah, Tolstoy. I mean, actually, They're both amazing.
Um Dostoevsky has a bit too much drama for me, like for my liking.
Um he's, he's great though he's funny.
Actually, like you know, people don't realize that he's also has also his great sense of humor.
But uh, like Dalstoi is overall.
You know, and between Anna Karen and A Reward Piece, which one do you go for?
Oh, Anna Karen, it is it's, it's the greatest novel ever written.
I think there's no longer written.
And uh, you know I I yeah, like it's hard to compare, but yeah, there is no ever written like War And Peace.
You know, I I read it a couple times but I could never get through the war parts.
I like by the by volume four.
You're like, i'm just so tired of these like battle descriptions.
You know what, when my wife first read, read War And Peace as a girl, she skipped out all the World War sections.
This is so horrible I was talking to.
Only on a walk today I was walking with my son and finally he relented after much pressure and he read Anna Karenina and we agreed that the problem with Anna Karenina, the thing that puts you off, is you think I don't want to read a book about a woman who gets run over by a train at the end and and you think it's all about her.
But it's not.
It's about so much more, it's so much, so much more.
Yeah yeah, she's almost like she's not, she's not really the main.
I think Lievin is the main thing.
Uh-huh yeah yeah, but yeah no it's it's it's, it's great, it's great.
Let me just say, you know I, I read a lot of literature from that time.
Yes, they all get sick for various things, and a lot, you know, Tb is very, very common.
Uh now, what is TV? Let's bring it back to the main subject. TV, yes. So, what were they dying of? Well, you know, again, for people, and this is the answer to all of those who call us conspiracies. First of all,
people got sick. Well, I got sick last year, therefore virus is the stupidest take ever. And people were dying from tuberculosis, therefore germs, also stupidest take ever. The germs exist. It's just people are getting ill. You can have many,
many causes of illness, and none of them, none of the alternative causes have ever been examined by those who assert that they're caused by germs. And that's the number one failing of the entire field. Because you have to actually demonstrate that what you presume is the cause is the cause. Or at least the likeliest cause out of other causes. But you have to examine other likely causes of illness and mass illness,
Too, and number one cause of mass illness is always water, it's always sources of water, and that's what you need to look at.
And you know, if I, if I had to guess even though you know I haven't, I wasn't there in 1800s if, if I had to guess what they were getting sick from, it's polluted water the, the stewards.
It was not separated from drinking water routinely or extensively, or even in in a very, you know, rich settings uh, and that's number one cause of all mass illness um, is that.
And then, in addition to that, we also need to consider things like arsenic was everywhere, was used everywhere, in in the children's uh clothing toys uh, as a dye for clothes, and you know that women were wearing, children were, and everybody was wearing.
you know, just very commonly used dye, pesticide, agriculture, the ship deep, so the wool was commonly polluted with arsenic. So, arsenic was prevalent everywhere. Mercury was one of the most common treatments as medicine, but also arsenic too. Arsenic and mercury were also common medicines given to children as well. So,
that's another causative agent nobody ever examines. And those, just those two. And then, of course, you know, the air quality, the fact that everything was, you know, especially in the poor environments, like they use kerosene everywhere indoors. The conditions were horrible. There were pests everywhere. The cockroaches, the rats, the mice. I mean, like all of that needs to be looked at before somebody can say, oh no,
it was this bacilli. And now, you know, 200 years later, we have to every year inspect these women's cows for tuberculosis. And like, has any of her cows ever got tuberculosis? So why is this guy coming every She said when her herd had got the thing we call tuberculosis,
that as soon as the calves were born, they had to carry them off and kill them because the mother's teeth were so swollen, so the calf couldn't suckle. It was going to die. How did they determine it's tuberculosis? By PCR test or something? I'm sure by the official government. Right, so, I'm like,
you know, it could be numerous other causes that the cow had that condition, you know, especially if it was determined, okay, the cow just gave birth and there was some problem with lactation, How is this tuberculosis?
Because it's just like it takes a long time to develop and it's it's a lung disease um, like lung breakdown.
So I don't have to understand why they call it.
Are you aware?
Obviously we can't discuss this because I haven't got the details at my fingertips and you may not even have heard of him, but somebody pointed me in the direction of a guy whose name was he was.
He was called Purdy and he was from the.
The Purdy is the most famous shotgun manufacturer in in England.
A pair of Purdys will set you back a lot of money.
They're very, very beautiful guns.
Um, he was, um from that family and I think he died early as a result of his um inconvenient um findings.
And he said, you you you, you.
He postulated that TB is actually caused by an insufficiency of certain key minerals.
And you know, it's to do with depletion of, and and perhaps do with stuff where they spray on the soil but the, basically cattle, were not getting the nutrition that, getting the stuff they needed, or and or they were being poisoned by, by their environment.
It's quite, it's quite possible, quite possible.
I mean, a lot of things are like that.
You know, if you have some things polluting the, The water that they're drinking, or the where they're grazing, or their housing, maybe you know so there are many, many things that can cause this kind of illness.
It's not, you know, it doesn't have to be a germ.
Yeah yeah yeah yeah, um with.
Well, you've given the example of, of Russian literature.
So many of these, these tropes, if you like, are embedded in our consciousness Over generations and through our culture.
So it's very, very hard for people to escape the idea that these things might not be as they've been sold to us over generations.
Yeah, it is hard.
It's hard to challenge the narrative.
I understand why people don't want to.
They want to feel like, well, they don't feel comfortable with standing out somehow.
So they want to be in the herd, the safety of the crowd.
But I'm just telling you, the safety of the crowd will take you over the cliff to your own self-destruction.
You're talking lemmings.
exactly. I wonder whether even the lemming store is just made up. I think it's also made up, I don't think they're that stupid. I mean, although there are stampedes in various kinds of animals, not just lemmings. But,
yeah, the antelopes and bisons and stuff like that. Yeah, but that's so they can get across the veldt and they can get across rivers with crocodiles in them. I mean, there's safety in that. But yeah,
it's a double-edged sword, you know, you don't necessarily want to be always behind. As humans, we are given independent thinking skills and critical thinking skills and we must utilize them. Yes, exactly. I mean, You, and I believe that God made us in his image, so he wouldn't have given us this.
This wanted you to be with the crowd.
He would have made you a lemming.
Yes yeah, he would.
He would zoom in.
Lemmings are our soldiers.
Um, tell me about your.
Your petition thing to the was that it today?
Of the?
Yeah, so the the petition is is really uh, it's a.
I think it's a very good development.
Um uh, the Children's Health Defense.
We had several discussions about this.
Um, so the the history of of how we came up with this.
I was, you know, as you know, I've been writing a lot about the PrEP Act and how it's unconstitutional and how it must be, first of all, should be repealed completely. The PrEP Act is what we call License to Kill. It's the U.S. law that allows HHS Secretary,
Health and Human Services Secretary, unilaterally declare a pandemic based on no criteria whatsoever. You don't need to have viruses. They can just declare that we have a pandemic based on nothing, which is what they did in 2020. There was nothing, and they declared a pandemic. From who knows what. And based on that computer model,
a pandemic was declared. And so that's what the law allows them to do. And after they do it, they can indefinitely extend it, which they have. They now extended it to end of 2029, the COVID pandemic. We're still having COVID pandemic. We're also having a smallpox pandemic, by the way, since 2008 until 2032, according to the same law. But after that, they can also order from the pharmaceutical industry countermeasures, these poisons, right? The unregulated,
completely liability-free poisons.
And the U.S. government provides full ironclad liability shield to anybody who manufactures, distributes, or administers these things.
And they have so far.
So far, it's stood up and it held up as a complete wall, preventing any investigation, justice, accountability, compensation, anything.
And so I've been an advocate for, first of all, repealing it.
But second of all, HHS Secretary cannot repeal the law, but he can revoke those declarations.
So he can terminate the COVID declaration.
And if he terminates the COVID declaration, which he can do very easily by just writing a memo saying, "I no longer believe we have a pandemic." That's it. So he could do it, And that would immediately stop the mRNA shots because the farmers will not supply them without this ironclad liability shield. And I've written an open letter to him and,
you know, I've done a few of my colleagues as well, like rewritten, slightly enlarged this letter, again, send it to him. He called me in May of last year and he said, oh, you know, I know what you want me to do, which is remove this perfect liability shield, but I can't do it because of Trump, essentially referring to Trump.
And I understand because Trump is completely beholden to pharma.
And also said, oh, well, you know, and for everybody who wants to remove these shots, I get 100 phone calls saying that they want these vaccines.
Okay, whatever.
At this point, I said, I totally understand your political constraints.
Like, I understand you work for Trump and Trump works for pharma.
We all know that.
But here's the next best thing we can do is tell the truth to the public, right?
Right, and so let's all act in good faith, let's all pretend that you're health hero and Maha is a health hero movement and health freedom movement, and let's you know.
And so let's all act in good faith.
Let's all pretend that you're health hero and Maha is a health hero movement and health freedom movement.
I will extend enormous benefit of doubt to everyone I've been criticizing and I'm going to say, yes, I agree with you, I understand your constraints, I understand the politics of this.
Let's tell the truth, and telling the truth means we're going to properly label these things as countermeasures and not as fully licensed BLAs, as Peter Marx did in 2021, which is a complete fake.
It's a legal fake, and so the whole petition is.
Then we, you know we've drafted with CHD.
It goes through all the elements of, here's what the U.S. Law says is the legal standard for issuing biologics license full approval and here's what these guys did and it's total fraud.
And they complete.
They have not met a single, a single standard for BLA license.
even the most basic ones.
And this is very easy to see.
And there's plenty of documentation of it.
Now, you know, there's a lot of materials have been FOIA'd, released, and available.
So we're compiling on that and we're saying these things have never met any even basic criteria for biologic license application.
You as HHS can revoke the biologic license application.
And since we still have this ongoing COVID emergency declaration, you can properly relabel them back into EUA countermeasures as US law allows you to do.
And so you think people might be more reluctant to go to their doctors to get a countermeasure?
Yes, because and we also would like this to be part of a formal disclosure that because in the vaccine information statement, so the in the US, you don't get informed consent with vaccines, you get vaccine information statements.
It's a different legal different document. And in the vaccine information statement, you can also obligate them to say this is an emergency authorized countermeasure. As a countermeasure, it's not regulated as a biologics, it's not regulated as pharmaceutical, and it has all this potential to kill you. And also, if you are harmed by this product, you have no rights. You have waived your constitutional rights to sue for damages,
and you only can go to this countermeasures injury compensation black hole from which nobody returns. Yeah, people ought to know. It's not unreasonable. Who is that Kennedy girl who died aged 35 recently? Ah,
yeah, it's RFK Jr.'s cousin, Tatyana. Yeah. Was that the job? Granddaughter of John Kennedy,
and cousin of RFK Jr. And she and her mother were very, very pro-vax, pro-pharma, pro-government, pro-COVID fascism, Pro -all that.
And I guarantee you they were paid to be that.
Because with the big names like that, you don't say anything until you're paid to say it.
And that's how they.
Is that right?
Oh, yeah.
Oh, yeah.
Every statement they make, especially big articles like they've written in New York Times, oh, yeah, it's all placement propaganda, and they somehow get interested, incentivized to do that.
Now, they also believe that.
So their beliefs coincide with their ways of getting rich and powerful.
And… …the… so they were always, so she, Tatiana, was always, you know, pro-vaccine, pro-Jabs, of course, got all the shots herself, developed cancer from them, turbo cancer, and she then went on into,
I believe it was in New York Times, she wrote a huge article, or somebody wrote for her, because it was a couple months ago, I'm sure she was too sick to do that, but somebody wrote for her, and she put her name on that. The article blaming RFK Jr. for her cancer. The guy who told everyone not to take these shots, Apparently is responsible for her cancer.
How did she manage to work that one?
So she worked that one in by blaming him, and of course that's how.
I know that she didn't write it from a lobby wrote it, but she's blaming him for remember, there was this moment when HHS cancelled, I think, 22 mRNA projects that they were funding from BARDA or yeah, from BARDA, so they were.
They were funding additional 22 projects of these countermeasures vaccines, various related technologies to MRNA, and they cancelled them.
That was amounting to about 500 million dollars and they reallocated them to a full flu virus vaccine platform patented by Jeffrey Taubenberger at NIH.
Fauci's replacement but okay so they moved money from mRNA to this platform that NIH profits from and that led to huge fight in the press and accusations of you're going to kill everybody you don't care about curing cancer and so it's part of this so her claim was because he is canceling these life-saving projects in mRNA I'm going to die from cancer and it's his fault
it's interesting isn't it because I would call Kennedy as well I mean according to Fritz Springmeier Kennedy is one of the bloodline families so if if anyone should be in the know Uh-huh, it should be the Kennedys.
And it's quite interesting, isn't it?
People say well um, if there are these these, these incredibly powerful families that run the world, how do they, how do they avoid being harmed by the, by the things they're inflicting on the rest of us?
And it seems to me the answer is they're not always protected, that that they, they are sometimes sacrificed as this.
Yeah, oh yeah, oh yeah, it's not yeah.
So I get this question often.
They're like, oh no, your elites don't take those shirts.
And but the definition of elites is very broad and very flexible, and today, you know they, you know and um, my uh, best example of elites who are not in the know is uh, Colin Powell.
Uh former, you know, you know, U.s secretary of state.
You might say that that he actually has as a secretary of state has more power than president of the United States, in fact, so he would be like a more powerful elite person.
Uh, yet he died from early on, from a cold shot.
from one of the first COVID shots. Yeah. Even have his report of his death in VAERS, and I published that. Yeah. This is the guy who everybody remembers with the vial of anthrax in the Congress. There's this photo of him fearmongering about bioweapons and showing the vial of anthrax just to enable the passage of all those Patriot Act and biosafety,
biosecurity measures and all that. Apparatus. Yes,
Well, you've brought me on to the last thing I wanted to ask you about before I dash off to deal with my family visiting, which is bioweapons labs.
And I mean, you're unequivocal on this, that the whole idea that there are these labs where they can bioengineer viruses and they can kind of enhance them.
With gain of function, that phrase that we all learned during COVID, we all knew that what a bit of HIV had been inserted into that in the Chinese labs or somewhere.
And all these names cropped up that we became familiar with, that the people who are involved in this.
Do these people believe that they are capable of genetically altering viruses?
or do you think the whole thing is an absolute sham all along and it's just designed to scare us? It is a sham and it is designed to scare us, but it doesn't preclude those people who are participating, even at the very high levels, to fully believe in this. Because,
you know, to do something effectively, to have a career around something, you have to actually make yourself believe it. Yeah. Otherwise, the cognitive dissonance is just too much for most people. Although maybe some can compartmentalize. Fauci is probably an example of a psychopath that can easily compartmentalize and say,
ah, yeah, whatever. But most people actually do need to believe what they're doing. And so majority of the participants of this, virology, bullshit, golf, you know, exercises, I'm sure they believe it. In fact,
Most of the time, it seems to me from reviewing especially historical developments, historical programs of U.S. bioweapons, there was an official U.S. bioweapons development program for about 27 years. It was terminated by Nixon in 69. And, And during that time, it seems that they're mostly freaked out for themselves and reasonably because they're saying, well, we're working with these dangerous pathogens in the labs.
We need vaccines for ourselves to protect us because we're most exposed.
Okay, that's reasonable, actually.
And it may have been an evolution of this, well, we need to experiment on others to make better protection mechanisms for us so that we can then make better weapons.
That may have been the underlying indication of their behavior.
But yeah, but it's not possible.
I've also written a bunch of articles about how golf is complete sham and it's not possible to achieve.
You cannot create viruses in the lab.
You cannot create anything that's how they are describing it, that you can just, you know, puff it out the door, and it will fly all over the world and spread all over the world, you know, and create this whole pandemic and kill half the world. That's not possible. Nothing spreads. You can cook poison. Yes,
you can make very lethal poison. It's not something unique. It's been done for millennia. You can make poison. You can poison people. Injections are the most effective way to poison, but nothing spreads. You can't even infect somebody on purpose,
and that's been attempted numerous times with the study. Even in the UK, there was a big program running for decades trying to infect people with flu and common cold. And they eventually shut it down because it's not possible. So you can't on purpose infect anyone. Even if you did somehow manage to infect somebody,
it doesn't spread. It doesn't infect the next person. And so that always was there, and they all know it. And now all they do is just they hook up poisons, as I said, this 100% chemical. Chemical sludge, it goes into the synthetic DNA and RNA and then they use a bunch of computer modelling to obfuscate that none of this works
what I love about you Sasha is that you tell it so strange that coming from you I mean I'm totally convinced but if I tried to explain to people the same things that you've explained to me they'd go yeah but who is this woman how does she know what she's talking about I mean what's our reasoning we know that from the experts I suggest to those people again
try to engage your brain. Don't just spew the next token out at me that was programmed into you, which is, oh, this woman is crazy. That's the next token, right? So after we go through this dialogue, the next one is to dismiss me. And you say, oh, she's crazy. She's a conspiracist. She has no expertise and blah, blah, blah. But that's just, you know, the comeback should be, you just produced the next token. What I'm asking you to do is actually think, read,
and structure your thinking, and then come back with an original thought, not something that was programmed to you. Original thought, please. Your own words. That's what I'm asking people always to do. This is one very easy trick that you can use. Don't repeat the words of others,
regardless whether you agree or you disagree, especially when you agree with somebody. Don't repeat their words. Try to put them into your own words. If you put it into your own words, you are engaging your actual, instead of being on autopilot like we always are. You engage in your pilot, your operator, conscious operator, and putting it in your own words will oftentimes show you the gaps, and obfuscations,
And straight lies and something that's just like pulling out of thin air with no basis and that begins the process of actually thinking, as opposed to just.
You know, that makes sense to me, can you?
But could you give me a kind of a very, very concise explanation of why you can't bioengineer viruses once?
Well, first of all, well, besides the fact that the viral causes have not been proven, but let's say if you have proven a viral cause.
So I've written, actually, I published on December 31st an article explaining exactly why with all the materials in it, based on Ralph Barrick's work himself.
Yes, I saw that one.
Yeah, that's your...
Well, so there are fundamentally insurmountable issues to synthetically produce a virus, even if you have an idea, like, let's assume they've proven this virus causes this illness.
To synthetically produce this virus, you need to have error-free code.
Nobody has ever produced error-free code, and there are no tools today that can produce an error-free code for that virus.
Now, there are also many, many issues with even this whole approach of we create a code code.
And then from there...
We synthetically engineer something it.
It doesn't work that way.
But okay with that.
For simplicity, let's just say the.
They need the, the code of the entire virus.
Viruses are huge.
Uh, you know a smaller one, I like SARS-CoV-2.
I believe it's 30 000 base pairs and maybe not remembering correctly but it's in the article.
So something like 30 000 base pairs to Herpes is like 150 000 base pairs.
Uh, the modern techniques to uh Pcr.
They use Pcr to to figure out what the code.
They use Pcr to to figure out what the code uh, they're error prone.
Uh, they're error prone.
It produces an error ever, at least every 10 000 base pairs.
It produces an error at least every 10 000 base pairs, and this is when, if you're using the most advanced tools, it will be an one error in 10 000 base pairs.
So by definition, you're going to have three errors and you need error free.
And then and, and the way they do it is in small chunks, they can't do the entire, so they're doing a small channel.
So again that, and then they have to like, reassemble them.
That itself introduces a whole bunch of other errors.
So now you don't have uh, even the error free code.
Oh, and you also need, because the viruses exist in a variety of forms, in a variety of variants, and they claim to be mutating all the time.
They also vary, so there's like uh versions of them flying around all the time.
And so you need the version that's infectious and produces illness.
So you need the code for that version.
So you need to first find that version, Have enough of it, Somehow figure out what its code is without any errors.
And I said, there is no technology today to do that.
And then you have to synthetically make one without any errors.
Again, there is no technology to do that, And then you have to proceed to infecting somebody, which I said is not possible. They tried. It's not possible. Even if you infected somebody, that person may get ill, may even die, but the next person won't. There you go. You just can't do that. Do you know what this sounds to me like,
Sasha? It sounds to me like more research is needed. Oh yeah, more research and more money is needed. And that's all they do. They are just, here's, oh, you know, all of these problems, but if you pay me enough, they will be solved soon. But not so fast. But they will be. But just pay me enough. That's all there is to it. In every academic institution, every paper I read, It's the same thing. I just reviewed Barrick because he's such a, you know,
master of all of this. But they're not different from anybody else. Yeah. Well, thank you. That was really good. Tell us where we can find you. Yes. So I have one Substack,
SashaLotypova.substack.com, where my publication is called "Due Diligence in Art". Even if you're really stupid and you don't understand science, It's it's, it's.
You don't need to be a phd, you don't need to be a scientist and you will uh, be able to debate scientists and they will cry.
And, by the way, thank you for being right about about Tolstoy, because I was, I was in the.
You know that that that art museum in Moscow um where, the one with with all the, the one with the bears in it, the bear painting on the chocolate oh, the bears in the tree, the Trityakov gallery, or which one, it's got it's, it's got, it's got all the Russian artists, yeah.
it's probably Tretyakov. Like Vera Shagin. And I was in there, and my young woman, who was my guide, I suggested that Tolstoy was the best and she said, "No,
Dostoevsky." She said to me like I was really stupid. Well, it's a matter of preference. They're both great. They're both for different Well, Well, today not, but we're expecting a bunch of snow, and so I'm waiting to go skiing.
Are you?
We're expecting snow here.
Oh, really?
Yeah.
Oh, wow.
So is the climate change not happening in Britain?
Do you know what?
I think global warming is temporarily...
Temporarily on hold?
Do you know what?
I think by limiting our freedoms, they've managed to halt global warming in its tracks.
Oh, wow.
Killing birds and bats with wind turbines, sometimes maybe the birds and bats' deaths have caused the sun to stop...
To stop, yeah.
producing. Yeah, because, you know, I went for wine tasting. I was in Napa County a week ago. I went for the wine tasting and they gave me… They were introducing champagne from Britain, the grapes grown in Britain. And it was not bad, it was good. Oh, I tell you what, English sparkling wine is really good. Yeah, so… It's better than champagne, I think. Yeah, it was the same quality,
and they've given us a story. Well, because of the global warming, the Britain's now going to be a premier wine-producing region. We're like, "Wow, this is amazing!" That's extraordinary. Yeah, you'll be able to go on sort of beach holidays in Scotland soon. It'll be fantastic, yeah. Um, good. Well, thank you, happy new year,
and I'm gonna have my second cigarette of my new year. Okay, good. If I have the resolution of giving up, I've already broken it almost twice. Alright. Thank you. Good luck with that. Alright,