All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 1, 2022 - Jim Fetzer
01:18:24
Dr. Mike Yeadon - Ex-Pfizer Chief Scientific Officer Exposes Deadly Vax Lots for Nuremberg 2.0
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Dr Mike Yeadon, thank you so much for joining us today.
It is truly an honour to have you with us.
You've been speaking out constantly for months and months and months and it is really wonderful to have you here with our Aussie audience and also we know that this will reach many, many abroad.
Thank you for coming today.
Thank you, Maria, for inviting me.
And hello, Australia.
I'm sorry everything's such a bloody mess, but we are going to push this back, you know.
And also, even though she doesn't like me at the moment, I'll say hello to my sister Jane in Adelaide.
Hello, Jane.
I haven't been taken by aliens.
She has a PhD in biology in a biological subject.
She doesn't believe me, but there you go.
That's mass formation, I guess, for you.
Not everybody believes what I'm saying, but lots of people do.
Yes, yes.
Well, I think more and more are starting to realise, Dr. Yeadon, especially when we see all of the adverse events around the world and the people that are dying from these vaccines and also just the complete ineffectiveness of the vaccines.
Yes.
So before we get into it, Dr. Yeadon, do you mind just talking us through a little bit about your career history and why you are qualified to speak on these things?
Yes, certainly.
OK.
So, yeah, Dr. Mike Yeadon, I've been this is my 41st year since I started, you know, training in biology.
I'm 33 years postdoc, something like that.
All of it spent in the pharmaceutical industry, biopharmaceuticals.
Except the last year when I got fired, of course, for my outspoken comments.
So originally then, I trained in biochemistry and toxicology, a joint honours degree.
I'm a Brit, so I don't brag, but I'm told I should mention that I finished not only top of my year, but the highest score ever given in that subject.
So I did okay.
And then I did a PhD in pharmacology.
I studied respiratory pharmacology, as it turns out.
And that was my entry into the pharmaceutical industry.
I joined Wellcome Research before it got bought by Glaxo.
I had seven glorious years there, you know, doing basic research, but also working on drug programs.
And then when Glaxo bought my skidaddles 50 miles down the road to the Pfizer sandwich Kent base, and I stayed the remainder of my big pharma career there.
And when I left, I had grown With lots of help from colleagues, a small respiratory discovery unit up to about, I think we had 60 biologists and over 200 people in total and about, I don't know, 10 programs ranging from the late lab stage to phase two.
That was 11 years ago when Pfizer reduced its base count and went off back to the States.
I stayed for an additional year and helped find New homes for some of those people and programs.
And in fact, some of the inhaler programs we had got bought by the world's second largest generics company called Mylan.
And I'm pleased to say I had nothing to do with them thereafter, but they finally got that product to the market.
So we were working on some good stuff.
A year after I'd left, I'd had the opportunity to start consulting for biotechs.
There were two people just approached me out of the blue and that gave me my entree to do that.
And over the last 10 years, I've consulted to 30 startups, some of whom are now public companies.
I won't mention them because they get embarrassed when I do that.
But one of them is now worth like five billion dollars, and it had four staff when I joined them.
Then, let's say a year after I'd left Pfizer, I got the idea that we still had some good programs that they had abandoned because they had shrunk as well as removed the research footprint and armed with some confidence that if I could raise private capital, they would do a deal with me.
I raised some private capital.
I only took 70 pitches and I raised some money in San Francisco.
We did a deal with Pfizer, a very cordial arrangement, and I acquired several of my old programs with three or four former colleagues.
And then over the next five, six years, raised even more money, did a clinical trial, had good data, and got acquired by Novartis, which was then the world's biggest drug company.
That was 2017.
Pfizer was still a co-owner because they had a seat on the board and so on.
So mentioning all of that, I think, should give you the idea that I've been involved from the earliest stages of drug discovery and target selection, all the way to clinical trials, and had some involvement in, as I say, dozens of biotech.
So I've cast my eyes over lots of different programs, and people have paid me to give them my opinion of what they're doing, and investors also have treasured that.
Also, Having worked with Pfizer after leaving, then I think I can put page to the idea that I'm a disgruntled former employee.
One, Pfizer was a great employer when I was there, and they were very kind to me when they when they closed.
And we had a very cordial business relationship up until 2017, at which point I made them and me and other people quite a lot of money.
So no one's disgruntled.
And then two other criticisms sometimes thrown at me because there are no motives at all for me to be speaking out other than that I'm telling the truth, as I know it.
So the other criticism is, well, he's a grifter making money.
Well, you won't find anything at all in the last 20 months I've done that's monetized.
I actually don't even know how to do it.
And I'm not interested in doing it.
So I'm not making any money.
I'm losing six figure sums because I've got myself booted off various scientific advisory boards for well-funded biotechs.
That was unfortunate, but I knew it would happen.
And then, yeah, the last thing is, well, he's doing it for fame.
I'm actually quite a shy person.
This is intensely painful.
I don't like speaking to total strangers across the world.
I'd rather be in my shed fiddling with motorbikes.
So I'm not doing it for fame or money.
I'm not disgruntled.
Why am I doing it?
Well, you can judge.
I think I'm qualified to make the comments I do.
And you can decide whether you think this guy's honest or not.
And if he is, you can't believe your government because they're lying to you.
They've been lying to you.
Thank you.
Thank you, Dr. Yeadon.
And whoever knows you from my audience would know that you've been speaking out about PCRs, the faulty PCR test, or at least test that is inappropriate for diagnosing COVID-19.
Mask wearing and how it's predominantly a fear tactic.
And not actually doing anything.
Lockdowns have not been effective or suitable for managing this virus.
And the pandemic preparedness plans that were previously in place with countries all across the world have essentially been thrown out as we put these nonsensical things in place.
To manage what is essentially a very manageable and treatable virus, had we had access to early treatment options and not had them suppressed?
No, perfectly, perfectly put.
I think, you know, just to say it again, for decades, we've known that people are only really infectious, they're only a good source of infection if they're symptomatic.
So, you know, if people look perfectly well, they can't give you what they haven't got.
So this notion of Asymptomatic transmission.
It's pretty much a myth.
I mean, if it occurs at all, I would classify it as epidemiologically irrelevant.
And it's really easy.
If you haven't got very many viruses in your airway, you simply can't give it to people.
And if you've got a lot of viruses in your airway, you will have to have symptoms.
You can't carry lots of viruses and not have symptoms, because they attack you and you fight back.
That produces symptoms.
And Tony Fauci said, Epidemics, in all the history of them, are always driven by symptomatic people.
Maria Kokovi of the WHO said the same, and I've just given you the reasoning.
So they are lying to you.
So if only symptomatic people are a good source of infection, why would you want to ask everyone to wear masks?
It's a fear tactic, obviously.
Even if they worked, which they don't, but even if they worked, why would you give them to people, make people who are Without symptoms, wear them.
And then, of course, lockdown doesn't work.
And it took me, I'm embarrassed to say, it took me six months to work out why it didn't.
And there was one particularly foul British journalist who was just going on reasoning, doesn't even understand this is a disease of human contact.
So if you reduce the contacts, you'll reduce the spreading.
And in that moment, I suddenly got it.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chris.
You idiot.
I got it because, no, it's not human contact.
It's infectious contact, Chris May, isn't it?
It's only when you contact someone who is a good source of infection and you are susceptible.
That's the only chance of transmission.
All other contacts are irrelevant.
Now, guess what?
Symptomatic people, we used to call them ill.
And when you're ill, you generally stay at home.
You don't need to be told to self-isolate.
You feel like crap.
So most of the time, not always, but most of the time, the good source of infection are already at home on their sofa or in bed or even in the hospital.
And so when you then close down the non-infectious community, which is what lockdown is, it doesn't do a damn thing.
So they've wrecked your economy.
They're frightening you to death by lying in your face.
And they're still doing it today because PCR tests don't mean anything.
Lateral flow tests haven't been properly calibrated.
And as Maria said, most people survive infection with this virus, if it even exists, who knows.
But certainly if you get ill with these respiratory viral pneumonias, if you have early treatment, and even if you're very vulnerable, most people survive.
So there's never been A new emergency.
There's never been a new hazard in your environment.
And there isn't now, except two things.
Your government's behavior and the vaccines.
Those are serious hazards.
And if you think it's the virus, then I think it's a serious risk.
We will lose our liberty, possibly permanently, and possibly our lives.
So the reason I keep speaking out, even though this is uncomfortable, is that as a scientist of 40 years experience, it's blindingly obvious what I'm telling you is true.
And they've used, I think the word would be psyops, psychological operations to condition and prepare you and reinforce that this is a really fearful thing and you better do what you're told and you follow what your peers are doing.
And then when people like me try and talk to you, most people just dismiss it.
And I keep going because some people instinctively knew it was wrong and I provided like a conduit to understanding it.
And there's a bunch of people in the middle that are, I guess they're looking for leadership.
And I hope that people like Maria and her followers and me can help push us that away.
Whereas if we go passive, the government will just roll us over.
I don't understand why they're doing it exactly.
I don't understand exactly who's behind it.
I'm not interested either.
I'm not a detective.
So my job is to tell you, stand up, go outside, throw your masks off, tell the government you're not doing all this stupid stuff anymore.
Take your lives back while they still exist because it won't be much longer.
Two years of destruction of our economies collectively.
We could be right on the brink, couldn't we?
So I've said it for a year, more than a year.
Go and take your lives back while you can.
And I mean it.
You've got to do what the Canadians are doing today.
Just take it back.
Let them shoot you.
I mean, are you police really going to shoot you in the face?
I don't think they will.
Not many of you anyway.
So anyway, I'll stop at that.
We've got to.
I'm bored with doing this and I'm frustrated with doing this.
No one's going to come and save us, OK?
I just want to say this, Maria.
I didn't realise this at first.
I had decided if I spoke out, people would go, yeah, that's right.
And there would be a spreading of action.
But the trouble is, there's no action, almost no action.
And I can't save you.
I can't save myself.
I'm living in a hotel room.
Florida with my wife because we were worried that UK would get shut down in the spring.
Okay, hasn't turned out that way.
Maybe we'll go home.
But that's that I wanted to carry on even if Europe went under because I figured the southern US will be the last place on.
And so I can't save myself, can't save you.
You can.
There's enough of you.
You just But you have to do it because as Simone Gold of America's Frontline Talks says, we are the cavalry, all of us.
No one is coming.
There's no external bodies ever going to come and save you.
That's the evil genius of what's being done is essentially, I mean, really, it's not dramatic, overdramatic to say it's a coup de gras, a coup d'etat of all the liberal democratic countries at once.
That's what's happened.
It's been planned for years.
I don't know how long for, but there's loads of evidence of planning, which we could talk Talk to if you want.
And then they've gone for it and we've rolled over.
They've just used standard propaganda techniques discovered, you know, in the early 20th century and written up by Bernays, you know, Bernays, who was like the father of modern advertising.
They've just used all those nudge techniques.
And they've had years and years to practice them.
And then they've used them on us all in one go.
And we've gone for it and we've fallen for it.
So if we don't stand up.
Yeah, go on.
I do want to talk about some of that evidence, Dr. Yeadon, because what we've seen is that it is definitely, it appears to be a much more sinister plan.
And recently you came out with Dr. Rainer Fuhlmich and submitted some evidence to what people know as Nuremberg 2.0, but it's not the traditional style of Nuremberg.
That's what we're looking at.
We're looking at international crimes against humanity.
But basically, these batches that the pharma companies are releasing have, if I'm not mistaken, 90% of the adverse events associated are associated with around 10% of the lots.
And we're able to find this information on the VAERS system.
So can you talk to us about that discovery?
How did it come about?
Yeah, yeah, certainly.
Well, I didn't make the discovery.
There's a guy called Craig Pardecouper, Pardecouper.
And if you look, if you look on a website called, I think it's called howbad, one word, howbad.com.
And basically, you can put in a batch number, say you've been vaccinated, most people won't have had any side effects.
And it could be, I could think of two reasons, and I'll explain that in a minute.
But some people have had bad side effects, some serious, and they're permanently disabled, and some people, their relatives would have died.
I mean, I'm not kidding.
If you, just for your people who are watching, There's a website here.
Okay, I'm going to read it out.
The VAERS system, Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, is really quite complicated and clunky.
I can't use it.
I'm not very good with computers and Excel and download and pivot tables and that stuff.
But this website is called OpenVAERS.
One word, O-P-E-N, and then V-A-E-R-S.
OpenVAERS.com.
It looks like that.
And as of today, just under 2 million adverse events have been reported.
And 22,000 people whose deaths have been reported.
Now, we know these are passive systems, that is, they rely on People going to see a healthcare professional usually, theoretically, anyone could enter data and that's often used to dismiss it.
But analysis has been done and 86% of the reports are put in by healthcare professionals.
So it's not full of right-wing nuts putting in fake entries.
Also, you can't make an entry without all sorts of reference numbers, including the batch number, date of birth, things like that.
If they don't match up with the provider's information, And every one of them is checked by, I think it's the CDC and the FDA.
So every one of them has to be released.
They're all going to a big bucket.
There's lots of people working.
They check basic information.
They don't release things that look fake, like Donald Duck and, you know, whatever, a fake number.
So they are genuine.
And what we know from analysis over many years, and there are published papers on this, that there is something called an under-reporting factor.
An underreporting factor really is a degree to which the adverse events are actually reported.
Hopefully all of them would be, but in practice it's somewhere between 1 in 100 and about 1 in 40.
That's probably the range.
And that means you might need to multiply this 22,600 deaths by as much as 100, which, of course, is, I think, 2.2 million.
But maybe it's 40-fold, and that would be about 800,000.
These are hideous numbers of deaths.
Normally, for a similar number of injections, the VAERS system sees about 150 deaths after vaccination.
And I think most of them are literally just spontaneous.
So just to explain, if we asked everybody to put red socks on tomorrow, and then we checked back a week later, we probably would have a couple of dozen people who died after putting red socks on.
It's because they were due to die tomorrow.
Was not because they put red socks on.
So 150 people a year after vaccination probably mostly are coincidental and they weren't killed by the vaccines.
They might be, but I'm not claiming they are.
In this case, these are killed by the vaccine.
And the reason we know that is we looked at the design of the vaccines before they were approved and we could see they encoded a protein called the spike protein of the virus.
And then they had a piece of, you know, either a method of delivery.
So the AstraZeneca and the J&J ones use an attenuated virus to deliver the payload of DNA, genetic information to the cytoplasm.
And then the Moderna one, the Pfizer one, they use lipid coats, lipid nanoparticles.
So it's like stealth bombers.
They just go right through the cell wall.
So either way, though, your cell is temporarily taken over to be a factory that manufactures alien proteins, which is really spooky, not a nice idea, although that is what happens during infection.
But the spike protein is the stupidest uh choice to make a vaccine and I'll tell you why I'm not even a vaccine expert but I'm not a bad toxicologist and I've been in drug discovery for decades so it's it's the worst possible choice because first it's it's biologically active it it's not it doesn't just stick to your cells and allow you to enter through the h2 receptor it it is a fusogenic protein it causes cells to fuse
And it causes your blood cells to fuse and it initiates blood clotting and we've known that for related viruses for a long time.
And I didn't know that, but when I, it took me about half an hour to find it, literally, I thought, my God, I thought, I'll go and look and see what's the biology of spike protein, because I thought it's going to get expressed.
So what's it, what is it going to do?
And I think most people thought it'd be passive, and I assumed it would be active, and it was active, and it, amongst other things, causes blood clotting.
There are papers to show that.
So, so that's, it's an active protein that's going to hurt you.
And they could have picked other parts of the virus, like the nuclear coat or the capsid.
They don't seem to have this biological activity.
Second, it's the least stable part of the virus.
So I don't think mutation is that important, actually.
I think that's a psychological operation.
But you wouldn't pick the most unstable part and only give you that.
Well, that's what they've done.
And then, of course, it only produces immunity.
Your body only gets used to.
That little piece of the virus and it doesn't get to see the other 88% which is these other proteins.
So it's just it's a bad choice and then they all chose it.
Why did they?
Is that staggering to you that they all chose the spike protein when I've given some good reasons why you should choose something else?
I didn't know at the time and maybe they didn't.
But there are plenty of published immunology papers now.
Guess what?
Oh, there was another reason.
The body, when left to its own devices, directs most of its immunity, its acquired immunity, to bits of the virus other than spike.
And that tells you even the human body doesn't like choosing spike as the best immunogen.
Why?
There's another reason I forgot to mention.
Although it's not very like any human proteins, it's the most similar to lots of human proteins of any piece of the virus.
So it might have what's called low homology, but recognizable similarity to lots of proteins.
Why does that matter?
Oh, it matters.
If you encourage the human body to make a vigorous immune response to something you've shoved in it, like the spike protein, sometimes the immune response spills over to related proteins, not identical but similar, and then what you get then is what's called neo-autoimmunity.
You induce autoimmune diseases, and that's what's happening.
The attack on pregnant women's placenta, which appears to be, I think that's the probable cause, at least it's a reasonable hypothesis that that's the cause of the 300% increase in miscarriage in American military.
So people can criticize the public VAERS database as long as they like, all day if they want, but the Department of Defense has its own system.
And I can assure you, if you're ill in the military, you have to report it, that you can't miss it because you've been not on duty and so on.
Every single one of their adverse events that were noted are reported by military health care personnel.
That data has been leaked about a week ago, and it pretty much looks like the VAERS adjusted for an underreporting factor.
So, yeah, that's what's happening.
Huge numbers of people are being injured.
I think one in a thousand or so are dying.
And about one in a hundred are getting really notable injuries, and primarily it's this overexpression of spike protein.
And then as Maria mentioned at the beginning, and I couldn't believe this, I just didn't want to believe it, bloody things don't work either.
They induce circulating antibodies to spike, but circulating antibodies to spike are no use to you most of the time.
Why?
Because antibodies are big molecules in your blood, And the virus, when you're infected by it, lands on the inside of your airway, what's called the mucosa, where your blood isn't.
They're in different compartments, bluntly.
Essentially on the outside, you know, your folded lung is essentially the outside of your body.
So the virus lands on the mucosal surface and starts to invade your airway cells and burns through the lining.
Meanwhile, the antibodies in your blood are futile.
They're not in that compartment.
So, it doesn't do anything.
They don't stop infection.
They don't stop it growing in your airway.
They don't stop you transmitting it.
I'm not even convinced they reduce symptoms, as they claim.
I think there was fraud in those trials.
But anyway, they're a crap vaccine.
I just don't believe that they were picked by experienced, well-intentioned people, because you wouldn't do it that way.
And loads of companies used completely novel technology.
Gene-based vaccines.
No one's used these.
So in what crazy world, let me tell you, as someone who's been involved in drug discovery, the first time you use a new drug of a new type of technology, my God, it's when you launch that your problems start.
You've done careful trials, everything looks okay, but you've only tested it in a few thousand people.
Once you launch a new drug, it gets into millions of people, and if you're lucky, and it's good, tens of millions, maybe hundreds of millions.
That's when you start to really learn what you didn't know.
So the idea of launching Using warp factor I mean come on warp speed that sounds to me like uh let's miss out a load of steps which is what they did for example no reproductive toxicology is being done they did not test the safety or efficacy of these vaccines in people who are most at need that is the elderly and people with lots of other diseases didn't bother to do that so they did it in you know middle-aged and healthy elderly people like me I haven't got anything wrong with me yet other than I'm crazy
And then, of course, and they also deselected people.
They deselected people who had existing immune diseases like rheumatoid arthritis.
Any thoughts why they might have done that, given what I've just told you?
I think they knew there was a chance of autoimmunity being induced, and they cherry-picked people out that had anything other than kind of really robust health, and they kept the age range tight.
I think that's what they did.
We're talking about some of the biggest pharma companies in the world that know exactly what goes into a clinical trial.
They would know Oh yes.
That this spike protein, that this particular focus that you're talking about is the most ineffective way to launch this.
They would know all of this and we do have further evidence of this which we'll go into, but is there any way that all of these massive big pharma companies have missed These key points that you are talking about and most of the world has been able to... Yes.
So I have to say, I mean, I feel like a right proper Charlie in that I worked inside the pharmaceutical industry and biotech and so on for 32 years.
I was aware occasionally that people did bad things like they do in other companies.
And I thought, well, yeah, but that isn't typical.
That's just stupid people at the sales and commercial end pushing the envelope.
Basically, the most common kind of mistakes Mistakes.
The Criminal Acts, for which many companies, including Pfizer, while I worked for them, got a very big fine.
It's like mis-selling, really.
It's the pharmaceutical equivalent of what the banks were doing.
They would have an approval for a drug, and they would find ways of persuading prescribers to prescribe it for conditions that they hadn't really got good data for.
And of course, we were not happy in research.
We were not happy when things like this happened because we knew it reflected on us.
And we would be the people who you've down the pub and you work at that Pfizer.
And of course, I would defend them.
And now I feel like a right proper Charlie.
The thing is, I don't think very many people I was in discovery research.
That's the new ideas.
New drug programs and then developing a candidate drug all the way up to early clinical trials, just the start of patient studies, and then it goes into full development.
So I think most people in the area I worked in, if they were hearing this now, they'll be shocked, and you should be.
And I don't think very many of them, because they wouldn't have spent all the time looking at this, would know that what I've said is so.
You know, I had to actually study what they were doing in order to And so I'm not sure very many people, unless they're vaccine development people, they probably don't know that what's going on was always a bad idea.
And unless they look at these public adverse event databases, they probably don't hear anything either, because none of the main media, none of the main media anywhere in the world, oddly enough, that's a bit odd, isn't it?
None of them are talking about it.
Big Pfizer, Moderna, Pfizer, J&J, they would know what they're doing.
I'm afraid that was the worst part for me, was exactly that.
I mean, I can't speak for the smaller companies, because the small ones, this is their first product.
But I'm afraid Johnson & Johnson, AstraZeneca and Pfizer, when I worked for Pfizer, I was I was a very happy employee and they were a good company 11 years ago.
I would say if they knew how to do anything well, it's to make reproducibly quite complicated products and distribute them around the world.
They're very, very good at that.
In fact, I'm not sure there's anyone who makes more complex products on a greater scale and distributes them globally than the pharma industry.
I'm afraid what comes out the factories and is in those glass vials, they know exactly what's in there.
They do, I'm afraid.
That is their very meat and drink, that mass manufacture and distribution of complicated products.
It's not a mistake what's going out.
I'm not saying many people know what's going on, but whoever's doing it, it's not an accident.
They're highly skilled manufacturing professionals.
Yeah.
Dr. Eden, recently you spoke with Dr. Rainer Fjellmich and you presented some evidence for these international crimes against humanity trials.
And you spoke about these batches.
And for anyone who's missed that presentation, it is actually on my website, zmedia.com, z-e-e-e-media.com, on the other videos page.
It's called Dr. Mike Eden on the Corona Investigative Committee, The Fog is Lifting.
So in that presentation, you've shown the different batches And that some of these batches are responsible for a majority of the adverse events and the pharma companies know this.
And so you've mentioned before that when people are entering the data into the VAERS system, they have to actually put in their batch number, which is how we were able to extract this data, correct?
Yeah, that's right.
I think what we found surprising, and I've not worked again in production, but I was quite surprised to find that they don't have barcodes.
So the batch number that might be ABC123, something like that, I think it's entered manually on like a little card that they will give you.
I haven't been vaccinated, of course, why would you?
But people who have been, they'll be given their name, date of birth, what the product was, and the batch number will be in a box.
Apparently, it's quite easy to make a typographical error.
So either the person filling out your card Or probably more likely, the person entering the data in the event there's been a death or serious illness makes a typographical error.
And so there are more batches in VAERS than there actually were batches issued by a long chalk.
Because if you've got six, seven, eight alphanumeric sequence, it's quite easy to get a keying wrong with a hyphen or a space or mistaking a zero for an O and so on.
And so cleverer people than me have poured over this data and tried their best to clean up, to remove what looked like typos.
So if there are a very small number of adverse events, you know, that is if a batch number appears only twice.
And let me just tell you, the batches are typically a million to a million and a half doses.
So if that batch was producing some side effects, it might occur in hundreds or thousands of people, and that would be reflected in the feedback.
In fact, I think the highest one I can remember is 6,000.
Some people might even remember the batch number, but one of them was like 6,000.
And remember, it's underreported for between 40 and 100 fold.
But there were large numbers of basically, we think they're phantom, Typograph, you know, typo errors.
But even when you clean that up, there are a relatively, a minority of batches contain a disproportionately large number of adverse events and deaths.
And although there should be, you would expect a normal distribution.
That's, that's what happens, I'm afraid.
Even when you've manufactured a product tightly, there'll be, you know, there'll be a range.
Some will be slightly more clean, whatever, higher purity and some will be lower purity.
You would expect some sort of distribution and it'll be a bell curve, whatever it is.
But the thing that I think gave me confidence that something was seriously wrong with the distributions was that these at least two analysts have looked.
They compared all the injected flu vaccines over, I think it was several decades and nine manufacturers were.
And it was, by coincidence, a similar number.
It was about 22,000 unique batches over that time.
And they looked at the distribution of adverse events across all of those batches and all of those years and products.
And so they had an idea of what normal variation looked like.
And it looked surprisingly just like a little noisy sound trace set on zero, just a little fuzzing.
But when you look at the COVID vaccines, there's a lot of them produce nothing at all, but there's some that are just like 6,000, 3,000, 2,000, whereas I think the highest ever was like 37 or was it 73, but one or two tiny spikes with the flu and the rest are really tiny all the time.
So there's no doubt, even if the extent of unevenness batch to batch, even if, you know, even if we're wrong about that in some way, The thing that we're not wrong about is that large, there are large numbers of batches of COVID-19 vaccines that are producing, they're poisoning very large numbers of people.
And that is not, that's not representative of other injected vaccines.
So that alone.
But in terms of why I thought the unevenness, which implies, so unevenness is very important.
If batch A Batch A produces, you know, I don't know, five adverse event reports and Batch B produces 6,000.
I can tell you, looking in the camera, those are not the same product.
It's not the same material, right?
It's not possible.
Because the batches are spread across many states and given to millions of people, certainly hundreds of thousands.
So it isn't because they were given to, I don't know, older people or sicker people.
They were smeared across the States.
And so was the batch that produced little side effects.
They're not the same material.
And as Maria said, the manufacturers know that.
They know they're not the same.
Can you just, for the audience, explain the significance of these batches not being the same material?
What does that mean?
Absolutely.
I mentioned before, but just to say it again, what characterizes pharmaceutical manufacturing is an attention to detail that's sort of unbelievably painstaking.
You have to Usually I've been involved in the drug side, not in the biological side.
So these are complex biological products.
But the easiest way to understand it is if you're making a like a crunchy white powder and convert it into a capsule or a tablet, there are two stages.
The one is to make the drug itself.
It's called the drug substance, DS, the drug substance.
And then it'll be bound up with, you know, all sorts of excipients and filling agents and color and stabilizers and so on.
Crunch into a tablet or pushed into a capsule and that's called the drug product or DP.
All of those steps are controlled with a sort of maniacal care.
And there'll be tests to make sure that you're doing what you thought you were doing every stage, and allowable results for each of those tests.
And you negotiate those with the regulators, and they go, yeah, you follow that, those 20 steps, and it reproducibly produces drug X at the end, and it's, you know, it's 100 plus minus half a percent.
It'll be really bang on each time.
And with complex products, there's probably a wider range of variability, because they genuinely are Almost impossible to manufacture identically.
But if you get batch A of a COVID vaccine that produces half a dozen side effect reports, mild, nobody died, and then you get another batch, an adjacent batch number, and it produces 6,000 adverse event reports and 200 deaths, folks, they can't be from, they're not the same material, because slight variations doesn't go from nothing happening to lots of deaths.
You know, it's hard to explain, but I can tell you that the normal... I'll explain it this way.
The allowable variation between batches of pharmaceutical products are such that the differences between, say, me taking it and Maria taking it and you taking it, will be differences due to me, Maria and you.
It won't be due to the product.
The product will be so similar that it'll be the human variation that defines what the outcome is.
And so when you get these vaccine batches, that should still be true.
If I take two batches off the line from, could be two different finishing plants, they really ought to be damn well the same and vary by a tiny amount.
And that means if we injected one into me and one into Maria, And then you did that again and again for hundreds of thousands of people.
You should get the same safety profile, hopefully a good clean safety profile.
You can't get half a dozen adverse event reports and then six thousand.
That means it's different materials.
No question is then.
So that's true.
I'm sure of that.
The only question is, is that on purpose?
Or is it accidental, but either way it's known to them, right?
You don't just start and then, like, wave it off on the lorry, but you're checking all the time, so they do know what's in that.
There's no way, there's no way, Dr Eden, that they've just made this mistake and it's gone out to millions of people and they're not aware.
No, so if they'd made a mistake, I think they'd know before it left the factory, but let's say they'd done all their checks and there was a variation that they didn't understand, because you can only measure, you only learn what you look for, right?
So you might look for percentage of mRNA in the Pfizer vaccine, you know how many micrograms you thought you'd added, and you can work out what percentage of that is intact by the time you finish, and they'll have some cut off for that.
So I think they would know if it varied but look here's the thing even if early batches they didn't they didn't know that they checked everything and it looked okay and they would be looking at the same reporting system as we are and there are other reporting systems as well so they would know of this variation and in fact you may remember if you if you go and search on DuckDuckGo or but don't use Google or any of the mainstream search engines because
I'm afraid the technicians are well ahead of you and they won't show you.
They won't show you the information that you need to get.
It's so easy for the World Wide Web is controlled by whatever, half a dozen big, very clever corporations.
And if you use their browsers, you'll find what they want you to find, not what you think you're finding.
So what was I going to say?
Yeah, so they would be aware of the variation between batches.
Yes, what I was going to say is, I remember at least, I think, three occasions around the world where you'll hear a story saying, you know, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Moderna, whatever it was, withdrew a batch, say, Puerto Rico or somewhere in California, you know, because they had lots of side effects.
And people will think, oh, that's good.
They're being very attentive.
Paying attention to the quality, and if something goes wrong, they withdraw the batch quickly.
But they're not withdrawing all of these batches, are they?
They're just not.
So let me just take a step back.
I would not have credited this industry of being capable of what I'm now saying they're doing when I worked in it.
And I suppose it's because I look to my left and my right, and I look in the mirror, and I'm not seeing any psychopaths.
To my knowledge, I didn't bump into any.
But the truth is that there are psychopaths and they are attracted to senior positions in powerful companies.
It's one of those things that psychologists understand.
So the fact is that all of the stuff that we recapped at the beginning about discarding pandemic preparedness plans, which initially, if there was a virus whipping through, respiratory virus, they'd say, if you're sick, stay home and wash your hands more often.
That's the essence of the pandemic preparedness plans.
I've lived through two pandemics, whatever, and I remember things like that, you know, please stay home if you're ill, and that's just general good courtesy even with common colts.
That's all you need to do.
All the other stuff that we recapped are all lies, and I first spotted it, I was watching BBC at home, and I saw a former colleague I worked with a guy called Pat Valance when he was a an MD and he was doing a PhD and literally in the neighboring lab.
So he's now a doctor doctor and then 30 years, 33 years later he's the UK government's chief scientific advisor.
So I wouldn't say I know him well.
I know who he is and he was looking at the TV camera and he was lying to me.
Literally there was like question and answer about if you've been infected and recovered are you immune?
It's like Yeah, you are.
And I'll just explain this just in a couple of sentences.
We're the same age, pretty much.
We had the same kind of education in the same university environment at the same time.
And because we both broadly in biology, I ended up being a PhD and he was an MD.
And then, you know, so his original training, our underlying training foundational courses in microbiology, immunology, microscopy, You know, it'll be all the same and we all have we would have all had the same set text.
So I've still got mine and I got it out just to check that I haven't misremembered things.
And so I think I can honestly say that I know what he knows and he knows what I know in terms of foundational knowledge.
There's nothing complicated about the stuff they've told you.
In fact, that's the sneakiness of it.
They've told you things that you think you understand.
So like most people think, Immunity is to do with antibodies so that's why they've majored on that and sadly it's much more complicated than that and as blood antibodies are probably not very important in protecting against respiratory viruses and he knows that too and it's mostly t-cells by the way um and but they never talk about that so so that was my first clue i i was seeing someone i half knew i had worked alongside And he was saying things that I knew were wrong.
And it was like, blimey, why would he do that?
So I was paying more attention.
And then over the next days and weeks, I listened not just to him, but to two or three other advisors to the government.
They're all lying.
They're all, you know, the mask stuff.
You must wear masks now.
I've worked in particle delivery to the airways for decades, right?
So I know a little bit about filtration.
And I can bore you to death with why I'm absolutely confident, before I even check the literature, Masks don't work, but they don't.
And so when I saw the government, you know, recommending them and then mandating them, I'm afraid.
And then, you know, and then the PCR test, you know, I knew enough about that to know that that's an unsuitable method for determining whether you're infected.
And then there was the lockdowns.
And, you know, it went basically... It all adds up.
All of this evidence.
I mean... It all adds up.
They were meaning harm.
That's my point.
So, I mean, there's an economic harm which might be fateful.
I mean, honestly, I don't know much about economics, but I know just enough to know you can't run a country for two years on printed money, because no one's lending anybody any.
We're not taking on sovereign debt, mostly.
It's literally been money printing.
The last country that tried this a few years ago was Venezuelan.
Go and have a look at that.
So you can't run a world economy on half throttle using printed money.
And guess who's suffering?
It's the small businesses.
So we're seeing a concentration of power and dependence on big corporations.
And that's an unavoidable consequence of what they did.
But it's worse than that.
People died because they couldn't get medical treatment.
You know, it's like, don't you know, there's a pandemic on and people are discouraged from turning up.
I mean, I can't remember the details, but I remember tens of thousands of, say, heart attack patients.
They know how many come each week of each of the months of all of the seasons, because they've got the data going back decades.
And what happened is, after the first lockdown, is people stopped coming with cancer, you know, with abdominal pain, you know, there might have been appendicitis, with chest pain, there might have been a heart attack.
They stopped coming, like 60% reductions.
They didn't stop getting ill, did they?
They just died at home.
So the consequence, the predictable consequence of the fear and the lockdowns, were tens of thousands of people died avoidable deaths.
And then also, Whatever the cause of their illness, people turning up with respiratory viral pneumonias and so on, they were deprived of what had later been shown to be really good early treatments like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin that you're not allowed to mention on the main media.
So, and those prohibitions Further results in the deaths in each country probably of tens of thousands of people.
I'm afraid these are policies that have predictable effects and I'm going to call it that's mass murder.
You know once you know that what you're doing is wrong continuing to do it is mass murder and I could see it happening in all the liberal democracies around the world all at the same time and that's very very frightening.
And what's happened over the years is that as we've all been sure of this and sure of what you're saying and You know, it's becoming more and more cemented in the people that know what's going on is really what's happening and that this is premeditated murder on a global scale, but more evidence is coming out.
And in fact, For the audience who aren't aware, there is a team of whistleblowers from the CDC at the moment that are leaking information to the public, similar to what Dr. Yeadon is talking about, about these batches, and actually purposely releasing batches that they know are going to maim or kill individuals all over the world.
And Dr. Yeadon, from what you've shown on the Corona Investigative Committee, And correct me if I'm wrong, but you said that one of your concerns is that they would then be using this in the future to harm people.
Now they have this data.
Yeah, no, I agree.
I must say, when I first saw the design of the vaccines, I was very alarmed and I didn't realize it, but at the time we did it, the 1st of December 2020, Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg of Germany and I co-authored quite an extensive petition to the European Medicines Agency, begging them not to approve, emergency approve, any of these vaccines.
We missed some of the toxicities, frankly, But we listed, I think, three or four.
And those that have been tested, I'm afraid they have come true.
So, you know, we said that because of the unusual lipid in the mRNA vaccines, we thought there would be serious acute allergic type reactions.
We didn't know what frequency it would occur, but we thought they would occur and they would kill some people.
And that has happened.
And that's avoidable.
You know, you don't need to use those particular lipids.
We also said that we thought there would be lots of non-specific toxicity because of the expression of spike protein.
And I don't think we knew what to expect.
I remember discussing it and it could be almost anything.
But there was one thing we did mention.
I was absolutely pilloried for it.
And I was worried that there would be impacts on female fertility because, as I say, the spike protein is weakly similar to a crucial protein necessary for maintenance of pregnancy.
And I was worried that if you mount a good immune response to spike in some people, that immune response would spill over and could affect stability of pregnancy.
That's all we said.
Unfortunately, it's turned out, if that's the cause, that there's a 300% increase in miscarriage rates.
And I've seen that now from several different countries and data sources.
So regrettably, it's true.
And so what I'm saying is, The Great Deception itself was harmful and led to deaths, predictably so.
So I would say if you're a minister or a scientific advisor and you sign off either physically or verbally on one of these policies that you know will cause deaths and then you do it again and again, lockdowns and so on, you're a mass murderer.
You're already a mass murderer.
And I would put it to the audience that anyone who can kill 200,000 people has no difficulty adding two more knots.
You've already established that you're willing to kill people on scale.
I don't think the number matters.
Remember Stalin?
One death is a tragedy.
A million is a statistic.
So people who are willing to do things or say nothing while things around them lead to Deaths on scale, that's kind of, that's, you know, that's seriously psychological derangement.
I don't care what you think your motives are, folks, but you're wrong.
There's other ways to solve things.
And so when I saw, so that was just a policy.
And then when I saw the vaccines, I thought, oh my God, they're really, they're really dangerous.
My first hypothesis, however, was That they weren't intentionally harmful, but they wanted them for something else because I knew that I could see that there was some harm being produced and I, as I've said many times and I'm not alone, I thought the fear and the kind of coercion would make most people get vaccinated and in exchange they get given a little bit of paper or electronic QR code called their vaccine passport and I thought that combination
Coupled with some sort of financial reset so that all money became digital.
That combination is all you need to control the world in every way.
By saying you can only buy food if you... You can only enter a supermarket to buy food if you've got a Vax Pass.
And you can only buy food using the digital money that we've provided.
You can imagine now.
I don't care how tough you are.
You can't fight that system.
You're going to starve.
And if you think, well, my friends will feed me.
If I can think of a way around that, like rationing, so you create supply chain difficulties.
And now to get your ration, you have to show your VaxPass and pay your digital currency.
See?
And then if they say, oh, look, in order to keep your VaxPass valid, you need to take your booster.
Otherwise, it'll go invalid.
You might not like it, but you don't have a cotton-picking choice.
So if they succeed, and I'm glad I think they're not going to quite make it this time, but I fear they're not going to give up.
This has been a massive project years in gestation that that I think is what they want to do.
Everybody will have a digital ID.
Vaccination seems to be the the pretense to do it.
But look out, look out, folks.
They'll probably try some other way to force you to have a digital ID in order to access things and to be able to do things.
And then the other half of the equation is collapse the economy.
See something happening that looks like it might do that?
Yeah, you do, don't you?
You do.
And so, yeah, just to answer your question then, Maria, that's when I saw the variability of deaths between batches, which told me, as a pharmaceutical old hand, that they were not the same material in each batch.
And the fact that they're knowledgeable companies, they could not have failed to know that.
I think that that information calibrates a killing weapon and so if in the future there's a new virus or new variant, any excuse, maybe it's just we get used to being jabbed every few months, they can vary the concentration of whatever it is in those vials that leads to a percentage of people dying and they can dial that up and dial that down So that and I do think that if they're allowed to get away with it, I do think mass killing is part of it.
Otherwise they're going to end up with a very cross world of former Liberal Democrat people being controlled and knowing they're being controlled.
I don't think that's going to end very well.
So that would seem to me like an intermediate position.
Driving to us Dr Yeadon is a bioweapon.
They are collecting data for a more powerful bioweapon to kill off even more people.
Yes, I don't like the word bioweapon because I think the first time I heard it it sounded like tinfoil hat.
You know, and I have to say, I should point this out, I didn't in my personal defense.
I am, maybe I still am, but before 2020 I was the most boring, middle class, BBC watching, Daily Telegraph newspaper reading, laugh at people who are conspiracy theorists kind of person.
I apologize for laughing at my imaginative friends.
So it never occurred to me that the world could be like this, that anything harmful could be being done deliberately by, you know, basically a group of people plotting.
But I'm afraid I've woken up and they are.
I'm afraid the world is not as nice a comfortable place as I thought it was.
And if anyone hasn't heard this, this little statement, if it hasn't been deleted, I'll be amazed.
So there's a name of a German journalist called Paul Schreier.
S-C-H-R-E-Y-E-R.
Paul Schreier.
And he's got a YouTube video called Pandemic Simulations.
And it's like era question mark.
And I promise it's very thorough.
It's a well-regarded investigative journalist.
I got 20 minutes into it.
It's about one hour.
And my heart, my stomach was in my boots.
I knew.
Because basically, most people have heard of Event 201.
It was like a tabletop simulation of, coincidentally, a coronavirus emerging from China.
It was done in October 2019.
And we're told that it's a scurrilous conspiracy theory to suggest that that was more than just coincidence.
It's amazing, really.
But anyway, so four months later, we were off and running with a novel coronavirus escaping from China.
These people, the same people, have been doing tabletop simulations of increasing sophistication for about 30 years.
And Paul Schreier walks you through the first one.
On Andrews, Edwards, Edwards Air Force Base, whatever it is, Andrews Air Force Base near Washington, all the way up to the most recent one, which had all of the stakeholders that are currently controlling your world, all sat around that table in October 2019.
They have then, in the simulation, the role they're playing controlling you now.
So go and look at the video and tell me you don't think that that looks like a series of rehearsals.
Because to me, I knew I was halfway through it.
And I thought, oh, my God, this is it's not.
So I don't think this is a response to.
An accidentally released virus.
I mean, I don't really know the origins or anything about it.
The whole bloody thing is a setup.
Did it not occur to you how swiftly they had hundreds of millions of PCR kit tests manufactured and distributed?
It's amazing, isn't it?
How quickly they got that done.
And that everybody around the world all agreed to do Sort of the anti-coronavirus measures which don't appear in any pandemic preparedness plan at all prior to this one.
Somebody told me that the Wayback Machine is the way back and so I spent a couple of hours on it because I knew there were documents on the WHO website that are now missing which I personally had read and I found One of 2019.
I've got a copy if you want me to attach it to the notes, Maria.
But basically a group of people used all of the world's published literature to assess every one of the measures, like masks, lockdowns, social distancing, there were other things as well, hand washing, and none of them work.
And they had all of the references, and I remember reading it thinking, I went to read it because I knew we were being told to do things that made no sense to me as a biologist or a respiratory biologist at that.
So I was searching and I found the UK plan, a couple of other countries and the WHO review.
I've got to save it.
So two years later, I find it on my Wayback Machine.
They knew and all the countries knew.
It wasn't they were guessing that oh maybe these will be better for a more dangerous virus because I've heard people say that oh they well they have to use a new plan Mike because it's a new virus.
No no they've already tested each of the measures that we are suffering under and declared them useless uh only six months earlier and I can share that copy with you you know lots of people lots of people will never it doesn't matter how much evidence you show them they're incapable of accepting it because, you know, hello, Jane, because it's so terrifying.
You know, you have to go through what I went through, which was a crawling sensation of, oh, my bloody God.
You know, it took months before I probably took me like nine months before I accepted that it was a plan, that it had had huge amounts of rehearsals and that there was an intent, at very least, of control and potentially of depopulation.
It's not something you get in five minutes.
Before we wrap up, I really just want to ask you about that experience of going, oh my goodness, what has happened?
Especially as someone who used to think conspiracy theories were a bit nonsense.
Was there a process for you of sort of swallowing pride?
You know, what happened inside?
It's a good question.
I think Probably, although I think they call this a normie.
N-O-R-M-I-E.
Like a normie is someone who kind of believes all the norms.
That would be very much me.
But I've always been someone who makes his own mind up.
I'm known as being quite... I'm quite cooperative.
People can find me easy to get on with.
But it's because I've decided to get on with you, right?
If you're a likable person, of course I'm going to get on well with you.
But I don't like it when people push me to do things I know are wrong.
I suddenly... I'm no longer this nice, flexible, chatty guy.
It's like...
You push me one more step and it's not going to be good.
And then people like, oh, you know, and so that I've always been like that.
And so when I so I was gradually piecing this stuff together and every morning I would wake up, I'd literally thumb fingers and thumbs through.
I can't really know that I've been writing it down.
I've been challenging myself that you must have something wrong, you know, so it probably took months.
And I remember I came across a couple of sayings, which is quite amusing.
So one is, when it all comes out, don't ask me how I knew, ask yourself why you didn't, because the evidence is absolutely fulsome all around you.
And then the other one is, I saw more recently, which I'm afraid describes me, it says if you're one step ahead of events, you're a genius, right?
But if you're two steps ahead, you're a nutcase.
And I've been several steps ahead, and events have caught up with me, but I'm probably, in some people's minds, still a lunatic.
Yeah, so I was piecing it together.
The honest truth, it came to me, I had like three nights sleep where I couldn't sleep.
I was trying to go to sleep.
I couldn't get more than like 90 minutes and I was pacing about and I think my mind was getting close to deciding and it was like the third night.
It's quite emotional and it just literally, I was about three in the morning and I think it just finally, all the bits went together and my head said, Yeah, that's what's going on.
I remember sliding down to the floor and crying because it's not fun.
It's not fun what's happening.
These people are, you know, I don't know how many people are involved.
That's the thing.
A lot of people tell me, oh, it can't be a conspiracy because it would involve too many people and it would leak.
Go and look at Paul Schreier.
You know, the people who are probably pulling the levers are the same people over.
So they don't feel like they're in a conspiracy.
They're just doing what they plan to do.
Right.
And here's the other thought I had, which is I have not managed to dismiss it.
So I don't know anything about computers.
But I was I was watching an interesting video.
I think it was by Elon Musk.
And he was talking about the difference between narrow AI.
like a machine in a factory that's very good at making something and broad AI which has a chance and potentially the fear of might be able to do something that could think and I thought the military are probably a few years maybe 10 years ahead with everything with the technology including probably computing and I thought one way in which you could avoid people leaking things is you don't involve very many people.
Day to day The things happen in each of the countries.
I mean, you can decide for yourself, do you think your government ministers and their advisors are smart enough to have done all the things they did?
I don't think they are.
I think they're pretty stupid, mostly.
And so I wonder whether it's being suggested.
It's like a machine comes out with suggestions, someone maybe sanity checks them.
And so there aren't hundreds of people or thousands of people making big decisions.
Why would you need that?
And also the whole thing is being driven by technology.
I don't think it's as crazy as it sounds.
It's like they know what the objective is.
It's like military games.
It's like a chess computer.
If you can bound the conditions, it'll come up with some reasonable and you've only got like maybe 10 things you can do in terms of measures.
You can have that.
You could probably have a broad AI system running it.
With humans overseeing it, because they know what the objective is.
Klaus Schwab, hello Klaus!
And a few others.
And so I think it's quite possible that only a small number of people know what's going on.
I don't know completely what's going on.
I'll have some major things wrong, but totalitarian control via vaccination rewarded with a vaccine pass, which you do know, of course, everybody that the vaccines don't prevent transmission.
So that's the end of any public health argument whatsoever.
Right?
So you're not safe for being next to me if I'm vaccinated or not vaccinated.
Not at all.
So why would you want to filter whether I can be next to you if you're vaccinated by knowing whether I have been or not?
It's complete nonsense and no government's hiding it anymore.
No one even pretends that they prevent transmission.
But that's the only possible basis.
It would also be wrong Because I could avoid infecting you by staying at home if I'm ill and thereafter when I recover I'm now immune and can't transmit, right?
There are no arguments to compel me to be vaccinated, and certainly not with something that doesn't prevent transmission.
That alone should tell you that the whole thing is a fraud, because that's what they are telling you.
So just explore that one fact.
Do yourself a favour.
Validate one thing I just told you.
And everything falls apart.
Yeah, go on.
You said to me when we spoke that, you know, it's been two years you've been saying the same thing and you haven't seen a change until you're tired of it.
Many are.
I am physically tired.
Yeah, I am physically and psychologically tired.
And at the start of the interview, you said to us, I don't want to keep saying the same thing.
The people have to save themselves.
Could you just close for us with what you see the way out of this?
Yeah, I mean, that's the thing.
If you haven't watched Matthias Desmet, D-E-S-M-E-T, he's a very famous crowd psychologist.
I've interviewed him.
He's great.
So the bottom line is, if you think some of your friends have been hypnotized, or maybe you feel a bit hypnotized yourself, it's quite possible you have been.
Because of what he is just he's described a method, but the majority of you come on you're not you're not hypnotized is may I don't know 20% 30% You know, this is bullshit.
And then there's a big bunch of people in the middle.
I would think comfortable middle classes.
You know, who wouldn't like to be thought of as a conspiracy theorist and certainly don't want to risk their nice comfy income.
If you don't get off your effing arse and link hands with the first group and take your lives back, these monsters will destroy what's left of your freedom.
You'll never get it back.
You'll be controlled by a computer grid.
Your Vax Pass will be used to control every transaction you make financially in the future and every physical move you make.
They'll know you're like an icon on a computer and they can control you.
No way of getting out of it.
And then if they decide to murder you using systematic requirements to get boosted or whatever it is they want to do, You can't escape because you'll be shouting.
You'll look like the drunk shouting on the corner because at this point, everybody else is going along with it.
So if the way out of it is not to wait for someone to get you out of it because no one's coming.
Don't wait for any legal processes.
Don't you think if you've spent trillions and trillions of dollars, pounds, etc, euros doing this, then don't you think they would have spent a bit of money or leaned on the most important Parts of the judicial system, I think they would.
That's why the Fulmik, Rainer Fulmik and others, although they're making attempts and they've had some successes, I don't think the perpetrators are going to let you knock it down by legal process, not by a long job.
So try it if you want, but I think you're probably, all you're doing is rehearsing your arguments to each other.
So I think in the end, you have to take your confidence in your hands and simply stop complying with these measures.
Remember, there's no unusual hazard in your environment.
So if someone says you're being selfish, you could kill people.
That's absolute bullshit.
The only dangerous thing, there's three dangerous things actually in your environment.
One is your government's policies.
And the vaccine, but this is all harsh for me to say it, but the third and really lethal component in this mix is you.
If you don't do something, let's say you're my age.
I'm 60, 61.
I've got two kids who are in their 20s and two grandchildren who are like one and three.
If I just decided to keep my head down, keep consulting, you know, travel the money, Fuck the lot of you.
Sorry, that's a rude word, but just say screw you.
You can sort it out.
Imagine if we all did that.
Well, I would know.
I'd look in the mirror and I'd think, I'll die in a few years.
Maybe I'll get lots more years.
I don't know.
But my children are going to be alive for decades in this totalitarian, ghastly, horrible, dystopian thing.
And what about my grandchildren?
They're never going to have the kind of, you know, mucking around in the woods kind of childhood I had.
So that's what I want.
That's what I want for everyone's families to be able to choose to do things that don't harm other people and cooperate.
But don't let these bastards take your freedom.
They see that we're... the reason they've gone for the liberal democracy is two reasons.
One is we're the only people who could possibly bloody stop them.
And the other thing is they know we're nice, right?
We're used to fighting back with democratic tools.
You know, demonstrating, waving banners, writing petitions.
None of that's going to work.
They wait for you to go home and carry on.
What might work?
It's the Canadian truckers because they're not violent and there's no threat of force but there is a threat of consequences that are not supportable by the pseudo-democratic people in that country.
So you know the Canadian government is in a tough bind and I think they're going to have to give way because I don't think the truckers will.
So whatever your analogy is where you are, put your government in a position where In a non-violent way, where there were clearly consequences if they don't withdraw.
And when they withdraw, I'm afraid you need very peacefully, you need probably some people from the police and from the army, from the tertiary, from the medical community and scientific community.
I'm not joking about this.
You need to go around, knock on their door and bloody well arrest The Prime Ministers, or whatever they're called of each of the states, seriously, take them down in handcuffs, leave them separately, and I would say probably the Health Ministers, possibly the Economics Minister.
I would just scoop them all up, lock them up, and then we can start doing a process of, you know, they'll be well treated.
I don't want anyone to consider this is violent or vindictive, it's none of the above.
But contained in that subset across all of the countries of the liberal democracies of the world, that you're going to have You will have most of the people who have been, as it were, acting on behalf of the perpetrators, right?
And if we do this, I think we will find some of them eventually will confess, and there'll be an exhibition number of them having confessed, and the evidence will be very clear that they've done horrible things, maybe this money that used to be discovered through financial accounting.
Exhibition where they end up going to jail for life for what they've done.
To jail for life, okay?
You guys are not getting away with this.
If it's the last thing I do, I'm going to give evidence at your trial, whoever you are, right?
You've taken the lives of people, you've taken the freedoms and the hopes of people and, you know, if we, you know, so if the freedom-loving Democrats amongst us find peaceful but irresistible ways of taking our lives back, you can count on me.
To help you find find the genuinely guilty and go through a proper judicial process, which lands, I suspect, with very significant periods of time in jail, and they will have deserved it.
And do we know whether there is progress right now happening with right a few weeks trial?
Yeah, I do.
I don't want to blow the process, but we don't think at the moment that the judicial system is reliably on its feet anywhere.
There are certainly bits of it around the world, certainly bits in the US I think are good, but in order to get to a level where you could convince everyone that a crime has happened and that this conviction or this judgment against something is sufficient to knock it over, I, I don't think that'll work.
And if you think of Nuremberg, that only worked when, when there was a victor, you know, the Allies, and there was, were defeated.
And there was, we were really, I guess, I wasn't there, of course, but they were trying to work out procedural justice.
How can we, you know, how can we put this behind us in a way that punishes the really guilty?
We're not in that position.
We're still at war.
So what Reiner was thinking of doing is essentially having part of An American system, which you can look this up.
I don't know about it much, but it's called the grand jury process, where essentially the outline of the case is put before a jury and they decide whether it looks like there's a case worth trying.
And what's the audience?
What's the jury in this case?
It's the world.
You know, so I don't know how Ryan is going to run it, but it'll have proper prosecutors, proper witnesses, and it will have a very we have got a genuine, very experienced judge.
Again, I won't I don't I don't think I should name them.
So and I think this process will be recorded.
And I've certainly suggested to Reiner that we do our best to make it as exciting as a soap so that you imagine if people want to tune in for half an hour, 40 minutes every night for a few weeks.
You imagine that how viral that could go if you put that on, you know, YouTube, Bitshoot, you know, Odyssey.
You just put it on all brands, you should put it on all of these places so it can't be censored all at once.
I got this feeling that...
And then all the back issues, you'd be able to click on episodes one, three, eight and so on.
I think with proper assistance from people who understand how to make exciting TV programs, really, and cliffhangers and intersect the legal and evidence process, I honestly think we've got a chance.
Imagine if a large proportion of the world were looking at the same kind of images at the same time and they'd be talking about it at work and shops, you know, this could knock it over.
But Okay, if anyone has ideas as to how we can stop this, can you let me know?
Because what I'm focused on doing is finding out what's wrong, you know, what is going on and so on.
I have no skills whatsoever in terms of stopping, you know, global takeovers.
I don't have to do that.
So when people say, what's next, Dr. Sheedan?
I've got no idea.
I'm a scientist.
So I pointed out what's wrong and my god we need help because people like me have got no idea how to get us out of this.
So my job has been to inform as many people as I can in the hope That, you know, beating in the hearts of democratic men and women everywhere, there'll be someone who will think, my God, I need to, whatever, get on my back legs and start leading a, whatever, a resistance.
So I call it the, yeah, I call it the resistance relay.
If you learn something that you think, my God, I need to do something, then I ask, if you do nothing else that you drop seeds of doubt in the next conversation that you have with someone, if you haven't before, Pick any bit that you feel most confident about, you know, whether it's masks or asymptomatic transmission or the danger of vaccines or they don't block transmission.
Pick whatever you know is true, because you've worked it out, then you'll be authentic and drop it into a conversation and ask what do they think about that?
Because apparently the psychology guy said, Desmet said, the one way people will come out of madness, you know, mass formation on their own, but you can help them by challenging the narrative.
And the best way of doing it is dropping seeds of doubt and just keep doing that.
But we've got to rescue ourselves because no one's going to do it, including me.
I just want to say, Dr. Yeadon, in terms of assistance with broadcasting and making sure that we're promoting this trial when it starts, please, I'll do that and I'll make sure that all of Australia knows that's my hand up to help you guys with that and in any other way that I can.
I really appreciate it.
I'm writing you down, Maria.
Thank you so much to the audience.
three years it's very memorable all right well and and you know thank you so much to the audience we've had you know over over 800 people watching live at 9am in the morning dr yeadon so people are keen to hear from you uh we will keep going we will keep going this we've
We must keep speaking the truth and as Dr Yeadon said, Professor Desmond said, you break the spell by continuing to speak the truth and this is the way and those who have been standing from the beginning, as exhausting as it is, you will be the ones who give the others courage to start speaking out and keep sowing those seeds of doubt.
Talk to the guy at the petrol station as you're filling up.
Just keep at it and we have to.
We have to keep going.
We are literally in the battle of our lives.
We are.
Thank you so much for your time this morning.
I will talk to you about a couple of those resources that you mentioned and I'll share it with the audience after the video has been posted.
And please, if you're not on zmedia.com, go there for all of my interviews.
The interview with Professor Desmet that we mentioned in this interview is on my website, it's on my homepage, as well as the interview with Dr Rainer Feulmich, where you can check all of this out and the evidence that Dr Yeadon has presented to the Corona Investigative Committee, as well on the other videos page.
Dr Yeadon, again, thank you so much for your time.
Thank you very much for providing an outlet.
I will say that without people like you, Maria, and your colleagues and the audience literally would just be shouting in the dark.
So you're providing an outlet and that's all I'm asking for.
Thank you very much.
No, we will keep going with that.
Thank you everyone.
▲
Export Selection