All Episodes
Previous Next
March 3, 2022 - Jim Fetzer
59:45
FLAWED MEDICAL SCIENCE with DR. LEE MERRITT
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Thank you.
Hello, everyone, and welcome to Medicamentum Authentica.
I'm your host, Dr. Andrew Kaufman.
Today's guest is none other than the medical rebel herself, Dr. Leigh Merritt.
Dr. Merritt is an orthopedic surgeon who has been very outspoken, brave, and tremendously effective in debunking the plandemic narrative, and Dr. Merritt Is sort of a little bit unusual as one of the few physicians who has really looked at the existence and causality of the virus issue and has come to some surprising conclusions that we'll go over today.
So, Lee, welcome to the show.
Oh, thank you.
Nice to be here.
And, you know, we were discussing a little bit before that you chose graphene as your virtual background today.
So you clearly, you have a sense of humor.
Yeah, yeah.
So, so interesting.
And yeah, you know, everything, you can't make up what's happening to us.
The graphene is just one small part, but it seems to be kind of symbolic.
Well, so Lee, you know, you and I met in person at the Dr. Buttar's conference last May, and you know, you're, first of all, you have a great warm energy about you, and I didn't know what to expect, but I was really, you know, impressed at your just ability to be open, To, you know, consider new evidence to, like, question things and, you know, be willing to go wherever that process leads you.
And that, you know, that kind of pursuit of truth is what I think is one of the, you know, key things that we need to embody at this moment in time.
So I really appreciate your sort of development and maturity going into the situation, you know, with that outlook.
Well, thank you.
You know, I have to tell you, the first thing that really woke me up was simply because, and I can say, years ago, I kind of got a hint that we were, you know, I jokingly say I was a former member of the George Orwell Medical Society.
Really, I woke up years ago when I went to the anti-aging meeting, the American Academy of Anti-Aging, and my mouth hung open for about three days, and I realized, and I went there because I wasn't feeling good when I, you know, went through menopause at, you know, age 50.
And I thought there's got to be something else to do here, so I went to learn for myself, as many doctors do, and then they get hooked.
And I realize that they practice and they think about medical science the way we used to do, but it's been corrupted over time.
We used to value doctors' observations.
We don't anymore.
We used to look not just at peer-reviewed 30-year double-blind studies, but at the medical literature in general and basic science literature.
And that's not what they do either.
The young medical students, and I don't mean to sound like, you know, all the old farts always say, I don't think it's by accident, but we've been morphed into a profession that now is a protocol-driven profession, and we're really not thinking.
And that was so obvious when I got there and I thought, It was like being hit with a ton of bricks that had obvious written on them.
You know that I just wasn't paying attention to some things.
So that was the start.
And then the next phase in my awakening was when I looked at the when the when the when the nurses started being mandated for flu vaccines.
And I being a libertarian at heart, they came to me and said, what do you think about that?
And I said, well, mandates are never ethical.
What are they talking about?
How can this be?
But then I actually looked at most days.
We still had a PDR.
We could actually get at the data easily.
And I looked at 3 years data of the flu vaccine and realized what a scam it was.
How can this be?
So I wrote this big article about this and of course then Conservative Web Watch or something like that started coming after me.
You know, you're over the target when you get that kind of flack.
Yes.
How dare you discuss the actual science?
Right, right.
Because that's the one, you know, and then, you know, you've learned, you learn that there's just some things that they don't want you to criticize.
You can, that's who's in charge of you, the people you can't criticize.
Next phase was this COVID thing.
I simply went down to my city council to a friend of mine who's a chiropractor said, hey Doc, come down with us and we need to stop this mask mandate.
I said, sure, you know, should be no problem, Ben.
This is a slam dunk.
Nobody believes in masks for these things.
Oh, how wrong I was.
So what turned out to be is I go down to the city and Omaha's about a million in the metropolitan area.
It's a big city for our Midwest.
I couldn't believe it.
I was on the side, which was filled with real human beings, by the way.
All the real human beings were on one side of the chamber and speaking against the mask mandate, the mothers, all the other people.
But I was the only physician.
I was the only medical doctor.
And then my friend, the chiropractor.
So then on the other side of the room was the entire University of Nebraska, big guys, you know, the epidemiologists, the viral guys, everybody.
I thought, you've got to be kidding me.
What is going on here?
It's quite interesting, Lee, because, you know, up at that point, right, we actually had lots of studies, even meta-analyses of masks trying to prevent infection, right?
And they all showed that it doesn't work.
So what were all those bigwigs saying?
Oh, well, cases were going up and they wouldn't actually, this is the beauty, and I'm sure you've been in this situation, but you're better, I think, at very clearly arguing the point than I am.
But I got up and I said, at some point, I gave a little, they got to speak first, of course, and they did things like, oh, there are over 100,000 studies that show that masks work for this.
Wow.
What?
Right, right.
I'm not kidding.
A guy said that.
He was the chief.
It was infectious disease chief or something.
Wow.
So just outright lying.
Right, right.
Of course.
Or they're making up, you know, it's like a straw man.
They argue on the basis of, if you put on a mask, you're catching some of these goobers that come out when you sneeze, so it must be doing something.
They're not pointing out that that's not what the big picture is.
What you really want to know is, does it actually prevent the transmission of disease?
And that's what they have never proven.
But I was so undone when I heard all this, I thought, What are they saying?
And finally, I probably didn't make any brownie points here, but I just looked at them and I only had three minutes.
Of course, they had three minutes each and there were 20 of them.
So I had three minutes and I finally at the end said, anybody, and I pointed out what you just said, We didn't just wake up in 2020 to science.
We had the, you know, the environmental sciences people, we had OSHA, people have studied masks for years and they have lots of data that show they don't work in this situation.
Now at that point, We didn't have the most recent study by the CDC itself, published in Emerging Infectious Diseases in July, that said masks, hand washing and sterilizing your environment or disinfecting your environment don't make any difference to the community transmission of influenza.
I think that's a pretty interesting thing that it came out right in the middle of all the time when they're telling us to wear these masks.
But we didn't have that then, but I just looked at these guys and I looked at the city council chamber guys and I said, you know, anybody that believes in masks at this point is either being paid or being played.
That was my best argument.
Wow, that's awesome.
I bet you got some applause for that one.
Yeah, it turns out to be true.
No, I ended up on, that video went viral, and I ended up on the front of Alex Jones Show, and that's how I ended up speaking about masks at the American Frontline Doctors.
Well, that's fantastic.
But I did look at all the science that I could find, and I just found out that they were Again, you had infectious disease people saying things that isn't even true in their own literature.
Yes, I know.
It really was shocking at the time.
And you know, I also was doing the same kind of research back then, looking at studying masks and do they prevent transmission.
But now, You know, since I've gone a lot deeper, I realized that they haven't even proved that there is transmission in the first place.
So how can you have a strategy to stop something you don't even know if it's actually going on?
Right.
And then when I heard you and I heard Dr. Cowan talking about the idea that there really aren't viruses, I couldn't, I mean, you guys sounded very logical, but I have to say, when that first hits you, you go, how can this be?
You know, because 40 years, 45 years in medicine, I've been taught this.
You know, it's like, this is a world view change that it takes a little while to wrap your head around.
Absolutely.
But I have to say now that I see it, it's classic, now you see it you can't unsee it.
Now I'm seeing the absolutely insane points that they're making and it's amazing to me they don't see the logical fallacy.
So I found an article the other day that talked about Oh, these doctors went back.
And I kind of remember when this happened.
It was kind of news at the time.
The doctors went back to try and discover what really caused the pandemic of 1918.
Oh, yes.
Remember that?
Yeah, the Fauci autopsy study.
Fairbanks or something like that.
And they found these dead people that died of the 1918 pandemic, presumably.
And they got their frozen lung tissue and they thought it out.
And they did all their isolation of what was in the lung.
You know, that so-called isolation.
But they did it.
And they said, oh, we got it.
And then they actually took it back and they actually genetically recreated the virus in the lab through, you know, reverse engineering and claimed that they had the virus of the 1918 pandemic.
It was from birds.
So I just pulled that paper recently.
I just found it and pulled some of the stuff, the literature about it.
And I thought, unbelievably crapified logic.
I couldn't believe it.
So here's essentially what they did.
They said, oh, there are a lot of people who died in 1918.
We went to the frozen north, we got the lung tissue, we took samples.
These showed all these genetic fragments and we deduced, their exact word, we deduced the genome of the 1918 influenza.
That's the logic.
And I said, oh, what could be wrong?
And I tried to explain this to my husband.
I said, look, this would be like if I went out on a battlefield and I saw all these dead soldiers out there, all these dead bodies on a battlefield.
And I noticed that they're all covered with dirt.
They've got dirt on their faces or their hands.
And every one of them did.
And I say, oh, obviously they died of dirt because everybody here has dirt on their face and hands and they're laying in this.
That must have been what killed them.
Well, and then you can take the granules of dirt, right, and reconstruct the infectious agent of death, right?
Dirt, yeah, the dirt death.
No, you're right, because the only, you know, you have to first have the assumption that it was a viral illness, right?
And then, you know, if you're only looking for evidence of that, then whatever you find, you're going to put into that, right?
And this is, you know, called a selection bias or, you know, a predetermination bias.
And it's not the way to discover it.
I mean, the way to figure it out would be to take the lung tissue and look for signs of pathology, and then, you know, then look at, well, what causes that type of pathology in other studies that's been proven, or let's, you know, test it for everything.
Let's look at the genetic sequences.
Let's do toxicology on it, right?
Let's, in the genetics, let's look for all species.
You know, parasite, bacteria, virus, etc., right?
And see if there's any sequence homology.
But obviously, you know, you can't, and this is a real overarching principle, is if you want to learn something about something, you can't take pieces of that thing and reconstruct what the thing is without knowing what the thing is in the first place, right?
Like, if you found a piece of a hoof In the forest, right?
Could you reconstruct a unicorn from that?
Or would it be a horse?
Or would it be a llama?
Right?
Or would it be, you know, but it certainly couldn't be something that you never knew of before, right?
So there's this really, you know, big flaw in the reasoning.
That you can't do it that way.
And it's interesting because Fauci authored a paper in the early 2000s, I believe, looking at some lung material or other material from 1918 and concluded that it was a bacterial pneumonia.
Right.
So, tells you about the degree of certainty that they have.
And what most people don't realize, and I don't think I was ever taught this in medical school, and I was taught a lot of good things.
For example, in medical school in 1976 in Rochester, New York, I remember the lecture about vaccines for children.
And I remember the guy saying, Vaccines didn't stop childhood diseases.
Plumbers did.
His point being that it was sanitation, better diet.
You could see the death count coming down from so-called childhood diseases early, you know, long before we started any vaccination program.
And he actually was a pediatrician who thought this was going to be a flash in the pan, that this vaccine fad was going away.
You could tell that's what he was saying between the lines.
And I thought, Wow, has that message changed?
They would arrest that guy today for being a disinformation guy.
Well, you know, the vaccine agenda has been long standing.
I mean, we can look at the turn of the 20th century where they were trying to push, you know, diphtheria serum right on people from the horse serum.
And, you know, they had to convince because parents weren't used to children being injected with anything.
And it was, you know, looked at as being very dangerous.
And so there had to be major campaigns to, you know, scare people and convince them to do this.
And then what you're describing also, I think that the industry or the apparatus of, you know, vaccines was opportunistic when they saw disease waning because of, you know, change in sanitation infrastructure and advancements and, you know, nutrition and other things.
Then they jumped on board as quickly as possible to introduce a vaccine and try to, you know, tell the story that the vaccine gets the credit.
But you can see this if you look at the timing, and even as recent as the chickenpox or varicella vaccine, it's the same story.
If you look at the data carefully, you know, the prevalence or incidence of chickenpox over time, and then when the vaccine was approved to go on the market, and then When it ramped up its actual, you know, being implemented, right?
Because that took several years.
And you'll see by the time a significant number of children were getting the vaccine, there were no more cases of chickenpox already.
So, you know, we don't know what was responsible for that particular change, but it definitely was not the vaccine.
And so what they didn't tell us also in medical school is that they never proved transmission from person to person or horse to horse, they tried that too, of the 1918 so-called pandemic.
So whatever happened, and I think it's, I personally think it's electrification, I think that that is You know there's so much evidence for that.
It's whatever is happening is it they can't prove that it was this little like flying unicorn this somehow weird virus that got into people but and this is the other thing I've learned in this whole thing is that doctors never think motive matters when you're trying to figure out the truth.
I talked to the lawyer Michael Kennedy and Tom Rents both from you know big in this fight for Frontline doctors and then independently trying to get this to stop and I said to them, you know, we never I you talk to doctors about looking at evidence and looking at the motive to to sway that evidence in certain ways when they present it or whatever and they don't believe there's a they think it's just that we are we are dealing with pure science.
We're not criminals.
We're not blah blah blah.
We deal with pure sciences peer-reviewed journal.
How dare you question it?
But what they said, and this is exactly right, they said motive is always important when you're searching for truth in the courtroom.
So it should be here too.
And the other thing I heard was from Jay Dyer.
Jay Dyer is a guy that does Hollywood insider blog kind of thing.
But on the side, he's kind of an amateur historian.
And he made this point when he was making this point about looking at history how he was taught to look at history.
I thought there's another reason there's another way that medicine has changed in my lifetime and swayed against looking at a true picture.
He said if you go back in history and you just read one guy that was let's say in the 1600s who who kind of gives you his view of the history of the time you're getting one opinion and he may be biased.
But, or he may be us, but, you know, that's, but if you look at the various different anecdotes by people who are there at the time, lots of different people, and you hear their stories, then you've got a better idea of what the probable true situation is.
Now, I don't know about you, but I know in medical school, we used to, I mean, that was taking a history was important.
Yes.
You know, when you got histories of multiple people complaining of certain things, doctors would get together, they'd collate that, they'd make case reports.
And then they would compare that to other doctors who had case reports.
And that would help you give an idea of what was going on.
Doctors today are taught that's anecdote, it's meaningless, the only thing you can trust are these double-blind 30-year studies or these peer-reviewed articles.
Well, the problem is just like in the study that he talks about, Jay Dyer talks about history.
When you're looking at those peer-reviewed articles, you're looking at articles that have been put through the Politburo system to determine what we're going to, in organized medicine, let you read.
Absolutely.
And that's not a small point for how they've slowly, I believe, purposely have changed the narrative, changed what we believe about the world in terms of these viruses.
Now, what could be the motive?
The motive is, as you said, is to sell vaccines.
Because if we really believe the world, when we get sick, it has nothing to do with something that came from the outside, like from another person.
You can't sell us on these things.
It's also a motive to make people very afraid.
It's an anti-human being.
We are humans.
We are family-oriented, community-oriented, natural people that want to group together.
We're herd animals, right?
This is a way to break apart the herd.
If you have a worldview that is, I breathe out these terrible little flying unicorns that can make you sick and die, then you can be afraid of me even if you don't see anything that I'm sick.
That's right, right, and that's, you know, that's what they're doing, driving people apart, right, isolating them.
And, you know, you give a really important and great description here, and really a way to look at this, right, is that we're going from a decentralized system to a centralized authority, right?
So before, you know, really the doctors that were out there, right, who were actually seeing people with illness, they were the public health system.
Right, because they would write these case reports and then, you know, maybe a case report by itself, just standing alone, has limited, you know, significance.
But when you combine 50 case reports that are in concordance, well, then you actually have quite a powerful argument, right?
And that's the kind of surveillance system That was was in place before.
Now we have, you know, a centralized authority, you know, in each state and in the federal government that directs everything downward.
And, you know, the doctors, like you said, everything is driven by protocols, clinical practice guidelines, hospital protocols, you know, and those are based on commercial interests.
You know, they're not based on you having to think and do, you know, the right thing for your patient.
And of course, this has made it, you know, much, much less rewarding to practice as a physician, you know, because you feel just like you're one of the herd.
And if you do anything to stand out, you get ostracized and, and such.
You know, that's why I had to work in a correctional type of setting.
So because nobody cares about The people in a correctional facility so I can actually do the right thing in those places and it'll be appreciated.
Yeah, isn't that interesting?
Of course, then the other side is there are other people, less scrupulous, who did the wrong thing to prisoners.
And that's the other point here, is that there were checks and balances on how we took care of people.
And to a very limited degree, it was the lawsuit system.
I mean, you know, that you could be sued for doing something really bad.
But that wasn't the real check and balance.
The real check and balance is before Obamacare, 70% of physicians were in private practice.
They were independent thinkers.
They didn't work for hospitals, but now it's over 70% work for hospitals.
Now, as the hospitals are being told, and we know they are, for example, and back up, the hospitals used to be run by physicians who took an oath of Hippocrates to patient sanctity.
I mean, their oath was to the patient.
Now we have hospitals that are run by the administrative class of hospital administrators who took an oath to keeping their hospital financially viable.
Right.
So now in 2020, and I had predicted this, I had actually given speeches about this in the past, Based on the German experience, and I said, you know, what are you going to do when they tell you to do bad things, but you're dependent on the government for money?
This is exactly what's going on.
So now we have hospital administrators are given a choice.
They're told if you don't get all your people, all your staff vaccinated, Then we won't pay you for your Medicare patients.
Right.
That's what's going on.
Yes.
And so they've got this big wedge.
And so the hospital administrator had to make a decision.
Do I violate basic medical ethics and the Nuremberg Code because now I'm going to coerce people to be taking an experimental, participating in an experiment under coercion and without informed consent?
Or do I take the money and save the hospital?
And they chose to take the money and save the hospital.
Well, that's still risky because, you know, many places are getting slapped with lawsuits.
And that's going to be, you know, equally or more expensive.
So, you know, they are in a difficult position.
And this is the degree of control, you know, that the system exerts on all the, you know, pieces out there.
So, you know, a lot of people say, oh, well, how can, you know, all the hospitals be in on this conspiracy?
And they're not.
They're basically, you know, being manipulated through the business model.
To go along and they're they're happy to go along because they want to you know survive and and You know keep their business going but Lee I want to shift a little bit because you know by by you taking this kind of stand right obviously you put yourself and expose yourself to much scrutiny you you know you put your career at risk your reputation and
And there are very, very few physicians who are, you know, willing to take that step and even fewer who would go as far as to look at the germ theory in general.
So what do you think, you know, kind of enabled you to do that and what do you think is the barrier for all the other folks out there who are just, you know, kind of doing what they're told?
Yeah, you know, I think that there's a three-tiered system in the hospitals now.
We've just said that all these doctors are working for hospitals.
And so part of the problem, as we've also said, is that the education system has trained physicians differently over the last 20 years than you and I were trained.
So we were trained to think about body physiology, the total care of the patient, putting patient-centered medicine.
But these guys are protocol-centered medicine.
So part of it is they really have a different ethical position.
I mean, but to some degree.
But that doesn't explain all of it.
What I think that the issue is within hospitals, there's a pyramid, there's a hierarchy.
The guys on the top took the money from Fauci and the CDC And just so, you know, the big picture here in my opinion is Fauci's not the ultimate bad guy.
They love to use his name because it keeps everybody else's name out of the... They're in the shadows.
The people that really funded this whole show are in the shadows.
They funded it through the foundations like the Clinton, Rockefeller, blah, blah, blah.
Fauci's just like the front man because he's really good at lying, right?
Right.
And I say he's the bag man, because in the mob, the bag man takes the bomb boss's money and then gives it out to the capo so they do the job.
And then if they don't do the job, he goes out and breaks their legs.
Well, in this case, the big money came through.
I understand over 40 years, Dr. Fauci had over 800 billion dollars crossed his desk in 40 years.
So according to David Martin, $120 billion just went to the development of the pathogen, the spike protein.
So he passed a lot of this money out, and it went to the AIDS, as you probably participated in that thing, it went to the AIDS programs run by governors.
So governors got some of this largess, but primarily it went to these big university hospitals or research arms, different things that were then overbuilt and became dependent on this NIH yearly largess, this money.
So now when they if they tried the guys at the top, they know they took the money and they may even know that this is a scam.
But the point is, if they go against the narrative, if they start using ivermectin or whatever, they don't get the money next year and they go down.
So they're not going to squeak.
They're bought.
So this is so similar to what happened in the AIDS era, because you had the war on cancer, right?
Nixon's war on cancer, which was really funding virologists to find viruses causing cancer.
And it was, you know, a huge, huge investment.
So, you know, they expanded their infrastructure, right?
They overbuilt the same way, and there were all these virologists, and of course they had no significant
Discoveries and then the program ended so they were like well we need a way to survive now otherwise we're gonna have to you know go go under and so that's when the AIDS was you know started to be talking about at that time you know they called it the gay cancer and things like that and so if they were to invent a virus to explain that they'd be back in business and that's exactly what happened.
Right.
And if you notice, it's the same people we're dealing with now.
Absolutely.
It's the same group.
They're looking at the same bugs, Marburg, Ebola, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, which then gets to the issue of, I mean, this is a bigger, bigger, people don't like to use that term conspiracy, but this is a bigger, longer term playbook than people, I think, realize.
Yes, it is.
One of the things I started looking at was this whole issue Of emerging infectious diseases.
You know, and it plays into where this money's been going because that money you're talking about is the same pot of money and it went through Fauci.
You know, I mean, Fauci was just a young guy when he was placed in that position.
Who is he really?
I got to get Robert Kennedy's book because I really, I mean, I think that he was groomed to be put there for some reason.
He's not just your average guy.
But if you look at what happened over a long period of time, there's just a lot of weird facts.
Like, why are veterinarians involved in Ebola and influenza research?
Don't they have animals to worry about?
Well, it turns out that since at least World War II, We have bio-weapons programs have been couched under the guise of veterinary research.
Right.
And we know that the Japanese and the Kuomintang army in China, that's what they were doing.
Well, I started, I don't know, it just kind of hit me a few months ago about this whole thing about emerging infectious diseases.
We never heard that term when I was in medical school in 1976.
We called it tropical diseases and everybody knew what that we were talking about.
We were talking about parasites like malaria, trypanosomiasis, leishmaniasis.
It was all these weird kind of things out of Africa and the Middle East and places and some in America and South America.
But Right, I remember that famous Sidney Poitier role in Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, right, where he was the, you know, I think from Yale, the tropical disease specialist helping people in the developing world.
Right.
And it was the London School of Tropical Diseases.
But then something happened in the mid 80s.
And suddenly we had things and we had things coming out of Africa.
We had, they traced, they claimed they traced AIDS back to something, but they never ever, the Ebola.
Wasn't it to monkeys?
Right, to some green monkey, but they never, so it was like Ebola, Marburg, I'm going to forget some, but anyway, but the big three were Ebola, I think Marburg, and AIDS, okay?
Right.
They claimed that there was a there's a back the whole story was oh it had to do with paving the Kinshasa Highway and the truckers were going back and forth and so suddenly these diseases that were you know endemic in those little villages that were completely isolated in darkest Africa suddenly became connected to the coast and so that's how this spread and it came from bat you know they had all sorts of of excuses bat guano
Uh, these green monkeys, but they've never ever proven that that's the reservoir.
They've never found a reservoir.
They've never found animal intermediates.
Now, why is this of any interest?
Because, interestingly, about that time, this all started in the mid 80s, because I was a resident in orthopedics when this happened, when we started hearing about AIDS.
It may start a little bit earlier, but not much.
What did we find out later?
Well, we found out in the 90s, and notice that this stuff is kind of fizzled out.
You're just not hearing about this stuff.
It was really in the pop culture for a while, right?
There were movies and TV shows about it.
Yeah, the hot zone and all this kind of stuff.
It was like we're all at risk of this.
But what was really going on there, and we learned this through Desmond Tutu and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa, there was a big bioweapons program going on in South Africa called Project Coast.
A lot of this stuff now is buried, but you can still find some of it if you search.
And the Project Coast was run by the South African Defense Force.
Now, keep in mind, we had stopped our bioweapons program roughly, I mean, theoretically, in 1970.
Officially, right?
Officially, Nixon signed the anti-bioweapons treaty that was constructed in the early 70s, 71, 72, and it really took effect in like 76 timeframe.
Well, we knew though from the minute he signed this that ink wasn't even dry on the paper that the Soviets were turning around and creating the largest bioweapons program known to mankind.
I mean tons of India 11 smallpox and bats and things like this.
And They had, they had tularemia, they had anthrax, they had all these different weird things.
So, and we and we knew that because there were defectors such as Ken Alabeckoff, I think his real name is now we think Ken Alabeck, but there were people like that that came to the US and told us, hey, this is what's going on.
Yet we didn't want to believe it, or at least we said we didn't believe it, but I think we did.
And if you have to ask yourself, so what would we do?
Here we have our big military rival, and they're completely building up their arsenal.
They're doing things.
We saw that they had re-entry vehicles for their warheads that had nose cone cooling.
You don't need nose cone cooling for nuclear weapons.
The only reason you need nose cone cooling is for bioweapons.
So we knew they were involved in this.
What are we going to do?
Are we going to sit on our thumbs Or are we going to maybe offshore the project?
Right.
Now, we claim we had nothing to do with Project Coast, but there was a guy named Larry Ford who was an OBGYN doctor in Los Angeles.
Now, he's dead.
Another guy is dead that was going to testify before MI5.
There's a lot of suicides around this whole thing.
But there were enough witnesses for Desmond to to kind of get at the bottom line here and Larry Ford would go back and forth to South Africa and and they have people still there that could remember that he was teaching them about how to turn everyday objects into contact pathogens, poisons, into you know like like here's an example one of the times they they and I have a whole list of what they came up with but one of the things they did was taught them how to how to
Uh poisonous shirt in such a way it hung in the closet and then when you went to put it on it'd kill you.
And they gave it to a guy they wanted to assassinate.
Unfortunately he lent it to his friend and so it killed him.
So it did work.
They had proof of concept but it worked on the wrong guy.
But that's the kind of thing they were doing.
And um it was specifically the bioweapons program was aimed at depopulating the black population to a degree in South Africa.
Now, why this plays, and how I even, you know, kind of got this all kind of put together in my mind, how does this play a role in what's happening with COVID?
You know, you hear a lot of people saying, oh, this is about depopulation, it's about this thing.
And, you know, here's what I stumbled across in favor of that concept.
It's not just, it's not just a bunch of people talking.
Again, think about veterinary medicine and bioweapons research.
Well, in Australia, there is a, apparently, and apparently this is true, I was on a podcast down there, they have these outbreaks of mice where one day you'll wake up and your whole barn's filled with mice if you're a farmer.
It's kind of weird.
Much more than we don't have that around here as far as I know, but they have it.
So they decided, oh, the argument for this research was we need to figure out a way to get rid of the mice population of these outbreaks.
So let's make, I know, let's make a self-disseminating genetic immunocontraceptive In other words, they make a vaccine for mice that makes them sterile.
So they captured a bunch of mice and they gave them this vaccine and it damaged the female mice ovaries.
This was published in 2016, by the way, in the Emerging Infectious Disease Journal.
So they gave, and it made the mice sterile.
Then they released them back in the wild, and what happened was these mice are very gregarious.
They rub up against other mice, and they would shed on these other mice, and it would make them sterile.
And then that, now you got a bigger population that's sterile, and then they would, they would rub up against yet a third group, and then it would make them sterile, and then it kind of fizzled out in the population.
Now, what are we seeing?
If you look at the agent they used for that, it is what they call a replicant-deficient, species-specific viral carrier married to this genetic agent.
It's created identically to my reading, and again, I'm not a biochemist, but this sounds exactly like the J&J vaccine.
It was a DNA vaccine Yeah, it does sound like it.
Now, because I know, I've looked at some of the research on vaccines to produce infertility, and there are many studies, by the way, even review articles on this topic, and they typically, for females, they use antibodies to beta-HCG, but it sounds like, so what was the gene that they were delivering and coding for in these mice vaccine?
That I don't know.
I have the paper.
I can go back.
I didn't particularly look at that, but that's what it did.
I know how it worked.
It damaged the female ovaries.
And why that rang with me is I also, before I'd read that, I had been aware of the pharmacokinetic study that we got translated from the Japanese.
The Japanese would not take the Pfizer vaccine without a pharmacokinetic study.
And what is a pharmacokinetic study?
That's a study that shows, you know, for your listeners that where the stuff goes.
I mean, if I take a pill, I take a drug, where does it go in the body?
How long does it stay there?
How's my body get rid of it?
Okay, that's what we need to know when we deal with drugs.
So, in that study, they gave it to all these people and they used, and also to back up, these agents, the Pfizer vaccine, for example, it's made from an outer shell, the lipoprotein outer shell, Right, lipid nanoparticles.
Yeah, outer shell called Matrix-M.
It's developed by Novavax and it's called the Matrix-M.
You got to love that.
And then it's filled with this genetic material in the middle.
So they took out the genetic material.
They just used the Matrix-M and they circulated it around to see where it went.
64 times more take up in ovaries than in the skeletal muscle.
So, it's hard not to look at that and see the mice study.
And even more creepily, they have a study in us about how many mice you have to sterilize, or how many animals in general.
We can apply to any species.
If we know the birth rate, the death rate, this is how many people using this technique, people like, that was a Freudian slip.
So, how many animals using this technique you have to sterilize in order to decrease the population X percent?
They've got this down to a science.
Absolutely.
So, you know, it's if you look at some empirical data on what's been going on during the pandemic, even before there was any, you know, injectables that were put on the market.
Because of the policies of separating people and scaring everyone, right?
We had a major, major drop in the birth weight.
In fact, at the end of 2020, the birth rate in the United States was below replacement levels.
So it would shrink, right?
And that is a very dangerous place to be in for the future, because if it drops below a certain rate, then it can kind of irreversibly head towards extinction.
So, you know, this is more than a little bit of a concern.
I wonder, you know, because obviously we've seen some of the most predominant adverse effects from these injections has been, you know, related to menstruation and miscarriages and reproduction, which, of course, makes sense if you have these toxic nanoparticles and whatever else they're delivering makes sense if you have these toxic nanoparticles and whatever else they're delivering that we may not even And by the way, they distributed everywhere in the body, including the brain.
But you're right.
They were there was a major hotspot in the in the female reproductive organs.
And so if, you know, it takes time before you can really notice major infertility.
major infertility.
But, you know, is this a way to, you know, without a major genocidal event to affect the population more insidiously?
But, you know, is this a way to, you know, without a major genocidal event to affect the population more insidiously?
And by the time people figure it out, there's nothing they can do about it.
And by the time people figure it out, there's nothing they can do about it.
You know, they obviously did this strategy already in a clandestine fashion in Africa.
And I believe it was with the diphtheria vaccine.
And there was a whole, you know, large cohort of young women who, at least for a period of time, we don't know the long-term results, were completely infertile.
And so, you know, it's almost like a lost generation.
And so, you know, And you can tell that this was done because one is they found the anti-beta HCG antibodies in several samples, but also they developed a schedule that didn't match the vaccine that they were saying.
And it was like because of five injections, which is never done with those infectious diseases.
It was a tetanus vaccine.
Yeah, right.
Tetanus.
Sorry.
So you never, you know, you have those once every 10 years.
Right.
Not five injections in a short period of time.
Yeah, I know, yeah, it was a Catholic, I think it was the Nigerian or some African nation, the Catholic Doctors Association took multiple samples of multiple different areas, not just one or two, and all of them showed HCG.
What?
You know, it shouldn't have been in there.
Yeah, and then, you know, this whole recent thing, by the way, also of the, I was just trying to find the actual numbers here.
This whole recent thing about the Pfizer wanting to keep all their research data hidden for 55 years.
Yes.
And I didn't know this, maybe you did, Andrew, but they went with the FDA to the court to do that.
They were partnered up with the FDA to hide that.
It wasn't like they were petitioning to not have it.
No, the FDA was also petitioning not to have it because they're complicit in this whole murderous outbreak, too.
Well, we saw, you know, two prominent members of the FDA Vaccine Committee, like, just, you know, quit when they were about to authorize use in children, right?
Because they don't want to end up You know, as being defendants in the next Nuremberg trial.
Right, I think so.
So we saw, you know, like this sort of like amicus, you know, relationship, right, between industry and FDA.
And, you know, I bet if you did an analysis, how many current FDA employees used to work at Pfizer?
And then if we can follow it out in the future, how many current FDA employees will work at Pfizer?
Actually, that was done.
That was done.
I can tell you the number.
These two doctors about 10 years ago looked at this revolving door.
It was 70%.
So 70% of the FDA, you know, and people don't realize that the drug companies pay the FDA to look at the drug company's own research and to decide on it.
So they own their own regulation arm.
That's what the story here is.
But the issue is, what did they want to hide when they didn't want you to see this stuff for 55 years?
And one of them probably is the study that looked at pregnant women.
And when they were forced to release that, we got some really damning data.
And although they've been saying it's perfectly safe in pregnant women, it turns out that they had 270 pregnancies that they Absolutely.
documented during the study, but there was no outcome known for 238.
Isn't that convenient?
Right.
Isn't that convenient?
And that would, as you know, in research, that would throw the research out right there.
I mean, it just, if you can't account for the majority of the people you're supposed to be observing.
Yeah.
Your dropout rate should be like less than 10%.
Right.
But of the 32 known pregnancy outcomes in the first trimester, 28 were fatal.
So they had an 87.5% loss rate.
They only had one normal pregnancy of all those women, the 32 women that they could account for, one clearly normal.
They had a couple they couldn't...
87.5% at least loss rate.
That's what they don't want us to hear.
And, you know, now we're seeing it's not just fetal loss.
What are we seeing?
What's the doctor's name?
He's Boucher, Dr. Boucher, I think up in Canada.
He is Mel Boucher, that's his name.
And he is currently imprisoned in a Canadian psychiatric ward because he was exposing the number of stillbirths happening in a Vancouver hospital.
And if you'll, and if you just catch this again, you know, I don't have numbers, but if you, if you, you're going to, you see it on telegram, you see it around the, just briefly in different news blips about nurses and doctors speaking about, about this rash of still bursts that they, magnitudes order, orders of magnitude worse than they've ever seen.
This is really happening, and I do think we don't seem to care about it killing our children, we don't seem to care about it killing us, but this infertility is going to become obvious, I think, pretty soon.
I also, you know, Christiane Northrup, that's a famous OBGYN doctor, she has friends on the inside of this whole thing.
I mean, I'm ortho, so I'm kind of far away from this, but she knows these people, and she said, He knows people in these IVF facilities, the in vitro fertilization.
And she said, what they're noticing is when they take, you know, sperm and egg and they put them together and they're from vaccinated people, they don't progress past a certain stage.
They have to go through like multiple stages before they're re-implanted in the mother and they can't make it.
Wow.
So basically you're saying the embryo doesn't really, isn't really viable.
It's not viable.
Right.
Well, this is so I just want to summarize like this whole point on emerging infectious diseases, because, you know, we only touch the surface.
But it sounds like what you're saying is that when we hear about these outbreaks, you know, in Africa and other exotic parts of the world with really scary stuff, that what's really going on here is that that is secret government research.
And they're passing it off as a scary outbreak.
One to, you know, cover it up.
that they're doing something that is illegal, right?
And then, you know, two, they can use this fear narrative to drive policies or develop, you know, new shots and all kinds of other things like that.
So it's so it's kind of useful in a way.
to make things happen in addition to just covering things up.
And we've been largely, completely ignorant to this over the time, and of course they've ramped it up to the current situation, right, where really the experiment is on the entire world's population, right?
And and this, you know, these injectable things are, you know, bioweapons and they're not necessarily meant to kill everyone.
It doesn't appear that way, but they're definitely meant to have very specific intended effects such as infertility and perhaps surveillance and other things that we will we'll see more evidence of going forward.
Absolutely.
And you know, we're here.
Look at what's happening right now with Marburg.
What have we heard?
There's little rumors about this city in China.
Very scary.
Oh, they've shut down the whole city.
They've confined people to their houses because they've got this new viral thing with bleeding from the eyes.
Okay, now, we know about hemorrhagic fever.
They don't have to make it like, oh, we're just discovering this kind of story, but that's the way it's coming out, is if we've never heard the term hemorrhagic fever, we don't, we're bleeding from the eyes.
It makes it sound like they're trying to, it's like a stage play.
They're putting out these little hints, and then they're gonna, the murder mystery is gonna go on, you know, but they're starting to make a scare plan, I think, and I think it's interesting too that even smallpox, this is what I learned from Dr. Cowan, and I started really looking at what he's talking about, and I went back and looked at the American study that was done by a doctor down in, I think, Alabama.
I said the worst bioweapon out there is smallpox because it's so transmissible.
Well, it turns out that this doctor showed that if you got people into a clean environment, Even if they've been exposed to smallpox in the community, you get them to a clean environment before they get sick and they simply don't get smallpox.
It's associated with bedbugs and things biting you somehow.
So a lot of things we've been told are not as true as we thought.
So I think the bottom line here with this is that they're going to try and scare us again.
The COVID wasn't enough, so now they're going to move on to Marlboro maybe.
But it's not something we need to be terrified of.
We need to realize we're in a takedown.
Let's figure out what they're really telling us.
What do we really know about this?
Right.
Well, Lee, you know, that's actually one of the most important reasons why I harp on this point about viruses not being real because they, you know, absolutely want to keep us terrified so that if they want to run this operation again, because, you know, in just the last two weeks and, you know, I want to have cautious optimism about that.
It seems like they're retreating.
You know, we saw Bill Gates make the prediction that the pandemic would end in 2022.
We see Boris Johnson canceling vaccine certificates and even masks for school children in the In the UK, children now can breathe again.
Wow, what a concept!
And we saw the Supreme Court, while they upheld this BS for healthcare workers, at least they shot it down for most of the workers in the country.
You know, and there have been changes also for the better in, you know, Mexico and in Australia and places that we know have been really tyrannical.
So if everything dies down from, you know, the fake coronavirus, Well, then what is the next play?
So is it a hemorrhagic fever virus?
Is it smallpox?
Is it related to some kind of climate disaster?
Is it an internet shutdown due to some kind of hacking event?
So is it something with the electrical grid?
Plans that could be put into a place, right, that fit in the agenda.
So, you know, we need to be ready to be extremely skeptical of any major, you know, events going forward if we do, in fact, get out of this current situation as it may.
You know, I mean, it would be hard to argue against Bill Gates' prediction because I think that he's maybe not the planner, but he's certainly in on the meetings.
Right.
He's at the side of the table at least.
I think there's two possibilities.
And I'd like to think we're winning because the truth is coming out.
Because we're speaking out and there's this growing army of rebels.
The other possibility, we have to accept this other possibility because it's how we have to be girded for the future in case, you know, the war's not over.
And that is that the reason they're backing off is they've done the damage.
They've vaccinated 40% of our children.
They've vaccinated 70% plus of the army.
You know, two armies that are not taking these RNA vaccines, China and Russia.
What does that mean?
So if the damage is going to roll out over the next year, they don't have to do anything more and they can look like good guys and walk away.
That's the beautiful thing about bioweapons and some of the things that military planners look at.
They like to have stealth weapons they can walk away from and you don't pin the blame on them.
Right, because, you know, we don't have any active surveillance looking at the vaccines, right?
We only have passive surveillance, and the clinical trials were essentially ended early.
We're giving the, you know, vaccine to the placebo group, so they can't follow.
So there's no way to follow long-term side effects beyond, probably beyond a few weeks, because, you know, if you get a jab and then 18 months later you're sick, You're probably not going to connect it, and your doctor is certainly not going to connect it, and no one's going to make a voluntary report, right?
It's only if it happens a few days later or within two weeks, that's when we're seeing almost all of the reactions that are reported in this voluntary, you know, passive system.
So if there is some kind of delayed effect that's purposeful, You're absolutely right.
It would be a brilliant strategy because they'll never get blamed.
In fact, they could just let people figure out what to blame.
Or, more likely, they'll put some narrative in there and maybe they'll say it's a new virus or a new health concern or it's related to climate change or something else that they have an agenda for.
But it would be very interesting if that happens, just to see.
I mean, it would nonetheless still be good to resume some freedom, but of course we know that this is a big overarching agenda, and it's not going to just disappear.
We have to just non-comply and just start acting normally.
That is the answer to the antidote to this fear thing.
But I think this is the biggest thing that's going to take them down.
You're right.
If an 82-year-old in a year comes in with a brain bleed, nobody's going to associate it to the vaccine or a heart attack or whatever, stroke.
But if you have worldwide infertility, And if you can notice, it only affects the vaccinated, that the people that didn't get vaccinated, the young women and men can have children.
That's how they don't.
That's why they wanted such a uniform vaccination rate.
They didn't want a group out there that's doing better.
And so that is not going to be able to be hidden.
And that's going to be the tell.
I think that's what's going to take these guys down.
And if we don't take the system down that brought us this, you're right, they're going to keep coming back with new plans and new systems.
And we have to realize that the world is not what we thought, that we're being controlled by a few people.
I heard David Icke say this at Trafalgar Square, and I think this is exactly right.
Probably the people that are running this show could be put into one room with plenty of room left over.
But there are 7.8 billion of us.
I think I see a way out of this.
That's what you said.
Absolutely.
I think that's right.
Well, I think that is a great place to wrap up today, Lee.
You know, it's really been a pleasure hearing your story.
I learned several things today, and that doesn't happen too often in this subject arena.
So, like, thanks for doing all the thorough research and, you know, contributing and doing everything that you're doing.
And I know that please go to Dr. Merritt's website at TheMedicalRebel.com.
And then also look for her group on Telegram, Freedom Doc.
And Lee, do you want to tell us a little bit about what you're up to these days and what you're talking about in your groups?
Well, um, you know, I'm, I'm on the five docs with Sherry Tenpenny and those guys, and we're going to Tampa in March.
And, um, and that should be a good, you know, and, and the idea it's really, it's really just helping people deal with the fear, trying to get people to normalize their life.
I really do think this is our crux year.
This is the year we have to take back our world.
And so that's, that's, that's the thing we're dealing with.
Well, I'm all for that.
So let's do that in 2022 and we'll all do it together.
So thank you so much, Lee.
It's great to have you here and take care, everyone.
We'll see you next time.
We'll see you next time.
We'll see you next time.
We'll see you next time.
Introducing a powerful dietary supplement, Ola.
Over a million years in development.
A highly concentrated, complex, natural formula.
Rich in trace minerals, as well as fulvic and humic acids.
Mother Nature's ancient elixir for energy, revitalization, and long life.
Take in the nutritional wisdom of the ancient past.
Unleash the vibrant healthy being inside.
▲
Export Selection