All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 3, 2022 - Jim Fetzer
01:09:00
Dr Mike Yeadon - Fraud, Fear and How Herd Mentality Has Brought Us to the Edge
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello, Heart of Oak.
Thank you once again for joining us.
And it is an honour to have a guest that I have certainly followed closely through the COVID tyranny and chaos that we have had.
And it is a delight to speak to him face to face.
And that is Mike Yeadon.
Mike, thank you for your time today.
Peter, thank you for really the privilege and your platform, being able to speak to your audience.
As I always say, there's no point in me speaking if there's no one out there hearing, so thank you in turn.
Thank you so much.
And for those of you who maybe do not know Mike, although you've probably been living in a dark hole if you haven't come across him, as he fits in with a number of our previous guests.
He is a retired vice president and chief scientific officer at Pfizer, the pharmaceutical company, and a researcher of immunology and respiratory disease, along with many other things.
But that can be the short version.
Now, obviously your background in Pfizer.
I was shocked to see the numbers of Pfizer there.
I'll just give our viewers some of the stats.
Net income 13 billion, revenue 50 billion.
The company's market cap is 250 billion, which places them, I think, around Finland, around number 40 of world countries.
So it is a huge organization.
And I guess the primary goal is to make money for shareholders, it's not a charity.
Is that a fair observation, Mike?
Yes, no, that's true.
Yeah, just so briefly, you are right.
So I've worked in biomedical R&D, so new drug discovery research, early development, all of my life, 32 years.
And in addition to the time at Pfizer, for about 10 years I was an independent, so I I acted as a board-level advisor to 30 venture finance startup companies, mostly in the US, and I ran my own biotech for six years as founding CEO.
So I raised money, built the team.
We did a clinical trial and got bought by Novartis wholly.
And at the time, Novartis in Switzerland was the world's biggest drug company.
So they jockeyed for the number one, two, three slot.
It's either Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, Pfizer.
So yes, the joke was that I lived in a dirty snowboard.
So when I started in the industry in 1988, I joined a little outfit called Welcome Research in Beckenham, Kent.
And had a rather lovely country house that had previously been the home of Sir Henry Welcome, who founded the company 100 years earlier.
And during my career, the companies just kept buying each other.
And they kept buying each other partly because the financial incentives drove them to do that.
They would rapidly grow their revenues.
And although they would combine R&D outfits, they would usually basically fire half of them.
And so research and development became a slightly smaller part of revenue.
And you end up with these enormous combines.
And essentially, companies like Pfizer, they're really commercial sales organizations and treasury.
They don't even make that much of their own drugs.
A lot of things are done through contract manufacturing.
Contract clinical trials and even contract research.
So my last foray before I retired in 2017 was a case in point.
I'd been a victim of downsizing in 2011.
Pfizer, instead of spending all of the money it was spending on internal R&D, It's banking the savings, running the radar.
If it saw anything good, like Novartis did, you just shoot out a tentacle and pay too much.
You just bite.
And you'd bite when it got past the level of risk that you thought was right for your organization, then run it through clinical trials.
So we've ended up with a smaller group of very large combines, and some people would joke that they're really country-sized banks with like a sweet shop on the side, you know, or a drugstore on the side.
That's pretty much it.
So I think I was fortunate in that pretty much all the people I worked with in the research end, we were always motivated to identify what had gone wrong in disease, what we could do to fix it, and how you could intervene with some kind of a drug to bring about that benefit without hurting people.
That's really what pharmaceutical R&D is about.
And a guy who was involved in two successful drug discovery programs, that was histamine H2 antagonists, they were the early antihistamines and beta blockers, that guy called, what's his name?
Anyway.
How was his name?
Just Sir James Black.
Jim Black, a Scottish pharmacologist, and I met him when he was probably 80-something, and he used to say with a twinkly eye, you know, all you people in the room, all you scientists, you know, it's from here or nowhere that the new drugs will come.
And he said, you know what, it's the last really important, truly organized game for adults.
I like that.
It's not easy.
You hardly ever are successful.
A lot of failures.
So my training then covered lots of fields, pharmacology, toxicology, biochemistry, and then all of the molecular biology that is more recent.
And I was always driven to understand the science, work with people, find new molecules, bring them forward.
Here's the criticism.
to integrate how do we fix either a cause or a symptom that's important in a disease and not hurt people and then develop drugs properly.
So when I, and then yeah, here's the criticism.
So I'm probably the most famous anti-vaxxer in the world, which is absurd of course.
I mean, literally, I spent my entire career in this industry, but when I complained about something at the end of 2020, I wrote an open letter to say you shouldn't, under no circumstances, take these alleged vaccines.
They've not been developed properly.
They are dangerous.
I was immediately smeared by the wonderful BBC.
But I struck back by cancelling my license, you see.
I'm not without any power.
So yeah, but up to that point, I've not made any public, up to COVID, I've not made any public comment about anything apart from my own professional field.
So in the area I was working in, I've not campaigned to save the polar bears or protect trees or get rid of cars.
Really lazy, I'd not done anything.
So how I'd suddenly turned up to protest?
Well, there are two possibilities.
One is, I've suddenly turned out to be this crazy campaigner.
The second one is, Eden's used his entire lifetime's experience and has spotted things that are seriously wrong with what's going on, and it's obviously the second one.
But nevertheless, the BBC attacked me.
People I used to respect, you know, people I'd listen to, actually put together programs that then We're really pretty unpleasant, but I don't mind that now.
I'm well past that.
I mean, whenever someone types in your name, I mean, you get pages of fact checks, and yet you're still going.
Yes, and the reason I'm not, so here are the things that people say about me.
What do they say about me?
Oh yes, they say in visit former employee.
That's one.
The other one is a graph.
Is it a grifter?
You make money.
And then what's the third one?
Oh yes, he's seeking the limelight.
Let's take those in order, shall we?
So I left Pfizer in 2011.
I was probably their most successful chief scientist.
That is, everyone else but me had been fired at some point, and I remember chatting with the penultimate guy, and then he got fired, and then a year later it was my turn.
So I was okay.
I was okay at my job.
But they closed the site I was working in, in Sandwiching, Kent, and so with two and a half thousand other people lost my job.
They were very kind to me when I left, I was one of the last employees out trying to help others get jobs.
So I left on good terms.
A year later, I came back with a proposition, which they took me up on.
And so from 2012 to 2017, Mike Eden and his investors and Pfizer were collaborating.
That does not sound like an embittered former employee.
And at the end of 2017, Peter, we got bought by Novartis, Pfizer, Cashed out and made a lot of money and we did all right.
So the story, and you can look this up, so John Lamatina, the former president of Pfizer's R&D, the worldwide head wrote me up in Forbes magazine in 2017 in a very flattering way.
So if anyone wants to debunk the fact checks, you can go and check me out.
I was a good guy and they liked me until 2017.
So the next one, Grifter.
I resent that.
I've made zero pence in the work I've done.
I've refused gifts.
I don't take donations.
I don't charge for anything.
I'm also, I have no idea how you would make money out of this.
Really.
So I've made zero pence and it's cost me a large six-figure sum to do it.
And I'm doing it because I'm trying to warn people about what the hell is going on.
And I also resent that my former employee that I never suspected of being a criminal entity is at this point a serious criminal entity.
Then the last one, oh yes, liking the limelight.
No, anyone who knows me knows that my preference is to be in my shed with my motorbikes, which I've left behind by the way.
I'm now in the States because I figured I could probably keep protesting longer in Florida.
I'm not sure whether that was right or not, but here we are.
So, yeah, so where are we now?
Well, because with just our one thing you said about a company wanting to do good, obviously Pfizer, the whole thing about trying to suppress data, that should give the public a different view of these companies.
So, yeah, tell us, tell us why that's happened.
Well, yes, just there's no question.
I don't actually think it is Pfizer that wanted, well, it's not Pfizer that made the specific request to hold back basically the filing that they made with, I think, FDA, Food and Drug Administration.
They assess whether or not a drug is safe and effective, whether it should be authorized or approved.
I think someone put in a request for that information, that dossier to be released, and I don't see why it shouldn't be.
But I think the FDA were the ones that said, look, it's going to be too difficult for us to give you this dossier, which is absurd, because it's a big file.
It's literally a very big file.
It probably fits on a terabyte drive or something like that.
And so they said, look, it's going to take us 75 years.
I don't think it was Pfizer that said it'll take 75 years.
But the idea that there were no conversations, I think, would be utterly naive, given, I'm afraid, the FDA, the CDC, the drug companies, I'm afraid our MHRA in the UK, they're all completely corrupt.
And I can prove that.
There are numerous ongoing Court cases.
So, yeah, there's Pfizer and other drug companies occasionally breached various laws that were pretty serious, and I think Pfizer paid the largest criminal fine.
So they weren't fined for having inadvertently harmed somebody, for example, because that could happen.
No, they paid the largest fine.
I think it's 2.6 billion dollars.
I was there at the time, and like other scientists, I can assure you, we were not happy to discover that our employer had been found in court of law guilty of doing something that was so bad it was a criminal offence.
I think essentially they had covered up harms in order to make money, I suspect.
And they weren't alone a couple of years earlier.
Merck had done almost exactly the same.
And they'd been slapped with a one and a half billion dollar fine.
So maybe we were naive.
Yeah, all right, we were naive.
But we didn't see evidence of corruption around us.
We were our own best critics, Peter, I promise you.
If we thought a fellow scientist had a project that was a lame duck, you know, we would say, your project's a lame duck, Dave.
You know, Sally, you've got to stop this.
You're using up our resources and we want to get Our drug going forward.
So we were pretty good at holding each other to account, but research and commercial almost never met.
You know, you might meet for a strategic strategy meeting once a year.
That's it.
So the idea that one would miss the corruption because we're stupid is you just don't see it.
You're working in a research lab.
um and you have different incentives than the people are making money you know selling i don't know they probably arrange deals with health and health management organizations and hospital groups and i don't know how it works but you can imagine there's all sorts of incentives to get your drug prescribed not another one um it's uh yeah we weren't happy but i never would have suspected that they've done what they've done so shall i just outline i can outline let me outline in brief it's not a good story
So if anybody's been following me on and off, I would say if my story has changed a little bit over time, yes it has, it's because it's not my crime.
So I'm like a detective, a scientific detective, and I'm working out what I think's going on.
Every time I speak, nothing I say is inconsistent with any of the major observations.
If it is inconsistent, as a scientist, I've got it wrong, right?
That's That's the way research has taught me.
A wicked lesson.
If you think X and Y is happening, but you've left out an important series of observations, my God, you know you're wrong.
And you get caught out.
So if my story has evolved, it's because I've learned new things or like a jigsaw that I don't have the box.
So I don't know what the picture looks like.
I've turned it around and think, oh, my God, it fits together differently.
So here's what I think.
Briefly, what has happened?
It's quite easy.
The powers that be.
I'll call them the perpetrators.
The people running this global crime.
It is a global crime to take over all of humanity.
What they've done is they pretended that there was a serious new respiratory viral health threat.
Okay?
That's what they did, this virus in Wuhan.
In my opinion, there never was an exaggerated, there was never any new health threat whatsoever.
Partly the beauty of this, it can't go wrong because there's no moving parts.
It's literally, the only moving part is the PCR test.
So the initial thing, an exaggerated health threat.
Now, some people believe there's a new virus, but if so, it's not any more serious than influenza, not really, because flu vanished at the same time by sheer coincidence.
First of all, I actually have come to the conclusion, and I will credit Andrew Cowan and his colleagues.
I had a really good chat with those guys early in 2020, and it bothered me, bothered me, bothered me.
I realized over time I could no longer maintain my understanding of Respiratory viruses as I thought I knew them and then I learned a new bit of information recently and it was just it collapsed the possibility that respiratory viruses as described exist at all.
They don't.
People do get ill and people are ill.
People have exactly the same illnesses, Peter and your listeners, exactly the same illnesses as before that horrible Eden said viruses don't exist.
They still have quotes colds and quotes flu You know, it's just I think we don't know what causes them and they're not respiratory viruses.
So, but let's put that to one side.
The first big crime was to lie to you and tell you, that's a collective you including me, that there was a massive big health threat coming out of China and my god, you have to watch it, it's killing all these people.
Remember the man falling on his face in Wuhan?
I mean, come on folks!
You know that was fake, don't you?
Because it's never happened anywhere else.
It's never happened where you live.
It's never happened on your TV set.
It was fake.
Now, I always say to people, what's the right number of times a public health message should lie to you about something that could damage your health, your life, your ability to respond to threats?
The answer is zero, isn't it?
So when you catch them lying once, It's bad enough and I can prove they've lied 8, 10, 12 times.
So that's the first one.
An exaggerated health threat that didn't really exist.
Why did they do that?
It's so they could get you to accept Part 2.
Part 2 was to impose so-called measures, which you've come to know and hate or know and love.
Lockdowns, masks, social distancing, hand-washing, border restrictions, school closures, business closures.
There are probably some others, but that's pretty much it.
I don't know if you know this, but I'm going to tell you, Peter, and your listeners, Every single one of those potential interventions, they're called NPIs, non-pharmaceutical interventions, every single one of those has got some plausibility about them.
If illness is transmitted from person to person, which until a few months ago I thought was true, but If that was true, we would have expected them to have found use in the past during pandemics, epidemics, and so on.
The WHO, they're not all corrupt.
The leadership is, but they're not all corrupt.
Their scientists did a review of all of the non-pharmaceutical interventions.
I've just listed every one of them.
And they issued a report over 100 pages long in 2019 Which they issued to all the member states.
So you can go and find this.
I actually used the Wayback Machine and I needed help because I'm in a good position.
I got hold of a copy of that report.
You read the report.
None of those measures do anything at all, it seems, to the transmission from group of people to group of people, person to person.
None did anything at all.
And that's, I think we're coming to believe that as well, that lockdowns, people thought, oh, it's a necessary evil and it damaged the economy and civil society, but it was necessary.
No, it didn't do anything.
We knew that through formal published literature in June, July 2020.
And by the way, WHO scientists have reviewed and told every public health department in the world that it didn't work.
They all did.
Masks didn't work.
Hand washing didn't work.
The only ones that can be useful are if you are symptomatic, stay away from other people until you're better.
And I think people do that for two reasons.
One, they're ill.
They, you know, people are really symptomatic coughing, you know, shortness of breath, wheezing and so on.
They're so ill they'll lie on the sofa or in bed or if they're elderly might even end up in hospital and they might die.
So no one needs to encourage people to stay at home if they're really symptomatic.
Like you don't need to encourage them but that would be the only one of the measures that made any sense.
They didn't even bother to tell us that.
They did all the other things like healthy people Not interacting.
But anyway, so first was the exaggerated health threat, which was not real.
And then the second one was a welter of interventions that got in the way of living your life.
They also got in the way of normal economic commerce.
And unfortunately there was a purpose to that.
Many people have worked this out now.
The purpose of that explicitly, it's twofold.
One, to condition people.
Would they accept the orders from public health officials led by the politicians in their country?
And those of you who've, as I have done, I've never heard of the Stanford Prison Experiments, I've never heard of the Ash Conformity Study, and I've never heard of this one other famous one as well, Milgram Experiments.
Now these are all famous bits of psychology that were done in good universities in America after the war.
You can look them up.
The Stanford Prison Experiment, the Milgram Experiment, and the Ash Conformity Experiment.
What they show is that people will do awful things, including to their fellow citizens, If the peer pressure is sufficiently high and an authority figure tells them to do it.
And this explains, I'm afraid, it's largely the explanation for how Nazi Germany worked.
Basically, people were told to do things by authority figures, looked around, hardly anyone was arguing, and so they went along with it.
And that's what's happened here.
So, that was part of it.
It was like, get people used to doing what they're told.
We don't care what your reservations are, you're going to do it.
And then they also used the media to amplify anyone who was resistant, was a granny killer, all this sort of stuff.
And then they would have Watch Our Eyes, you know, I can't remember, there were all these sort of Ghastly.
Laura, what's her name?
Laura... Laura Dodsworth.
Laura Dodsworth.
Grim.
What we call states of fear.
Yeah.
So reading all of that stuff and then looking, researching those experiments there, they're horrific in how pliable we are as human, as species.
So I think all of the measures put in place to test your, basically test your resolve, And most of us, most of us, I'm afraid, we are pack, herd creatures.
We are like sheep.
We don't like to make fuss.
We like to do what our peer group is doing, especially within a family group or neighbors or work, things like that.
So that was partly, I think it's called entrainment.
You'll do what you're bloody told.
And the other one was to smash the economy.
That is, you can't go to work, but we won't let you starve.
So what we'll do is just print money and give it to you.
Now, if you do that, I mean, I'm not an economist, but I'm clever enough to know that.
If you do this for more than a short period of time, you will dilute the value of your currency to a point where people will lose confidence that your government can repay the debt, especially when the money was created.
This is the interesting thing.
I thought the debt was being created rather like after the global financial crisis, by the way, and I'm not saying this, but I'm saying this is what the financial experts told me in conversation.
They said, oh, you do know that that was deliberate and synthetic, that the conditions were created to make that happen.
I said, no, I didn't know that.
They said, oh, yes.
It definitely could have been avoided.
And why was it done?
And I said, I have no idea.
Tell me.
And it's like, well, how do you think people would have accepted the lockdowns if we weren't used to the idea of open-ended financing?
And I thought, You could be right.
So I'm not saying it's right but that's what someone who spent as long in the city as I have in R&D told me that.
Someone like Morgan Stanley or something like that, a currency trader, they said it was all fixed and then the recovery all fixed.
So we got used to the idea that governments can just print money and we'll put it on the never never and then we'll have an argument about intergenerational transfers but they didn't do that.
In 2008 onwards They did financing by selling, by issuing debt, sort of promissory notes, sort of issue a debt note for a trillion pounds and it's like, you know, I promise to repay that debt with interest, very small amounts of interest in the future.
That's not what they did this time.
What they did is they literally did direct monetary financing.
They created the computer, on the computer, the money, and ping, sent it to the treasury, I think.
So that's as dodgy as it sounds, folks.
And if you're not telling people how much funny money you've just printed and issued, guess what?
People lose confidence in money, your money.
They lose confidence in What are called instruments in nominating your currency, so stocks and shares and government guilt certificates, things like that.
So the purpose of the lockdown was to entrain you and also to just open the throttles and just blow blow that everything we've been doing should have done properly for the last hundred years.
They deliberately did it differently.
I mean, spectacular sums of money.
I think someone told me that 40% of the United States dollars that are in existence today were created in the 18 months after the beginning of the pandemic.
40% of all of the dollars in the world and it's the world's reserve currency.
You know, it's going to go, there's going to be a controlled demolition of the financial system and they'll go, wasn't our fault, it was the pandemic and we'll have to rescue you with electronic money.
And Rishi Sunak and every other central bank governor is talking about central bank digital currencies, which to all intents and purposes look like your bank account, but there's two main problems with it.
One is, there's no cash.
So you've no exit route.
You can't say, I'm not happy with my £2,000 in my checking account, I'm going to go and get it out over the next few days and keep it in my bedside drawer, just in case.
So you can't, there's no cash, there's no cash alternative.
And then the other one is, the central government, or whoever, it won't be our government by the way, it'll be a supranational database company, probably Amazon Web Services will control every person's Digital bank account on the planet.
If they decide to restrict you, basically you'll live life by permissioning.
So if you want to buy something in the future, you will have to present your digital ID and the system will decide whether you can make this transaction where you are now.
And so, basically, if they don't want you to be able to buy petrol, you won't be able to buy petrol.
If they don't want you to be able to spend anything when you're, say, 10 miles from home or more, you won't be able to spend anything 10 miles from home or more.
That's why 5G is so important.
I don't personally believe it's a death ray, although maybe I'll find that is a death ray.
But at the very least, it's a control grid that is being built, Peter.
So the lockdowns were there to entrain us and also fatally damage the economy so that they can collapse it.
Then there's the third part.
There's the third part.
Let me just touch on what happens between the first two things.
Because people might say, did that guy just say there aren't any viruses?
Well, I know there were.
I caught one.
It's like, you were ill, right?
No one's saying you weren't ill.
I'm saying I no longer know what the cause of the evasion was, okay?
That's all I'm saying.
And if I'm wrong about that, then the threat to the population was not different from normal, severe seasonal flu.
Not sufficiently severe to justify any of the measures.
Not slightly.
The reason I'm pretty confident, actually, that there's nothing, I've got one piece of factual evidence and two anecdotes that are British.
The first bit of evidence anyone can go and look up is a Canadian researcher, Dr. Dennis Rancourt.
He's called Denis Rancourt.
But Dennis Rancourt, he's done a county-by-county analysis of, I think, all-cause mortality in the U.S.
By date.
So he looked at all causes of mortality by date because he said the diagnosis is so confusing, I'm not confident about that.
So as long as they're not hiding bodies, he said, you know, then I know the date of death and how many people died.
What he found was that you would expect, would you not, if a new virus is coming to the population, it'll spread like Dropping a spark into tinder or dry turf, it'll start to spread out.
Maybe there's lots of sparks all arrive and then it'll be simultaneous.
But what would happen is it would spread from place to place.
What he found was That the all-cause mortality increases, one, only happens after the onset of measures in any jurisdiction, whether it was a county or a state or a country, because he had some country looks.
The other thing that was shocking to him was that the increase in deaths was jurisdictionally bounded, by which I mean if one county or state, let's say it was a county that was in a state that bordered another state.
And so adjacent states, adjacent counties might have had quite different policies, because they did vary quite a little.
If you look at, say, Florida versus New York, they varied quite a bit.
And he found that deaths terminated abruptly, jurisdictionally.
Now that's impossible if it was a natural spreading pathogen.
It would spread over the jurisdiction, over the boundary.
No, no.
It was absolutely, repeatedly jurisdictionally bounded.
It was due to what they were doing.
I'm afraid the measures are what resulted in people Dying.
So what would happen is a pretty typically normal number of people would be admitted to hospital, elevated probably because people were stressed to hell.
They've been frightened, and fear is one of the worst things for your immune system.
I mean, I feel ill half the time, and I'm a fit 62-year-old from 15,000 miles, and I feel ill half the time.
It's so stressful.
So I think there were the normal diseases people had.
The PCR test is a pretty good technique, but to use it in the way it was being done, often by people who are not good laboratory technicians.
They were hiring people who had a science degree.
In Britain, for example, they hired people who had a science degree.
If they'd never worked in a lab before, that was fine.
They had a training role, which I've never come across before, despite 32 years in supervising labs, now actually 40, because I've got to include my training.
They had a role, these, what were they called, these places that did the mass lighthouse labs, the ones that were doing mass testing.
They had a pipette trainer.
So you'd be told, this is like a pipette, have a tip on it, and you'd be told how to pipette.
They had a pipette trainer.
No, no, I've never come across that.
And I've asked people, no one else has ever come across that.
The reason they had that is in order to do that job, you needed to learn how to pipette.
They would take people People have no idea even how to do basic pipetting.
I can assure you the idea that they could run a massive amplification technique like PCR, which is a one trillion fold amplification technique, and they were hiring people who didn't understand how to do liquid transfer from one vessel to another.
Right?
They did not care.
They didn't care what happened because what they were doing wasn't material.
It was that they could produce any results they liked.
They were never audited.
They resented having anyone look in them.
And actually, I know a friend, now a friend, who professionally had done PCR pretty much for a living for decades, who volunteered to work there as a mole, really.
And he discovered the whole thing was just a complete fraud, an absolute fraud.
So I don't care if people are going to fact check me.
Right.
Cary Mullis, the Nobel Prize winning inventor of this technique, said, this technique, however well done, which can find almost anything in any body, does not tell you that you're ill, does not tell you that you are infectious.
It's not a good, it's not a suitable technique for clinical diagnoses.
And that's true.
It's unfortunate that he died in 2019, and my rather more suspicious wife than I am believes he was probably one of the people that was killed.
I have not said that.
I've just reported what my suspicious wife believes, because he would not have put up with this, right?
It's complete fraud.
So basically, a slightly more than normal number of people came to hospital.
They were tested using these PCR tests.
Some arbitrary number, some convenient number, were positive.
And so they were told they had COVID, even if they had no symptoms.
That's not how you do diagnostics, by the way.
You wait for people to have symptoms, and then you try and work out why.
They were just testing everybody.
But the worst part was, and you will probably know this from some of your guests, there were protocols for treating people who allegedly had COVID.
that amplified the likelihood they would actually die.
They were given intravenous Midazolam, a sedative and morphine, a very powerful painkiller, both of which suppress respiration.
Why would you think, why would your listeners think it's a good idea to give people intravenous sedatives and respiratory suppressants when they've already got a respiratory problem?
The answer is, it's That's clearly absurd.
That's what you do if someone's dying in their last few days of painful cancer.
You might ramp them up like that.
That's a... I would like... If I had to die of cancer, I'd rather die that way because I won't feel very much of it.
That's what they were giving your relatively healthy 62-year-old mother.
Or, you know, no wonder they died.
They were murdered.
They were murdered.
These were medical executions.
In America, in particular, they had a rather delightful technique and also in Italy and I was I was involved in stopping that it put people on ventilators so now people might think well of course you do it so they've got respiratory illness sorry respiratory viral infections or whatever they are they're not obstructive diseases you you it's It's not difficult to move air in and out of your lungs.
It's not asthma, where you've actually got a narrowing of your airway.
If you become utterly exhausted, eventually you can't move air in and out anymore and you have to be sedated and ventilated.
who's still kind of conscious, needs to be sedated and ventilated.
And I can tell you that if you ventilate people who are already frail, remember most people who died were already quite old.
Yeah.
Average age was over 80.
So if you ventilate a frail 80 year old who's probably got two or three other serious life-shortening conditions, if you just did that carefully, if you did it well, I don't think, also if you did 10 of them, 10 of them would not last a week, just ventilating them.
It's an aggressive procedure, which is wonderful.
If you would otherwise die without it, then it's great.
If you've had a head injury or something and you've stopped breathing, honestly, that will save you while they try and recover you.
But so ventilation and use of basically lethal injections is what they've done.
So they murdered people, medical murder.
And so all you doctors, Yeah.
You are disgusting.
Why you didn't resign as soon as you realized what you were being made to do?
I know I would have resigned.
I resigned once in my life at a time when it was extremely inconvenient for me and my family because the alternative was to carry on doing something I knew was wrong.
So I'm just disgusted at the number of doctors Many of whom must have worked out what I'm saying is broadly true and haven't said anything, protecting their own little patch.
Let me tell you, not only have you let everybody else down, you're going down too.
You don't think people are going to take the world over and then let you get away with it with another year's salary, you idiot!
You're a cowardly idiot.
Anyway, so that's a lot of possible deaths.
Okay, just one side step.
You had, do you, and you maybe don't want to do this, but pointing the finger, seeing kind of the groups behind, obviously the people collapsing, everything comes from China, and suddenly the panic, and China supplying all the testing, all the masking, all the equipment.
Financially, is the finger there or is it looking at the WF?
Is it looking at the WHO and rolling out the vaccine passports?
I've never been particularly interested in who's done it because I don't think I'm clever enough to work it out.
But I think it's probably all of the above.
So that's that.
So they lied about a health threat.
They lied about the measures.
And the intention, I think, was to entrain us and to break the economy.
And then I'm afraid the third thing is introduction of vaccines.
And then I think the fourth thing is going to be introduction of rationing, either for food or fuel or both.
And then, you know, collapse the money supply.
And at that point, everyone, if they want fuel and food, will have a managed digital ID, and then they'll pretend there's another virus, and they will inject you with materials that I think will depopulate over probably the next seven or eight years.
If they do it quickly, you'll spot it.
If they do it slowly, you won't.
But you can see that I'm I'm almost 100% convinced I'm right.
So who are the people doing it?
I don't know precisely.
It'll be the richest people in the world.
It'll be the movers and shakers of the WEF and all of their very large sponsors, which are, to your point, like Pfizer, all the very large corporates, big everything, big banks, big tech, big media, big pharma, all that sort of stuff, the large industrial combines, the investment management firms like Vanguard and BlackRock, State Street, things like that.
Those companies have usually had the proxy votes.
In our pensions, for example, you own any of the shares of any of the companies, but you've asked them to manage it for you, you've probably voted the proxy, which means they have the power to influence all companies.
So yeah, it's the people at the top of every pyramid.
I actually think it's I'm convinced, unfortunately, that it's the Americans and the Brits supported by their intelligence apparatus, generally known as the Five Eyes.
So that's UK, US, Canada, New Zealand, Australia.
The reason I say that, if people want to go and look it up, it's a very good one-hour documentary by a German journalist called Paul Schreyer.
S-C-H-R-E-Y-E-R.
Paul Schreyer.
on various video platforms and the video is called Pandemic Simulations Preparation for a New Era.
Yeah, so what we've just gone through with COVID and all the testing and the lockdowns and the authoritarian rules, those exercises have been run since the late 90s, you know, I'm afraid, Atlantic Storm, Lockstep, Dark Winter, whatever it was.
They've been, when I say they, who are they?
Military, military intelligence, so it's the spook community in the States, the NIH, Johns Hopkins University, some of the non-governmental bodies like WHO, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and they've rehearsed it.
Now, I've asked myself, why would you rehearse for something that's never happened?
Right, you can't get a uniform global pandemic even if viruses exist and there are all sorts of reasons why it's not possible.
So they're lying to you about that as well.
That's why we're still here after hundreds of thousands of years and perhaps billions of years of life on earth.
You know, if we could be wiped out by a random pandemic, we would have been.
So it's not very likely.
But those groups you can look it up in And basically, they rehearsed and rehearsed and rehearsed, and it's the same stakeholders doing the same thing, just slightly changing the setup each time.
Either it was a biochemical warfare or it was a pathogen, flu, anthrax, then it was coronavirus.
And then the last one, of course, was event 201.
Does anyone really look me in the eye and tell me that the simulation in the autumn of 2019, by all those stakeholders, the same ones that have done the last six, eight or ten simulations, they all had a simulation about an event which six months later occurred.
It's like, Yeah, I guess very unlikely things happen once, but then there was another simulation in 2021 by a non-identical but overlapping group, paid for by the same people by the way, one of the co-founders of Facebook, Moskowitz I think his name was, they did a monkey pop simulation.
Funnily enough.
And the simulation had two features that I'll point out to people that I think will convince you, unless you really are a believer in five leaf clovers or whatever, you can tell this is clearly a setup.
So two things.
There's never been a multi-country outbreak of monkeypox since it was characterized, whatever it is.
The simulation was of a multi-country outbreak of monkeypox.
They named the date of May 2022, And May 2022 was when we had reported a world's first multi-country outbreak of monkeypox.
So it's the same people, it's an overlapping group of the same people who did the COVID-19 simulation called Event 201 just before it happened.
So sorry folks, I don't think it's happened at all, but I think they're simulating what they're going to tell you, and that's what's happened.
So you can tell this.
It's impossible for what they're telling you to have been real, given two groups knew six months beforehand exactly what was going to happen.
They even wrote it down.
You can go and watch it.
You can go and watch the simulation.
This is the bit that's upset me, though.
When I pointed this out, when I watched Steyer's documentary, I knew the whole thing was a crime.
Yeah.
It's literally the only thing that fits.
I'm a scientist, right?
I can't ignore huge bits of data.
So then, yes, let's cut to the chase then.
So the vaccine.
So let's accept there is a communicable, there is a disease and a communicable entity.
Let's call it vaccines for the sake of argument.
I don't think that's true, but in order to allow it even to be worth starting with a vaccine, Let us accept that for the moment.
Now, although I didn't work in vaccines, vaccinology, I did work in design of new drugs for decades.
And what they've given you is not a classical vaccine.
But they've given you a new drug.
And what they've done is they've given us a genetic sequence that contains the gene for part of the alleged virus and then some sort of method for propelling it into the body.
So half of them use a viral transport and the others use lipids, you know, nanolipids.
But inside there's a code.
Now, what I do know is if I'm designing a new drug with a group of colleagues in a pharmacology company, We would try and find ways of striking the target of interest in a way that's not harmful.
Now, if I tell you that the alleged virus has got, I think it's six or seven proteins, it's a multi-protein, spikes on the outside, some sort of nucleocapsid proteins on the inside, all of the sequences apparently known from Wuhan, thank you very much to our Chinese colleagues, why would you pick To encode and get the human body to make only components of the virus known to be acutely toxic.
Because the only part of it which, if you make it, if you copy the code into protein, which is what it does, and inject it into rats, you know, you'll get blood clots.
And I'm afraid that's what it has multiple spike protein has multiple toxicities.
There's no question whatsoever.
And we knew it from related proteins from other structures that have been explored as a piece of biochemistry.
So when I noticed Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, AstraZeneca and Moderna, all picking the same worst possible choice of all the proteins available to you.
Now they're supposed to be operating independently, so what are the chances, Peter, they would all pick the only thing that could actually make you ill?
Because you don't, even if you believe the hypothesis, our immune systems are genuinely true.
They do do things.
So if you recognize a foreign substance in your body, you will chop it into bits and you'll try and make antibodies and match T-cells, match immune cells against all components of that foreign substance.
So it's not like, oh, we have to have the outside bit because that's the only bit your body sees.
It's just, no, that's not how immunology works at all.
So all four drug companies all picked the, I think, the only possible choice that I would regard as, my God, that's dangerous.
You are reckless.
So I'm afraid that's malfeasance.
And here's the worst part.
I don't know whether they're actually there when we did it, But because I've been around the industry a long time, Dr. James Merson, Dr. Mattai Mammon, and Dr. Manny Pangalos, now Sir Manny Pangalos.
See, I know these people.
I've worked with two of those people for years, and one of them I knew as a friend, a professional colleague, for many years, to the extent of having dinner regularly when he was in London.
So I know, personally, three of the people who lead the R&D teams.
And I've appealed to them.
I've written letters to them.
I've emailed them.
I've gone on Facebook.
I've gone on LinkedIn.
Of course, they never reply.
But I've said, if I'm wrong, you have a duty to kind of save me from myself and stop me frightening people by pointing it out.
But I don't think you can.
And I've said to all of them, James, Manny, Mattai, I'll repeat the request that you resign.
You know, apologize, confess, you know, or you should sue me because I'm accusing you of being party to a criminal activity that has resulted in the deaths, I think, of probably more than a million people.
So, and you know that you have chosen for the designers of vaccines or you're responsible for that department now, even if the job was done before you arrived.
And so you should stop that.
So, here's the other thing, just to prove I'm not completely off my rocker.
We were told that they were going to make a vaccine, you know, and people like Bill Gates said, well, we won't get back to normal until we inject everybody, pretty much.
So, one, that's absurd.
Don't you want to protect the people who were at risk?
You do, don't you?
You just want to protect probably people over 60 who are chronically ill, I would think.
A bit like we do with influenza.
So yes, I've mentioned the vaccines are a bad design.
Also, these are unconventional medicinal entities.
No one has ever dosed lots of people with these mRNA or indeed viral DNA so-called vaccines.
And what I will tell you, I have training in toxicology as well as lots of experience in the industry, I can tell you no one can possibly know what the long-term effects will be.
And if you do something as unusual and unprecedented as these mRNA sequences and then propose to give them to four to eight billion people, you know, that's definitely reckless.
There's no way around it.
It's not possible to get sufficient safety data to convince me or anybody else that it'll be safe in the medium term, let alone the long term, because you haven't got time to do that, and they didn't do that.
Two and a half months of safety data.
Just about true, because they're rolling it out to children.
The EU are now looking at this a few days ago for six months and above, but none of the data they ever even put out said that that age group was at risk.
So to me, there's a problem there.
There's an absolute disconnect.
Yes, absolutely.
So like I said, the The fundamental, I can point to, it's like three fundamental errors with the design of the vaccine and then it's use and then I'll stop because we could go on all day.
So yes, so the design uses the so-called spike protein, only possible part of the alleged virus that's directly toxic.
Why would you do that?
And all four companies picked that.
Give me a break.
You know, that's collusion and malfeasance.
Also, because of the nature of the technology itself, no one could say whether this would be safe in the short, medium, or long term.
So let's give them credit and say they had some short-term safety data.
Not in children, by the way.
They didn't do any child experiments until quite late.
But at most, they had a short-term safety data in a small number, in a small cohort.
And then what did they do?
They gave it to everybody forever.
You know, you've got a dose, then another dose, then a booster, then another booster.
So, no, no, that's not faintly an adequate precaution before administering them.
And people might say, oh, well, you know, there's a war on, you know, a pandemic on.
It's like, why would you give it to healthy 30-year-olds, almost none of whom had possibly even got ill, let alone died?
Why would you do that?
Why would you give it to six-month-old babies?
Who don't even appear to get ill with it, whatever this stuff is.
And of course they don't, because I don't believe there's anything new at all.
It's the normal range of normal illnesses of young, middle-aged, elderly people and so on.
Because of the nature of technology being new, let me just point something else out.
I think others have said this, but So this is essentially a genetic code.
You inject it into the body.
They told you it will stay in the shoulder, and I knew that was nonsense.
It will leave the injection site and move around the body.
I knew that for certain.
And there's no control as to how much copying of that genetic code your body will make.
I might copy a little bit of it for a short time, and then it will fade away.
You might be unlucky, Peter, and you might make lots of spike protein for weeks.
There's no control mechanism.
There's nothing built into the design of these things that will stop there being a very wide range of outcomes.
And guess what?
There's a very wide range of outcomes.
Some people die the day they're injected.
Other people never get any symptoms.
I'm not saying that's the entire explanation, but you know what?
I think it's a substantial contribution to the enormous variability we see.
And then finally, and this is a friend of mine, I got to know a person Headley Rees is a retired R&D manufacturing guru, understands the regulatory and manufacturing space, and he pointed out that it would take some years to be able to prototype, improve, and make firm the manufacturing process alone.
for multiple billions of doses of a complex biological molecule.
He said it's not possible.
You can't just squirt it in there, stir it and put it into glass vials.
He said that, you know, what you would end up with is a product which is so variable that it would be reckless to begin injecting.
And it is possible that that is what they did.
And there's a group of which I've been part occasionally that has determined that there is, to some extent, a vaccine lot number dependency on the number of people who got ill and died.
So I think those are the two causes.
The intrinsic variability can't be got rid of, so it should never be used again, but it is being used again.
But that's the reason why you should never use it again.
It's like a go-kart with a brick on the throttle.
And you let it go.
No one's staring at it.
And it's going round and round, say, like in a toddler's playground.
That's what they've given me.
And then, as I say, the design, the actual material being transcribed is spike protein, which is definitely toxic.
It's definitely toxic.
And they could have used anything else if they were innocent.
But then, as you say, why have they chased around and tried to dose everybody?
Well, it's not for public health.
If it was for public health, there's three groups you definitely wouldn't inject.
And you can bank on this fact checkers.
If this was definitely about public health, You wouldn't give it to people who'd already had the alleged disease and recovered from it because they'd be immune.
You wouldn't give them the vaccine because there'd be a much greater risk of making them ill because you'd be presenting them again with part of the material that they're now armed and dangerous against.
So you don't vaccinate people who've already in recent times had the alleged illness for which the vaccine was designed.
Definitely not.
And yet they're chasing around the country, chasing around the globe, two and a half years after this alleged pandemic was supposed to have started.
By the way, I just don't think it's, it's not mathematically possible that a pandemic could last this long, right?
You are being, you are being fooled, you know, you must know it can't last this long.
So, so three, three groups.
You wouldn't give it to people who've had it and recovered.
Definitely not.
It's dangerous.
Second, you wouldn't give it to children.
No healthy children died of COVID, not in Germany, not in Sweden, not in England, not in the US.
Some died with it, that is, they died of other things having tested positive.
It's not the same thing.
And then we also have learned that these vaccines don't stop you acquiring the apparent infection.
Well, of course they wouldn't, would they?
And they clearly don't stop replication, because when people have made measurements of this alleged stuff, it's the same whether you're vaccinated or not.
So I'm afraid the conclusion is that badly designed vaccines, they're basically trying to inject the whole population with superfluous, not needed, alleged vaccines that don't work, because they don't work, That are toxic and dangerous and that's what I like.
They not they were never needed.
They don't work and they're dangerous.
So here's the thing that go over at least would be helping the old people know if you believe the virus story.
Has anyone thought?
Why is it that people who are elderly?
and already ill if they get the flu might die when someone who's 30 won't.
Now the answer is twofold if you believe the virus theory.
One is they've got a good immune system if they're young and so while the virus is multiplying away or whatever the event is their immune systems get to grips with it and wins after a few days or a couple of weeks.
An elderly person often has a senescent or tired and elderly immune system that doesn't respond well to new threats.
So, if that's the reason why they're vulnerable, then why in the world would you think they'd respond well to a vaccine?
Which is, you know, mimicking some part of that process.
And the answer is, they don't respond well to vaccines.
Influenza vaccines do not reduce the number of elderly people admitted to hospital and dying of flu.
They don't.
There's a Cochrane Foundation review.
I remember the day I read that, I felt quite unmoored.
Because I thought, oh my god, this industry I've been part of has been making these things and the NHS has been injecting people with these things and the regulators have let them do this for decades.
I didn't I actually had to hold on to things for several hours.
Because at that point I realized almost everything I thought I understood.
This is my own field, right?
At least an oblique part of it.
Pharmaceutical R&D.
And then the third group, you wouldn't give these to pregnant women.
I've studied toxicology.
The reason you don't give any novel interventions, in fact no intervention if you can avoid it, no medicines to pregnant women, is that the developing feces at certain points in development is incredibly vulnerable to interference and this can lead to death or malformation.
So classic thalidomide is shortened limbs or new limbs at all.
So the idea That it would be quite fine to give these gene-based materials, completely new, to pregnant women when, remember I'm a toxicologist, they had not completed what's called reproductive toxicology.
No company had even done the bare minimum of rats and rabbits and, you know, you give them to pregnant rabbits and you give them to non-pregnant rabbits and let them become pregnant and They haven't done all the segments.
They've not even bothered to do it.
And this is the time I got very upset.
I was listening to Emma Barnett on Women's Hour in late 2020, and the representative there was a senior figure from the Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology.
She knows who she is.
And then she lied to all the listeners of Radio 4, telling people that pregnant women are at great risk and they should get injected with these vaccines when they're available and they're completely safe.
And it's like, lie, lie, lie.
So, come on lady from Royal College of Ops and Gynae, sue me!
You see me, you won't do it, because you're lying.
I don't know why you're lying, but you lied.
And that's the most sacred trust.
That's why the only people I'm really cross at, I should be cross at politicians, but somehow I can't rouse myself.
I didn't expect anything from them.
My expectations were met, but physicians and nurses and so on, it's like, I just can't understand you.
So yeah, so the vaccines were badly designed, could never have worked, would be a mad thing to unleash on the entire population because we had no idea how they would work.
And then when they were available, and they'd been done at a bum's rush, um then you wouldn't inject people who've recovered children who don't suffer from it and pregnant women because of this risk but all of the things that i've just said you wouldn't do all happened and so you know i you know the reward was a digital id And I do think the ending game, unfortunately, is mandatory digital ID.
So just moving on then, I think the damage that's being done to supply chains, and especially food production and food supply chains, I think, I do think the intention, I don't know if the intention is to actually starve us to death.
I hope not.
But remember, it's not my game.
But at the very least, I think it's there to make us believe there are food shortages, and there may actually be food shortages.
When there are food shortages, what do we think is going to happen?
I think we know what's going to happen.
People will get very upset.
Fists will be thrown.
Sooner or later, there might even be a riot.
They'll have to introduce both Semi-martial law, you know, defending food shops and warehouses, and they will have to introduce rationing.
Now, of course, to make a rationing system work, they're going to require digital ID.
Yeah.
I've got an idea, Peter.
I've got a great idea for this.
Those of you who've been vaccinated, you can use your VaxPass.
You've already got one, right?
And all of you other people, like me, that haven't got one, we'll just issue you one for free.
There's no trick, Mike.
You can just turn up and get it.
And then we'll issue you ration to food and fuel.
By the way, Sri Lanka is issuing food and fuel using QR-based ration cards right now.
So that's what they're going to do.
That is what they're going to do.
It's not a will they do it.
They are going to do that.
And I think once they've done that, Let's say, you know, I accept, you know, I haven't been vaccinated, but I'll have my digital ID because I want my fuel and food, and then in a few months time they go, it's a new viral threat.
Don't worry, we've got a billion doses of BioNTech and Moderna and Pfizer vaccine, so roll up, won't you?
It's a condition of keeping the validity of your digital ID that you get injected.
See, that's the way they will do it.
There's nothing wrong with my look.
I wish I'm wrong.
I've gone over this dozens of times.
It's ever so clever.
And I believe it's always been wise to overestimate one's adversary than the other way around.
So when I hear people saying, oh, good will prevail.
Well, I hope so.
It's like, but meanwhile, can we get real about the nature of the threat we're facing?
And I used to say, people would have heard me say this last year, reach out.
You can have your org life back this very afternoon.
Put your mask in the bin.
Stop complying.
If you've had a vaccine, don't have any more.
If they tell you it's a lockdown, just say you're not.
Right?
Unfortunately, we're beyond the point of recovering our normal lives, but I still think you should do all of those things.
You should put your mask in the bin.
Don't get another jab if you've had one.
If you haven't had one, good.
Oh, here's the thing about vaccines, these vaccines.
I've never come across... I have come across several people who have regretted being injected by these things.
I've never come across a single person who's regretted not having it.
Right, seriously.
So, I'm not, you know, those of you who think I'm an anti-vaxxer, you know, I'm anti-idiocy, I'm anti-toxicity, I'm anti-tyranny.
You know, I've worked in this industry and My delight was to try and work on projects where an innovative new medicine would be presented to somebody.
I like that innovation, being able to give these things to people.
It's just, what a stupid thing to say about someone whose career has been in the industry.
It's just, it's just completely, it's completely nonsense.
So, and I do think, I think that's pretty much it, I think.
So, an exaggerated threat in order to scare us to accept non-pharmaceutical interventions, none of which worked, and that was to entrain us And each other and to damage the economy and then superfluous, ineffective, dangerous vaccines to, you know, I think it has killed about one and I think it's about one in a thousand people might be one in 2000.
But I think it's injured about four percent of people and it may be a lot more.
I mean, just awful.
We know this from German health insurance data.
Four percent of policyholders are sick enough after vaccination to have made a medical claim, you know, for medical consultation.
So somewhere between, you know, to say 0.1 percent death, three or four percent significant injury, some of which will never recover.
And we don't know what will happen in the long term and I don't either.
Some people have quoted me as saying they will all die and I actually have never said that.
That's a misquote.
I would say a good scientist would say they don't know at this point what the consequences would be.
If you believe me, then stop complying today, throw your masks away, never get another vaccine, COVID-19 vaccine if you've had one, and look at all the data for any medicine you're recommended.
Use every piece of your spare time if necessary.
Go to new areas each day.
Go with a couple of people.
Always polite.
Ring on doorbells and tell them this story.
It's an exaggerated threat that wasn't real.
Non-pharmaceutical measures that didn't work, murder in hospitals, badly designed vaccines, accelerated development, and then injection of things that could never work and should not have been given to those three groups, with a view, I think, to food shortages, fuel shortages, digital ID, which could use vaccine passports, and if not, will offer you digital ID, and then possibly the collapse of the monetary economy.
And then, lo and behold, A new pandemic.
And I promise you, as a biochemistry toxicology drug discovery, I sat down one afternoon with myself and tried to design gene sequences that would result in illnesses, ultimately, and death over a period of weeks to months that I thought would have a reasonably good chance of working the way I designed them.
We need to go and do some tests.
And it was really quite easy.
I could find three or four ways of doing it.
And, for example, if I wanted to mimic Marburg virus, not sure that exists either, but if I wanted to mimic that, I could put a gene sequence in that would include something that would interfere with your coagulation pathway.
I remember a lot of these vaccines go to your liver.
That's obviously a major source of the clotting proteins manufactured.
So that was one, and I came up with another one that would produce neurological side effects.
I would say it's 100 times easier to hurt people with these gene-based products than to help them.
And I've always been a bit skeptical about the promise of human genome projects and these sort of gene knockdowns.
I've always thought, I've always thought it's 100 times easier to hurt people than to help them.
So, you know, be very careful.
But so I think that's where it's going.
And I think, I just, I don't know how to stop it at this point.
If the police force would stand up, if some of the judiciary, if some of the politicians, you don't need many, if some of the media people, doesn't take many,
You know, I won't name them because they could be embarrassed, but we know there are some policemen, some former members of the judiciary, some doctors, some broadcasters, some scientists, are willing to tell you, I think we would all align roughly around something like I've said, or a variation, and say, you know, we can take this back, but if you just start counting the number of shoelaces you've got over the next few months, we're going to die, because
Some of the people involved, believe it or not, Boris Johnson's father was involved in eugenics movements early on in his long life.
Bill Gates' father certainly was a member of the American Eugenics Society.
Bill Gates himself, as you know, has been very concerned with the high human population on the Earth and there are several others that seem to have a concern with overpopulation.
So if I suggest to you that what's going on is a setup that would give to those people running this crime the power, if they wished, to extinguish any fraction of the human population and there's nothing you can do about it, I think you'd be wise to pay attention to that.
So, because, you know, why would they want to just have full control, a digital control?
It strikes me as, I mean, I'm not, I'm not putting up with it.
I'm, you know, I will choose one of the other options, shall we say.
I'm not going to live in a digital controlled world.
I'm a sovereign human being and I will not continue, shall we say, rather than that.
They're probably assuming a small number of people will exit.
That's definitely my choice.
And they don't really care.
So it's not like it's a threat.
I do think that's what they want.
Because... Oh yes, the thing about... I'm probably getting myself into hot water here.
I've started, shall we say, I've started to look at climate change and now that's that's all a lie as well.
It's all a lie.
OK, well, we will.
I don't want you to get into more hot water than you've already got.
So, Mike, I do appreciate your time.
I know that you have great demands with many interviews.
So I do appreciate you coming on, sharing with our viewers and listeners an assessment of where we are and looking ahead.
So thank you so much for sharing your wisdom with us today.
Yeah, I'm sorry I went on a little bit longer than I expected, but I think, I can't help myself, once I've got an opportunity, I want to tell people, because, like I say, I want to be wrong, and if I'm not wrong, I want us bloody sovereign human beings to do something about it while we've got time.
And remember what I said, some people regret being vaccinated with COVID-19 vaccines, no one regrets not being injected, because as more time goes on, we realize this is, something awful is happening.
Let's see if we can help each other get out of it.
Absolutely.
Well, to our viewers, thank you so much for joining us.
Our listeners, thank you so much.
And do take a moment and share the video with someone who you feel would benefit from Mike's wisdom and his explanation today.
Each of us will know family members or friends who would benefit.
So do take the opportunity, pass it on with a little note encouraging them to watch it.
So thank you very much for tuning in and we'll see you on the next interview.
So thank you and goodbye.
Thank you, Peter.
▲
Export Selection