All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 11, 2023 - Jim Fetzer
01:19:05
TOXIC by Design - Michael Yeadon, PhD
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Thank you.
Hello, everybody.
Welcome to Children's Health Defense Roundtable.
It's the 10th of February, 2023.
And we have an all-star lineup today with Dr. Ness, Dr. Hooker, and Dr. Mumper.
And I'm so honored to have Dr. Mike Yeadon here with us today.
This show is called Toxic by Design.
It is the words that I actually took out straight from Dr. Mike Yeadon's mouth himself.
Could you tell us why you're thinking that, but most importantly, how did we get to where we are today?
I mean, it's incredible, in the last three years, the rush and speed of how we are, where we are.
Yes, no, thank you very much for having me back.
Yes, it does feel, it feels like we're getting faster and faster, rather than, you'd think we'd get used to the sort of speed of transformation, but if anything, it's accelerating.
We were just talking about A real change where I'm living.
So yeah, the by design bit.
So I used to work, when I was at Pfizer, I headed their Allergy and Respiratory Discovery Research Unit, and I used to work very closely with medicinal chemists.
They're wonderful people, medicinal chemists.
They have to come into work and make a molecule that's never existed in the whole of the history of the universe.
Because you can't patent something that's not novel.
And I appreciate what they do.
Anyway, when you're inventing molecules, you have to think about what's the application.
And the kind of characteristics you need for a molecule that you're going to eat, like a tablet or a capsule, is quite different from the characteristics of a molecule that you're going to wipe on your skin as a cream or ointment.
And similarly, they're different if you're going to inhale them.
And we started thinking very hard about what were the characteristics of inhaled drugs that made them good inhaled drugs and what characteristics made them not very good.
And we came up with some rules that eventually we caught.
One of the chemists actually came up with a phrase, inhaled by design.
It was an ideal molecule that would work, be a low dose, very potent, absorb slowly, remove quickly from the blood when it left the lung, all that sort of stuff, very stable as a ground up micronized powder.
And so those characteristics, not patentable, but it was like a trade name, inhaled by design.
So when I was looking at these vaccines in 2020, I thought the person who's put this structure, this design on a piece of paper, intended them to cause harm.
I'm convinced.
It's not an accident what has happened.
They chose features of the molecule that would, for example, accumulate in the ovaries and the spleen, that would leave the site of injection, that would cause expression of a foreign protein All these features sound to me like toxicity built into the molecule, hence toxic by design.
It's not an accident what's happened at all.
That's what I think.
And that, you know, to me, looking at the possibilities for designing a vaccine and then introducing a genetic therapy that has been untested in this platform and then giving it to billions and billions of people, essentially looking at the possibilities for designing a vaccine and then introducing a genetic therapy that has I I wanted to go to Toxic by Design.
type of smoking guns, if they are out there, do we have any documents that would belie the fact that these have enhanced toxicity and that toxicity was intentional?
Well, I think I do, and so it's a good question.
It's not likely that the people who've done this are going to leave many phrases if they've got any sense, but I'll point to a few things.
Yeah, I would say the first one is what you just said.
I mean, it's reckless beyond any possible countenance that you would take a novel technology so that they... You know, the authorities have said, oh, we've been working with these mRNA molecules for decades.
They're not new.
No, these have not been used in a mass population ever.
So we don't know what the consequences are.
Say you had lethality in one in a thousand people.
Well, if you've only ghosted 300 people, you wouldn't have a clue, would you?
Well, that was roughly the situation they were in.
But they... I was fairly convinced, for all sorts of other reasons.
Like lying about the virus and the medical countermeasures, which they're still doing, that they weren't, these were not behaving in an honest and honourable way.
So why would I think the next thing they were going to bring along was going to be straightforward?
So that, I mean, that coloured my view.
But straightforwardly, yeah, you don't go, you don't blaze away at the human population with a A novel technology which you've got no experience without even doing it in a stage fashion, where it's quite reasonable to be concerned.
Works on the labs for a long time, and that's because they do have potential to be harmful.
They're also difficult to manufacture.
They're difficult to keep them stable.
You know, they tend to spontaneously come apart.
We don't know how to get them inside cells in a controlled way.
So the new technology itself is a massive red flag for me.
You didn't have to do that.
And I don't buy the reasons they gave, which is, oh, it's easier to manufacture.
Well, they've proven they're not able to consistently manufacture it anyway.
So that tells you that that was not the reason.
There isn't another ground for using a novel technology.
But here's the next one.
They have used, at least the mRNA products, both use lipid nanoparticles.
I have found, and I can send you Brian, the reference of a peer-reviewed journal article from 2012, whose title is something like Lipid Nanoparticles and Unappreciated Human Fertility Risk question mark.
That's the actual title of the paper.
So it's not like people who worked in formulation design in Big Pharma didn't know that lipid nanoparticles accumulate in the reproductive organs of animals.
They did know that.
It actually says that in the introduction.
But that's the title of the paper.
And yet, Moderna and Pfizer chose those formulation methods.
With that background as a title, I think that's pretty bad.
If I was presenting this to a judge, I would say, look, they knew this would not be a good idea.
So that's another thing.
They chose a kind of formulation not only that would mean it would leave the injection site like an uncontrolled missile.
What happens with the lipid nanoparticles It's not quite accurate what I'm going to say, but it makes the little blobs, they're almost invisible because they're cloaked in the same kind of stuff that is the outer membrane of all of your cells.
So you don't see it very easily.
And they certainly, in terms of an absorption characteristic, they leave the site of injection easily because of that.
But the main concern I have Um, is that, and this isn't my original idea, many of us have focused on the, uh, the concern that all four companies, let me just take a step back, the old style vaccines, um, we, we would, um, grow a culture of the pathogen and kill it chemically or with heat, grind it up, mix it up with something and then inject it.
And that would allow, theoretically, our body would then see some of this dead organism and learn how to handle it.
and retain an immune memory, so you'd be alert and ready to fight quickly if you should see the live organism or one like it.
So the alleged virus, whose existence I'm afraid I've started to doubt very significantly, the sequences there, lodged there I think in China and other places, that the companies chose to encode a particular part of the virus, about a sixth or a seventh of it, so just that gives the listener an idea of like, I don't know, less than one finger on the hand's worth of the virus.
They all chose the same part, the so-called spike protein, the bit that sticks out the surface on the TV cartoons, despite the fact that there is an ample literature that says that these sort of little grappling hook bits that stick out of the outside of pathogens, can be dangerous.
And so the chance is that they all chose the same part with the fact that when you express that in the body, when your body temporarily becomes a virus component manufacturing site and starts making the very part which in the past has been attributed to have toxicity, That struck me as not only a really bad choice.
If I was leading a brainstorming meeting on the design of one of these things, if we came up with that as our solution, I would consider that I'd failed as a leader.
And the idea that all four companies did it, I'm afraid, it's not possible.
They colluded.
It's the wrong choice and they all did the same thing.
I've got, so here now the concern, just to be clear, the concern is we've got an unguided missile that's going to guide this mRNA, this genetic code, around your body and it could land anywhere.
It could land in your heart, your ovaries, your testes, your brain, and if it's taken up into those cells of those organs and started doing what the design says, which is make me a copy of whatever this genetic code codes for, Various bits of your body will start turning into a virus spike protein manufacturing site.
Well, if that spike is toxic, you should expect some toxicity in every one of those, any or all of those organs in which it lands.
And I could predict that.
It's a sort of toxicological principle.
But that's not even the worst.
My good friend Professor Sukharid Bhakti, He's a Thai-German guy who was a long-time chair of medical microbiology in Mainz University, Germany.
He's now assisting the Thai royal family because there's a tragedy where their daughter, I think, is in a coma in hospital after administration of one of these vaccines.
He pointed out to me that, Mike, it actually doesn't matter what is encoded.
It could be worse if you have a virus spike protein.
But he said the key, and I knew this, that the key is that it's not you.
It's not human.
It's a foreign protein.
Now guess what happens, folks, when your body starts to manufacture, sticking out of the surface of fragments of this non-self thing.
It's not Mike.
My immune system goes mad.
It recognizes that I'm infected, effectively.
Effectively, it thinks I've been taken over by a pathogen.
And my immune system is trained to home into those tissues, every tissue that's doing that, and kill it.
That's what your immune system does.
It has to maintain the inside of you should be you, and if anything that's not self is in there, it kills it.
And so every cell that would get infected, there would be It's the wrong design.
I just don't think it's capable of yielding a predictable and safe product.
And Sucre points out that any foreign protein encoded in that way.
So it wouldn't matter if it was a different part of the spike protein.
It's the wrong design.
I just don't think it's capable of yielding a predictable and safe product.
And then the final denouement, I think it is, The thing that's really keeping me awake at night.
I've heard various announcements that the authorities are so pleased with the performance of these mRNA products that they're going to convert all the old vaccines, including the ones on the Chartered Schedule, to mRNA formats.
Well, if they do that and if what I've just said is true, every time one of your children is injected, they're going to be given something that will cause their body to express a non-self protein and their immune system will attack the tissue that's expressing it.
My government and yours has agreed business terms with Moderna and Pfizer to require, wait for it, enough vaccines for 10 additional injections per man, woman, child and baby.
So, if I'm even faintly right, they intend, and why else buy them, to inject each of us ten times over.
I think that will... I think it will kill everybody.
I can't see any reason to do it.
And that is my... I feel like I'm living in a bad sci-fi film.
It's a terrible plot.
It's a really boring plot, by the way, Bill.
It really is.
But that is my concern.
Unless someone can refute what I've said, You know, not just doubt it a bit.
You need to tell me why it's completely wrong and it will not cause the immune system to attack the tissues expressing it.
Because unless I'm wrong, what's going to happen is that people will become progressively sicker and sicker until, I think, billions of people will die.
That's what I think they can do.
Mike, I have so many questions, but going back to what you've just said, why do you think Pfizer and the other companies chose to use the mRNA platform?
Why didn't they simply make a spike or some peptide partial spike as their antigen and forget the lipid nanoparticle and forget the mRNA?
Why didn't that happen?
That's what I would do, as Brian was turning it over verbally.
I haven't done a formal analysis, but I was thinking, yeah, do you know what?
I would clone and express.
I'd find an expression system that was really efficient, and I would do partial sequences and see which ones we could grow in kilogram quantities, and maybe do some analysis in animals to see which ones were particularly immunogenic and lacked inherent toxicity.
It's not a huge filter, but that's what I would do, Meryl.
I would try and find... Also, I pointed out to people, and I'm sure of this one, What you just said, if you manufacture an amount of a fragment of the virus, if it exists, or a spike, you'd be able to say, I'm going to give you, Dr Eden, 10 micrograms of recombinant partial spike.
When they gave me, if they give me, I haven't been vaccinated, if they gave me 30 micrograms of mRNA, I haven't got a cotton-picking clue how much spike protein I'm going to make.
I might make a lot or a little and no one knows.
No one's bothered to measure it.
Why do I say that?
It's that inherently there'll be great variability.
So when it's injected in me it might leak from my shoulder quickly or slowly.
When it's in my bloodstream, it could be taken up well or badly.
It could be converted into spike protein very efficiently or rather inefficiently, and it could do it for a long time or a short time.
And so the range of outcomes, if you pick a thousand people and jab them all with the same identical material, I'm confident as an experienced drug discoverer That there would be an enormous range of outcomes, much worse than you would get from the method you just described, Meryl, where you would manufacture a given amount of peptide and give it to people.
So I think that is another reason why I would never use this technology in a mass population.
Because it's inherently variable.
Variability is bad.
He wants to manufacture the same thing and give predictably the same dose.
So yeah, so I would have done what you just suggested and definitely not what has happened.
And that's why it's hard to describe.
I can't describe good motives to what's gone on.
Yeah, let me just jump in and say one thing, which is that the FDA requires that potency be pretty much uniform between doses and yet here they have approved a platform that gives you an impossibility of assessing the potency.
Yes.
So it should never have been approved based on FDA's underlying, you know, methodology for assessing drugs and vaccines.
I agree with you.
Yes, I would say It's not for the FDA to say, well, we'll give you a pass because you're using a new technology or you're using a technology that's inherently variable.
They would say, I want you to demonstrate, for example, the appearance and disappearance in the blood of whatever your leading indicator is biomarker.
And if we say, oh, sometimes there's a picogram of it, sometimes a microgram, sometimes for an hour, sometimes for a week, they would say that's completely unacceptable variability.
But as far as I know, they didn't even measure it, which I was shocked.
I haven't seen any animal studies either.
But by the way, just to just to correct you, although I'm not the expert in this, Meryl, I don't believe the FDA or any of the global medicines regulators authorized any of these things.
I don't know if you've been following the work of a legal scholar called Catherine Watts and her new colleague Sasha Latipova.
It looks like uh... that the drug companies pretended to write a dossier and that the regulators like FDA, MHRA, EMA pretended to review them, whereas in fact they were bypassing the normal medical evaluation framework by citing, you know, by claiming that there was a public health emergency and apparently
The law that I don't understand allows them to invoke various emergency countermeasures, including authorizing the use of experimental treatments without going through the FDA.
So I think, although you're right in what you say, in practice I don't think they were involved formally in authorizing anything.
So, let me go back to something else you said.
There are three things that I'm aware of in this spike, so-called antigen, that make no sense.
So, first of all, there was known toxicity of the spike.
NIH had been paying for 20 years to research coronaviruses and spike proteins.
They knew it was toxic.
Patrick Whalen, a professor at the University of California, had written to the FDA Before they ever authorized these vaccines, pointing out published literature on spike toxicity.
Yeah.
Then there were the HIV-like inserts into the messenger RNA, and there are about four of them, I think there were six, about six amino acids each.
And they seemed, again, these are small fragments of amino acids, but they had known biological effects, and they didn't belong.
And then there was a paper by Schoenfeld et al.
that said they found 30 or so areas of this spike that were homologous to human proteins that might induce autoimmune reactions to those proteins.
So with all of this known, before they started rolling these vaccines out for people, I just have to... What do you think?
I mean, you've said you think they knew ahead of time.
I'm taking this evidence and thinking they knew ahead of time in spades how toxic these vaccines were.
I think so, yes.
How random the effects would be based on the lack of potency extrapolation, the fact that some people would get almost none and some people get tremendous amounts.
Yes, I agree with you, Meryl.
I think I would just say to the audience that, you know, people like Meryl and Brian and myself, I don't know, Dr. Mumper, but we've all spent a few decades knocking around bits of biology, looking at what happens in non-clinical studies and then in humans.
Some drugs that work spectacularly well, some that are awfully toxic.
You know, we start to understand the kind of structures and characteristics that lead to good and very bad outcomes in humans.
We've, again, got solid understanding of immunology, and I know that the people My former peers, you know, we shared common training, went to the same kind of university, had basic underscoring, you know, foundational courses in microbiology, immunology, and so on, at the same time.
So people who are senior vice presidents, 60-ish, you know, from Britain, that I know, I've often been quoted in saying, I know what they know, they know what I know.
We've got the same common training.
And it's not difficult, what we're saying.
It's not highfalutin.
You'll find it in chapters 1 to 5 in any really good overview of immunology.
Fundamentals of immunology, something like that.
It's a place I would still go to get a refresher.
Because I want to find out what's been discovered since I last was lectured.
It was a long time ago.
And so all these people, they will know this.
It couldn't be, oh my word, Dr. Eden, we never thought that if you express a foreign protein, it might cause your own body to attack that tissue.
That's lesson one.
Really, it's how your body distinguishes, keeps the internal environment pristine.
So, for example, if you get something, a genetic mutation inside a cell, and it starts to manufacture something it shouldn't normally, and it's en route to becoming cancerous, for example, your immune system might notice that.
There's a process called immune surveillance, and your body attacks it, and it cleans up things that could give you trouble in the future all the time.
The immune system is marvellous.
It's a miracle.
So we know these things, and so we've come up, even if we came up with one serious problem, that would be, they would be, I think they'd be condemned, but we've come up with like five, six, seven, eight problems.
So, sorry folks, and I've said this, I've said this in the past, I won't repeat it right on this show in case it causes you problems, but in previous interviews I've named individuals and said that based on what I've just said, You are, named person in given company, responsible for that program.
So either, you know, that means you know this, or you're choosing not to know it, but you are nevertheless responsible for it, and you're guilty of crimes against humanity, and if I'm wrong, you should sue me.
And I've been doing that for nearly a year, and no one's written to me.
So, you know, they know who I am.
I was knocking around the industry since 1985, doing my PhD.
You know, went to a fourth decade.
They know who I am.
And they know I'm not wrong either.
I did quite well.
I was vice president, and then after I left, I had a 10-year career of consulting to biotechs, about 30 companies, two of which are now billion-dollar corporations.
And I run my own biotech and sold it.
So I'm not an idiot.
I'm not the best scientist in the world, but I'm not a fool.
And what I've said is to the best of my knowledge.
And I'm not wrong in all of these respects.
That's very, very, it's more than disappointing.
But it's not the only thing that's gone wrong, right?
These so-called vaccines are... So we seem to have major technical difficulties, but I had a question I wanted to ask.
Please, please go ahead.
I just want to point out that the so-called vaccines are only one of many ways in which we have been assaulted.
There's no better word for it.
Locking people down in every country all at the same time.
Give me a break.
I knew in March 2020 that proved there was supranational cooperation, because we'd never done it before.
No one was talking about it.
It was obviously a devastating blow to both business and people's mental and social health.
Remember three weeks to flatten the curve?
It's now three weeks and you'll run your car when we tell you.
That's where we're going.
Sorry, I need to ask a question.
I think Dr. Mumper wanted to say something, correct?
I don't know if she can hear us.
Dr. Hooker, you have another question?
I can go ahead, that's fine.
Mike, are you familiar with Dr. Ralph Barak's patent from 2012?
It's important to note Dr. Ralph Baric was the central figure regarding the gain-of-function research regarding coronaviruses.
He has received funding that was funneled through the University of North Carolina.
I'm going to try to jump in now.
Institute of Virology.
But I find it interesting that he has seven patents and only one deals with genetic sequences.
And that is he patented the genetic modification of coronavirus spike protein in 2012.
So I'm going to try to jump in now.
We may have just lost our special guest, but perhaps Brian or Meryl have an answer to this question.
Sorry, can you take up to Liz on for a second?
Okay, to carry on.
Yes, you couldn't hear us.
Yes, go on, Brian.
I think I was following you.
He has one patent on...
He has seven patents, only one on a genetic sequence.
And I find it's interesting that it happens to be the coronavirus spike protein.
And, you know, I bring that up because it belies that there was a plan.
They've been back building this.
I'm not familiar with that work.
I've left that to others.
We can all do what we can do.
I point out a number of things that tell me there was definitely a plan.
And the last one is so bad, if you don't know about it, it will probably have you laughing.
But the one is that I've mentioned this before, that there's a very interesting German journalist called Paul Schreier.
S-C-H-R-E-Y-E-R.
Paul Schreier.
And he's still got, believe it or not, a YouTube video about an hour long.
It's in German with English subtitles and it's called Pandemic Simulations: Preparation for a New Era?
And he's been following these so-called tabletop simulations.
People will be familiar with Event 201, around the autumn of 2019, which postulated the escape from China of a novel coronavirus.
Give me a break.
That was a final rehearsal and they were doing it in whatever it was, October 2019.
But that's not the only one.
Paul Schreier, a year or two earlier, went back through the public data only and found about ten other rehearsals.
One was called Dark Winter.
Another was called Atlantic Storm and there were many others but I remember those two.
I remember them being on the news.
Madeleine Albright was leading Atlantic Storm.
So they got big senior players and they had... you can go and watch this documentary and It tells you that someone decided that they were going to rehearse and rehearse and rehearse the possible emergence of infective agents spreading around the world.
And they would have people who would play the role of the President of the United States, the head of the CDC, things like that.
They had people who would head media agencies.
And it was all scripted.
And their greatest concern over and over again when you watch this program is they're never interested in whether you and I are ill, never interested in finding treatments, never interested in calming a panicked public, only interested in control and getting vaccines into people.
Interestingly, and what's particularly interesting is I mean, I might be wrong.
This is something I'm going out on a limb on.
So just speculation, because this is what you do when you're a scientist.
I don't believe we've had a pandemic, apart from one of fear.
I'm not even convinced that there is a new pathogen of any kind.
In fact, I'm convinced there isn't.
But I could be wrong.
Others disagree with me.
But here's my reasoning.
My reasoning is that at the same time that influenza allegedly disappeared, another disease that's really quite similar, although we're all criticised when we say, oh, you shouldn't compare COVID with flu.
They occur in the same people.
They have very similar presentations.
You know, even if someone can say, well, they're not identical, I'd say, you've been told it's disease B instead of disease A, and how often did you look closely at really sick people with influenza?
And the answer is probably not very much, because you didn't need to do anything for them.
And you weren't having fear pounded into you from every single media outlet 24-7.
So, and I think, I think that, I think people were ill, they were frightened, and some, you know, went to hospital and they died, they weren't treated.
But I don't think it was a new disease.
And the best evidence for that is really careful work by Dennis Rehnquist in Canada, professor of university.
And he's looked at all-cause mortality by state, by week, and only asked whether they died or not.
So it was by sex and age and date of demise, that's all.
And he compared These are all cause mortality profiles with what has happened in previous winter outbreaks where we have excess deaths, usually thought to be due to flu, but actually More correctly defined as influenza-like illnesses.
That's quite an interesting distinction.
ILI isn't necessarily flu, it's just someone who turns up with flu-like illnesses and then subsequently dies.
And what we know, he said there's at least 30 years of data if not longer, that the people who die in excess in the winter of influenza-like illnesses are the people who are old and very old and ill and very ill.
And they die in excess in direct proportion or More 70 year olds die than previously, but if you're 75 it's many more still.
70 year olds die than previously.
But if you're 75, it's many more still.
If they're 80, it's even more.
So there's this super proportional increase in all-cause mortality with age.
That equals the sort of respiratory, fatal respiratory illness fingerprint.
It's completely missing from US all cause mortality in 2020 and 2021.
It's missing.
And I think it's hard to argue that it was not a new pathogen.
There were lots of deaths, but we know lots of people died secondary to being put on mechanical ventilators.
You shouldn't put frail people on mechanical ventilators when they're not obstructed, they haven't got asthma, they're able to breathe in and out.
If they were distressed you shouldn't intubate them, you should give them oxygen and calm them down.
But hundreds of thousands of people were put on mechanical ventilators.
It's an aggressive procedure.
When necessary to save life, then fantastic.
But when the person's still breathing spontaneously and their blood gases are down, that's not the right treatment.
You will kill them.
I knew that.
I'm not a physician, but I've been in respiratory for over 30 years.
So that's how we got the excess deaths.
People were treated badly according to a protocol.
I don't know.
I have no idea its origin.
I heard colleagues call it the Wuhan Protocol.
This is how we will treat people who we suspect have, quote, Covid.
Intubate, ventilate.
And then they were given remdesivir, an antiviral, which is not a good antiviral and really quite toxic.
That came out of, I think, Dr Fauci's lab.
And certainly in my country, I don't know about yours, they were given doses of midazolam and morphine.
So these are not the ventilator people, but spontaneously breathing people.
If you give them midazolam alone, or morphine alone, it will reduce your urge to breathe, their respiratory depressants.
If you give them together, they're synergistically likely to reduce your urge to breathe.
And in fact, they are components of lethal injections, by the way.
And there can be quite good end-of-life care if you're in awful pain.
I'd rather go out with that on board than screaming.
But there were lots of people, I knew people, who went to hospital who weren't dying.
You know, they were a little bit frail, maybe had a fall, never came out.
I'm afraid I think they were... Anyway, so I don't think there's any evidence of a new virus.
And I've got another thing to say.
I believe that the main media has been subject to incredible levels of censorship and control over the last three years.
So I put it to your audience that any story that appears on multiple networks at the same time has at least the approval of the people who are running this.
They either wanted it there or they don't mind that it's there.
So why would they allow, Brian, this story about Ralph Baric and Fauci's funding and Wuhan.
Why would they do that?
They've removed every other embarrassing truth from the airwaves.
And so I think they put that deliberately.
They put that out there deliberately to make people choose a false choice.
there's obvious evidence of this sort of bad, you know, gain of function research.
So they said, you know, basically people were presented with the choice of was it a lab in a lab-derived virus or was it wild type?
It's like giving you a false choice.
Because I think an even better question is, what's the evidence for a new pathogen?
Because when you ask that question, it's not very good.
You can't use, I don't think we can use, the claim that there's been gain-of-function research as any part of the argument for there's been a new virus.
Because I've just cited it as possibly a complete distraction.
So, you know, they may well have been playing with these pathogens in a lab, but the fact that it was on the networks every few weeks or three or four times it came up, when you and I could not get five minutes on one network, let alone 15 minutes repeatedly across all the networks, they made that story be out there and they put it out there because they wanted you to see it.
Why would they want you to see it?
I think it prompts you to choose between a wild type or bad scientists and That's what and they could do it safely because if there isn't really a virus then whatever work they did, they didn't actually cause it.
So when you combine the lack of The lack of the respiratory excess death signature, it's really hard to get past that.
The mean age of death in Britain, all-cause mortality, median age of death during the COVID pandemic did not change.
It was 82.3 months beforehand and it was 82.4 months or whatever during it.
I can't see a way in which you could selectively have a viral slaughter of hundreds of thousands of people and not change the median age of death.
But our Office of National Statistics pumped these data out and I remember looking at them and thinking, that's not possible, is it?
And no, it isn't.
I don't think there's been one.
The whole thing.
I famously have said that everything's been a lie, and so the only last thing I hadn't really come to until six months ago was whether or not there really was a new virus.
And it doesn't matter if I'm right or wrong, because all the other things they lied about were true.
So they represented this as a massive public health emergency, which it wasn't, Then they said that, you know, the elderly are particularly vulnerable.
And then suddenly it was everyone is so apt as if they've got it.
And then it was, let's all lock down because that's necessary.
And there's no evidence of that at all.
Everyone wants to wear a mask.
When we knew masks made no difference whatsoever.
So, you know, it was lie, lie, lie, lie, lie.
So even if I'm wrong about the virus, and I don't think I am, but I could be, all the other things that have led people to smash people's lives and the economy.
Remember I mentioned Paul Schreier?
Go and watch the video.
See what you think.
My stomach was in my boots by 20 minutes.
I thought, they've rehearsed this 10 times before.
They've been doing it since the late 1990s.
When I say they, I'm afraid it's the special relationship.
It's the Americans and the Brits, I'm afraid.
It's not China.
I'm fairly sure that it's my lot and your lot that have been running this, mostly.
And they roped in the Europeans later.
That's what it looks like to me when you go and look at who was involved.
And some of the people who arranged for those early simulations are this very day personal advisors to the President.
That's an incredible coincidence, isn't it?
So I want to talk about two different things that you've said.
I think the Paul Schreier movie is incredible.
Mary Holland showed it to me and I'm going to watch it again.
He does go over about ten of these different tabletop exercises in which fairly high officials practiced what they would do in the event of A different kind of pandemic.
And the most recent, well actually it wasn't the most recent, the most recent one was this one about children.
But before that the most recent one was a monkey pox preparation and then exactly monkey pox came when they predicted a year later.
So that's really important and and the underlying The reason for all of them is because our governments have been trying to scare us about pandemics at a minimum for the last two decades, right?
You know, it's been one after the other.
Ebola, Zika, bird flu, you know, pandemic flu, H1N1, and on and on and on.
And the WHO has been declaring a pandemic of international concern approximately every two years.
For the last 20 years.
And the idea is to control us using this fear of pandemics and the ability it gives the governments to inject us.
So, yeah, I'm totally in agreement with that.
Now, as far as... Can I ask you a question quickly?
Because it's very important.
Again, I was thinking about this and I thought, I don't think there's been a COVID pandemic and The last time there was a pandemic, I was only faintly paying attention in 2009, was it swine flu or something?
I was very busy, yeah, so I was very busy at the time.
And when I go back and look at that, I remember Neil Ferguson, Professor Neil Ferguson, a well-paid calculator or estimator of likely number of deaths, and he's been, you know, he's been wrong by about 100 or 1000 fold on everything he's ever been paid to predict.
Always upwards.
He always frightens you by 10 or 100 or whatever.
100 or 1000.
He's a physicist, by the way.
When they say, you're not an epidemiologist, I'm a much better person to make assessments of reasonable assumptions than he is.
He's a physicist.
He's a mathematician.
I will be better placed to make assumptions about the kind of things that's likely to happen than a physicist.
Sorry.
He's better at maths.
We don't really need the maths.
So I've got a question for you.
So that one was fake.
Covid was fake.
I was astonished at how many things I started looking at that weren't really as I thought they were.
So the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic, where apparently 40 million, 50 million people were supposed to have died of this Spanish flu.
When we go back and look at it, actually the best evidence is they died of bacterial pneumonia in a pre-antibiotic era.
Influenza did not mean then what it means now.
It's a completely different meaning.
There's no evidence whatsoever for an influenza virus and also no evidence that that number of people died.
Now, my good colleague and a very good detective and quite suspicious scientist, born in Ukraine and living in America, Sasha Latipova, She said, I've got this idea that might not quite be as it should be.
She said, I'm going to go and check the international sanitary regulations, which periodically were updated under the League of Nations between the wars.
And she found one, I think, maybe it was 1924, and she translated it from the original Russian.
And guess what, Meryl, they went through all the diseases that people would have to be concerned about when traveling or in relation to trade, because that's why they were doing it.
And there was no mention whatsoever of any respiratory illness.
And this is meant to be six years after the worst pandemic in world history.
Something's seriously wrong there, isn't there?
Something's seriously wrong.
Lots of other sources were changed, but not the original Russian held by the USSR.
A clever lady, Sasha, went to pull the original record.
It's not there.
So my question for you is, do you think pandemics of severe respiratory viruses or severe respiratory pathogens, is it even possible?
Because we don't seem to have had any.
And I've got a theoretical reason why I couldn't.
I'm just wondering whether you cower at night thinking, my word, you know, WHO is going to be right one of these days and we're all going to turn into a big pot of green goo because of these pandemics.
What do you think?
Do you think it's likely or unlikely that we'll have a serious respiratory illness pandemic?
You're muted.
Yeah, you are muted, Dr Nath.
And by the way, while she unmutes, Dr Yeadon, would you like your own show?
You can take over this roundtable.
No, I'm giving you both barrels while I've got you, because it's quite late for me.
So, what I was saying about 1918 is the problem is that Fauci has worked at the NIH for about 50 years, and that means that the science has been corrupted for at least that long.
And so we've been fed several different narratives about what happened in 1918, including sleeping sickness, bacterial pneumonias, vaccine-induced deaths, etc.
So I think it's really hard to tell because he's, you know, spent a lot of money to make things complicated and difficult to figure out.
But we had a relative in the family die, who actually was the president of MIT at the time, in that 1918 flu.
And he died about four days into it, supposedly.
So probably earlier than he would have had a secondary bacterial pneumonia.
And he had the best doctors in Boston, which I don't know what that means.
You know, they didn't have too many drugs at that time.
Yeah.
So I think something he was in his 50s, I think early 50s.
So something happened then that that did cause young people to die.
Yes.
All right.
Well, I don't know what it is now.
If you go later, we had some sort of flu pandemic in 57 and in 68.
And or Yeah, I'm pretty sure those years are correct.
My father, who was very young, he was probably in his early 30s, went into the hospital with one of them.
So again, when you have a significant antigenic shift, People don't have a lot of pre-existing immunity from past flus that have gone through and some people get really ill.
So I think that happened and there was a small bump in deaths and really nobody noticed.
And the deaths were mostly in the elderly.
Now with the COVID, the thing is is that we have about 9,000 deaths per day in the U.S.
during the winter.
And about 2,000 fewer per day in the middle of summer, usually.
And so if there are a few hundred COVID deaths mixed in there, and then a few hundred less deaths because people are locked up and they're not communicating with each other, you can lose a small blip.
And it's my impression that that is what happened because I treated a lot of people who had a new illness.
And that illness, unlike all the other influenza-like illnesses, caused autoimmune complications, you know, in cytokine storm, after it had been going on for about 10 days.
So I believe there was a new illness.
I suspect it was due to a new virus.
I can't prove that.
I agree with you that they've lied to us about everything.
I think they may have lied to us about all the mortality numbers.
So we can't trust them either.
So that's where I stand.
Thank you for that.
That's very useful feedback and to take into account as I think about these things.
But let's say if we were told that there's a new virus that will kill 20% instead of 0.1 or 0.2% and it's going to kill the children.
I think they're going to lie to us about something else and the population is so primed that I think they could almost tell us anything.
And even if it's absurd, people might go with it because of this command of the media and shutting out reasonable voices.
I mean, I just think it's unlikely that there's going to be a disease that will kill 20% of the people.
And if it remains at the low percentages that it does, it's sad when people die.
My time will come, not that far away.
I don't want the world to stop in case it might happen a little earlier.
And I just think it's crazy that we're locking down something that hasn't been shown to slow progress through a community, even if there really is something.
So, I don't get the logic.
I understand they're trying to frighten us so they can, you know, inject us.
But I want people to realize that what you're being told does not actually hold water.
And so, you know, ask questions about pandemics is my strong advice.
Oh yes, I have the other assertion here.
I think it's a good one.
The WHO is working really hard to change international health regulations so that they would be in charge of the world's response to the next big one.
And I've got this question, and you don't need to be medically qualified to ask, answer it.
A new challenge arrives somewhere on the planet, spreading around the place.
No one knows what to do for the best.
You know, we'll all have different ideas and so on.
Shall we, A, Leave it to the best public health brains in each of 194 countries, or should we give it to some corrupt Ethiopian bloke who lives in Switzerland?
You can see, humour aside, it's a mad idea to centralise the emergency response to a novel situation where no one knows what the best solution is.
It would be the wrong thing, because you'll get one answer.
Whereas if you leave it to well-inclined, because they live there, public health people from each of their nations, to do their best and to communicate really well with each other, then I think that's the way human beings solve problems quickly.
And also you have demonstrable evidence that this was the best solution, this one was less good.
So centralising it, folks, is the wrong thing.
Why do they want to centralise it?
Well, it's obvious, isn't it?
They can tell everyone what to do.
But they should not be calling for this authority, because it's wrong.
It will make responses sub-optimal for certain.
I know that.
Look, I totally agree with you about the WHO.
This is completely crazy that an Ethiopian in Geneva, who isn't even a doctor, is going to determine, or Jeremy Farrar, who tried to cover up the origin of COVID, who now is the chief scientist of the WHO, is going to determine what healthcare everybody gets and determine what we're not allowed to have.
They're going to specify the drugs and vaccines we can have and which ones we're going to be prohibited from having and punished if we try.
So I personally think that we can't even leave it to 194 heads of state or public health officials.
But we learned from COVID that everyone was on their own.
And if you could get hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin and figure out how to use them properly, You know, you did well.
And if you followed, you know, the government recommendations, you tended to do poorly.
So the thing is, yes, we can't let the WHO take over authority for public health over the entire world.
They have no qualifications.
They have no history doing it.
They've been a purely advisory body up until now.
And basically they're being used by the globalists as an excuse to gain control.
Yes.
I'm advised that we should use an alternative word, apparently.
Apparently, globalist is alleged to have certain connotations, certain ethnic connotations, so I think it's mad, but never mind.
By sheer luck, I've always used the phrase, the perpetrators.
Because that's what they're doing, rather than what they're trying to achieve.
I mean, I think they do want global domination, but in terms of the things they're doing wrong, I think the perpetrators.
I don't think that's got any connotations other than doing wrong things.
But yeah, a friend of mine is under some attack, shall we say, because of using that phrase often.
It's been alleged that he's been a very bad person.
But yeah, that's the world we're living in, folks, where As you say, a general advisory body.
I've heard some people say, oh, did the WHO approve that treatment or vaccine?
I've said, they have no competence or staff to do that.
So, no, I hope they haven't done that, because it's a really difficult thing to do.
You know, the FDA has the staff of thousands, and until they're Uh, normal work was, you know, corrupted recently, and the same is true of the Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Authority in the UK.
They were the top couple of regulators in the world, but they've been, I mean, they've been smashed and set asunder.
But they had good staff.
Um, you know, there's some historical examples of really smart individuals that stood in the way of certain approvals, I mean, famously in the States, I can't remember her name and that's to my shame. - Frances Kelsey was one. - She stood up and wouldn't let thalidomide, she was not happy with the tox profile of thalidomide Rightly so, as it turned out.
And it never went, it was not approved in America.
So, you know, you have had really, really smart, smart people who are also brave.
And you have senior officials who were willing to listen, you know, 60 years ago.
And I don't think anybody did it deliberately wrongly, but they just took a different judgment and they got nodded through.
Some of my peers have no limbs.
You know, exactly my age.
So yeah, at their best, these regulators are absolutely brilliant and corrupted.
You think they're doing their brilliant job, but they're not.
And unfortunately, that's what's happened.
These people have been Sidelined and probably terrorized.
Some of them probably don't even know that what has happened and has gone over their heads.
You know, they might think, oh, their bosses have approved something they wouldn't have, but hey, it's an emergency.
You know, they filled in their corner.
So yeah, what's going on is a genuine astonishment, if you can probably tell folks.
Those of us have been around sort of medicine and research and drug approvals for the last 30, 40 years.
It's not right what's happening.
No, one second, Dr. Nash, just one second, because we're going to lose Brian Hooker in a minute.
And if you could just ask a question, then I'll go back to you.
And then I have to ask him a question.
And then we're going to lose him because it's very late in England.
Yes, it is.
Dr. Yeadon, this is, you know, what you're saying is a huge, huge, that this was a huge, huge false flag.
And, and I want you to address some of the things like, like the COVID antigen test and the PCR test.
And, you know, some of the, some of the bait and switch that may have been done, you know, on that.
And then also some of the things that I think about are like the early leaked emails between Fauci and his associates, people like Peter Daycheck and Ralph Baric.
Who, you know, they were trying to oppose the Great Barrington Declaration and, you know, and basically cover up, you know, any type of wrongdoing at Wuhan.
How does that all fit in?
I don't know.
Certainly opposing the Great Barrington seems straightforward enough because I knew one of them slightly, the Oxford professor, Synecdoche, and spoken to her several times since.
And the other two I didn't know, but again, smart people.
And they were only proposing what would have been considered traditional management of some sort of epidemic.
The pandemic is only like an epidemic occurring in lots of places.
And interestingly, again I have to return to this, but yeah, maybe people did die differently than they died in 2019 and earlier.
But lots of countries, despite having COVID cases and COVID deaths, actually didn't have any more all-cause mortality than in previous years.
Some did, and certainly City of New York had lots and lots of people but lots of other cities isn't quite nearby so things that don't really don't smell right in terms of transmission of an infective agent.
So I don't know is the answer to your question but using PCR To make a clinical diagnosis, according to the person who invented it and won a Nobel Prize for it, was not an appropriate thing.
Cary Mullis said, you know, it's not an appropriate thing to do.
And we could spend a long time on this, but it's very difficult to calibrate them.
That is, how much stuff How much of this infective stuff was there in me?
If you then turn a handle, as it were, in an amplification mode until you can see it, until the system says, yes, there is some.
You know, there is some of almost everything in almost everybody at all times.
So unless you understand, unless you can calibrate it and understand what that amount would mean, it's not a very, it's not a meaningful measure.
I think that's what 2009 was about.
I know I'm becoming very suspicious, but it fits best.
I think it was used for this very reason that you can mess with it and get positives if you want.
And I think that's what 2009 was about.
I know I'm becoming very suspicious, but it fits best.
It fits the data best.
That was the first time I think they used PCR in mass testing mode.
And I think they wanted to see if they could do it.
Because just a few years earlier than that, somewhere in the eastern seaboard of the US, there was a genuine perception of a major outbreak of whooping cough in a hospital where the staff, the patients and the parents and doctors thought there was a mass outbreak of whooping cough.
And there were people coughing.
And the reason they thought they had a mass outbreak of whooping cough is they had an enormous number of positive PCR tests.
Now, whooping cough is actually a bacteria, but nevertheless the principle is the same.
Someone thought there was a disease, they sent it off for tests, it came back positive, and it's like, oh my god, we've got this major outbreak.
And when an elderly physician said, that doesn't look like whooping cough to me, how are you assessing it?
And it's PCR.
They said, go and do some bacterial cultures.
And they took swabs from hundreds of people, not one of them.
So, I'm just saying to folks that have doubted me about false positives, what that real-life example, you can go and find it in the literature, showed that 100% of the PCR positives were false on that occasion.
And they weren't pretending, they weren't trying to make that happen.
It was a sheer accident.
PCR false positive pseudo-epidemics have happened.
Now, imagine you saw that, because when I saw that paper I thought, Was that the inspiration for what they're just doing?
So, if you force me, lots of scientists think, oh, they wouldn't do that, would they?
Mess with the tests?
Yeah, they would.
So, if you ask me to guess, I think someone messed with the flu test to make sure they were negative.
Probably manufactured in China by one or two manufacturers.
Not difficult, folks, to do.
And I don't understand enough about the details and the innards of the PCR, but it seems not beyond the wits of scientists to design it in such a way that it will be positive more often than you would expect, by chance, in people who are ill, or whatever.
I think it's genuinely positive, because it's happened accidentally.
that we've ended up with lots of positive tests where people weren't ill with a particular thing.
So imagine if you had complete freedom and years to practice.
I think you probably could do it.
So that's what I think.
I don't know about the lateral flow test, Brian, and I remember trying to look in 2020 and the manufacturers would not tell me what the antigen was that they were detecting with their antibody.
So that was the end of the line.
They wouldn't tell me.
So yes, I agree with you.
The cycle thresholds were crazy.
No one's ever used cycle thresholds of 40 or 45 before to detect anything.
So yes, the tests were set up to have way too many false positives.
And the FDA has authorized over 300 different PCR tests for COVID since the start of the pandemic.
They're down to about 275 now because they threw out a few of them.
I have one last question for you, which is going back to what you started with.
You said, why did Pfizer choose the spike protein?
You know, and why did Moderna, why did they choose specifically this thread of messenger RNA to use?
My question is, did they choose it?
Or were they given it?
And if they were given it, who gave it to them?
Exactly.
It's a good question.
Yes.
Certain people's research is suggesting that the origins of these medical cancer measures wasn't within the drug companies anyway.
I can't be sure.
That suggestion, of course, is no longer science.
It's kind of politics and secret services and stuff like that.
So I don't know.
In a way, I'd be happier.
Not that we should be concerned even slightly about my happiness, but it's not been a happy time in all sorts of ways, but to think that I worked for a long time at a company which potentially has done what seems to have happened.
If it turns out it was made by other people, And they just pretended they'd done it.
That would be slightly easier to pair somehow.
But it could easily be what I first thought.
I don't know.
Unless someone actually leaks that information, I just don't really know how we get to the bottom of it.
But, folks, it ain't what it seems.
There's not been a genuine emergency to which this was an appropriate response.
So, my warning is, if something like this happens again, and I'm afraid I think it will, if anyone comes waving an injection at you that's got WHO or emergency written on it, please don't take it.
Please don't.
Dr Mike Eden, your time is up, but I'd be very good and let the doctor speak, but I have to speak to you about this, which I think is equally as dangerous, and where this is going is extremely serious, and I want people to know about it.
And you are living it.
OK, Dr Mike, tell people where you're living and why they need to listen to you, because this is sinister as it comes.
Yes, it is.
My wife and I spent over a year in Florida.
We did what we could.
And a little while ago, we came back to England and we're living in the southeast of England on the edge of the city of Canterbury.
The Secret Services will know where I am, so I'm not worried about telling them where I am.
They know where I am.
As we landed, pretty much, the cities of Oxford and Canterbury announced to the world that they were to be pilots in a scheme called 15-Minute Cities.
It's not as good as it sounds, folks.
Theoretically, the idea is that we're trying to arrange things so that all the things you'll need in your life, your work, your education, your friends, your shops, ...will be within 15 minutes of travel by bicycle or foot from where you live.
I mean, personally, I think whilst it might be a nice idea, that wasn't why I moved here.
It wasn't so that I'd be within 15 minutes of most things I do.
But here's the kicker.
They're putting on all the access roads to the city automatic number plate recognition, ANPR cameras, so that you will not be able to enter the city or leave the city without your vehicle appearing on a computer.
If your vehicle isn't registered, then you'd end up being fined.
So you have to register your vehicle.
And they've said, oh, you'll be allowed to move around between segments of the city 100 times a year.
So that means if you went out on Monday morning to go to work and came back on Monday evening, and you did that every week of the year, that's your 100.
So if you want to go to the gym in the evening, or go and see your mother, or visit someone in the hospital, or go and pick up your friend and go fishing, You can't do that.
And, you know, it's not democratic.
It's not subject to consultation.
In lots of places where these things are sort of welling up, people have said to the councillors, you know, we're not having it.
And the councillors have said, we don't care what you think.
We're going to impose it anyway.
In other words, it's come from above, hasn't it?
Because it's appearing Or like a fungus, all around the country and all around the world, all at the same time.
Sorry, that's not luck.
That's clear evidence of a supranational plot again.
And I am not having it.
I'm a free man, living in a free country.
And no one has asked me, no one has voted for a constraint that stops me moving around.
Also, it's not as if you've got, if you have an electric vehicle, you're still restricted to 100 movements.
There's nothing to do with carbon.
If you have a motorcycle instead of a lorry, you've still got 100 movements.
So it's nothing to do with congestion.
It's restriction.
It's control.
And I've said to people, if you accept any restrictions on top of your normal free persons movement in a democratic country, you have acceded to all such measures in the future.
Because you've proved you won't do anything.
When they, and they will, you will end up not being able, I think there's a risk you'll end up not being able to leave your house without beeping your digital ID.
I predict that.
So that's where we're going, and relatively quickly.
So let's see what happens.
I'm worried the answer is not much, that people will go muscle and grumble and reach to their cars.
It's terrifying.
There were countries where you were not allowed to leave your house without a pass.
I remember.
And you could only do it once or twice a week.
I remember.
So, yes, they're testing this out.
Who can they impose it on and get away with it?
It's terrifying.
It's really hard to know how to react.
There's no point in running around furiously in the streets, you know, people will say there's a crazy person.
But if you try and organize people, try to explain why this is so threatening.
You know, it's very difficult.
I think most people... This is the problem.
Whatever it is, the banality of evil.
This seems so reasonably innocent.
I mean, it's not innocent, but I can understand if you thought the world is roughly as presented on your national broadcaster.
For me, coming up to you and saying, you know, this is the end of your liberty, you just think, no, no, the guy's lost it.
You know, it's really difficult to get people who think the world is roughly as described on Network TV.
I'm not sure I'll be able to get them interested in this.
However, there is a significant fraction of the population that know that funny things are going on, they're looking for programs like this one, and other programs, so thank you for providing it, and with any luck, We'll make some new allies, because if we're too diluted, we'll be unsuccessful.
The thing is, Mike, I mean, if you've only got 100 days to go into Canterbury, you can't go in every day for work.
You only get two days a week that you're allowed to go to work.
Well, you can walk.
They'll say, oh, well, you can walk or cycle.
And I think some people will do that.
Right, now look, we have 100 million questions for you.
Time is up.
It's not fair on Dr Eden's wife, who has kindly loaned him for this hour.
Please thank her very much for that, and your family for all they do, and for all you do.
Mike, I hope you realise how many people love you, because the viewers' comments are just full of love for you, and actually you, Dr Nassar.
I'm a very reluctant sort of whatever-it-is truth-teller.
I'm not being modest when I say all I'm doing, I'm doing what I used to do for a living, except I'm not being paid.
I don't want to be paid by the way.
But I'm doing, I'm just applying the same scientific skills I did when I worked and the only difference is these are extraordinary times.
I'm not otherwise sort of thinking and speaking differently than I would otherwise.
You know, it's just extraordinary circumstances, that's all.
And once I realized that things were not right early in 2020, I kind of felt compelled to say something.
And having started, it's actually quite hard to know how to get off.
I would quite like to, but there's no near-term prospect of that.
No, and we're going to keep begging for you to come back because we love having you on here.
And again, thank you for coming.
I would say if there's anyone who wants, you don't need to be particularly clever, you just need to be well reasoned.
You need to, folks, if you care about your future, you need to help the good people on this programme and other tied witnesses like me, because we're flagging.
If you know something's wrong, you've got to stand up.
Can't count on a handful of people who've been doing it for three years.
We'll fall over, and then no one will be protesting it.
So please come and join us.
And just start.
Just start the channel.
Go on, bitch you to whatever, and introduce yourself to the world.
No one's going to come and murder you, and you'll probably get a following, so please do it.
Well, Dr. Aidan, thank you so much.
Have a wonderful weekend, and we'll be in contact to get you back on again soon.
Thank you so much.
Thank you for everything.
Thanks a lot.
Cheerio.
Bye-bye.
Dr. Nath, as well, thank you so much.
You all, equally, have as much love on there as well.
Thank you so much.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye, everyone.
Okay, well, now, tomorrow on Good Morning CHD is Dr. Nath.
Do you want to just talk about that briefly?
So yes, I had another interview with James Corbett.
We're talking about the WHO and we went into this whole issue of the global biosecurity state, which has been built up first as a concept, mainly after the anthrax letters in 2001, but the infrastructure, billions and billions of dollars have been spent on building up a surveillance and other
Connected infrastructures to connect all the nations of the world in an ability to surveil their populations genetically, to look at the microorganisms we might harbor, to take control of livestock, wild animals, etc.
And through a series of pandemics, so-called pandemics, most of which rarely affected anybody in the first world, A whole concept has been pushed into people's minds that there are dangerous infectious diseases and viruses out there.
They're coming to get you and we have to be prepared.
We have to spend a whole lot of money and we have to give up a bunch of our freedoms in order to deal with them.
It's all false.
It's a bullshit narrative.
And now the WHO pandemic treaty and the International Health Regulation amendments are designed to sort of codify all of this into international law that will supersede U.S.
law and other nations' laws so that the WHO can determine what happens to the whole planet as soon as the WHO calls a pandemic.
As soon as they name one.
So anyway, we talk about that and I hope you will join us at 10 a.m.
tomorrow morning on Good Morning CHD.
That's 10 a.m.
Eastern Time, 9 a.m.
Central if you're on Central like I am.
I just want to say to Macro Val, CHD please do a whole show on the 15-Minute Cities.
Listen up, you're going to love what I'm doing.
I'm sending in a reporter from England.
There's a protest on the 18th.
We're sending one in to go live there and her job And she's got a brand new camera.
Thank you to everybody who donates to CHDTV because it means we can get equipment.
And by the way, we need to have Dr. Mumper on for equipment.
Do we not?
Poor Dr. Mumper with her sounds.
Yes.
So she is going in and she will be reporting on that.
And you just heard Dr. Yeadon is actually living in one.
You can't make this stuff up.
So, he will be our absolutely go-to person as well, what it's like living there.
So, macrovalve, just so you know, I am on it.
So, there's that.
There's Dr. Nasr's show tomorrow, tea time next week, and all sorts of things going on next week.
Lots of things.
We're just covering everything as quickly as possible.
I asked Dr. Nasr today, can we cover this bird flu?
All over the media, As I was preparing for my show with Mary, it's bird flu, bird flu, avian flu, avian flu.
It's in pretty much all the media at the moment, which means they're brewing on something with that.
And, you know, somebody said, you know, you shouldn't really worry about it too much.
I do.
Here's why I worry about it.
It's my son's, autistic son's life, these chickens.
If they even begin to come here and take those chickens out, you have no idea what a problem that is.
It's like the worst thing.
Those are like his babies.
So that is not going to happen.
So that's why I've been watching this alien flu and watching them go round and take these chickens out of people's back gardens.
And so, yes, I have a personal massive interest in this alien flu on behalf of my son.
Right, any last words, Dr. Nass?
Never Again Is Now.
Sorry, just to say, I don't want to forget, we're still playing Never Again Is Now, Veera Sharma's amazing documentary.
And that is every evening, Monday to Friday.
Part one on Monday, part five on Friday, playing again tonight.
So come get on there and chat and keep watching it because you're going to miss things.
And every time I watch it, I see something new.
Did you watch it, Dr. Nass?
I watched most of it.
Yeah.
Brilliant.
She does such a fantastic job.
Well, never again is now, unfortunately, and she makes that very plain.
So we had a bird flu scare around 2004-2005.
Laurie Garrett was traveling all over the country for, what was it called, CFR, Council on Foreign Relations, who she worked for, to spread fear about bird flu.
There were very few people who actually got it from birds, and it stayed in birds, and it was no big deal.
It's been persistent ever since then.
There's a little bit of bird flu.
There's been a little bit of bird flu.
Yeah, if a person gets it, you may die from it, but almost nobody gets it.
You have to be actually working with the chickens in an infected flock to get it, and there's been very... I mean, I don't think there have been any cases in the U.S.
recently.
So, it's just going to be one thing after another.
They're going to try to make you fearful about pandemics continuously and use that as the excuse to do whatever they want.
To inject you, to lock you down, whatever.
Wear masks, you know, have passports.
Just like what's happening in England is a climate lockdown.
Oh, we can't have cars because they're changing the climate.
Well, prove it.
Well, nobody's proved it.
We've just said it often enough that most people believe it.
So it's probably not true.
Anyway.
Well, that's right.
Oh, actually, we forgot to put the breaking news from last night headline.
Let's just put that up quickly, because I don't think our Canadian doctors had time to do it.
This is the CDC adds COVID-19 shots to the list of routine vaccines for kids and adults.
It was a bit of a shocker that happened.
I say that, but it happened while everyone was talking about a big white balloon in the sky, coincidentally.
So that's not good news.
It's not mandated, but it's not good news, right?
So right.
So now that it's on the childhood schedule, every state is responsible for whether they're going to make the children get it in order to go to school.
And this is one of the reasons, in my view, why pharma and why government pushed so hard to get rid of exemptions in so many states, including mine.
They knew this was coming.
They knew they had bad vaccines they were going to roll out.
And they wanted to take away the off ramps.
They didn't want us.
To be able to say no.
And that's why all these exemptions, even medical exemptions in California, medical exemptions everywhere else have been challenged.
The doctors giving out exemptions to humans to not get a poisonous vaccine.
Virtually every one of those doctors has gotten a warning letter, has had their license suspended.
So this has been in the offing for years.
We just have to recognize it.
We have to put the pieces together And refuse to go along with it.
If everybody refuses, it ends right now.
Which is what Veera Sharma said.
All you've got to do is just say no.
Stand firm.
Do not settle.
In my opinion, pray big.
I'm going to say this before we go.
Dr. Nass, your Substack is truly amazing.
I don't know if people out there even know that you do one.
And if you can support Dr. Nass, do.
She's not ever going to ask you for that, but I am.
Because, quite frankly, you do everything for nothing.
We super appreciate you, Dr. Nass.
There you go, Meryl Nass, Substack.
So, what Dr. Nass does is break things down, and you're quite humorous, I might add.
We all need a bit of humour every now and then.
All right, everybody listening, thank you for supporting us, listening, sharing our shows.
Have a fantastic weekend, everybody.
Dr Nass, I hope you are feeling the love from our viewers as well.
They really, truly love you as well.
Thank you for all you do.
And we'll see you... Well, we'll see you tomorrow on Good Morning CH.
All right, bye-bye, everybody.
Have a great weekend.
Thank you.
▲
Export Selection