All Episodes
Previous Next
March 29, 2023 - Jim Fetzer
57:22
Dr Mike Yeadon: Why the Depopulation Agenda is Real and What We Can Do About It
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Music.
All right, so we go to the next speaker now is Dr. Michael Jürgen.
You know him very well.
He's also at the spearhead of the humanitarian movement, right?
He is an insider like we doctors insider when we talk about what's going on in the hospitals about fraud, corruption, all these deaths and so on, how we could do better.
He also does this, but he does it as an insider from pharmacology.
He's a pharmacist and he was previously Vice President and Chief Scientist of Allergy and Respiratory Division at Pfizer and is co-founder and former CEO of the biotechnology company Siacro.
Okay, he has more than 30 years of experience leading new medical research in the pharmaceutical industry and he is very human.
I love his talk.
And he also has a very good, you say, English humour, because we just discussed this in the pre-chat, that actually only can take what's happening nowadays with a good dose of humour.
So thank you very much for being with us, Dr Yin.
Hello, Michael.
Hello.
And the floor is yours.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, Stephen.
That's kind.
And also, Tess, thank you very much for inviting me.
What can I say?
I'm a long-form guy.
As people who've listened to me will know, I can chat for ages.
And so the biggest problem is being told I've got 20 minutes.
I feel I can't do the topic justice, so I'm going to, in the time-honoured fashion, speak faster.
It's not very clever.
So I'll tell you, I believe we are headed... Oh, the final thing to say is I'd love to be perennially sunny, upbeat and optimistic.
I'm not particularly optimistic.
I'm not a cynic though.
And I do think it is possible to resist what is happening.
I'm very worried that we won't.
But, so I'm going to, that's where I approach things.
My whole approach to life, which worked until 2020, was to ask myself, what's the worst that can happen?
Because I was often afraid.
I don't like, I'm quite a shy person, so ending up in charge of hundreds of people.
Having to present to very senior people was quite daunting and my method of management was asking myself what's the worst that could happen and it usually wasn't that bad and then it was okay well that's the worst that can happen and that's survivable let's swim hard towards better and that's what I did.
That doesn't work now because what's the worst that can happen is we end up as slaves and most of us dead and that's my default expectation unless we are really able to hook hook more people up than us on this call but I do think if we do that we can win.
So um I'm going to um I will give just a short list of evidence for why I think you know totalitarian tyranny and most likely depopulation is in the minds of the uh evil bunch of people who are running the scam called COVID-19 pandemic but because I can easily use all the time I've got and because I've given about 80 interviews on the subject already I will step briefly through what I think we could do about it.
A couple of things to say is I'm afraid no one is coming to save us.
So there isn't anybody in a night on white charge or whatever coming to save us.
I don't believe there is.
I think unfortunately also pretty much every democratic institution from courts of law to parliaments and so on are also captured and in most cases Pretty much, irretrievably so.
But every now and again you see something optimistic.
France has dropped all of its measures, possibly because Macron did such a bad job in the election that he ended up no longer being able to function as he wished.
But I would not rely on all our enemies fall over as a strategy.
It doesn't work.
Because these are clever people and I bet they've thought of three or four fallback options.
That's probably not a smart move.
So I think that, however, we can divert, delay their action.
And I think we will manage to delay to an extent and possibly divert.
The diversion thing is really important because bits of the world that are easiest to control are the ones where almost everyone does almost everything all the time online.
Those are I can now see how easy those are to control.
But imagine you're in rural Africa or certain very, very rural parts of India and so on.
I do not believe that the technological wherewithal will be in place at the same time as the leading edge of this control of gender becomes unequivocally clear to half the people rather than just 2%.
So the last suggestion would be if you are not optimistic or anyway you like to make contingency plans seriously, I think some people should consider emigrating.
So if I was 20 years younger with young children, I think I would have done that.
But I'm not going to do that.
My children, they believe what I'm saying but I don't think in their heart they really think it'll get as bad as I fear it will.
So they're going to stay in England and so ultimately That's where I'll be to the end as well.
I'm not going to run away.
So what can we do about it?
I would say the first thing, once you've persuaded yourself, if you are persuaded, fine.
If not, well, do what you want.
But if you've persuaded yourself that something awful is happening, then you must persuade others.
I can only reach the people who are on this call.
Let's say you've got 10 people in your network.
They're not on this call.
I will never reach them.
They'll never hear of me.
The mainstream media will never tell them the truth.
Only you, the people on this call, only you can reach that last mile.
So I'm asking you, you may think I've already tried.
Try again.
You know, try again and change what you're doing to try.
And also with good humor, you know, rhetoric is quite good.
What do you think this or what do you think is happening?
I've tried the lecture and it doesn't work.
You know, you bludgeon people and they glaze over and then they either shout at you or they walk away.
So whatever, keep trying.
I'm imploring you.
I think that Is the most important single thing you can do.
Because imagine if half the people knew pretty much what was coming.
I just don't think they'd tolerate it.
But even if there's a few inconvenient things, I think people just keep evolving.
And we've seen this in the past with oppressive totalitarian regimes like Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany, Pol Pot and so on.
People just keep adapting.
So yeah, so persuade others, keep your knowledge up to date, know some of the lies.
Because I think one of the most powerful things I've said accidentally was, what is the right number of times for your public health officials and governments to lie to you about something that could cost you your life?
Now the answer is zero.
So if you, and I've got ten, but if you've got one or two unequivocal lies that you can easily demonstrate are happening all around you, you could just put that statement to people and not try and persuade them of The other 95% of the agenda just point out that if your government's well-intentioned, then you shouldn't spot lies that could damage your health.
So that's one thing.
The second one is refuse mandatory digital ID.
I'm convinced that we will have this forced on us one way or another.
But they can only succeed.
This is a crucial sentence.
I think the perpetrators, as I call them, can only succeed with our compliance, really.
We don't need to be enthusiastic supporters, but if we go along to get along, that's all they require.
But if enough of us simply refuse, cross our arms and say we're not doing that, Then they will not be able to succeed.
But they'll make things inconvenient.
For example, early on, I remember certain people in the public eye said they weren't going to get vaccinated.
A few months later, we discovered they had been, so they could go on a holiday, which I think was one of the most trivial reasons to do it.
My argument to people was, just in case I am right, and I might be wrong, just in case I'm right, don't have a holiday this year or next year.
Just plan not to.
Then straight away you've immunized yourself and your family against this possibility because you can't get rid of it afterwards.
I also have someone named Ethan's Bet or Ethan's Conjecture.
If you follow the government narrative, because it's too terrifying to listen to any of the people on this call, follow the government narrative, what's the worst that could happen?
I believe you'll lose your liberty and possibly your life.
If you instead cleave to what I'm saying, broadly, what's the worst that could happen?
Well, I suspect you might lose your job.
That's pretty bad.
But you're going to lose it anyway.
You're going to take everything from you.
So let's say if you're retired, what's the worst that could happen?
Some people might laugh at you.
So there's no symmetry here.
The first one is if you're a bit scared and you think, well, I'll just stick with the crowd and the government.
If I'm right, There's no coming back from it.
So please follow me.
I'm sincere.
I'm very experienced.
I've received no payments or donations.
And so the reason I'm saying what I say is because I sincerely believe it to be true.
And so, you know, I was accomplished.
I was a hard worker, very thoughtful.
I won't be right about everything, but I think I'm right enough about some obvious bits of evidence to me.
to make me I'm no longer terrified but I was initially you know it's it's unequivocal to me that there isn't there is what we're being told is definitely not true and the question is only nuanced really how badly how badly they're lying to us.
So refuse mandatory digital ID even if it inconveniences you.
If you're told for example we're short of meat and eggs uh and we need to introduce a rationing system so well obviously to make sure you don't run around and buy shop buy food from six different shops you're going to need id oh uh nowadays that'll be a mandatory that'll be a digital id not mandatory but if you want to take your your portion of the available ration you'll need one I promise you, if you let that happen, it'll be meat and eggs today, all food tomorrow, and everything next year.
So, if they offer you a ration in return for a digital ID that you'll need to present, I strongly suggest you reject it and don't have meat and eggs.
Okay?
Seriously.
As soon as you accept it, they winch some more in.
The third one, refuse genetic vaccines.
I was certainly, when I was in industry, I was pro-vaccine.
I would say I now abstain at best and I'm ashamed that I was pro-vaccine because I didn't do my homework.
I worked in the field of small molecules, pharmacy of schools.
I was never in the field of biologicals where the therapeutics that are vaccines were made.
I never looked at the data.
I never thought hard about it.
I just accepted what I'd been taught at school and in university.
And once you start looking, you realize it's extraordinarily questionable what's what's gone on for decades.
But because I've not done enough homework, I'm not going to unequivocally condemn them either.
What I am doing is unequivocally condemning the COVID-19 genetic vaccines.
This is right in my wheelhouse of rational drug design.
It's not a conventional vaccine.
They have put parts together in order to achieve an objective.
So, you know, I've talked about how dangerous they are intrinsically, and so it has proved, so reject them.
It's my contention right now that they're not necessary.
Even if there was a viral pandemic, and I'm not convinced there is, but even if there is, the people who would benefit are the ones who die without treatment.
They tend to be the elderly and frail.
Those people For reasons of the aging of their immune system do not benefit from these injections.
They're not their immune system is not capable of doing it.
So the lie is that even if there was a properly researched, safe and effective injection, It wouldn't save very many lives, because the very people who are vulnerable are not capable of benefiting from that treatment.
And we know this, unfortunately, from flu vaccines, which I hadn't also researched, and now I have.
They don't reduce hospitalisation and death in the elderly.
They just don't work.
um even though they probably do mount immune responses.
So the whole thing was fraudulent.
What they should have done if the genuinely mean viral pandemic was what Peter McCulloch, Pierre Corey and others have been doing which is early treatment.
So reject digital vaccines and in fact all kind of cover.
I wouldn't, I'm now Not trusting of any product from this industry that's recently been approved and that's because I'm afraid the medicines regulators everywhere are corrupt and no longer doing their job.
So that's the main reason.
The next one, refuse central bank digital currencies.
Now you might say well how am I going to do that?
Well I don't know yet because we don't know what form it's going to take but others cleverer than me will have talked about central bank digital currencies but I only learned recently there's a critical difference at the moment because people always say to me oh Mike we've been using digital money for 20 or 30 years what are you going on about?
When you pay for something using a debit card or a credit card the merchant's computer only asks is this card holder good for the money?
They don't send all of the inventory of what you're buying up to a central computer and ask for authorization.
They simply ask, has he got $90 or £100 for the transaction?
If so, then they will sell it to you.
And in fact, All of the separate clearing banks of NatWest, Lloyds, Santander and so on, they don't do the transaction in real time.
They do a reconciliation.
I think it's an overnight run and they reconcile net debts to each other and to the central banks who act as the guarantor of last resort.
So it actually would be very, very, very difficult to control your individual purchases in your individual location.
In aggregate with other transactions you've made, say that month or that year, with current technology, it may not actually be possible at all.
Whereas, if you get given a new CBDC card, from that West it would look probably identical, maybe there was a little logo in the corner, I don't know.
You know, some Nazi symbol or something.
And it'll look and feel the same.
You beep to the merchant, but this time they're not just checking whether you're good for the new credits or whatever they're called.
They're checking, has my Eden already had three sausages this week?
Is he too far from his home?
Has he said bad things about the government?
And it can be done in real time, which is why 5G and its bandwidth and speed is required.
They're completely different.
So when people say we've been using digital currency, what's the big deal?
The two systems are chalk and cheese, alien versus human.
So one way or another, I urge you, if you're offered one, and maybe it will be offered initially as a, you know, a cool thing to have, I would say don't apply for it.
If you get sent one, cut it up.
Just, you know, do not let these things take root in your lives.
And then finally, almost finally, not a very good list, is it?
Fight the withdrawal of cash.
There is no legitimate reason for the executive to remove cash, in my opinion.
They can have any electronic systems they want, like we have had for the last 30, 40 years.
No one's removed cash.
Most people don't use it most of the time, but it's your guaranteed on-ramp to anonymity, if you want it, and freedom, which is what it will be very soon.
So I urge you, as Catherine Austin fits the finance, A veteran says, you know, make every transaction you possibly can cash, even if you sacrifice your meager 1% cash back on your card, which is the bribe to keep you hooked into that system.
So use cash for absolutely everything.
Also regard it as throwing a handful of sand in their eyes.
They do not know, as Carstens, the head of the Bank of International Settlements says, He holds up a note and he says, we do not know what is being done with this expression of central bank liability.
But with CBDCs, we will, and we will have the power to control it.
And that's the point.
That's what he says.
So when I hold up a £20 note, expression of Bank of England's liability, which is what it is, I can keep it in my pocket.
I can give it to the gardener.
I can buy a beer with it.
I give it to my daughter.
And then when services and goods are acquired using it, no one knows who acquired them, where they were, And what else they had acquired.
It's miraculous and there's no reason to remove it.
Bullshit about blocking terrorism.
And fraud is just that.
I point out to you that in England, for example, I think cashless purchases up to, I think, £100 now.
So if I drop my wallet, a thief can run around the shops and spend certainly several hundred pounds.
So the idea that removing cash will reduce fraud, it's just absurd.
When it comes to smuggling people or drugs, The smugglers will simply use whatever means of exchange they require.
And I bet they don't use cash right now.
It's probably lorry loads of cigarettes or girls that being, you know, trapped across Europe for sex rings, whatever.
They don't use cash.
So it's just lying to you.
If they give you either of those reasons, fraud or terrorism, they're just lying.
There's no legitimate reason to get rid of it.
If we can keep cash, I believe they can't take over.
They're going to get rid of cash.
Don't let them.
So that's the big background.
A couple of other things to say I could use all the time on the evidence of.
Totalitarianism.
I will say something about that.
But as I say, build your network as well as your knowledge.
So, you know, get to know lots of other people, even if it's just in your streets.
And if you can't find anyone in your street who thinks like you, please go to the next street and the next street.
I think there are more than you could possibly believe at different levels.
Know that what's going on is not legitimate.
There's not a public health emergency anymore.
So in America, for example, there's still an ongoing public health emergency.
The border is sealed to non-vaccinated.
Isn't that amazing?
But there's not a public health emergency, or at least there is, but it's one of the government's making and its policies are solely the reason for it.
I think people can sniff the air and I think what the hell is going on?
So please do your best.
If they slam the door in your face, OK, walk away.
Try the next door.
Try the next door.
Try the next street.
Build your networks.
It's lovely if you can find three or four people you don't already know who live within five minutes of you.
Think how much better you'll feel when you go to sleep tonight.
A couple of things to say.
They're talking.
I heard someone at G20 the other day talking about the next pandemic.
And it's just bloody outrageous.
Excuse my language.
We've gone for decades without a severe pandemic and we've only technically had a pandemic by, one, cheating with diagnostic tests, two, changing the definition of pandemic.
I have thought about this, I may be wrong, so this might be contentious.
I am not convinced it's possible to have a pandemic of a severe respiratory illness.
I think that severe respiratory illnesses, even if we go with the narrative and say the transmission is by Some item, let's call it vaccine, but a virus that could be something else.
I think the more serious these illnesses are, the more quickly they incapacitate you, they make you unwell, and the more quickly you withdraw from society and transmission terminates.
And the more severe the illness, usually the more quickly you will become ill, the more quickly your transmission will stop.
So it's easy to have a pandemic of the common cold, whatever that really is, because it doesn't really disable most people.
But if you have flying Ebola, and they'll probably try something scary like that next time, I think it's logically impossible for what they are worried about to actually happen.
They're relying on Hollywood film-type scripts.
I don't think they can happen.
If I was wrong, I think there would have been numerous pandemics over time.
And the last ones, really, the last serious ones, are probably the Middle Ages, which we could survive now because they're mostly bacteria.
So I'm not I'm not sure it's possible to have a pandemic.
So immunologists on the call, please discuss with other immunologists put up a put up a video saying why you agree or disagree.
That's one thing.
And then the other thing about centralising the world's response to the next lie, the next pandemic by the WHO.
Just a couple of sentences to point out that that would be the craziest thing you could do.
Even if I loved them and they were populated by my friends who I respected, it would still be wrong.
Why?
By definition, if it's a new health threat, no one knows what's the best thing to do.
And so if you centralize the response, the only thing you can say is you're going to end up with what one or two or three or four people think is the best thing to do, and they'll probably impose it.
Whereas the best way to find out anything is the largest number of experiments in the shortest possible time, which is, I would say, the level of a country, for example, by sheer coincidence, which is what we've been doing for millennia.
And rapid communication.
So if locking down really works and others didn't do it, it would become very obvious very quickly.
That information could be shared and others could pick it up.
But here's the key point.
You would determine the best response demonstrably quite quickly.
If you allow it to be centralised, we'll never know what the appropriate response was and you will be tyrannised because you'll have no choice whatsoever.
We'll be told, well it's WHO says so, says the policeman, so you either do what I tell you or I will arrest you.
So the pandemic and the WHO centralisation.
And then finally, if you're lucky enough, pray For strength and for other people.
I do that a little bit and I never would have said that three years ago.
Align yourself to the right thing to do.
It does feel good whether we fail or not.
Doing the right thing is always the right thing to do.
I think Robert Malone may have said that.
So, as you know, my contention is that there has been, I think, a long-planned, highly coordinated terror scheme across the world in order to persuade people that there is a public health emergency of international concern.
The measures that have been introduced ostensibly to control the spread of this alleged virus were, in my view, solely put in place to weaken and damage the economies and the societies.
And there's very strong, very strong evidence for that.
So I think that's what's going on.
And I think such is the level of deliberate, avoidable, elevated all-cause mortality.
There's no question that, for example, medical treatments of people who are said to have COVID-19 in hospital would guarantee their hastening departure from this life.
That cannot be legitimate.
And there are so many angles like this where what is being done
injures or kills people and you can I can tell as a very experienced biologist this is quite deliberate the other people haven't made mistakes they're not stupid they know what I know and what they're doing are dangerous uh sometimes injurious sometimes lethal lethal things and so when you add up all of those things together I can't come out on the side of oh this is just about money because part of the people who would have authorized it sit astride the money creation process in
It can't just be about control because they already have gross control over most aspects of our lives whilst leaving us some freedom so they must want more control and the digital Passes the central bank digital currency, neither of which are in dispute.
It's the question of what will be done with them.
And I'm putting it to you that they will be used to control your movements across every threshold and every transaction you do.
In terms of the thresholds is my contention over time.
Every threshold will be a regulated threshold, including that on your own home.
And that's on the cards, or if you're still lucky enough to have private transport.
So, you know, I could try and persuade myself that they just want control, or they just want money, but I'd be lying to myself.
And so I end up with, they don't mind who they hurt or who they kill, you know, to get this control system in place.
And I think that that speech, even if it had no other information, I think it would suggest that they want to kill people.
And then unfortunately, there are many minor things.
I'm doing English sarcasm.
Many of the players that you see, including the Gates and so on, belong to families that have had a great interest over decades in the size of the human population, certainly going back as far as a century in some cases.
This is a multi-generational thing.
I think it's a combination of very rich people who I understand would always have tried to alter the law and business circumstances to advantage themselves.
I'd probably do the same.
I would try not to do it illegally, but it's an understandable desire.
And I think to these very old foundations in which families have worked with, you know, people who have got a vision that is to take the world in this direction of totalitarianism, transhumanism and depopulation.
And gradually over a long period of time, probably through the WEF and a few other three and four letter acronyms, has basically planted people, supported people and planted them in positions in large corporates, in governments, in academia, in media.
And to the point where they are already in place.
So a lot of people said to me, what you've said cannot be happening.
No one could plan what's happening.
Well, I would just point out to you that Event 201, a tabletop simulation which pretty much matches COVID-19, took place two months before the start of this pandemic and many people will not know that that was the last of about 10 tabletop simulations all of bioterror or infectious diseases spreading around the world that have been run initially in America by the military and then eventually by everyone including WEF and
WHO, the EU, CCP and so on.
So we went to one had everybody, but if you go back to the first one Andrews Air Force Base in Washington, I think it may be 97.
They planned tabletop simulations of the outbreak of infectious disease.
And the only agenda item was how to control the situation, including individuals in the population.
It was never about providing treatments and saving people.
And they've done 10 of them.
And you can go and look them up.
They're all on the web.
If you want to watch the video by Paul Schreier, the German journalist, S-C-H-E-R-Y-E-R, Schreier.
I'll spell it for you later.
On YouTube, surprisingly, called Pandemic Simulations.
Pick the English subtitle version and stand by to be astonished.
Having watched 25 years of pandemics, when it is my belief that they can't occur, it's pretty powerful.
It's pretty powerful evidence.
Obviously, if I'm wrong about the possibility that pandemics could occur, I still think it's quite powerful evidence, but it will be slightly less so.
But so there you are.
There's all this, these simulations.
And so I've made myself unpopular.
And it's not my job to make you happy, but it's my job to look at the data.
And I did start by believing there was a virus that probably had escaped from Wuhan, and I no longer think that.
It's not a question of, do I believe in viruses?
It's not even a question of, do I believe in this virus?
I'm only asking the question, is the epidemiological data consistent with a novel lethal viral pathogen spreading rapidly through the population?
And the answer is no.
And you can't get around it unless you think that Dennis Rancourt, R-A-N-C-O-U-R-T, in Canada, is wrong.
And if he's wrong, please tell me.
But based on his data, the fingerprints of influenza-like illness and deaths, which is super proportional deaths with age.
That signature is missing from the all-cause mortality data in North America, where he's looked at 50 US states every week for 100 weeks looking at death, age at death, and sex.
And there are some states that do bear that normal hallmark, but there are many that do not.
And I'm afraid if you have any that do not, and there are lots, it simply cannot be as described.
So, but even if I'm wrong and there is a virus, the public health emergency was never sufficiently serious to have done anything.
The press was, you know, the psychological operations and fear were certainly plenty, but the actual on-the-ground changes in hospitalisation and deaths never warranted locking the world down.
uh and you know closing the borders and closing businesses and mass testing eventually masks and then eventually vaccines but I believe it's worse than that and the reason I push it is if others look at the data and think oh my god there isn't there wasn't even a virus I think your job will be easier because you can explain why the data says that and then of course all the rest falls to pieces as the obvious fraud it is but moving on um
Every single measure introduced from lockdown, masks, social distancing, mass testing and finally vaccination, business closures, border restrictions, every single one of those was ineffective at preventing the alleged spread and what's worse is they knew that before they did the first one because WHO scientists reviewed all of the public literature in every one of those
or analogies and delivered to all of the WHO member states an over 100 page report in the second half of 2019 which concluded that none of these measures work and in the event of a pandemic we advise only two things.
One, if you are symptomatic please stay at home and two, wash your hands a bit more often because we don't know what the route to transmission is.
Nothing else.
Nothing else.
All the government's public health officials knew what I've just said.
And yet, in March 2020, they imposed simultaneously around the world in scores of countries, probably hundreds, Unprecedented measures that didn't work and some of us knew they couldn't have.
But by the summer there were publications that proved, peer-reviewed journal articles, that proved that lockdown did absolutely nothing to whatever this something was, the arrival and disappearance of this illness.
And the reason it couldn't have made a difference is the lie of asymptomatic transmission.
This absurd idea that's still around that you can give someone something you don't have.
In order to be a good source of some infectious agent, you have to have lots of it in your airway.
You'll be a better source if you put lots of it in your airway.
If you do, you will have symptoms because it attacks you and you fight back.
It's not possible to have, as it were, a lung full of pathogens and have no symptoms.
As a biologist, I promise you that's true.
It doesn't happen.
It's also been studied and was found to be epidemiologically pretty much irrelevant.
I think the amount of times it was alleged to happen matched false positive rates in the tests.
I don't think it happened.
So there's another lie.
So all of it was a lie.
Every single measure was a lie.
I don't think most people knew it was a lie.
The politicians are pretty stupid and they just get told what to do and what to say.
But then on top of that, I just alluded to it just very quickly, the medical treatments that were forced on patients, that is hospitals were required to do, doctors were required to do them, included things like sedation and ventilation.
Ventilation is life-saving if you have a head injury and have stopped breathing or if you have a pneumothorax, a hole in your chest wall and you can't breathe.
For everybody else, if the patient turns up with an open airway, And they're still conscious and breathing.
Unless I'm wrong, I'm not a doctor, but I've been around respiratory for over 30 years.
The only way you would ever sedate and ventilate that person, I would think probably, is if they're in such pain, either from 60% third degree burns, you probably would want to knock them out and maybe you'd ventilate them.
Or maybe they've come off a motorcycle and they've literally broken 40 bones, something like that.
But everybody else, me, your granny, you turn up with an open airway, a bit panicky, Short of oxygen, but nothing wrong with their breathing apparatus.
That's because these diseases are not obstructive airway diseases.
They're not like asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
So why did those hospitals impose and why was this wild talk about the UK needed I think 30,000 ventilators and can we have car manufacturers and vacuum cleaner manufacturers making them?
Do you remember?
That's what they were saying.
That was another lie.
I don't think it was appropriate to put anyone on a ventilator.
Frail people are injured and killed by mechanical ventilators, even though, as I say, they're miraculous lifesavers in certain circumstances.
So, if you have a relative that went to hospital and died on a ventilator, that hospital murdered your relative.
They murdered your relative.
And I think a lot of them did know what they were doing.
I know people here in Florida.
I know doctors who resigned after protesting.
And that's because they said you're murdering the patients in this hospital.
So that's one thing.
Then also other treatments.
They were given midazolam, a sedative, morphine, a painkiller, which reduces respiratory efforts and cardiovascular function.
And they're inappropriate for a viral or pneumonia type illness.
Why were they given?
To kill them.
And if you had a relative that died with potassium amorphine on board, they were murdered by the hospital as well.
And I think most of the time the hospital staff knew it.
So briefly then, just lastly then, to the vaccines.
I beg you not to take any.
I'm not COVID-19 vaccinated myself.
I mentioned the argument for why The frail elderly that were apparently especially at risk of dying could not be saved by injected, intramuscular injected vaccines like flu vaccines.
And I can't think of a single argument why that would not obtain under the narrative conditions of some new virus called SARS-CoV-2, which I'm not convinced is in circulation.
But even going with the narrative, I don't think it could ever have worked.
And that's because the people who might respond rapidly, vigorously to a vaccine because they've got a good wide-awake immune system, yes, they might respond, but they wouldn't have died anyway because they're healthy, plenty of reserve in all of their organ systems and good immune systems, so they would have taken it out.
The elderly person, 85, You know, marginal renal function, poor lung function, and so on.
They could die if they get a common cold, and they often do.
So, yeah, if there is this new lethal virus, they would not have been saved by the vaccine, because their immune system would not have mounted a rigorous response to it.
So that's one thing.
The whole strategy was wrong, and I'm afraid my... I know three of the four people in the main drug companies making these damn things, and I call them out.
I won't waste time today.
I've called them out by name as committing crimes of genocide and they should sue me or resign and engage in a debate or something but just don't carry on doing what you're doing.
But the design of these materials was such as to cause the expression widely around your body of something called spike protein Which according to the biology of this alleged virus is the only direct acting toxin in the whole, you know, get up of the only protein within this whole pathogen.
Why did they pick the only thing that could possibly have harmed you?
Even if you believe the narrative?
Well, I can't answer that.
All other parts, all other novel, non-new, foreign parts of the pathogen would have done.
And the fact that four drug companies independently, supposedly in competition, independently arrived at the same formula tells me that it's collusion and malfeasance and a lot but not all of the adverse events reported I think are consistent with expression of spike protein where it shouldn't be where it never would be in the narrative if you were just infected in your airway but there's no question that essentially you we have had half the population of the world injected
with a material which, when expressed in the body, will produce toxicity, sometimes lethally.
And it was wrapped in a vehicle, lipid nanoparticles, that allows it to travel all around the body, including to your brain and to your reproductive organs and so on.
And the publication showing that that encasement using lipid nanoparticles would do that was well known to the industry at least 10 years ago in peer-reviewed journal articles.
So the idea that someone made a mistake, shouldn't have formulated it that way, all under pressure, no.
Now, experts in pharmaceutical R&D, not the pharmacology, but the formulation, I've spoken to some of them and they said the same as me.
Yes, I was shocked when I saw this.
Lipid nanoparticles will bypass normal barriers in the body, will leave the site of injection and it will end up anywhere.
And I think that explains substantially the diversity of side effects that have been seen.
And then something I've only learned A week ago it's been absolutely shocking.
There's a lawyer in America called Catherine, this is my final remarks really and then I'll wrap up, Catherine Watts.
She writes an article called, under the handle Bailiwick News, And she recently has been in conversation with a friend of mine, Sasha Latipova, in America, and recorded an interview a week or so ago, and I advise you to watch it.
But in brief, stand by folks, over the last 50 or 60 years, federal law, American law, has been gradually added to and modified to cope with emergency situations.
Originally, you know, volcanoes, floods, hurricanes, things like that.
But increasingly, to cope with things like infectious disease pandemics.
But over the years, what they did is allowed emergency measures to be applied in the event that an emergency of sufficient weight was declared.
And what has happened is that around 2005, the legislation was altered such that instead of The Food and Drug Administration deciding whether a potential treatment should or should not be granted authorization or approval.
The law as it stands currently allows one individual, the Health and Human Services Secretary, to decide, in the event that they've judged there's sufficient emergency, to authorise the use of anything which may be effective.
That's the only criterion.
Initially they were thinking about sending Food down to New Orleans, sending people with fire trucks to put out a city that's on fire, or evacuate people from Yellowstone if a volcano went off.
They wouldn't know.
There wouldn't be a standard.
It would be you use your judgment.
If this may be effective, you may authorize it.
But I think the trick has been to include things that are highly precise and have a long history of being properly regulated.
Well, I'm afraid they're not.
And so, I thought until a week ago that the FDA had provided emergency use authorization so that these injections could be distributed.
Well, they did grant it, but it was a performance.
They had no legal role in this drama at all.
The same with the EMA and the MHRA.
I will put it this way.
They pretended to review uh what pharma has submitted which was a pretend dossier and that explains why the trials weren't done properly why the toxicology was done you know incompletely it's because they knew that the FDA the EMA were not going to be marking their homework But it was going to be approved under what's called Other Transaction Authority.
Now OTAs has been used by agencies as distant as NASA in the 60s and as recently as the Health and Human Secretary to authorize the distribution of these badly developed Dangerous, not necessary injections.
So I bet that's a surprise to you all.
So isn't that a surprise?
I mean, that's just an absolute shock.
So just in summary, I don't believe the narrative at all.
I think almost all, if not all of it, is a lie.
I think it's been planned and I've got absolute evidence you can find online of at least 25 years of planning pandemic control measures for viral pandemics.
And then I'll stop there.
But these things do run into they run into climate change and alleged overpopulation.
But I think I think I've probably given you quite enough.
And I hope some of those things I suggested at the beginning may inspire you to go and wake up a few more neighbours and and don't give up because they can only succeed if we acquiesce.
So I'll pause there.
I've used way more than my time.
Thank you very much, Michael.
Thank you very much.
I'm absolutely stunned.
This was a tour de force through all these terrible two years we all had, right?
And this was really one of the best talks I ever heard, such a summary over these two years.
I think it goes down as a historical talk.
And I see it in the chat, it's going crazy.
How long did I take, by the way?
Was I half an hour?
A little bit more?
Yeah, about.
Yes, but we have to listen for ages because the signal is in such a good way.
And I can tell you, you will be heard.
We are simultaneously transmitting on YouTube, Rumble, Odyssey and Getter.
And even more people are joining.
Now we have people from 50 countries on this call, but we don't know how much on Rumble and all the others.
So you will be heard.
Good, thank you.
Thank you very much.
I must say at this point, I so much appreciate your test with your leadership.
I know we spoke about this a couple of years ago and I thought this is so ambitious, I'm too tired already.
You know, look what you and your many wonderful colleagues have accomplished and I would say without a platform, and this one in particular, but every other There'll be no point in me saying a word.
I might as well shout out of the window.
So, by creating the platform, you allow other people to hear the concerns of people like me.
So, thank you.
Thank you so much.
Yes, thank you very much, Michael.
And that's good.
Handing over to Tess now.
I think there are a lot of Q&As in the meeting.
If not, just go to the chat and read it yourself in the end.
We can't handle everything.
Thanks.
We can certainly take a few questions, Michael.
And, but also just to say, you know, what you said in the beginning, you said, no one is coming to save us.
And I think, you know, it really, it's a wonderful opportunity for us all to realize we've outsourced our decision-making and expected saviors for so long.
We've actually just ignored everything and got on with a very materialistic existence.
And so it's perhaps an opportunity for us to step up and be courageous and save ourselves.
So we are many, and as Shabnam Peles and Muhammad Uri says, the power of the people is greater than the people in power.
We just need to activate everybody and get everyone really doing what they're here to do.
So right early on, you mentioned the possibility of immigrating.
I don't know if that was a wish for yourself, but there were many questions in the newsroom about this.
So is this really a place now where one can immigrate to and be safe?
I mean, I don't think anywhere is really safe, but I do think, and this is like a paradox of having lived the luxurious life.
Many of us who've had professional careers, I've earned enough money not to worry about money when I was working and I was lucky to live in a first world country.
I could travel freely and that was great.
But it's that very advanced connectedness that I think now makes us one of the countries of choice.
I think the UK and Germany, and the USA but probably all of the first world countries, I think their governments have been subject essentially to a coup d'etat, a technocratic coup d'etat.
So essentially I can't think of any important legislation that the Parliament in Westminster in London has put through since the start of the pandemic other than pandemic related things.
They've been taken over essentially and Because, you know, I live half my life with this bloody thing, you know, half the night as well, in my hands.
If you follow the, you know, the incentives, you buy everything, communicate everywhere, store all your information, order, you know, carrot takeaway or whatever it is, just using one device, people who live in that environment, if people wish them harm, I'm afraid I think they do, they want to control you and ultimately to extinguish your life.
First world countries are an Um because once and I think also what's uh it's very important it's it's too late to wait until the evidence is 100 percent.
So if you wait and see well let's see if this happens and if it does then I'll protest.
I believe if we have if our lives have been run by electronic ID and electronic money central bank digital currencies uh because most people will think I'm a crazy person, you know, raving, you know, conspiracy theorists.
Most people will think, you know, if you want it to turn it off at that point, they'll fight you because it probably is quite useful and the time to stop it is before it's embedded.
Once it's embedded, I don't, I cannot, I've even done the scribble pad, I actually couldn't work a way out.
So, I do think though that there are, there are countries that are simply less well connected And they will be parts of the world where they don't have a permanently connected, you know, a guaranteed permanent connection.
Well, that means they couldn't run their economy using CBDCs.
They couldn't buy, you know, a pound of wheat off their neighbor using a microcredit because neither of them have a signal.
And you know what?
They would just simply pass the wheat over and say, the payment is you come and pull the weeds up in my fields tomorrow.
uh you know in other words barter so i think there will be who knows a billion people maybe it's more who i don't believe they're the weffies and the who's and the builder burgers and I don't think they'd be able to capture all of those people all at once.
So I think if I was 40 and I had young children, I probably would think, you know what, I'm going to sell everything I own and I'm going to maybe move with friends and go and go and live as other people live.
uh beam down London into Tanzania for example but go and live there see if you can make a new a new life there.
I don't think we can have a first world existence probably I don't think we can have a first world existence anywhere just by running away.
We can have that only if we if we divert delay or or destroy what they're doing.
Food for thought, certainly.
But we certainly don't want people to run away if they can help wherever they are.
It feels like wherever you are, it will come to you eventually.
Yes, I think so.
Many words of gratitude to you, Mike, in the Zoom and in the newsroom.
The question about the My Days Alarm and, well there are a couple actually, to do with the My Days Alarm in care homes and in hospitals in the UK and also the Do Not Attempt Resuscitation.
Is this widespread, do you think?
I'm probably not the right person to speak to it, but for those who would like more authentic evidence, I would recommend that you listen to an interview, a podcast interview by Majid Nawaz, and he interviewed two or three months ago a very good guy called, I think it was Stuart Wilkie,
So, he has receipts, as Majid calls it, that is evidence of over-ordering and over-dispensing of those two drugs.
And I do know, as a pharmacologist, that they're not an appropriate thing to give to people with an open airway who have, allegedly, a respiratory pathogen, either a viral or pneumonia.
They're not the right things to do.
I can tell you that the doses used, they're not far off what are used as part of lethal injection execution in the States.
Often used, they're not absolutely the same, but they will sedate and slow respiration.
Then you can either use something like potassium chloride to stop the heart or a neuromuscular blocker, which has not been used.
These things are not appropriate with people with an open airway who have a viral disease.
Why were they given?
And the answer is because they were told to by some central diktat.
I think they bear closest resemblance to, and may even be, what was once known in Britain as the Liverpool Care Pathway, which is a way of Helping someone pass, as I think the Health Secretary in Britain said once, help the dying pass.
But these people aren't dying, mostly.
You know, they're admitted to hospital and most of them will survive, certainly if they're given the right treatments.
So just I want to just also, I always get this wrong.
And I'm accused of gaslighting, I think is the phrase.
I absolutely believe that the people you believe became ill, or you, if it was you that became ill, and the people that around you died, definitely were ill and definitely did die.
Okay?
I'm not denying that.
The only thing I'm saying is, as a scientist, I believe the cause of death is not what you were told.
That's it.
Period.
Okay?
So I just wanted to add that.
But so, yes, the If you want to know more about those, I would recommend the interview by Stuart Wilkie and Majid Nawaz.
Thank you.
What would your educated guess be on the risk of sterility or infertility among children who are given the COVID-19 injections?
Yeah, I'll take that.
A couple of things to say.
I think we discussed this actually on the email.
It ought to be a matter of fact what exactly is in these vials that people have been injected with.
But I have to tell you, I don't really know.
I started I was a normie until the end of 2019.
I'd never believed a single quote's conspiracy theory.
I listened to the BBC.
I read broadsheet newspapers.
I chuckled at people who said, oh, we never went to the moon.
You know, I was such a boring, middle class, conventional thinking person.
But I'm afraid I'm not in a position to take that view now.
I've just lost my train of thinking.
Just remind me the question again.
Just asking about the risk of sterility.
Absolutely.
So when I finally At that time of normiedom I would have said the one thing that is the hallmark of pharmaceutical companies is their ability to produce perhaps a billion or multiple billions of unit doses and for them to be the same regardless of whether you took batch X in London or batch Z in Paris.
That was their hallmark.
Of course they were very reproducibly made and so naturally I understandably thought they will be the same from first to last And as it's turned out, they're not.
They're simply not.
And we can tell this from the huge range of adverse events, ranging from nothing at all, I think in most people, to death quite quickly, sometimes on the same day.
And I think that it means it's not the same stuff in the vial each time.
And so it's very hard to answer that very reasonable question.
But If, and I think this is true, I think certainly some of the batches contained DNA or RNA that encoded full-length so-called spike protein.
And when that happens, coupled especially with these lipid vehicles that will promote movements of this material to the reproductive organs, certainly ovaries, I think there would have to be a, I can't quantify it exactly, but it's definitely a risk you wouldn't want to take, that you would either lose a child prematurely or that you would not get pregnant at all.
And I didn't predict that in a petition I co-authored with Wolfgang Wodar, he wrote most of it, the German physician.
What we did is we highlighted that there was a risk that that might occur and it should not be used in women of childbearing potential, you know, girls and women younger than the menopause until such time as we've understood whether there is a problem.
We didn't say it will happen, although my secret fear was that it was quite risky and as time's gone on I've thought they probably designed it as part of the population reduction.
So here's the thing, I'm honest enough to say I don't know and so I'm not amongst those Who for their own reasons, I'm not criticizing them, but for those who said, oh, everyone who's been injected will be dead within three years.
I will tell you, I do not know what's going to happen.
And I think there's a good chance nothing will happen.
You know, because usually toxicities occur relatively quickly after a single insult or after a defined time after a single insult, if it's one mechanism.
You don't generally get a big pulse of deaths and then another one I think at five or six months and then a third one later.
Anything is possible but I think you know today is a good day to resolve not to have any more of them if you have had some and I think since most toxicity like smoking, alcoholism, drugs of abuse, most things are dose related so the less you allow your body to have the better off you will be.
Yeah, just say no.
That's just the kind of phrase.
Yes.
So there's so many questions and we're running a bit over.
So I think, Mike, I'm going to just say thank you so much.
There are questions in the chat if you do have the time to have a look and address them.
Much gratitude to you and for all your hard work.
Thank you so much for joining us today.
Thank you very much once again.
Good luck, everybody.
▲
Export Selection