Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 22, 2023 - Jim Fetzer

01:36:49

MIKE YEADON - The Only Thing We Need to Fear is Fear Itself

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Dear friends, I have said this quite a few times before, but this time it's really serious.
	I think, and in a positive manner, I think this is the most important interview we've done so far, and I was not shocked, but I was surprised to read an article by Dr. Mike Yeadon.
	Which coincide with the presentation I had seen a couple of days earlier by a biologist by the name of Jay Cooey from Pittsburgh.
	And what these, what Mike's article and Jay Cooey's presentation, what this boils down to is, it says, there's never been a pandemic, there's never been a novel coronavirus.
	It looks as though everything we're seeing is just a grand illusion created through psychological terrorism to keep us in panic mode.
	Even the, well we know that the PCR test has been misused in order to create cases that didn't exist so that the WHO would be able to declare a public health emergency of international concern, pronounced fake, so that they would be able to use untested, we now know for a fact these drugs are totally untested, they were neither tested for efficacy nor for safety, so they would be able to use untested new drugs on people.
	That much we knew, but then there came these strange revelations which somehow made their way into the mainstream media, at least in the United States, and these revelations were about gain-of-function experiments.
	A lot of people thought, oh my god, American taxpayers paid for gain, and Europeans as well, paid for gain-of-function experiments.
	Doesn't that make viruses more dangerous?
	We believe, Mike believes, and we'll start out with him, that even the talk about gain of function was just another way of getting us to believe that this is a particularly dangerous and novel coronavirus.
	When in effect, as we now know, there was no excess mortality anywhere before the start of the so-called vaccinations.
	So we're amongst friends today.
	We have Meredith Miller, who still refuses to be called a psychologist.
	I think she's the most brilliant one I've ever met.
	We have Professor Joseph Molitorish.
	He is a philosopher.
	And we have Dr. Mike Giedon, a former vice president of Pfizer, who has been very outspoken about what was going on right from the start.
	And he's one of the first people who said the PCR test is totally, utterly incapable of telling us anything about infections.
	So, let's see.
	Maybe you can summarize what you wrote and what you think about this, Mike.
	Yes, certainly Reiner, thank you and everybody who's listening to me.
	As Reiner said, this is probably one of the more important recordings that we've done.
	I think it's worth just recapping briefly.
	You can check my education to have a degree in biochemistry and toxicology, research-based PhD in respiratory pharmacology with a focus on opiates and respiration.
	Rather interestingly, considering what happened in hospitals and care homes, 32 years experience in biopharma, quite senior at Pfizer, once Worldwide Research Head for Respiratory, Vice President.
	10 years in the independent sector consulting to 30 biotechs.
	I also founded and led and CEO my own biotech, which was acquired by Novartis in 2017.
	And then that whole exploit was written up by a former Pfizer board member in Forbes magazine in, I think it's February 2017.
	John Lamatina.
	So I think I'm a credible person.
	And then for the record, I've received no payments nor received any donations during the last three years and four months.
	And I trust I can tell I gained nothing other than trying to tell the truth from speaking out.
	So just before I get briefly into why I believe there's not even been a pandemic, I would just ask this rhetorical question.
	How many is the right number of times for senior health advisors and government officials to lie to you about something that could affect your family's life or even your family's health or your life.
	Now, that rhetorical question, surely the answer's zero.
	Well, I've proven at least half a dozen separate lies that officials have given.
	They exaggerated the extent of the health threats.
	I will actually proceed, I think, today to tell you that it's zero and not just flu-like.
	They lied about the necessity for lockdowns, the effectiveness of lockdowns, of masking, of social distancing, border closures, business closures, mass testing as a necessity, and then the methods used for it, PCR.
	Every single one of those things is a lie, even if there was genuinely an ongoing Infectious disease pandemic, not one of those things is appropriate nor works.
	And it references to a very large document from WHO scientists written in 2019 sent to all member states.
	So a few months after that, all the public health officials in every country I've looked at, simultaneously began to do unprecedented, bizarre, frightening things like telling you you have to stay at home.
	Unless you have a reserved occupation.
	So again, the next rhetorical question is, how is it that scores of countries all at the same time decided to do things that were not in their own pandemic preparedness plans, and they knew were no use?
	And even if they didn't, why would they do bizarre things all at the same time?
	And I think you don't need to be conspiracy theorists.
	That is a conspiracy.
	There's no possible mechanism other than Supra-national agreement that that could possibly have happened.
	And of course, that's exactly what has happened.
	So that's the background to it.
	Straight away, I would say, once you realise that people whose job it is to try and help you stay fit and well, whilst balancing the needs of industry to continue, have lied and lied and lied again.
	Why would you believe a single thing they tell you?
	So that's the background.
	As Brian has said, I became infamous first by attacking the PCR test, and I did so sincerely on the grounds that it looked like people were trying to use a forensic science method to do a clinical diagnosis, and I knew it was unsuitable.
	I was a minor author, co-author, on a very important document called the Cormann-Drossant Review, Where the basic method, put together by a guy called Professor Christian Drosten in Berlin, actually fired the starting gun for the pandemic.
	It is the basic method that underscores all these so-called COVID-19 PCR tests.
	So that review is available online.
	And so we pulled its arms and legs off.
	It's a ridiculous approach to clinical diagnosis.
	But as time went on, one by one, It's funny, they say if you're going to tell a lie, you have to tell a big one.
	So I could tell that they were lying about PCR and exaggerating about the extent of the health care, health, you know, the threat to people's health.
	But it never occurred to me that everything they said was a lie, but literally every major narrative point that's come through your TV and newspapers for the last three years and four months, that as pertains to the viral virus pandemic, you know, Count the measures necessary, and even the so-called vaccines.
	Every single one of those points is a flat lie.
	So it took me a while to get there.
	And what was hanging like a hanging chad in a voting machine, I hadn't said anything about the virus itself.
	Now partly, and I'll be very straightforward about this, I was quite quickly contacted by people who don't believe viruses exist at all.
	And as far as I can tell, I'm one of the very few senior scientists that gave them some house room.
	I said, well, persuade me.
	And after about an hour and a half, I said, you've so badly rattled my confidence in virology.
	One thing I can tell you is I no longer believe the things I used to believe.
	But I'm an empirical scientist, and so I've said that you've not provided me with sufficient information that I can confidently say that no virus exists and explain it to other people.
	So I do not adopt that position.
	I'm not saying I agree with what we're told.
	I'm saying the opposite, that I don't know enough to adopt the position of those who spent 10, 15, 20 years in the field.
	But it made me think all the time now what, you know, I've got to have a very high standard before I just accept there's a virus.
	You need to look very closely at the science.
	By the way, I have very concerned doubts about them.
	I'm just not prepared to go as far as to say they don't exist at all.
	So I'd left them untouched, the issue of the virus, because it seemed to me a lightning rod.
	Every time you get anywhere near that, people would shout at you, even people on my own side.
	And I thought, after a while, This is so important, I'm going to have to dig in.
	And I will credit Dennis Rancourt.
	Denis Rancourt is a Canadian scientist.
	He's an iconoclast, really.
	He's originally a physicist, I think.
	So he's skillful with numbers and statistics.
	But in particular, he's good at The sort of foundational beliefs in numerous scientific areas.
	He said it without exception.
	When I've been required to look into a new area, I go and find the best people in the field and I ask them to tell me what are the foundational things that you kind of have to believe in order to operate in this area.
	And he said that always one or more of those is wrong.
	And science doesn't proceed by experiments and disputes, as a physicist famously said, it proceeds one funeral at a time.
	So when a person champions a particular way of looking at a scientific discipline and eventually passes on, that's the moment where people think, well, you know, Professor Sally or Professor David was wonderful, but not sure they were quite right about X. And so that's usually how things change.
	It's when people feel free to have another look at the subject, like a new root and branch review.
	And so I decided anyway, I was going to consider what was going on with this whole vaccine story.
	And as I've said, Dennis Rancourt, to his credit and my demerit, several times sent me information, which I don't know why.
	Too much email and I haven't read properly what he'd sent me.
	But last year, eventually, I was listening to him giving an interview with Jeremy Nell, a guy who's a South African investigative journalist and cartoonist, by the way.
	He operates under the banner of a podcast called German Warfare with a J. J-E-R-M.
	It's a very good podcast.
	He interviewed me and a few other people.
	He likes to interview controversial people.
	And he interviewed Professor Rancourt, who explained, and as I listened to it, I had to go back over it two or three times, and I said to my wife, there's never been a virus.
	The thing about science, it's not a voting system, it's not a popularity contest, nor does it require 18 pieces of evidence.
	If one piece of evidence is sufficiently clear and undermines the prior theory, then the prior theory is wrong, even if you don't understand what is right.
	I will come back to it, but some of the things he said, I went over them again, I went to look at the core, the raw data, And then I checked in another country and it was absolutely right and I explained why.
	So in that moment I knew that there hadn't ever been a virus.
	So I'm just going to quickly step through, there's five or six bits of information and I'm going to give them as a human being would, not a scientist, because they're very... I don't want you to believe me, I don't want you, the listener, as a scientist to try and understand this.
	I just want you to listen to it as if we were talking, having a conversation.
	You can decide whether to trust my scientific credentials or not.
	But here's the first thing.
	Everyone knows this.
	When we were told that there was this frightening new pathogen striding across the world, you know, injuring people and killing people, and we all had to lock down.
	Did you notice something, folks?
	Our leaders were not frightened.
	They didn't exhibit Any fearful behaviour at all.
	They didn't modify their own lifestyles.
	And famously in Britain, our Prime Minister Boris Johnson eventually had to resign over something called party games, like Watergate.
	They were having parties.
	They were having parties during the time where public health officials and the Prime Minister had insisted we lock down, not go out, essentially.
	So hold on, they had scores of people having close contact indoors, sharing wine and snacks, listening to music and telling each other jokes.
	Does that sound consistent with the behaviour of people whose solemn duty was to warn you of a potentially fatal infectious disease, which if you got close to someone who had it and they claimed you could give it to someone even if you had no symptoms, is that behaviour?
	Consistent with what they told you.
	And the answer is of course it's not.
	It's consistent with the behavior of people who knew there was no new health threat in their environment.
	And they all did it in every country.
	So almost on its own.
	Almost on its own.
	That's pretty good.
	Without any science at all.
	They were not afraid.
	The next thing is, and this one is a matter of record.
	I've not done this, but I've seen some valiant, persistent groups under Freedom of Information Act requests write to public health officials all around the world.
	And they keep a table, a rolling table, of who they've written to and the response of the public health officials.
	And all they asked them for was an authentic sample of the virus.
	You know, from a laboratory, from a culture, from a patient, whatever.
	Do you have one?
	And if so, will you supply it?
	So the answer to the first question is, no, we don't have one.
	Not a single one.
	I think they've written to over 100, it might be over 200.
	Not a single one said, we even have it.
	They could have always said to the second question, can we have a sample?
	They might say, no, it's too hazardous to send to you.
	But the first question was, do you have it?
	And they all replied, no, if they replied at all.
	Now, there's loads of papers that claim to have, quote, isolated the virus.
	But I would point out to you that the public health departments of your state, your nation, doesn't have any of it.
	Why would they lie to someone who's written in?
	They haven't got it.
	That's quite interesting.
	Here's some that are just very practical.
	Did you notice that flu disappeared in early 2020?
	I mean, come on.
	We were never given an adequate explanation for this, but at this point, this is very important, whether you believe in viruses or don't believe in viruses.
	Influenza is a syndrome of symptoms.
	It's a constellation of very real symptoms.
	People can feel they can have a cough, they can have a high temperature, they may have muscle ache and so on.
	It's a real disorder.
	It doesn't matter what causes Most people have had flu or they know someone who's had flu.
	It's a real clinical description.
	Two things now.
	One, it's disappeared.
	All the cases just went into the floor everywhere.
	I've got an explanation for that in a moment.
	But at the same time, a new disease called COVID-19 popped up everywhere.
	Although you may get shouted at if you should suggest they're even vaguely related, but the official position of the National Health Service in the UK is that the symptoms of COVID-19 and flu are almost identical.
	I mean, they are identical.
	And there's a long list of symptoms, some of which are seen often in people with flu, and some that are seen almost always, and some that are just very rare.
	But, for example, the idea that you might lose your sense of smell.
	I remember when I was told that that was some unique property of this virus.
	I thought, that's what happens almost every time I have a cold.
	And I asked other people and half of them said, yes, of course, your sense of smell and taste is damaged after upper respiratory tract infection.
	But why, you the public, you didn't really believe that loss of smell was something new and unique.
	You've had that happen to you or other people around you.
	But And then every single one of the symptoms is seen in at least some people who have influenza-like illnesses.
	In fact, that's the official way that states record flu.
	They don't record flu, they record influenza-like illnesses.
	If you look up ILI, That's what's meant by flu, because no one really knows what causes it.
	Even when they attempted to type it as influenza A or influenza B, in the majority of cases, people with influenza-like illnesses had neither.
	Flu A nor Flu B. The honest truth is, and I didn't realise this until the last few years, we don't know what it is that precipitates these symptoms in most cases.
	We just had this model that it was a virus, but it doesn't quite fit the data.
	So flu disappears.
	And a new disease, COVID-19, arrived and the signs and symptoms are absolutely identical.
	So despite journalists telling you that's not the case, if you go back and look at medical journals, public health departments, they say it's very difficult to distinguish those.
	Of course, it's very difficult to distinguish those because they are one and the same thing.
	I would say that here's the killer data that if you want to be scientific about it, What we know, if you study what's called all-cause mortality, that is the number of people who die, their sex and age, in a particular community in the Northern Hemisphere winter, You see it rises every year and then it falls back again.
	So you get summer low death rates and winter high death rates.
	Now, it's not all caused by influenza-like illnesses, but it's thought that the majority of that increase in winter, in all-cause mortality, is caused by whatever it is that causes flu-like illnesses.
	They have a characteristic pattern which is always seen.
	What is that pattern?
	It is that whatever the rate of death for each age group, it's increased during this winter peak, but it's increased much more the older the age group.
	So whatever the death rate in 60 to 70 year olds goes up somewhat over winter, but it goes up much more in the 70 to 80 year olds and even more proportionately in 80 to 90.
	In other words, it's the most elderly and most frail who succumb to whatever it is that goes on in every winter peak.
	The all-cause mortality rises with an unbelievably crisp, clear, unambiguous fingerprint.
	That is what we always see for 50 years in the Northern Hemisphere.
	It's been studied in North America by every state.
	That's what they see.
	That, ladies and gentlemen, is not the pattern of increased all-cause mortality in North America.
	It's been studied for 150 weeks now, state by state, by Rancourt and colleagues and other groups now, and they don't see the biggest increase in the most frail and elderly.
	I think the biggest increase is in the 60 to 70-year-old group.
	So, whatever is going on, it's not the typical winter all-cause mortality elevation.
	That evidence cannot be got round.
	The fingerprint that is present in every winter season of influenza-like illnesses is missing from the COVID-19 era of death.
	And then, as I say, when you also note that flu disappeared, flu is generally diagnosed At least officially using a rotten PCR test.
	So it would be a trivial job to alter that test by agreement with the manufacturer so that it malfunctioned.
	It would be easy.
	I think there are two major manufacturers in the world.
	It would be easily possible to modify that kit, because it comes as a kit.
	People don't do new research.
	They get a flu kit and they use it.
	So if it's been deliberately sabotaged by arrangement, that would explain where flu went.
	And as Rainer mentioned, and many others have gone over it, the PCR test for so-called COVID-19 is completely fraudulent.
	It's not suitable for making clinical diagnoses.
	And the symptoms are the same.
	between flu and COVID.
	So, and then the, nothing actually happens at all until we get to so-called lockdown.
	The first time people were told to stay at home, that's when deaths started rising, because, and I think that's the moment they started mistreating people in hospital, whether following a protocol, I'm not suggesting they were all acting like Dr. Mengele, I think they were all following instructions from their public health departments.
	If someone comes in who's a suspected COVID case, for example, I've heard from a friend, the best chance of survival comes from prompt sedation, intubation and ventilation.
	Well, I've been in respiratory physiology and pharmacology for multiple decades, and I can tell you that's definitely an inappropriate course of treatment.
	Someone who's got an open airway so they can breathe on their own, No chest wall injury, no obstruction of their airway.
	They can breathe in and out on their own.
	If they needed to, if they were short of breath, short of blood, blood oxygen, you'd give them an oxygen mask.
	You definitely would not put them on.
	A ventilator machine, which is really quite an aggressive procedure.
	It comes with all sorts of injurious complexities.
	So, if you get a frail, elderly person and you ventilate them, I think you wouldn't need to do much else to result in a very high proportion of deaths.
	But they did do other things.
	Unfortunately, they were given, in America at least, intravenous so-called antiviral called remdesivir that doesn't work very well and is toxic to people's kidneys.
	That combination, just imagine your relative lying helpless on a bed, sedated and unconscious, and then someone comes up and injects them with this antiviral that shuts their kidneys down.
	A couple of days later they give you a call to say your loved one's fading away, you better come and hold their hand.
	You know, I believe very large numbers of people have been murdered And as I say, I don't think people giving the treatment always knew what they were doing was dangerous.
	They might have thought, this is unusual, we didn't do this in the past.
	Well, they'll be told by their senior doctor, but of course it's unusual.
	You know, we don't get pandemics every other year.
	Get back to your workstation.
	So that's what they did.
	In my country, people in care homes, old age facilities, were injected with both sedative and respiratory depressant drugs.
	So, Midazolam, it's basically an anxiolytic, it's related to Valium, but it lowers your likelihood of breathing.
	And then they were further given morphine, opiates, a painkiller.
	I did my PhD in this area, ladies and gentlemen.
	They have been known forever as powerful depressants of respiratory effort.
	If you take a small amount, you might not notice it.
	If you take a bigger dose, your breathing will become shallow.
	If you take an even bigger dose, you will just stop breathing.
	We even understand why that is and exactly how that's brought about.
	The combination of midazolam and morphine is contraindicated.
	That is, you're told not to do it as doctors, unless the patient is subject to close monitoring, the way they would be in intensive care.
	You know, a machine is going to beep every few seconds when you breathe in and out and so on.
	That's not what happened to your elderly relatives in care homes.
	They were given a subcutaneous dose of midazolam and morphine, And then they walked off and went down the corridor to the next room.
	Sooner or later they would come back and the person would be cold under their blanket.
	They'd just been given a dose of something that would stop their breathing.
	By the way, those two drugs are two-thirds of the chemical cocktail we call lethal injections in America.
	There's only one extra drug they add and it's something that actually stops the heart.
	So your relatives are given two-thirds of lethal injections.
	So that's that.
	Mike, this is exactly what Dr. Peter Bregan told me last night when I spoke to him.
	He was going to be with us, but he's still recovering from an illness.
	Let me just summarize again.
	You're quite right.
	I can wander off the point.
	But here's the point.
	The evidence is stark and unequivocal and unarguable.
	I've not heard anyone rebut.
	Dennis Rancourt's work.
	I've seen lots of people insult him.
	He's a crank, all this sort of stuff.
	It's the language they use when you go, when you're over the target, they call you a crank.
	If you're wrong, They just tell you why you're wrong.
	So they can't rebut what he has had to say.
	And I've seen reports from at least two other research groups, independent, that arrived at the same shocking conclusion, that the wrong, you know, the deaths, the elevated deaths were in the wrong age group for this to be a classic, you know, respiratory infection, the way they claim.
	And I just return you again, ladies and gentlemen, in case you think, well, maybe he's wrong about that.
	Our leaders were not scared.
	Do you think they're brave people or do you think they're cowardly people in the main?
	I would say they're pretty cowardly.
	Certainly not unusually physically brave.
	Do you believe for a moment that they would engage in activities that might expose them to something that could kill them personally?
	Of course they wouldn't.
	But there they were having parties.
	They had parties in the HQ's headquarters of major national newspapers.
	But certainly in No.
	10 Downing Street, because the Prime Minister was accused of it, and eventually that was one of the reasons why he lost public confidence and had to go.
	So it was definitely happening.
	I'd also point out something else.
	Although Queen Elizabeth II is now dead and died recently, in 2020, I think it was, maybe in 2021, she arrived and was a guest at one of the, I think it was a G7 or a G10 meeting that took place in Britain.
	And I remember at the time thinking, she's 94.
	I can't think of a more vulnerable person to this COVID disease if it was real.
	And the people who had just flown in, the leaders of all these top countries and their aides and assistants, so probably 30, 40, 50 people, they had not been screened.
	They had not entered quarantine.
	Nobody was wearing masks.
	There they were at a gala dinner.
	You know, and there's the Queen within a metre of these people shaking their hands and having conversations.
	Do you think, ladies and gentlemen, that the medical team that looks after the Queen would have allowed her to be in an environment in which she might, according to this narrative, acquire a lethal virus from any one of the people around her, given her age?
	What happens if she died of something that looked like Covid three weeks later?
	I mean, they would be flayed alive!
	So, of course, they also knew there was nothing new in terms of health hazards in their environment.
	They would not have allowed the Queen to be there.
	So you might think these are quite thin bits of evidence, but they are undeniable evidence.
	You can go and check the footage.
	That's what she was doing.
	So, leaders not scared, Queen not scared.
	Nobody can supply an authentic sample of the virus.
	They all said they don't have it.
	The symptoms of this new disease are the same as the symptoms of the disease we've known about forever, which we call influenza, or la grippe in France.
	And at the same time, flu disappeared.
	And I put it to you that all you need to do is modify one of the components, one of the, you know, the kit members inside that test, and then that's what you would get.
	And it's been well established that the PCR tests are completely untrustworthy and have been used in a mendacious way all the way around the world.
	And that's because there wasn't a new virus.
	Why would you need to use a Why would you cheat?
	Why would you lie?
	Right?
	If you had a genuine health emergency, you'd be busy measuring it accurately and warning people.
	And the leaders, of course, would also take precautions to not die themselves.
	No, no.
	They lied to you.
	They behaved in a way they would, knowing there was nothing new going on.
	And they applied broken, unscientific, untrustworthy tests, which even their original inventor, Dr. Cary Mullis, said is not a suitable tool.
	for clinical diagnosis, even though he won a Nobel Prize for the technology, so I think you should understand it.
	And then finally, we did not see the typical fingerprints of a sort of respiratory winter death that we've seen every prior year.
	It was simply absent in 2020, and nothing much happened until lockdown, where bad medical practices started being applied.
	And then finally, from my point of view as a Drug Discovery Scientist, when I looked at the so-called, the design of the so-called vaccines, I was actually horrified and wrote with Wolfgang Modar a public letter before any of these so-called vaccines had regulatory approved authorization.
	So we put on record before any of them had authorization to say, you know, these are our concerns.
	And we were right about our concerns and we missed that there were some additional toxicities we had not guessed.
	So there it is, folks, that you were live to.
	Our leaders acted as they would if there was nothing going on.
	Pseudo-scientific tests were applied to frighten you.
	The media, of course, have been in on it.
	And then when you go and look at the actual public record of of who died, it's simply not consistent with what they were telling you.
	And that's about as far as I can go.
	Everything they've told us is a lie, including the ways that there was a new pathogen.
	That wasn't true either.
	Mike, what about, as Colombo or I think Steve Jobs did it too, as they used to say, one more thing, what about gain-of-function experiments?
	Oh yeah, gain-of-function.
	So, actually, just before I get on to gain-of-function, I should say, in case people get upset, because they sometimes say, if there was no virus, what did my grandmother, grandfather die of?
	And it's like, Well, they almost certainly died of the things they would have died of in 2019 or earlier.
	It's just, it's bizarre that people seem to have forgotten that you could get ill in the winter, or indeed at any time, but with a higher frequency in winter.
	So I am not, I don't deny COVID-19.
	I just think it's not the right label for the clinical presentation.
	I think, I think these people had influenza.
	If they had anything at all, lots of people had nothing but fear and they turned up panicked.
	And then we're treated to a dose of mechanical ventilation and killed in the hospital.
	That bad.
	So, yes.
	So, I am not saying people weren't ill.
	I'm not saying people didn't die.
	Both of those things happened.
	I'm only telling you that you've been lied to about the cause.
	That's all I'm saying.
	So, gain of function.
	Here's the thing.
	Obviously, if you don't agree with what I'm about to say, then the logic falls apart.
	But it's been my observation that the media have been extraordinarily one-sided about everything since Covid began.
	I stopped watching it after a few months.
	I couldn't bear it.
	So if you think that the media have continued to do a good job of even-handed exploration of all the issues of the day, then You should just put your fingers in your ears at this point, because it's not going to fly.
	But most of us know that the media have just behaved particularly appallingly, in that they've never given House streams anything at all except the official narrative.
	They've just become nothing but propagandists.
	And so, those of you who know that's true, this next bit of logic is really important.
	If the media is controlled, And whatever appears on maybe American TV networks is by definition, it has the approval of the perpetrators or is even placed there by the perpetrators.
	Nothing, so there's nothing accidental, there's nothing major accidentally appears on the telly is my contention.
	And since they have control of it, why did the story of gain of function repeatedly come up?
	Why was the controversy early on about whether or not Fauci and Farrar had a conversation about Denying a laboratory cause and it must have been a natural origin.
	I remember at the time thinking that they are in control of the media.
	Why are they putting this on the telly?
	And I came to the conclusion in the light of all of this stuff, this other evidence, that they wanted to make sure that you would think one of only two possible things about this in terms of origins.
	Either it was a natural thing that jumped from a pangolin and bats into human or You weren't allowed to think, well, is there any evidence that there's a new pathogen at all?
	You're not allowed to have that.
	And I believe the purpose of this story was to get people to target fixate on this because the watcher would be thinking, well, you know, either those bad people in government and their scientific people, they're up to no good.
	Or, as they say, it's something that emerged out of the wild.
	And the more you listen, the more you think, yeah, he's guilty.
	They've been pumping money, doing an end run around the wonderful Barack Obama's banned gain-of-function experiments.
	Remember that he supposedly banned them as too dangerous.
	And so they work through A university and then a separate company and then there were funding work at Wuhan and I think the purpose of that is, as I've just said, it's to make you think that the thing either was natural or it was from the lab and not think the unthinkable, which is what is the really a new virus at all?
	And I think a little embarrassment of Doctor Fauci and a couple of others was a price worth paying for getting people to So to take that view, and I will say, and so my embarrassment, clever people I know were sending me messages saying, there, look, it proves dot, dot, dot.
	I said, you haven't really fallen for the fact that this is a piece of propaganda.
	They didn't have to tell you about this, but they've embarrassed the administration.
	Why have they done that?
	And they've done that to make you think.
	That it's a laboratory construct rather than a psychological construct.
	Oh, I have a final thing, actually.
	And this is something, again, is non-science.
	And I think when I explain this to people, they'll think, oh yeah, he's right.
	Imagine, let's say I'm the person who's thought of this harebrained scheme to release a synthetic virus on the world.
	And I'm presenting with my scientific colleagues to the perpetrators.
	And when they finish, the lead perpetrator says, so Dr. Eden, if I've understood it, You propose to release this synthetic virus.
	Let me ask you a couple of questions about what's going to happen after that.
	Now, immediately I say, well, you know, I'm not, I'm not, I don't have a crystal ball.
	I can only say what I hope will happen.
	He said, that's just the point.
	Is it possible that the viral infection will just burn itself out in a few weeks?
	And I'd say yes, it's certainly possible.
	What probability do you associate with that?
	I'd say, well, hopefully less than 10%, but it could be one in three.
	OK, that's interesting.
	And then in terms of lethality, this is a novel thing.
	So you haven't tested it.
	And seeing how many people actually killed, right?
	Well, we've done animal experiments, and say, but animals aren't humans, and you're having to use an extrapolation factor.
	So I said to Eden, how lethal do you expect this to be?
	And I've talked to my colleagues, and we'll say, well, we think maybe three to 10 times as serious as toilet.
	And they'll say, well, so could you exclude that it might be 10 to 30 volts?
	I'll say, no, you can't exclude that, because they almost overlap.
	Three, 10, 10, 30.
	All right, so they've said, so if we've got this right, you could release this virus, we could approve this, it might fade out, just disappear, or it could turn out to be, you know, several times more serious than any prior respiratory disease pandemic and pretty much pull civilization over.
	And I'd say, well, I don't think either of those are likely, so you can't exclude them.
	And in fact, you have to add the probabilities of bad outcome A or bad outcome B.
	What's the probability it's going to create just the right amount of pandemic fear?
	And I'd say, well, yeah, it's not a vast majority.
	I think then the senior perpetrators would look to their left and right and say, ladies and gentlemen, we're not going to do this.
	Back to me.
	Come back when you've got a plan that's much better controlled than this one.
	And I think the answer was, it's exactly the same as the plan I told you before, except we're not actually going to release a virus.
	We're just going to tell people, release the virus, and we've got these tests that will convince people that actually, oh yes, you're sick with Covid, or oh yes, they died of Covid.
	And they say, that sounds much better, don't you?
	Not again.
	So I think that's exactly what they've done.
	Releasing a real pathogen could go so badly wrong, and these people like control over nothing else.
	They wouldn't allow the level of variability, natural, they would not be able to control it.
	If they genuinely released a pathogen, they would lose control of it the moment they did it.
	And anything, almost anything could happen.
	Maybe it would undergo recombination and become even worse.
	I think they would talk to each other and say, this is completely reckless.
	We may lose control in our desire to take a grab for everybody in the world, because we lose everything.
	So we need a better scheme.
	And I think the better scheme is the one I described to you, which is, I think, the one that has actually happened.
	No virus, just a story about a test.
	Any other questions?
	I have a question and that is that the points that you have made here succinctly are based on common sense and yet
	A lot of people out there would juxtapose that common sense with what they are being told by their family physician or some other person that they're in close contact with who is a professional in some capacity.
	And then how do they reconcile these things?
	And in which direction do they move?
	Well, my own experience, frustratingly, Joseph, is that most people believe their doctor and their family friend.
	Maybe Meredith will help us with that.
	So I'd say the common sense of it, you can debate for yourself, and you can even, if your family friend or doctor says, oh no, no, he's completely wrong, there's definitely a virus, you could ask them, well, so why was it then that they behaved, it sounds to me like they took very risky behavior.
	Is that really your understanding of politicians and so on?
	But the thing you can go and check, you have to be able to read scientific papers, which is the problem, is the epidemiological evidence is unequivocal.
	That's not common sense.
	That's a matter of public record.
	But yes, I would say it's very frustrating.
	The most common response I get when I explain this, even to people that I would say are on our side, They believe that senior people are up to no good.
	But they still say to me, well, I hear your argument, Mike, but, and here's the thing, they'll say, I was ill in, I'll give you a date, I've never been so ill before, therefore COVID.
	It's not even logical, but I've had it dozens of times.
	In June 2020, I was ill, I've never been so ill as that, must have been COVID.
	And I've got, I've had this from consultant physicians, journalists, scientists like me.
	And when I'm listening to it, I'm thinking, oh my God, They're accessing a part of their brain and their reasoning, which isn't what I'm trying to address, and that's why I'm failing.
	So you ask good questions, and they will reject it.
	They will reject it.
	It's incredibly frustrating.
	I also think some people are in love with the virus.
	Probably the wrong word, but they are now so attuned to living a life that contains this hazard, as they see it, which they have perhaps done battle with, or strong enough to have resisted, or they've complied with masking and distancing.
	And I think some of them, I think, will fall apart if they allow the virus to leave their life.
	But I'm speculating, that's not science.
	But so that's the thing.
	They do tend to believe their doctor and trusted friends.
	That's very frustrating.
	It is incredibly frustrating.
	Vivi Meredith, you can address that?
	Is that something that you're comfortable addressing?
	About why they would believe the not common sense, but what everybody else is telling them?
	Yeah, that's what happens in an abusive system, is there's that narrative that everybody is subscribed to.
	And this will happen in a one-on-one relationship as well.
	Because every psychological abuser, they use gaslighting as a tool to distort the perception of reality and they push away everything that contradicts that narrative so that the target is completely subscribed to that perception of reality.
	That's very interesting, thank you.
	That would fit what people, when I've had backs and forth and then we've had another conversation and I can see I'm not going to win it.
	But it is my Belief, and it could be wrong, that some people are almost in love with this virus.
	It's become such an important part of their life now, that if I knock away this thing that they've been frightened of, but have managed somehow to not die from, that they will collapse.
	So it's not just someone's bullet in their head, it's somehow become an important part of the way they They interact with the world.
	I don't know.
	That's exactly what it was designed to do.
	Because if we... I don't know if you've seen Professor Matthias Desmet's theory on mass formation.
	I agree with everyone he says, except that I don't agree with his idea that this is a self-igniting mass formation.
	Rather, we know for a fact, and I'm pretty sure Meredith will be able to tell us more about it, That there are people who are responsible for this, but the basis of everything is I think if I remember correctly is Long-term, free-floating anxiety.
	That's right.
	I think 70% of the people who live in Berlin are single, living in single households, meaning that they're, it used to be different, it used to be large families, but now they're single households and they have been living in this single household situation for the last two decades or so.
	So things have completely changed, and not by accident, but rather by What Catherine Austin Fitch calls Mr. Global's attempts at making them feel insecure, isolated, afraid of something that they can't really put their finger on.
	And that's exactly why when they came up with COVID, this kind of gave security to some of these people.
	Because just like you're saying, all of a sudden they felt, oh, now we know what we have to be afraid of.
	We're so happy we can unite on this cause.
	That's right.
	Yes, I'd forgotten about that.
	And yes, and he said also that the following the instruction from public health becomes a ritual that you see other people doing.
	And so you feel part of something important.
	If you wear your mask and you socially distance and you see other people doing it and you collectively keep others in line, then you become a good person and you're part of something important and you have Control which might they might not have felt control for years.
	So yeah, but even now though three years later.
	People don't want to let go.
	I've been subject, I would say I've been subject to the worst insults from my own side since I came out and said I don't think there was ever any pathogen of any kind.
	That's really pissed people off.
	It's upset them.
	But I mean, it is what it is.
	But if I can't, I do say, if I can't persuade people who I regard as allies and know that the rest is a lie, what hope do I have of Persuading a significant number of people who are still attached to the narrative.
	I don't know.
	I can only put it out there and hope that it's useful to some people.
	In American culture this fits into a larger pattern and the term for that that's become popular is virtue signaling.
	Yeah, yeah.
	So it's part and parcel of a larger cultural movement.
	Yes.
	And here's another thing, if I may add on to what you said, and thank you very much for this very, as Joseph correctly said, succinct presentation.
	We know for a fact now, in hindsight, that there has been no excess mortality anywhere until the rollout of the so-called vaccination campaign.
	Now, a lot of people will say... Is that true?
	I thought there was some increase in deaths.
	After lockdown, because I think that was true.
	Yeah, but that had to do with, that was due to, as you said, due to medical malpractice.
	But actually there were only spikes.
	In New York, for example, and they hyped this on television, or in Bergamo.
	But we know for a fact that in Bergamo, the numbers were doctored.
	What they did in Bergamo is, in anticipation of all the corona or COVID infections, they would clear the hospitals because a lot of people who were frightened had gone to the hospitals even though they were just suffering from the common flu or a cold.
	And they cleared the hospitals and transferred the patients into the nursing homes, which is where the vulnerable people are.
	And they, the people in the nursing homes, they had gotten vaccinated a couple of months before that.
	So there, I forget what it was, maybe it's just a flu shot, but so their immune systems were already, well, sort of damaged.
	So what happens if you put seriously ill people with a serious cold or maybe just the flu, if you put them next to someone who is elderly and frail and whose immune system has been damaged, What happens is some of them die, and that's exactly what happened.
	Then they hype these pictures by showing caskets, coffins that were being cleared away by army trucks as though it was impossible to do it.
	So it was just a lie, just another lie.
	Same thing in New York.
	And in hindsight, we know that 94% of the people who allegedly died of COVID died of completely other causes than Bergamot.
	And there's another piece of information.
	There was a German pathologist who is now retired, but he did, even though the RKI, which is the equivalent, the German equivalent of the CDC, had explicitly prohibited to do that, he performed autopsies on people who had died allegedly of COVID.
	And in 100% of the cases he found, they died of completely other causes, and all of them had lived long past.
	Their average life expectancy.
	So it's just a big lie.
	I'm not going to go into that because we've talked about it many times before.
	But it's just a big lie.
	So what this boils down to, in my view, is if this is true for COVID, the Corona pandemic, if this is just based on a big lie, what else is?
	What about climate change, global warming?
	Because it's the same people who are telling us this.
	Can it be true that maybe they're just experimenting, they're not as powerful as they try to make us believe?
	But could it be true that if we pull away the curtain, just like in that movie, The Wizard of Oz, there's just this tiny little person sitting who doesn't know a thing?
	No, I'm sure that, you know, frankly, if this bunch of Psychopathic control creeps would just leave us alone.
	I think we would find a beautiful burgeoning world that's mostly peaceful underneath.
	Yeah.
	We don't need these people.
	These people are responsible for almost all of the bad things going on.
	Oh yeah.
	And mostly people are good and they just want to get on with their lives.
	Yeah.
	What do you think, Meredith?
	Is this a theory that is completely unrealistic?
	No, I think Mike is actually really on to something when he says, it's almost like these people are in love with the idea of the virus.
	And as you mentioned, the climate change and everything else, we're going to see the same clinging to these narratives.
	Why?
	Because the abuser, the psychological abuser, gaslights and creates this perception of reality.
	Then we have the target who clings to that because even though they start to see signs that something is not okay, To think that everything they have believed up until now is a lie would be terrifying.
	But often what happens is that moment of when the disruptive truth comes through, the person's reality shatters, it's extremely disorienting and destabilizing.
	To the point where the person feels so alone, so crazy, those feelings quickly escalate into thoughts of suicide, particularly if the person lacks a healthy social environment.
	If they lack people outside of that abusive relationship or system, like a family, a workplace, or even a small social group where that happens.
	That's why the social connection is so important.
	For our sanity and our well-being and that is exactly what the fear attacks.
	And so if we follow the science because by the way in these psychological abusive relationships long before it gets to that collapse point where the person no longer knows what to believe is even true anymore.
	There's been this constant long progression of the fear propaganda campaign and so they did scientific studies before 2020 that showed one was called appealing to fear a meta-analysis of fear appeal effectiveness and that was 2015.
	They found that using fear appeals is effective at influencing a person's attitude, intentions, and behaviors, that there are very few circumstances under which these are not effective, and that there are no identified circumstances under which these fear appeals backfire.
	So they always lead to the outcome, which means you pump the fear and you get them to do what you want.
	They also found in that study that when the messaging about the fear includes efficacy statements, that increases the effectiveness of the appeal.
	So let's think about the marketing campaign of the vaccine.
	Safe and effective.
	The other study they did in 2018 was called Uplifting Fear Appeals, and this was considering the role of hope in fear-based persuasive messages.
	And this is really interesting because they found that feelings of hope in response to the fear appeals contribute to their persuasive success.
	So we look at the propaganda campaigns that YouTube used, for example.
	Their campaign was, get back to what you love.
	They did all these videos, why you should get vaccinated.
	You can see your elderly family members.
	You can see the newborn babies.
	You can connect with people and socialize and do family and life and everything, right?
	So using the hope to stoke that in the fear appeals.
	What they wanted, and that's why that 2020 study, the Yale study, which I mentioned in the Grand Jury of Public Opinion last year, that Yale tested 10 fear-laced messages on what was going to be the most effective messaging to get people to get vaccinated.
	Every one of those used some kind of fear appeal.
	Why?
	Because they already knew that that was going to be the most effective tactic, because fear is the currency of control.
	Okay.
	So in that study, their outcome measures were get people to get vaccinated, get people to trust the vaccine, get people to get other people to get vaccinated, get people to fear the unvaccinated, and get people to socially judge the unvaccinated.
	Wow.
	So all of that.
	And the kicker though is a study they did in 2017 which is called Public Health Consequences of Social Isolation and Loneliness.
	And what they discovered is that the prolonged social isolation and loneliness causes both cardiovascular and mental health negative outcomes.
	So they made a plea in that study that prevention strategies should be developed in public health to not allow that to happen.
	So we see they did the exact opposite of everything we knew.
	Why?
	Because they wanted the loss of social connection.
	Why is that so key?
	Because social bonding and social connection is a biological imperative for human beings as mammals.
	That's why the person in that abusive relationship so badly needs that social support.
	When we have been under prolonged forced isolation, They also know that changes happen in the nervous system, such that when the person is then given an opportunity to socialize after that long period of isolation, they're more irritable and aggressive.
	So when we look at the headlines that we're seeing lately in the world, we're seeing lots of violence and aggression and even in interpersonal relationships, we see that irritability and Two years ago, doing online dating, that was in the peak of the fear.
	The peak of the fear when people were afraid of one another.
	More people were still connecting and willing to meet in real life and able to form a connection than now.
	Now, when we're supposedly past all of that fear, people are very defensive.
	They don't want to meet in person.
	And what happens is, when our defensive system is engaged in the nervous system, what is the defensive system?
	It's fight or flight.
	It's fight, flight, freeze, and font.
	So when we get into the defensive system, the attachment system is shut down.
	It goes offline.
	That's our social bonding system.
	So the whole key was to use the fear to separate people, not just for those two, three years while that happened, but we're only just starting to see the tip of the iceberg of the ramifications and consequences among people.
	And we need each other to keep ourselves sane and healthy.
	And so this is only going to get worse.
	And they're going to keep using each of these narratives, whether it's the pandemic, it's the climate, it's the war, it's the economy, whatever it's going to be.
	to keep further separating us, which is affecting our physical, mental and spiritual health.
	Absolutely.
	Thank you.
	Yes, it's devastating, but everything you told me rang true personally as well.
	You know, it's not just hearing you as a scientist, but yeah, and also what evil people they are to have worked out what's the way to maximise suffering.
	Yeah.
	There you go folks.
	So again, if there's genuinely been an escape or whatever, the emergence of some public health threat, you've heard the testimony of Meredith Miller.
	They've used the things that were most likely to terrify and harm you.
	Surely in the past they'd be trying to calm you down, make sure you You know, survive well, and that would include maintaining social connections where appropriate.
	So, no, they did everything they could to make things worse for you.
	And yeah, isolation and fear can cause illness in and of themselves.
	You don't need to add anything else.
	Those are, like, Dennis Renkel told me that they are established to be, I think, some of the strongest causes of illness.
	That is exactly what Meredith was just saying, that some of the strongest causes of illness in we who are social animals. - So here's the thing, and I would like to ask a question, pose a question to Joseph as a philosopher.
	Here's the thing.
	They're using fear in order to keep us under control to make us follow orders because in that state most of us not all of us not us for example will tend to follow orders when the very first rally or demonstration I ever went to was in Berlin there were Almost 2 million people there in August of 2020.
	The mainstream media made them into 17,000 people.
	But we know for a fact that it was between 1.5 and 2 million people.
	And the speaker before me was Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
	And he told the story about how after World War II, Hermann Goering, one of the major main war criminals who was on trial in Nuremberg, Um, he was asked, how did you do this?
	I mean, you have, is it because there's a communist system or, or is it because of the political system?
	How could you turn Germans who were well-educated into monsters?
	And he said, it doesn't matter if it's, um, uh, if it's a communist or capitalist system, it just doesn't matter.
	The only thing you need is fear.
	Fear.
	And that's probably what, uh, Franklin D. Roosevelt picked up on after the war in 1946 when he told his people, The only thing you have to be afraid of, the only thing you have to fear is fear itself.
	So the people who are doing this in order to kill other people, because that's the bottom line.
	We're talking about genocide in the meantime.
	They're truly evil, as you just said, Mike.
	What do you do with these people, Joseph, from a lawyer's standpoint?
	And I couldn't have done a better closing argument than you just did, Mike.
	But from a lawyer's standpoint, there has to be punishment because without punishment, without the rule of law, without justice, there cannot be democracy.
	What do you think about this, Joseph?
	Well, I think that one of the major issues there has to do with identifying the perpetrators and the networks of perpetrators.
	And so far, I haven't seen very much of that kind of identification taking place in the media.
	I haven't seen it in... I've seen a little bit of it in sort of the social media, but absent identifying people, naming them, and naming the crime that they have committed, And the people that are behind them pushing them absent that.
	There's not going to be a revelation in terms of people being able to wake up, really.
	I think that it's a factor of being kind of obscure then.
	It remains obscure that there are forces out there that are perpetrating this, but they're never really identified.
	They can move in, they can move out with impunity, and they can cover their tracks.
	They can move on to the next atrocity.
	If they're tired of dealing with the COVID thing because it's not working out well enough, then they'll move on to the next issue, which is climate change or whatever the next topic is, the war.
	And they will essentially get off scot-free.
	And so I think that it's incumbent on I think we can do that, Joseph.
	We know a few.
	Some of the names have been mentioned already.
	Drosten, Fauci, Tedros, the big corporations that participated in this, both the pharmaceutical industry, Pfizer, Moderna, and the tech industry that profited from this.
	Follow the money.
	I think it's not going to be very hard to identify these people.
	The problem will be in the end.
	Can they get away with the defense of insanity?
	Because it's obvious that they all, including the doctors, that they all participated and many of them were bribed.
	Many of them were Of course, that's another possibility.
	We'll have to look into this.
	But the first thing you have to do is go after those who you can see.
	We know there's others behind them, but we'll take us where the evidence takes us.
	And we'll go where the evidence takes us.
	And I do think That once we find a court, it's not the problem that we don't have the evidence.
	The problem for us lawyers is to find a court of law that will listen to it, that will look at the evidence, that will listen to our experts.
	And we know that it's a matter of pure luck.
	It's an impossible to find that in Europe anywhere, in particular in Germany.
	It's impossible.
	Um, but there are some states or there are some places in the United States where the law still functions, where people have, judges have been elected.
	There's India, which is also promising, but we have found a platform.
	I can't talk about it yet, but we have found a platform, a very independent, totally independent judiciary that will give us a fair hearing.
	It's I don't think it's going to be so hard to identify those who are responsible.
	It's going to be a little bit harder to find those who are behind those who we can see there are we know that there are people behind Fauci and Drosten and Tedros.
	We know that there are others who are pulling their strings.
	Our colleague, my colleague, Michael Swinwood from Ontario, Canada, he filed the first class action complaint in Ontario and then out of disgust with the Ontario judiciary, he left and he's been living in Peru ever since.
	But he not only sued for damages, not only sued the health care minister of the province of Ontario and Justin Trudeau, and of course the Bill at Melinda Gates Foundation, but he also sued the Vatican and the House of Windsor.
	That was maybe a little too soon, but we know.
	We know that they're responsible, except we don't have the evidence.
	There's lots of evidence, but it needs to be conclusive.
	Maybe it was too early, but we know that these people and others are behind this.
	The time will come.
	The first step is always the hardest, but we will make it very soon.
	Yes.
	And we'll bring these people to trial.
	Yes, thank you.
	Actually, I just wanted to drop something.
	It's a new thought, but it's very important, because we may struggle to persuade other people.
	But most of you will be aware, or probably all of you are aware, that
	There are international health regulations that have existed for about a century and have been gradually modified, and at the moment the WHO is agitating to have these changed in such a way that ultimately, if the changes that are being considered now are agreed, then the WHO, if the WHO in their sole discretion declares that there's either a pandemic or even a risk of a pandemic,
	The way these regulations are, they take control of every country who's a member state and can insist they do certain things, including lockdowns, testing and vaccinations.
	I mean, it's unbelievable.
	I've said to people, I simply won't, I don't believe, my government does not have the power to give away my rights.
	I would say that I simply won't recognise it.
	On the other hand, The police might be told, look, I'm sorry, it's not us, it's the WHO.
	Lockdown is in place, Dr Evie.
	If you don't go home, I have to arrest you.
	So that's the sort of thing.
	It's that scary.
	But there's something very important to say.
	As an immunologist, severe respiratory disease pandemics are impossible.
	They're not possible.
	And I'll be able to demonstrate this.
	I mean, I can tell you in a few seconds, which is, Think of a mild disease like the common cold.
	Most of the time you could continue through your day.
	You might be inclined to sit down in a darkened room, but you probably could if you had to.
	And therefore, assuming transmission takes place at all, some people don't believe it does, so here's a disease where you can stay on your feet and continue to transmit it.
	So it could become pandemic, it could travel around the world, but the public health consequences are minor.
	Now we go to the other extreme, have something that's as transmissible as that, but is like Ebola.
	Now, this is the important thing.
	You might think that would be a fearful prospect, but it wouldn't frighten me.
	It's not possible for these things to carry around the world.
	Why?
	Because within hours of acquiring it, you're ill.
	Within a day or so, you're dead.
	And so the number of people you can infect is de minimis.
	The more severe the disease, the more quickly you are involuntarily withdrawn from Social contact and transmission stops.
	And that's why there's never been a really serious disease pandemic spreading around the world.
	It's immunologically impossible.
	If it wasn't, we wouldn't be here.
	In another world in which that might have been possible, well, that world ended.
	You know, all the people on it died.
	And so we've grown up, funnily enough, in an environment in which it's not possible immunologically.
	So, what I've just said to you fits your observations.
	There's never been one.
	And yet the WHO and Garvey and CEPI are all agitating about how they need these powers because it's the era of pandemics, don't you know?
	It's just, it's all complete lies.
	But here's the thing, they know what I've just said is true.
	They know what I've just said is true.
	They haven't got a wafer of scientific support behind this and yet I'm afraid to say folks, you know, they're busy gathering, garnering the power to allow them to, quote, protect us if one of these things should happen.
	Why do you think they've got, why do you think they're so keen to have this power when they know it's immunologically impossible?
	And it's because they're going to fake another one of these events and lock the world down.
	Yeah.
	But unfortunately, I've got this knowledge, and it only occurred to me a few months ago, that the situation they tell us that We should be frightened off, and that's why we're putting in place these new systems of central control.
	It only occurred to me a few months ago, it's actually impossible.
	And funnily enough, it's never happened.
	But you know what?
	Even if it was possible, the very worst thing you would do is centralize the response.
	Why?
	By definition, it's novel.
	By definition, no one knows what the optimum thing to do is, do they?
	Why would you want to leave one Ethiopian minister for the world?
	Wouldn't it be true that, as always has happened in humankind, the best way to find the best solution is to let individual groups innovate and communicate with each other?
	You'd find, not only would you test all sorts of ways to respond, so you'd actually know which one was the best one, whereas if you just adopt one central response, the only thing I can be sure of is it won't be optimal, and you'll never know what optimal was.
	So it's wrong.
	If you centralise it, you're guaranteed to get the worst possible outcome and not learn.
	So why would anyone even agree with this?
	Even if the setup was correct, which it's not, it's impossible, why would they agree to it?
	Because it's not a suboptimal, it's a disaster.
	But, you know, there you go.
	That's what happens when you have Basically, a totally corrupt system is going completely off the rails.
	That's why I'm very worried that they will do that, because lots of people will believe it, even though I know it's impossible.
	So then when you combine what I've just said with what they're doing, with the observation that they're putting up manufacturing plants for mRNA vaccines all around the world, when I've told you Others won't disagree with me.
	They are axiomatically dangerous.
	That is, if you inject something that codes for a foreign protein, and always it will, because you're used to the idea of it being foreign, because it's meant to teach your immune system, right?
	But if you inject messenger RNA, your cells that get transfected become a factory for that foreign protein.
	Every time your cell, any cell, makes something that's not self, non-self, your immune system goes in and kills it.
	It will actually kill that cell.
	There's no other way your body can keep a pristine Only self-environments intact, except by looking for non-self at all times.
	And when it sees non-self, it sends in lethal cellular and non-cellular mediators to destroy it.
	So that's why I'm saying, if you repeatedly inject those people, it doesn't matter what, it doesn't have to be spike protein, it could be anything at all that's not human, you will induce autoimmune attack.
	And if it lands in your heart or your pregnant uterus, you'll get heart attacks or miscarriage.
	It's not been any fun having the knowledge I've got.
	It's not enjoyable at all.
	I can't even kid myself that maybe I'm wrong.
	That's like lesson one of immunology.
	How is it that you keep yourself free of invaders?
	Basically, your body has tuned out the ability to attack itself.
	It's called self-tolerance.
	And that means that anything that isn't self will be recognized easily as not self and attacked.
	That's how you defend yourself with a vigorous immune system from invasion, because there are all sorts of things.
	We swim in non-sterile environments, and yet most of us stay well for decades.
	That's how we do it.
	But if you inject someone with mRNA that encodes any non-self protein, you will cause disease.
	And if you keep doing it, you will kill them.
	And I think that's the method.
	So they're setting up a control system which is dependent on absurdities which people are going to believe.
	You know, global pandemics of severe diseases.
	And then they're going to centralise the power, which is mad.
	You need to have it distributed so you run lots of separate experiments and then communicate the result.
	And then finally, again, to address them with injections that people are going to roll their sleeves up for, which will injure them.
	And if you do it often enough, they'll die.
	So that's why I quite quickly grew the It's about not just totalitarian control but depopulation.
	And then finally, since it's so ghastly, I think a lot of people have lost faith and so they're only good at distinguishing good from bad.
	You know, like a good box of chocolates or a bad box of chocolates.
	Whereas that's not, that's the wrong axis.
	We're dealing with good and evil.
	All of these actions are evil.
	And most people have got so far from faith Nature, God, whatever you will, they don't recognize that axis even exists.
	You've got the good v. bad, but actually the axis is at 90 degrees.
	It's good v. evil.
	And I can't see anything but evil driving this.
	How can ordinary people sleep at night?
	And the answer is they're not ordinary people.
	They're not.
	They're completely evil, crazy people.
	And they're not crazy.
	We often say evil crazy people, but they're very clever evil people, is what we're dealing with, unfortunately.
	But that's why I'm fairly sure what's coming our way is bad, and anything we can do to trip them up, delay them, I'm for it, because I couldn't have tried harder.
	I think there are a lot of things we can do.
	One of the most important things is exposing this, and the way you exposed it, the way you talk about it is commonsensical.
	People understand what you're saying, not just scientists, and that's very, very important.
	I do think that the people who are on our side of the fence, Are doing the right things.
	We're not enough yet.
	We're enough to change this game.
	Definitely.
	But we're not enough to do it overnight.
	That would require a big majority of the people.
	And we don't have that yet.
	But we are the ones... I keep saying this because I totally agree with you.
	This is not just...
	Wrong and right.
	This is good and evil.
	So we're dealing with people who are truly evil, who have no empathy whatsoever, who don't care about us.
	Some of them have simply sold out because some of the doctors have sold out because they were bribed.
	They were making so much money administering the so-called vaccines.
	Others have been extorted, have been put under pressure for various reasons.
	We'll have to get into that as well.
	But the one thing they cannot control, and I don't think they're intelligent in the sense of connected with, this is a grand word, but connected with the universe, having what we have, intuition and creativity.
	That's what we have.
	They don't.
	That's why all these big corporations, they're not creative.
	They need to buy small businesses in order to get the creative people in.
	So that's our big advantage, I think.
	Our creativity and our intuition, which they cannot make any sense of, they don't even understand it.
	They don't even understand that we can laugh and dance and sing because they can't.
	They just, as in this interview with Sasha Latipova, in which she said, hey, based on the testimony of whistleblower, Brooke Jackson, who, by the way, whose case against Whose case against Pfizer was just dismissed.
	Well, based on her testimony and based on Pfizer's defense.
	It is obvious that no trials have ever been conducted.
	They just went through the motions, or as Bobby Kennedy said, it was simple kabuki theater in order to make the public believe that there's no trials.
	Yes.
	No, it's true.
	So that's another thing, folks, if you don't know it, just really quickly, what you've been injected with is not what you were told you were injected with.
	And it's, you know, and there are cleverer people than me who work in manufacturing, who knew that from the beginning, that in order to put in the glass vials, what they told you that were in the glass vials, it would have taken several years of manufacturing research, not just general clinical research, but the research necessary to be able to do all of the steps one after another to produce the final products consistently takes years, and they have months.
	So QED They've dumped any old stuff in there.
	We don't know.
	It'll be tremendously variable.
	It's the only thing you can say.
	It's not possible.
	I remember saying to people, the one thing I'm sure of is that it'll be very consistent.
	And that was because one thing the industry is known for is the ability to manufacture consistent products over billions of unit doses.
	Yeah, they are.
	But they usually take six, seven, eight years to do so.
	And then it's good.
	If you do it in a few months, then It will be, I think it's legally a prototype.
	It's a manufacturing prototype.
	And that's what you got injected with.
	And I think that explains quite a bit, or at least it's a big contributor to the variability.
	There's some people who have been injected and have no side effects and others died the same day.
	And that's because the product will be just chaotically variable.
	I mean, it's just unbearably reckless what they've done, but they don't care.
	It's unbearably reckless.
	Look at it on paper and then say, I'm just going to give you an undefined amount of an undefined substance.
	And they gave it to your child, your wife, you.
	So how can you believe that this is genuine?
	You know, when I've told you everything's a lie and then it never stops unfolding, does it, Rainer?
	You know, as you say, it's Sacha Latif at People's Data, a guy I know called Hedley Rees, who spent 40 years in R&D.
	He's been shouting from the sidelines to say, I don't know what's in the bottles, but it's not what they've been telling him.
	It's not possible.
	Let me explain why it's not possible.
	It just never stops unfolding.
	One ghastly discovery after another.
	So that's why it takes a long time.
	It's difficult.
	It's as difficult in its own way as manufacturing an airplane or a car.
	And as somebody said, it doesn't matter how much money you gave Ford, they couldn't produce, you know, 200 million of these new cars in six months.
	It's not possible.
	Because the linear steps required to even do a bad job take longer than that.
	So yeah, we did it in parallel.
	It's BS.
	Yeah, it's BS.
	Meredith, and before I ask you about the concept of good and evil, Joseph, because you're a philosopher, does it exist?
	Meredith, what can we do about this?
	If this is all about fear, and I'm convinced it is, I am absolutely convinced that 90% or more of what we're seeing is just a grand illusion created through fear-mongering.
	If this is really about fear, And there are parallels, obviously, parallels between what we're experiencing right now and abusive relationships, the Stockholm Syndrome.
	What can we do about it?
	We need to become mental ninjas and spiritual warriors.
	So we need to be observant of our thoughts, our perceptions of reality, our behaviors, our choices.
	Where is this coming from?
	Is this coming from me?
	Is this coming from some outside entity that planted that seed in my mind?
	Is this what everybody else is doing?
	So when we become more self-aware, we can choose our response instead of reacting.
	And they're counting on us just reacting automatically.
	That's that problem-reaction-solution thing.
	So it's so important that we examine that we need to reclaim autonomy over our bodies, our minds, and our spiritual consciousness.
	Because essentially this is a control of the consciousness in order to get us to take the actions as their enablers to co-create that in this world.
	So we have to become very conscious of that.
	And so that's why it's important to take those inner inventories constantly and changing those, unsubscribing from the belief systems that aren't ours, that aren't aligned with what we want to create in this world, and connecting with allies.
	That's the most important thing when you're waking up out of an abusive relationship.
	You need that social connection with people outside of that narrative of reality, outside that unreality that the abuser has sown.
	When we come together, we can talk about things, we can name things, we can articulate what it is, we can process together, and that's how we stay safe and sane and healthy.
	May I follow up on that?
	Because fear is a major factor in all of this, but there's also a new factor that we haven't discussed yet, and that is the role of social media in all of this.
	Because on the one hand, social media gives the illusion of connectedness, while at the same time atomizing people and locking them within themselves.
	So that in their desperation, in their loneliness, they're desperate to try and reach out to a mythical community that they have been cultivating, or that they think that they're part of, which doesn't really exist.
	But in order to gain acceptance into that community, they have to project all kinds of things about themselves that may or may not be true, and that are not that dangerous to reveal, because Maybe they're fudging a little bit about their own personality, their own inclinations, and so on.
	And specifically, what I have in mind here is that during lockdowns, people were on social media all over the place, and they were Virtue signaling.
	They were telling everybody that they could find about what good people they are because they're doing all the things that have been asked of them to do.
	And I was witnessing a couple of these exchanges where one respondent to this issue said, you're just You're living in an illusion.
	What you're really doing is trying to validate yourself because you're feeling so isolated and lonely that you're imagining that you're connecting with people out there whom you don't even know and you're not really in any relationship of any kind with.
	Or as Noam Chomsky used to say, if you have friends on Facebook, then you don't have any friends at all.
	I think that's one of their tools, one of the tools that they've been using over the last 10, 15, 20 years, getting us used to social media, Facebook.
	Facebook, there's a lot of evidence that the person who runs it, Zuckerberg, isn't really the person who runs it.
	It could be, could very well be, that it was just another creation of the deep state, of the CIA.
	Allegedly, they are behind most of the messenger services and own 30% of their shares or something like that.
	We'll have to dig deeper into this, but it's very obvious, and I think it's commonsensical, that if you have friends on Facebook, you don't have any friends because you don't know these people.
	You just don't know these people.
	We, who have been talking to each other, even though it's mostly via Zoom, we know each other to a degree.
	We don't really know each other because that requires, I guess, physical contact.
	But, well, here's the thing.
	Last year, about a year ago, no, no, less than a year ago, a half a year, three quarters of a year ago, I actually met Mike and his wife when they were still in Florida.
	And the weird thing is, or maybe it's not so weird, we like the same kind of music.
	We like fast motorcycles, except Mike's going a bit too far, racing on the Isle of Man.
	I couldn't do that.
	But it's strange that we felt immediately connected.
	And we liked each other without having, you know, after having met for a couple of hours and then I spent the night, usually there's an awkward feeling you have to be careful about saying something or doing something.
	It doesn't, that didn't exist.
	That didn't exist.
	So that goes back to what you're saying, Merendez.
	We need to connect with each other.
	We're social beings.
	We need to connect.
	There is no such thing as social distancing.
	Social distancing?
	How does that work?
	And it's so key that we have to stay out of those defensive states because when we're in the defensive state, the fight, flight, freeze, and fawn, we're locked in lower states of consciousness.
	We're more frozen.
	We don't have access to imagination, intuition, creativity, which you mentioned earlier, Rainer.
	All these things, critical thinking, all these things that make us human and that protect us from the sort of manipulation and tyranny that's happening.
	And I found one of the most effective ways to get out of the defensive state is to make fun of it.
	Because what is the defensive state?
	You're either angry at someone or maybe it's self-pity and you're like, poor me, you know?
	So what do you do?
	You make fun of it, make fun of yourself.
	And when you're among people that you love and trust and you know they love and trust you, when they make fun of that, It's like something shifts.
	It's like all of a sudden that state gets dropped.
	You can laugh at yourself.
	You can stop taking that so seriously and you can get back into that safe and social connection, which is the same state that allows us access to all these other higher consciousness faculties.
	And when you manage to make fun of things, all of a sudden the fear is gone, right?
	Exactly.
	Well, Joseph, one last thing.
	What about the concept of good and evil?
	We've been talking about this.
	Even Mike, who is a distinguished scientist, all of a sudden he realizes there's such a thing as evil.
	And I, who didn't think in these categories because I'm a lawyer, I agree.
	There is such a thing as good and evil.
	What do you think about that?
	You may be asking the wrong person about this because I tend to view it through a Nietzschean prism.
	That is to say that Nietzsche of course is famous for having relativized these things in his philosophizing.
	So I come essentially out of the Nietzschean school here and it's difficult for me to wrap my mind around absolute evil.
	I resist that.
	I see the potential for everyone being good.
	And I see the reasons for people not being good as part of a process of disintegration that is going on inside of them that they may or may not be aware of.
	So, such people, even such people are redeemable in a sense.
	That's the school of thought that I come from.
	And that's what I would advocate also, coming from the intellectual background that I come from.
	Now, on the other hand, you have the intellectual school of thought that I mentioned early on, and that is the school of thought that came out of the behavioralist psychologists.
	Who invaded the United States, they came from Germany, and who essentially boiled all of psychology down to stimulus response, operant conditioning, and sort of a Pavlovian world in which everything is only on the physical level, on the physical domain,
	And that everything is calculable, quantifiable, and that human beings are perfectible in the narrowest sense, but the broader development of the human mind, of the spirit, and the connectedness to the universe is completely shut out of that.
	So, unfortunately, that's what took hold in the United States in the 20th century and was taught at major universities throughout the century and took a firm hold there.
	Now, is that evil?
	I don't know.
	Is it misguided?
	Definitely.
	Should it never have been taken hold in the United States?
	I would propose that it should not have, but it did, and it's still with us.
	And if you take a look at, for example, one of the premier universities that distributed these first PhDs in psychology was Johns Hopkins University.
	And what do we know now about Johns Hopkins University?
	What took place there in 2019?
	What happened there?
	Event 201.
	That's what happened at Johns Hopkins University.
	So there's a long tradition here that has been inculcated into American education.
	Which has said essentially that humans are manipulable, they can be stimulated in various ways to do things that produce preconceived outcomes, and there is no room for spirituality in this at all.
	Interesting.
	That's missing.
	That's definitely missing.
	We know that it's there.
	In the meantime, I didn't used to know this, but I know now that it's there.
	But I'm really glad, Joseph, that I don't have to think in these categories.
	I do think in these categories, but when I go to court, I only have to figure out, is the person who I'm coming after guilty or not?
	And if the crime has been committed, murder, there's a dead person and somebody else, you'd see the smoking gun in his hand, he did it, okay.
	Then the next level is, it's very, criminal law is really simple, then the next level is, is there any justification?
	Self-defense, for example.
	Well, not really, if there's a two-year-old child.
	And the third level, that's where it all plays out, is the insanity defense.
	Is he responsible?
	Did he know what he was doing, and could he control what he's doing?
	That's good enough for me.
	I still believe that there is good and evil out there, even though maybe it's possible that these people who committed these, and who are still committing these crimes, maybe they can, they can, I don't know, There's some good in them, some spark that needs to be reignited, but I'm glad I don't have to worry about that.
	And I think that's the way it should be, because that's what I'm there for.
	As a lawyer, I have to go after them, put them in jail, make them pay, take down these corporations.
	I think that's the first step, and then we'll see.
	We'll see what happens.
	Okay, well...
	Is there anything that needs to be said or anything that needs to be corrected?
	Okay.
	So I think, do we all agree on this, that most of what we're seeing is a lie, is fear-mongering, and one of the things we can do about it is keep exposing it and make fun of it?
	Yeah.
	Yes.
	I like that.
	I really like that.
	That's good.
	You should still do good things for your health, spiritually, physically.
	Get outside in the sunshine.
	Have a good diet.
	Take care of yourself.
	Be with friends.
	Go and hug people.
	You're not going to catch horrible diseases.
	But we don't need to worry about all these horrible viruses that they're frightening us with.
	They're boogie men.
	Not real.
	Well, okay.
	I couldn't agree more.
	Thank you very much, Meredith.
	Thank you, Mike.
	Thank you, Joseph.
	I think we're going to do this again soon.
	All right.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	All four of you.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	Have a great time.
	Bye-bye.
	Thank you.
	All four of you.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	Have a great time.

▲