Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Aug. 18, 2023 - Stew Peters Show

45:41

Uncensored: Dr. Christina Parks - mRNA Can Be Programmed to Make Humans Unable to Eat Meat

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	music
	music
	music music music music music music music music
	music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music
	We'll be right back.
	We'll be right back.
	Dr.
	Christina Parks is an affiliate physician at America's Frontline Doctors specializing in molecular biology, explaining how the mRNA injection was designed and why it's so dangerous to our human bodies.
	Now, we all know this.
	Most of the people watching this did not get injected, or if they did, they know now how dangerous it really is.
	But she describes the ability to program this technology And cause reactions to our bodies in a way that may advance the globalist goals, such as making humans intolerant to dairy or even meat, for example.
	Take a look at this video.
	Can mRNA technology, the same technology used in the COVID vaccination, be used to control you?
	Dr Christina Parks, a PhD in Cellular and Molecular Biology, explains the dangerous ethical implications.
	This DNA technology is kind of a cassette system where they can put in multiple genes and multiple regulatory elements and multiple regulatory elements.
	So they could say you could use multiple vaccinations, multiple antigens, and they can regulate them all differently.
	What does that look like ethically?
	Maybe they're putting in this that you know they're putting in, but maybe they're putting in something else that's regulated, and then when you eat cheese, it's turned on, and now you're expressing a protein you didn't even know was in you.
	Is she merely being an alarmist?
	Would gene therapy really be weaponized to control us?
	Here's what S. Matthew Liao, a contemporary philosopher and author, has to say about human engineering.
	People eat too much meat, right?
	And if they were to cut down on their consumption on meat, then it would actually really help the planet.
	But people are not willing to give up meat.
	So possibly we can use human engineering to make it the case that we're intolerant to certain kinds of meat, to certain kinds of bovine proteins.
	That's something that we can do through human engineering.
	We can possibly address really big world problems through human engineering.
	In 2019, he was appointed as an elected fellow at the Hastings Center, a prestigious bioethics research institute.
	Liao's work has been discussed in places such as The Guardian, the BBC, the New York Times, the Atlantic, and Scientific American.
	It appears Dr.
	Christina Parks was, in fact, dead on.
	Ethically, I have a huge problem with them putting in genetic information that they can then regulate through hormonal or other means, things they spray in the air, things they put in the food supply.
	very problematic for me.
	Absolutely terrifying, but certainly believable.
	Dr.
	Parks joins us in a moment to expand on this.
	But first, a word about the sponsors of today's show at TacRite with their mini chainsaw at a 50% discount for uncensored listeners.
	This is a great summer gift for doing work around the house.
	This new mini chainsaw is so small, it's mind-blowing.
	The new mini chainsaw makes tree trimming easier and two times faster.
	This is the easiest chainsaw to use that can even be operated with one hand.
	Thousands of Americans have bought this mini chainsaw for the summer, cottage, camping trips, etc.
	However, for uncensored viewers, we were able to get 50% off from TacRite.
	So visit www.tacritespn.com or www.http.com and the orders will ship within one business day from the TacRite warehouse in New York.
	Here's Dr.
	Parks.
	Dr.
	Christina Parks, thank you so much for joining us today.
	We really appreciate your time.
	Thank you.
	It's my pleasure.
	It's great to have you.
	Well, before we get into this absolute colossal topic of mRNA and its ability to control people, Mind control, control our bodies, all sorts of capabilities that could be possible out there.
	Please give the audience a little bit of background about yourself and how you actually got involved in investigating this technology, which we keep being told is great and revolutionary.
	Well, my degree, my undergraduate degree, I have a double major in biochemistry and molecular biology.
	And then I have a PhD from University of Michigan in cellular and molecular biology.
	And molecular biology is basically how to recombine genetic material.
	And so when I was in graduate school, gene therapy was all the rage.
	There was this real hope that we would be able to cure these genetic defects or mutations in people that had these debilitating and life-threatening illnesses.
	You don't see a lot of gene therapy because there were just some things we couldn't get beyond.
	One of it is highly inflammatory.
	So when we were talking about using it for gene therapy, it was in people who were critically ill with these debilitating genetic disorders, not wide-scale usage.
	Because when you're talking about a cost-benefit, and in some of them they said those people should never be even allowed to have sex with someone because of the potential for We're passing on this genetic information.
	You don't see that now.
	Although they weren't allowed to have sex in the clinical trials, Yes, absolutely.
	What does that tell you?
	It was actually a really big deal when I was in graduate school, so we talked about the ethical issues, we talked about a lot of the technical issues, and it was such an area of interest that I can't remember what I actually learned in class and what I followed up on on my own because it was such an area of interest at different conferences.
	But it was definitely something that was really big, and we had someone who was doing it on a disease that causes muscular dystrophy, I believe, at University of Michigan, Dr.
	Jeffrey Chamberlain, and his wife was actually in my program, and so we followed his work really closely with regard to gene therapy as well, as far as potentially being able to correct this form of a muscular disorder.
	That said, basically, we were really immersed in this type of technology academically.
	Right.
	And, I mean, I've got a quote here from you.
	Ethically, I have a huge problem with them putting in genetic information, which they can then regulate through hormonal or other means.
	Things they spray in the air, things they put in the food supply.
	This is very problematic.
	So, I mean, at the time, did you see these ethical dilemmas?
	Or is this something that you've become more aware of as time has gone on?
	Well, it was only going to be used in like one or two people that specifically consented because of the disease that they had, right?
	So I want to make it clear, when I spoke in the video, I was actually talking about the platform that would have been the adenoviral vector system, which is a DNA platform, which is the AstraZeneca and the J&J vaccine.
	So I was specifically, if you watched the whole thing, talking about that.
	That one Is just set up in order to regulate this cassette system.
	So it's exactly as I said.
	The Pfizer and Moderna, which are the mRNA, the mRNA isn't quite as problematic.
	There are a lot of problematic things about it in terms of it regulating.
	But what we found is that there's a template called a plasmid that they used to make the mRNA and they didn't clean it out.
	And as I followed up on that, so they have a template to make the mRNA and it's this plasmid.
	It's a piece of circular DNA that bacteria like to take up and then bacteria make hundreds of them and they replicate and they give them to other bacteria and they keep making more and more.
	And so what they do is they grow this template up in the plasmid, make a lot of template, then they're supposed to take the template out of the bacteria.
	They may or may not clean out all the bacterial residue.
	And put it in sort of, you know, like a test tube and add stuff and then it's supposed to make the mRNA.
	Then they're supposed to take the mRNA out and put it in the vaccine.
	But they didn't clean all of this Plasma DNA, and that plasma DNA has regular, it's DNA, so it can integrate into your DNA very easily.
	In fact, this particular one that Pfizer used has an SV40 promoter, the promoter for a monkey virus that is known to cause cancer.
	It doesn't have the whole virus, but it has a promoter.
	That promoter localizes it to the nucleus of mammalian cells where it can integrate into your DNA. Even if it doesn't integrate into your DNA, it can actually infect your bacteria, your nose and your throat, and again, it can make the spike protein, it codes for the spike protein, or whatever else they put into it, and it has regulatory elements, so it can be regulated by what you eat.
	And so when I was looking into all of these regulatory, like what do they allow, they're actually looking at using these plasmids for vaccines.
	And in fact, that's what they did.
	So now we have evidence that these plasmids that contaminated the vaccine were in these nanolipid particles, did go all over to our body.
	So we know that some people are still making the spike protein two years out.
	It's very possible and more likely That it's this plasmid DNA, that DNA is more stable than RNA, and in the bacteria, and it's localized to the nucleus, it could integrate into their DNA and continue to make spike protein and continue to make spike protein.
	And it can have regulatory elements that turn it on and off.
	Now, it was probably inadvertent.
	They just did a really bad job with these.
	But it begs the question that how do we really know what they're putting into you?
	Well, was it a mistake or was it on purpose that it has these regulatory elements that can turn it on and off?
	And what does that actually mean, Dr.
	Parks?
	What can be turned on and off and to what extent?
	Okay, so in this case, I do not believe it was intentional.
	I think it was a side effect of poor manufacturing process and ramping this up too quickly and not double checking.
	And it may be that some places where it was manufactured, they did a decent job and other places they didn't.
	We don't know because they really haven't been very transparent about allowing people to look at this, but some estimates suggest between 10 and 30% of any vaccine could have been this contaminating DNA. In terms of regulatory elements, this one wasn't intentionally made to control you, I don't believe.
	It has a regulatory element, the SP40 promoter, that is supposed to drive antibiotic resistance, and that's a way they select for the plasmid, but it could confer antibiotic resistance to your gut bacteria, which could be problematic.
	But secondarily, the spike protein is under the control of a promoter that's turned on by milk products.
	Now, that is not an attempt to control you.
	It's a very commonly used one.
	But what if some people eat milk products, cheese or milk, and it turns on production of the spike protein in their gut?
	And now they've got this really inflammatory spike protein that's causing a post-COVID-like syndrome every time they eat milk.
	Products, right?
	I recall...
	Does that happen?
	I recall Dr.
	Sabine Hazan talking about something that was happening in the gut.
	Is this, I'm not sure if you're familiar with her work, but is this sort of relating to what you're talking about?
	Well, she is going to look for this in the gut.
	She is familiar with Kevin McKernan's work who found this plasmid.
	And we know that COVID and the COVID vaccine are destroying gut bacteria and the good gut bacteria.
	So the question is why?
	There are many different hypotheses about what may be happening.
	And this is one of many potential hypotheses.
	And we know that some people have a chronic, maybe a COVID gut infection.
	And so it's really going to take some research to tease out exactly what's happening.
	But the more important thing is if What is what they can do with this technology?
	So in this case, it was a contaminant, but what if it was there purposefully, either with the mRNA or maybe they told you it's a plasmid?
	It's genetic vaccines.
	This is a genetic vaccine.
	They're putting in genetic information.
	This contaminating plasmid is genetic information and it has regulatory elements.
	So that regulatory element would allow you to turn on whatever the gene is.
	In this case, it's the spike protein, right?
	You could have a regulatory element that turns on in response to cheese or in response to meat or in response to a particular amino acid or in response to something they spray in the air.
	I mean, I don't know.
	They would figure out what they would think would work.
	Or maybe in response to hormones, right?
	And so if this was in your cells, it could respond to hormones.
	If it's in your gut bacteria, maybe it responds to something that you eat.
	So if you start turning on the spike protein in response to something you eat, you're going to have a hyperinflammatory complex that's going to make you ill all the time.
	But what if they have, let's say that this is getting into your cells the way it's supposed to, right?
	It's going into your actual physical cells, not just in your gut.
	And let's say, That they have a regulatory element, and let's say when it's turned on, it makes a protein that inactivates.
	You have proteins that suppress cancer in your body, okay?
	Some very important one is p53 or retinoblastoma.
	These are really, really critical proteins that control whether a cell becomes cancerous.
	When they're mutated, those are key proteins when they're mutated that you get cancer.
	And usually they're only mutated in a few cells and hopefully you're able to get the cancer out.
	But if they turned on a regulatory element and made this gene that binds these tumor suppressors, whoever those were turned on in would get cancer.
	And so when you got cancer, would you know that they were controlling you and they decided maybe they gave it to a certain subset of people or a demographic or a regional?
	Maybe they gave it to everybody.
	Who knows?
	But it could be used to theoretically give a bunch of people cancer, kill them, or create different things.
	Different illnesses or whatever in people.
	And you could design them so that in this sub, like these people get cancer, these people get heart disease.
	So you're playing, you're actually turning the body into a manufacturing process, a manufacturing plant.
	For whatever they wanted to produce.
	Now, secondarily, I'm talking about perhaps producing a protein that the body might normally make, but they could make designer proteins.
	And we would think of these in terms of nanobots.
	It's really technically the same.
	They could design a sequence genetically, put it together, test it in cells in a lab, And then take that sequence, which is kind of what they did for the COVID vaccine, right, with the spike protein or whatever.
	They can take that sequence and then put it into your body, and your body's going to make whatever they tell it to.
	It's going to make these little designer proteins called enzymes that do whatever they want it to.
	Do those designer proteins?
	And so the question is...
	Can I ask you, when you talk about what we know as nanobots, is this programmable?
	You know, nanomaterials that are administered through medicines that are instructed either beforehand or in real time to go and do certain things within the body.
	Okay, so I just want to clear up some misconceptions.
	You're thinking of nanobots in terms of some sort of metal or silicone or something like that.
	These are proteins.
	The body makes proteins.
	That's what it does.
	But our proteins, everything that happens in your body, is a little protein that does something.
	Like, I mean, these little enzymes that do all of your metabolic reactions.
	And so you can You know, insert the genetic sequence for one that already exists, or you can design your own and test its function, like maybe it cleaves something.
	So these are going to have like one or two basic functions, but you could design one that did a certain thing.
	So again, or you could design one that actually binds to and regulates your DNA, turns certain genes, turns a tumor suppressor off so that you're going to get cancer.
	It turns a cancer gene on, something that dysregulates your immune system.
	So they could control your genes with these little proteins, or they could create it to have a specific function.
	You know, or like in the video, one that created a problem where you felt sick every time you ate meat because it, you know, maybe it inhibited an enzyme that you use to digest your meat.
	Or they could make it make a hormone.
	It dysregulates your hormonal axis.
	So whatever it is they want to do, they just have to sort of think deeply about what kind of protein would affect that process and then design one, have your body make it, your body releases it all into your bloodstream, And then it's in you doing whatever it is they've designed it to do.
	But this is not a metal or a silicone.
	It's a protein.
	And I say a nanobot because enzymes, proteins, they do things in the body.
	I understand and I appreciate your clarification.
	So we're talking about giving the body instructions to do certain things.
	Essentially, when we're talking about CRISPR type of instructions as well, you're talking about manipulating the DNA or changing the DNA or splicing it, which is the simplified version of CRISPR, splicing, inserting, modifying, changing.
	What is the limitation to these instructions, Dr Parks?
	Is the human being at risk forever now?
	Well you know interestingly enough I believe there's some grace of God that so when your cells are infected or have this and and that's part of the problem with these vaccines is those cells that are making the spike protein the immune system is attacking them they're like this is not supposed to be here it's not supposed to be doing that but then if you have cells you needed those cells that were in your heart or in your brain or whatever that are now being destroyed by your immune system because they're making this aberrant protein So it's possible and very likely that the body will be
	able to clear some of this.
	And again, both the mRNA is transcribed into DNA. All of this technology is getting into your DNA. It's just a blatant lie that it isn't.
	The only question is how much and to what effect, especially like your immune cells are going to be most susceptible because when you inject something, it ends up in your blood and your immune cells are right there, right?
	They're not hidden away in some tissue or something.
	So this is getting into your DNA. It's most definitely getting into your germ cells.
	So yes, you're going to have some germ cells that have DNA for the spike protein that's transmitted in the germline to your offspring.
	The body has many self-correcting mechanisms to deal with things like this.
	In the past, we know viruses integrate into your DNA. If you think about something like herpes virus that gets reactivated and comes back out as a cold sore.
	And so we've known that viruses and certain genetic information can get into your DNA, but we're taking a buttload of it and just You know, pushing it all throughout the body.
	And so this is not a natural scenario.
	This is a scenario where we're really testing the limits of our body to clear out this kind of garbage that it's never seen before, because these are synthetic.
	Not only is it genetic material, it's synthetic genetic material that doesn't break down in the way that normal human DNA or even bacterial DNA would break down.
	So there's a lot we don't know that needs more research, but the fact that they could put something in you that makes you a manufacturing plant for, you know, a protein that could do any number of things from regulate your DNA to shut off your tumor suppressors is really, really problematic.
	And it just shouldn't be allowed.
	And the fact that your body is going to attack it and attack your cells to try to get it out It just makes it that much worse.
	So, you know, I'm trying to clarify what is real science and what is sci-fi.
	Could this be used for CRISPR? There's probably some elements where it could be.
	Now, where it can't be used, you've got all these people that think, well, we're going to control human beings using this.
	Well, no, we're not going to control your thoughts.
	And a lot of these things that they say are really sci-fi because I feel like we have these people that are these mad scientists that they think we're going to do all of these improvements using this, but really what you're going to do is dysregulate the body and cause disease.
	So they might think that they're going to do mind control or put some different things in there and like, I mean, I don't know.
	You hear all kinds of different scenarios, right?
	But this is not going to work in the way they're like really arrogant and they're thinking that anything's going to even work in the way they think it's going to work.
	Most likely it's going to dysregulate the body and cause disease at all levels, either the intentional disease or unintentional disease.
	Well, I think I really would love to agree on this particular thing.
	I spent a lot of time exposing what they'd like to do.
	And I would love to believe that really it's just grandiose ideas and they're never actually going to be able to achieve it.
	And having someone come on that says, well, I don't know if they're physically actually capable of achieving this.
	It really is just there.
	They're pipe dreams.
	It's very comforting, certainly for humanity.
	You did say, though, mRNA getting into the DNA too much and to what effect?
	Do we have any indication right now of what that is, what it means, what it looks like in future?
	I don't know.
	Can you give me an example of what you're...
	You know, talking about, I mean, to me, it's going to dysregulate the body and cause enormous burden of disease to the point possibly of death in many people.
	But in terms of like creating some sort of partly synthetic human or something, that's not really what I see.
	You know, could they target certain ethnicities?
	Could, yes.
	Could they target, you know, but normally what's going to end up happening is they're going to target them for illness and death and obviously they can be used as a biological weapon if somebody's army is all taking a vaccine and you know like do we know what's in these things right like maybe we had china manufacture it for us or whatever Then it could really cause a lot of health problems, and then your standing army is worthless, right?
	Well, maybe you can clarify for us what the difference is between, for example, the body making spike protein that leads to inflammation compared to something modifying DNA permanently.
	So, this vaccine does both, okay?
	It can be reverse transcribed into DNA and it has that contaminating DNA plasmid that can get inserted into your DNA. It can get inserted into a gene and cause a mutation and cause cancer or whatever.
	Or it can get inserted in a place where it just dysregulates different things and you've got some sort of weird symptoms and nobody knows what it is because you're dysregulating certain genes.
	So again, the end, and in this case, the spike protein actually does bind one of your tumor suppressors.
	Now, we don't know if it binds it to the point and completely inactivates it, making cancer more likely, but we have seen an increase in all these turbo cancers, which is multifactorial because they engineered these nanolipid particles to turn down the immune response so they wouldn't have this highly inflammatory response.
	And so you turn down your immune response, which kills your cancer cell, At the same time where you may be inactivating a tumor suppressor.
	So to some degree, this vaccine is already doing some of this, but I don't think it's completely intentional.
	Some people do.
	I mean, it just, you know, it's bad either way.
	But they could do it intentionally and they could do it in where it's regulated, where people have it and they're fine and they're fine and they're fine and they either put something in the food supply or spray something.
	And then we all have whatever it has happened.
	Now, whether it will be as effective as they've designed it to be remains to be seen.
	Yes.
	Yes, absolutely.
	And, you know, would it be used in future?
	Let's just say it wasn't intentional, which I don't think is the case.
	But let's say it wasn't.
	Would big pharma stand to profit from potentially, you know, colluding with governments who profited immensely through their deals with big pharma?
	You know, some of those political leaders, would they stand to benefit from creating something in the future that presented as some sort of a pathogen that was a result of a spray or was a result of something in the food supply?
	I mean, the possibilities if this is...
	Absolutely.
	Because, I mean, they're already doing that.
	They just came out with an anticoagulant for children.
	So some of these things, it's like they knew, Pfizer knew many of the side effects of this vaccine before they released it.
	They have been studying this for quite some time.
	And so then they have a pharmaceutical and they came up with an interleukin-6 blocker.
	And so they were coming up, it's like they're creating the disease and then profiting from, I don't know, I don't want to call it a cure, but the treatment.
	And so I think that's already happening.
	To a degree, and certainly it could be more planned and we're not sure how planned this was, right?
	There are many different things, but that's part of the ethical problem with allowing that is once you open that door, you know who knows what people will be doing either intentionally or or somewhat unintentionally you know because the thing is a lot of times they've done the studies so maybe even if it was an unintentional side effect then they're like well you know we don't think it's that bad and we'll just put together a pharmaceutical product to deal with it right well yes and in the hands of of of technocrats and in the hands
	of people who think that you know the world has too many people in it we need to depopulate to save the planet this could this is very very dangerous indeed um I want to ask you your thoughts on, I'm sure you've heard about disease X. Apparently the UK is already developing a vaccine, which...
	No, I haven't.
	I spent a lot of time in scientific research for specific things, and so I can't always follow the news.
	What is disease X? Well, no one knows, but apparently they already are developing a vaccine for it.
	So I wanted to ask you in terms of...
	How do they know it even exists?
	Okay, so this is what I want to ask you about.
	So how do you develop a vaccine for something that you don't even know what it is, it doesn't exist?
	Is that even possible, Dr.
	Parks?
	No.
	No.
	Like, what are...
	I mean, where is this disease?
	Okay, let me bring it up on the screen for the viewers and I'll read it out to you.
	Give me one second.
	So this came out of the UK. Ministers have opened a new vaccine research centre in the UK where scientists will work on preparing for Disease X, the next potential pandemic pathogen.
	So I'm just going to bring that up.
	This is The Guardian.
	You won't see it on your end, Dr Parks, but the viewers of the broadcast will see it.
	So I've got it up on the screen right now.
	So it says, the state-of-the-art vaccine development and evaluation centre is based at the UK Health and Security Agency's UK HSA portion down to Porton Down Campus in Wiltshire.
	Live viruses will be kept on site in specialist containment facilities where scientists can assess pathogens that do not yet have a vaccine or ones where immunisation could be improved, for example, for the flu or monkeypox.
	But one of the professors says what we're trying to do now is capture That really excellent work from COVID. Really excellent work.
	And make sure that we're using that as we go forward for any further pandemic threats.
	And what they're doing is testing all the new variants with the vaccines that they have.
	But we're also looking at how quickly we can develop a new test that would be used if a brand new virus popped up somewhere.
	In saying that, the facility is supposed to help them develop a vaccine within 100 days, but it does say that they are preparing for Disease X, the next potential pandemic pathogen.
	So what that means is they're creating the next potential pathogen.
	And the COVID, SARS-CoV-2, was developed in a lab, which is becoming abundantly clear.
	Many of us have been saying that from the beginning.
	There's no way this was not a molecular biology because it doesn't go directly from a bat to a human.
	It would need many, many stages in between.
	This was designed to infect human lung cells.
	And we had the papers from Ralph Baric and Shi Xing Li Showing that they had a chimeric, which means pieced together, virus that they created to infect human lung cells.
	So it sounds like they're doing gain-of-function research where they're taking these pathogens, changing them, assuming what they think they're going to mutate with, and it's more likely that their little pathogen is either going to be released intentionally or is going to get out unintentionally and cause a pandemic than that whatever they think is going to mutate is going to mutate to what they think it is.
	So this is just the hubris and arrogance and possibly planned pandemic where, you know, and some of the research may be genuine.
	They think they're trying to prepare for the next pandemic, but somebody else might be using what they create, take it, and use it to spread, right?
	So this gain of function research really has to be stopped.
	I don't believe that They're not doing gain-of-function research in that lab.
	And then the reason why they use this mRNA technology and the gene therapy technology is it's largely synthetic.
	You don't have to grow it in an egg like the flu vaccine.
	And so it can be brought to market very quickly based on genetic sequence.
	And so they're again trying to develop these platforms like the nanolipid particles and the adenoviral vectors so that when they have the next pandemic, they just take a segment of that gene and just plug it in and they've got Everything else in the platform ready to go.
	But these platforms are unsafe.
	And so we cannot let them to go forward with using this type of genetic technology in vaccines.
	Now it's easier for them and more profitable for them, but it's not safe.
	Yes.
	And it's not effective.
	I mean, the COVID vaccine wasn't effective at all.
	We had a recent announcement about them wanting to inject all livestock in one of the states here in Australia, New South Wales, with mRNA technology.
	They're developing these injections apparently ready to go when there's a lumpy skin disease outbreak.
	We have traditional vaccines that work really well for lumpy skin disease, but no, they want mRNA.
	Do we know whether the impacts on animals are as devastating as humans, Dr Parks?
	And would this spread?
	Would it be able to spread?
	Because we're talking about, you know, shedding essentially, you know, if two people are being intimate together, would it shed if you're eating the animal?
	I think if it's cooked, it's not likely to shed, but the animals themselves may have different hormonal issues that may compromise the product.
	But I wouldn't be as worried about you getting it from the product, especially if it's cooked or whatever that is.
	But I think they are going to see, you know, higher mortality in things.
	The animals were already feeding them, you know, glyphosate, Roundup and everything else.
	So whether they'll notice that or not, I don't know.
	But the key is, so, you know, we were doing gene therapy 30, 40 years ago, and it never caught on because it wasn't really safe and it wasn't really effective.
	And so they have such a sizable investment into this technology that they want to recoup their research and development costs.
	So that's what we're seeing.
	They've decided that this needs to turn a profit and that they're going to find whatever way they can to make sure that it does.
	And so they use this pandemic as an introduction to it so that we would accept it and then accept it going forward.
	And many people aren't even seeing that it seems like everybody's got two or three people in their family that died of some sort of cardiac event and died of cancer or something.
	Everybody seems oblivious to this for some reason.
	um uh the overall mortality is up significantly as high as 25 percent in some places that people are like who to do to do so i know people that have gone and asked their doctor you know they their dad drop dead dancing for example and they go and they ask the doctor do you think that it could have been the covert injection oh no no and then they come back and they say no it wasn't the doctor said no Just based on that, just based on the doctor saying no, it is just astounding to me that this is still the case.
	And the doctors aren't trained in this technology at all.
	They know nothing about it.
	If you ask the doctor how it works, they cannot answer you.
	They don't have the training.
	All they're doing is parroting what they've been taught by their authority figures, right?
	They're trusting that their colleagues, whatever they told them.
	And the thing is, we don't know what caused it, but it wasn't the vaccine.
	Well, if you don't know what caused it, how do you know it's not the vaccine?
	Yes, exactly.
	And we're getting back Pfizer's own data in the clinical trials showing a very, very high number of cardiac events, which they never actually did the studies and measured the troponin level and the inflammatory cytokines.
	Did an autopsy.
	They just decided randomly that it couldn't have been caused by the vaccine and moved on.
	Yes.
	In the clinical trials, right?
	So, I mean, it's just like becomes so asinine that you just can't even conceive that this is reality.
	You feel like you're in some bad TV show.
	Well, Dr Parks, I certainly, you know, you're like a breath of fresh air.
	And we have to laugh at this situation because it is so ridiculous.
	But the truth is, it's very dire.
	And the truth is that they want to continue with this technology.
	The World Health Organization wants to, has spoken about in line with Australia's Pandemic Preparedness Report, you know, preemptively injecting people to prevent pandemics because of climate change and You know, whatever other terms they can throw into the mix.
	So we are facing a serious issue where, you know, your health pass will be linked to your central bank digital currency and unless you're up to date with all your...
	Frankenstein injections, you can't get paid this week.
	Humanity is really, it's a dangerous position.
	So people like you who are exposing this and speaking sanity into the situation are so needed.
	Please don't stop.
	Let people know where they can follow you, Dr.
	Parks.
	Sure.
	A lot of what I post is on Twitter or whatever used to be Twitter.
	It's now Dr.CParks1, Dr.CParks1 on Twitter.
	I also have a Telegram channel, Dr.
	Christina Parks.
	I do have Facebook.
	You can find me on Christina Parks on Facebook.
	I don't post much anything controversial because it's not free.
	But you can contact me via Facebook Messenger if you want to have me on your podcast or if you, you know, need to contact me for some reason.
	So, and, you know, I do do work content preparation for America's frontline doctors.
	And again, so important to get this out because, you know, honestly, a lot of the people pushing this, they don't have this degree.
	And so, like Scott Gottlieb, who was head of the FDA, he was a doctor.
	He doesn't understand this either.
	So he's, again, you know, and even President Trump probably doesn't understand it.
	I don't expect him to.
	He's not a molecular biologist.
	So there's not enough.
	And then the people who have the degrees actually are working in the field.
	And if they speak anything, it's going to destroy their entire career in science and they'll never work again because they're funded through the NIH. So it is very problematic and so it is up to us to spread the word and increase understanding even among sometimes I actually was sitting on a plane next to someone who evaluated people's businesses and I said it just turned out that two of the businesses that she had evaluated were doing this mRNA technology.
	Isn't that weird?
	They were trying to sell their business, right?
	Right.
	And so her view was that it was all great because from a business proposal perspective, they only highlight the positives.
	When I started talking about it and she knew enough about it to know that I knew what I was talking about, then suddenly it opened a whole new world of like, it's not just all one, you know, this side of the story.
	And so, you know, we have to look at it that many people have been swept up into this.
	They really just don't know.
	And it's really complicated science, and that's why they get away with pushing it on us.
	And, you know, they were saying at the beginning it wasn't gene therapy, you know, that type of technology, which is an absolute complete lie.
	And so we just have to keep spreading the word until enough people know it's definitely going to have to be a grassroots effort.
	So I thank you for participating in that effort.
	Absolutely.
	And just looking forward to more and more doctors speaking up.
	I know that more are, especially here in Australia, we've had many, many more doctors joining the fight.
	So it's wonderful to see them all rising up and standing for humanity.
	We need it.
	Thank you so much, Dr.
	Parks.
	We appreciate your time.
	Thank you.
	We are very, very grateful to Dr.
	Parks and all of the doctors raising awareness on these important issues.
	We cannot stop talking about how dangerous these injections are.
	We have to keep raising awareness about it, as I said with Dr.
	Parks.
	the world health organization wants us to have these indefinitely they want us to have it to prevent pandemics and you know all of the nonsense reasons that they give us to keep injecting this poison into our body so we need to keep raising awareness about it something interesting happened in the australian media just last week and i want to bring it up for the viewers right now It says,
	and apologies, it's cutting off a little bit of the screen, but it says James Patterson urges Albanese government to address cybersecurity risk of foreign-made solar panels against Australia's energy grid.
	So these people are manufacturing these crises.
	We're hearing about how, look at this government warned over foreign solar cyber risk.
	So we're hearing about how, you know, Republicans are going to cause cyber attacks and attacks on the grid in the United States.
	Meanwhile, in Australia, now our solar panels are going to cause a crash to the cyber grid.
	Cyber attacks are on the increase.
	Very, very important to note that this is conditioning us for some sort of future event.
	And we need to be prepared.
	If you're in the United States, head to heavensharvest.com.
	Use promo code Z with three E's for 5% off your order for all of your emergency survival food needs.
	Different sized buckets for different budgets.
	Really, really encourage people to support these guys.
	They've been tremendous supporters of me, this network, and they back a lot of independent media.
	And on top of that, are offering very, very high quality products at very affordable prices for people to prepare.
	So this is creating that circular, sorry, alternative economy, I should say, where we are voting with our dollar and not supporting big business and supporting the businesses that support us.
	By the same token, gold and silver, so, so important right now.
	to prepare for the parallel economy with something that is tradable physically in your hands not digits on your bank manager's screen so if you're in australia head over and see these guys today all the links for all of these are in the description below and obviously uh cyber attacks and all of these things that they keep warning us about um you know the the increasing insecurity of all these communication platforms satellite communications are taking off they are absolutely
	I mean during the period of COVID the number of celebrities that bought satellite phones was through the roof there's a reason for it sat123.com forward slash maria the satellite phone store offer military grade communications fully encrypted by the satellite phone store they have some amazing packages uh if you use my link you'll get access to some of their sales some of their current offers And we encourage everyone to prepare with alternative communication solutions.
	I spoke up recently about the fact that Telegram was starting to censor my channel.
	If you're not on there, it's Z Media 3Es.
	We encourage everyone to subscribe.
	But at the same time, we've had, and many other channels have reported to me, Subscribers actively being removed by the platform and it's not me doing it, I can assure you of that, because people who I know have been members of the channel for some time are emailing me saying why was I blocked, what did I do wrong, and of course they did nothing wrong and I didn't block them.
	So I think the urgency of organizing ourselves with alternative communications is absolutely crucial.
	Z Media does have a subscriber list on our website for email communications.
	If you head to zmedia.com and go to the About page right here, click on About at the very top and scroll to the bottom.

▲