Yeah. All right. We're done. We're ready to go. Thank you for the volunteers who if they if they
get in later, I won't do the intro because it's just an interest of time. But for those of you who
want to see a standard intro, look at another recording. And we're delighted. Thank you,
Stephen, for organizing Mike Yeeten to be with us and for going through those logistical hurdles.
And Mike, we're in your hands and look forward to your conversation.
Can you do your normal speech so that it's the same as usual, even though it's a bit later than usual?
Yes, I can. I'll be quick. So welcome to today's discussion of medical doctors for COVID ethics
international. This group was founded by Dr. Stephen Trust over three years ago with a
desire to pursue truth, ethics, justice, freedom and health. Stephen has stood up against government
and power over the years and has been a whistleblower and activist. His medical specialty is radiology.
I'm Charles Cobess, the moderator of this group on Australasia's passion provocateur.
And we love passionate people in these meetings. And everyone who comes here is passionate.
I backed his law for 20 years before changing career 31 years ago. And in the last 13 years,
I've helped parents and lawyers to strategize remedies for vaccine damage and damage from bad
medical advice. I'm also the CEO of the industrial hemp company. We comprise lots of professions
here. And we're from all around the world. Many of us thought that there's more than
many of us proudly say yes, we are passionate anti-vaxxers. If this is your first time here,
welcome and feel free to introduce yourself in the chat. If you publish a newsletter or a podcast
or you have a radio or TV show or you've written a book, put the links into the chat so we can follow
you, promote you and find you. Most of us understand we're in the middle of World War three. And that
the medical science battle is only one of 12 battle fronts. This is no time for us to be tired.
We are some four years into what I predict is a seven year war. So we're only halfway through. So
regurg your lines. Most of us understand the development of science and that the science is
never settled. And Mike given our guest today is a scientist. I'm sure he knows that. Some of us
believe that viruses exist. Some of us believe that they are a hoax and some of us are sitting on
the fence. This meeting runs for two and a half hours. After which for those with the time, Tom
Rodman runs a video telegram meeting for those with the time to join. We listened to Dr. Mike Yead
and our guest for as long as Mike wishes to speak. And then we have Q&A. Stephen Trust by a long
established tradition asks the first questions for 15 minutes. This is a free speech environment
with appropriate moderating and no ad hominem attacks. You don't attack people. We discuss ideas.
Unfortunately, Mike is not going to be on camera. We are lovingly not interested.
We are just in the way that requires nobody to say anything that may offend another.
We come with an attitude of perspective of love, not fear. Fear is the opposite of love.
Fear swashes you. Love on the other hand expands you. As human beings, our unity is our strength.
Being divided makes us weak. These twice weekly meetings are not just talkfests and extraordinary
range of actions and initiatives have been generated from linkages made by attendees in these meetings.
If you have a solution or a product or links or resources that will help people put the details
into the chat, the meeting is recorded and is uploaded onto the Rumble channel.
And they're welcome to our guest presenter, Dr. Mike Yead.
It is a recording and I am not participating in it. Don't let it seem like that I am. Test test test test.
I can't quite hear myself very well. There we go. No, I'm not there. This was yesterday.
In famously renowned, we're at 100 limit on our meeting size. Mike, that shows how popular you are.
Thank you so much for giving us your time, wisdom and insights. And Mike's CV for those watching
the recording is on the show notes, on this recording that is on the Rumble channel.
And thank you, Stephen Frost again, for creating this group over three years ago and for organising
Mike to be with us today. Over to you, Mike.
Charles, thank you very much. Fantastic introduction and also really good to
just hear about the group and welcome or welcome. Thank you very much everyone for connecting and
listening to me. Stephen, thank you for the invitation to and of course your
your companionship over the years. We've been speaking for a long time. So I'm Dr. Mike Yead.
I would describe myself as a career life scientist. I trained in biochemistry and toxicology, my first
degree. That was an unusual training in that. There were a couple of professors at university
who had specialised in understanding how it is mechanistically at the molecular level.
People can be damaged by certain environmental chemicals, insecticides and so on. So they're
interested given birth to a course and I was a beneficiary. So I call that mechanistic toxicology.
I'm English or don't like bragging, but it's worth saying that university awarded me
the first class honors degree that was head and shoulders higher than any other person had
been awarded from the faculty at the time. So I must have been doing something right.
It was a four year undergraduate training and I spent a year in the scientific civil service,
half of which was at the UK's top secret chemical defence establishment at Porton down,
which used to be and is still now in my view, a biological weapons facility of some kind.
And I did a little bit of research there whose objective was to help protect
British and allied troops from organophosphorous enough agents in a small way.
Then I worked at the forensic science headquarters in order master next to the atomic weapons
for 17. I learned lots of analytical techniques from very clever scientific civil servants.
And at the end of that year, I resolved not to join scientific civil service because
they all they all sounded very bored and and frustrated. So but I always wanted to do applied
work. And so I started to take a PhD. I was offered to be sponsored by the MOD, the same people who
had employed me for a little while as an undergraduate. And I did a very quick PhD and I started
finished, wrote it up and passed the Viva in exactly 36 months. And it was on the effect of
opiates on respiratory function. So I was looking at central and peripheral actions of
of opiates like morphine on various components of the respiratory reflex. And the goal was to see
whether we could separate the receptors involved in pain relief from those involved in cardio
respiratory depression, bad news is we couldn't. But I used an interesting technique or two,
which I was able to take into into industry. And it most importantly, it taught me the scientific
method of reading into a subject, trying to join the dots, thinking of unanswered questions that
were worth answering to formulate them, convert them into experimental plans, and then gain agreement
for those and then go and do them, trying not to drop tubes on the floor and missing the time
points and so on. So I did a three year course, I learned three year PhD and learned how to do
the scientific the scientific method as we as we know it. And then straight away after that,
I joined, I took, I've taken two big jobs in so-called big pharma. So the first seven years,
I was at the welcome research labs, which were then acquired by Glaxo to form eventually Glaxo's
line. And I only now realized what how important that was. And that was probably an event on the
timeline of the plans, believe it or not, to the event we're living in now. Why do I say that? Well,
it's because it liberated an enormous amount of capital, which was used to start the, really,
to fund the welcome foundation. And I believe the welcome foundation is one of a triumvirate of
bodies which have corruptly altered the direction of biology research in the world for the last 30
years. Anyway, so I left welcome. And I was recruited, actively recruited by a head of pharmacology
there who'd seen me give a speech, said, you know, we would like to expand a respiratory drugs
research group here at Sandwich and Kent, we'd like you to come. And I interviewed, loved it,
and I stayed 17 years, and in addition to growing the group and working with over 200 people,
we produced a lot of experimental medicines that were still in progress
at 2011 when the company closed the entire facility. At the time I left, I was worldwide head of
research for allergy and respiratory diseases for Pfizer, which at the time was the biggest
research based drug company. So it means I didn't get to make all the decisions,
but I was expected to have an opinion about everything in my area. And I loved it. It's
really, really good fun. Having left in 2011, I worked very hard to see if I could find other
people interested in the drugs that we in progress that Pfizer was running just to put in the skip,
the dumpster, because they were liberating cash and reducing their internal research footprint,
just in parentheses, all drug companies have realized they have no idea how to
industrialize the process of drug discovery. It's more an art than the science. The methods
you have to use to evaluate things are scientific, but the idea is as much art as anything else.
And I did have the privilege of meeting professors to James Black, who invented both beta blockers
and H2 antihistamines back in the day when those things were considered valuable. And although
those drugs might not be wonderful now, he was a pretty smart guy and I think honest,
and I learned a lot from people like that. So I tried to find new owners for the work I had
been doing. And I was really pleased that it was mostly acquired by the world's second largest
in Eric's company called Mylan, who on the basis of the work I had been doing formed
the UK subsidiary and acquired almost everything. So the people went across and got jobs,
the work continued, and I'm proud to say they launched the products. So I wasn't completely wrong,
Mr. Pfizer. The bits they didn't want, I didn't think about doing anything with them, but for the
first year, having left Pfizer for 2011 to 2012, I was just very lucky people contacted me and said
we'd like you to consult if you'd like to do a day a week or a day a month, whatever it was.
So I started building a little portfolio of consulting clients that were all startups,
all biotechs, mostly in the US. And that happened probably because for 10 years at Pfizer, I did
a job that nobody wants to do, which was to review the external environment for any
in-licensing or acquisition opportunities. Pfizer was like lots of companies, as I mentioned earlier,
was realizing they could not invent drugs internally at the rate required to feed the machine and all
the implied growth rates that Wall Street wants to hear. So it's like, what are we going to do?
It's like, okay, get these scientists if they can't invent stuff to run the radar on everybody else's
smaller companies and so on. And so there were two or three deals I did that learned, I think,
about 10 billion in revenue. So I had to be very persistent. So that taught me persistence
right up to the board level. And the particular example was Pfizer formed a relationship with
Berlin or Lindelheim for a drug called Spareva, which at the time of identification was in early
phase two trials. So I thought that that's a good drug. I think it is. And so anyway, I proved
influential, I could and persistent really. And it's because I kept reviewing things. I reviewed
100 opportunities, 97 of which we declined. So it's not fun. But what I did, and I didn't realize
it at the time, is I was getting a live teaching on how not to do biotech, and when it worked,
how to do it. So when I left Pfizer, I got invited back to consult to some of these folks who'd
started another company saying, you know, you were helpful. A couple of them over coffee said,
what are you going to do with all the stuff that's going to get thrown away? And I said,
no idea. And they said, well, you should spin those assets out. And I had no idea. But anyway,
within a couple of weeks, I'd formulated an idea that, yeah, I could probably do something
with those compounds. So I got together a small team, went to see someone senior advisor, said,
I said, if I raise some private capital, will you at least in principle agree to negotiate
to assign those patents to me? And they said, yeah, 18 months later, I came back with a six million
seed of investment from San Francisco, it's an answer there. And Ziaco was born. And I led
his CEO and we grew up to 25 staff raised about 40 million US dollars, ran a clinical trial,
which was unbelievably positive. We converted a drug that was intended for asthma to a drug
that could be used in atopic dermatitis, a disease of inflammation and itch in the skin for which
there were no oral treatments. And it looked fantastic. And within a few months, Novartis,
the big Swiss drug company acquired my little company for an obscene amount of money.
I only had a little shareholding at that time, but it was enough to retire and I did. That was 2017.
So I was enjoying early retirement when what I call COVID era began. And I think quite
early on, I thought I was very frightened, like most people, you were intended to be.
But I noticed, this is very important, I noticed significant public figures on the television
that I knew because I've been around so long that, for example,
Sepatric balance was a former colleague at welcome over 30 years earlier. So I slightly
knew these people and I noticed that he wasn't telling the truth. So sometimes I spotted him
saying things I knew were not true and I knew he knew them because we'd trained in the same
university ecosystem at the same time. So I thought, why are you lying? Once she spots
someone's telling a lie, you pay a lot of attention. And then there was talk of lockdowns and I kind
of knew this was nonsense. I'll put it to people that for it not to be nonsense, you have to believe
that people without symptoms, that is well people can give a disease they haven't got to other people.
Now, that isn't very likely as it's and it didn't happen. But when you, and I've gotten in the
other thing to say is, it's quite complicated, that I did used to believe in the germ theory model of
acute respiratory diseases. So I don't anymore, but at the time I did. And so I thought, well,
this is crazy. The people who are the best sources of infection are the people who were ill and the
people who were ill already at home or in hospital. And the well people can't infect other people.
So lockdown is stupid. And I started reading the pandemic preparation plans of all countries I
could find starting with UK and then Germany and then France and America. None of them mentioned
lockdown. And it was illogical. And so I said to my wife, something horrible is happening.
So what do you mean? I said, there are all the countries are talking about making a stay at home
and explain to why it was mad. And she looked very concerned. I said, I'm really, really concerned.
And on the day, our then Prime Minister Boris Johnson said, I'm sorry to have to tell you,
you must stay at home. Apparently I was racing up and down the stairs all evening, muttering,
we are in so much trouble. And I knew we were. I didn't know what the hell was happening. But
I knew that something serious was happening. And let me put it to you, ladies and gentlemen,
the only way all the countries of the world pretty much would do the same stupid thing that I knew
was helpless and was not in their plans would be if there was a super national plan,
super national force above those countries. I knew that that evening. I had no idea who they were.
And that's true. They didn't decide to do it on their own. Someone told me to do it.
There's no way they could have independently all decided to do a stupid thing that was out
with their original plans that had been put together by, I think, sincere care for people.
So I knew already in March something was happening. I didn't know what. At the time, as I've said,
I thought that acute respiratory diseases were caused by submicroscopic infectious particles
called viruses. I no longer believe that. And what we'll cut to the chase, all I believe that a
I believe that a fake emergency has been strung up sprung upon us. I didn't think that early on.
But probably in 2021, I encountered Professor Dennis Rancourt or Denis Rancourt. And he had done
a week by week analysis of all cause mortality separately in each of the 50 US states. And
he'd been doing it for some time, before the pandemic. And so he started publishing in the
summer of 2020, saying in no, in no state looking at people dying in terms of sex, age, and data
death. When I, when I do the plots, he said, I see no, there's no sign of anything happening.
Up until the moment when a pandemic was declared, whereupon, you know, the world went mad and
around. So I didn't know, but I now know there was, there was nothing happening prior to the
declaration of a pandemic. And I think that means there wasn't one. So it doesn't matter to me
if there was a virus or not a virus. There wasn't any public health emergency. I think that's
the thing to focus on. There wasn't any public health emergency. And yet the world went crazy.
We were locked down. We made the way it wear masks, wash our hands, keep social distance,
close most businesses, unless they were essential, not do international travel. In some countries,
closed schools and universities, everything went remote. It's like, that is so destructive
on two fronts. It's, I'm enough of an economist to know that if you do that, every country that
does it will go bankrupt. You can't, you can't fund an economy by borrowings for months to years
and not have unbelievably serious consequences seriously. I personally think all the countries
of the world are technically bankrupt and have been kept going by agreement with the central banks
over led by the Bank of International Settlement in Switzerland. So I think they've agreed,
you're all broke, but we'll keep it going. So financial damage was one. There were
individuals at the national level in damage and currency. Also individuals were bankrupted.
And then of course, the third main factor was social dislocation. People whose lives were
only kept meaningful because they were interacting daily with people who mattered to them, became
depressed. And I'm sure many of them died. Humans don't like isolation anymore than if you put a
dog on its own and the can will leave it for a few months, it will probably be dead, even if you feed
it every day. And humans aren't very different. So I believe there was not a public health emergency
one was faked using lies, propaganda, and this wretched piece, the artist, whether or not there
was a virus is irrelevant as there wasn't a public health emergency. And then there were economic
damage, which at the country level, individual level, and a social destruction level. But where
I really come in, and where I think I stand alone, which is very shocking, what I'm going to tell
you, what we know, what I'm going to tell you that it is in, in my opinion, the other, another
of the objectives of this fake pandemic was to incentivize over five billion humans on the planet
to roll their sleeves up to receive an injection of a material that was designed intentionally
to, to get injured kill and reduce fertility. Now, a lot of people have got upset to me with me
when I've said this, I point out my entire career has been in the business of rational
drug design working with colleagues. I put it to you that with the exception of natural products
that can be purified from a source, every synthetic drug, everything that's in a tablet or bottle or
sprayer cream, every atom in there is in there because someone decides to put it in there.
And you only put things in there because they serve a function. And coming right down to the
level of the design of a molecule, it could be a beta blocker or a steroid or this macromolecule,
we're told called modified mRNA, that every single part of it is there for a reason.
And so in a sense, I can virtually lean over the shoulder of the designer, look at the structure
and think, what were you, what were you up to? And I can name, and I will, at least three features
of these molecules, which as a 35 year veteran of this industry, I am certain would not have
gone forward if this was like a drug I was involved in. And I know of other people who have identified
two further mechanisms. So what I'm saying, I'm going to justify that there are multiple
independent designed in toxicities in these injections. And before I describe them, I will say that
with Dr. Wolfgang Vodag, I wrote an open letter to the European medicines agency before any of
these products have, quote, authorization. So we couldn't know what the profile was.
But I detailed, not all of them, but I detailed the ones I thought of at the time, saying, for
good mistake, you know, disease, if you inject millions of people with this, these are the kind
of things I anticipate will happen. Well, they ever will happen. They have all happened.
And more, I hadn't thought about cancer. So I'm going to describe three things that are
blindingly obvious. And then I think what I'll do is I'll stop and take questions on the whole thing.
I recently wrote an open letter to the Metropolitan Police,
and it's on my sub stack. If you look up, Dr. Mike Eden, sub stack is the only
article where a friend of mine said I should put it out there. And in that letter,
I more or less laid out what I've just said so far, who I am, the backdrop, and the awful
allegations. So the three things I'm going to pick out, and there are many more, but these,
I think, are so, I think, I think you can't deny these. So number one, if you express, if you
force a human body to manufacture something that doesn't belong in the human body,
it will be non-self or foreign. And that's what these products do. They provide a genetic instruction,
messenger RNA, it says, please glide into these cells and tell the cells to do what the instruction
is, which is to make whatever is encoded. If you do that, I believe based on simple
immunological principles that have been known for at least 60 or 70 years,
that every cell that does that will mark itself now as foreign. Your immune system plays nice
with itself most of the time, unless you ill, because your immune system is constantly
traveling around your body, T cells and so on, sniffing and sniffing and sniffing, and it keeps
spotting, yep, that's my, yep, that's my, yep, that's my, oh, what's that? And if it finds a cell
that no longer is displaying the sort of, I'm one of you, symbols, your immune system goes to war,
attacks it and kills it. This happens in at least two ways. One is if you get an infection,
and no matter what kind, your immune system will notice something is wrong and it tends to save
you from it by launching a lethal attack on the cells and tissues, doing that non-cell thing.
So what I'm saying is it's axiomatic, that is must follow. If you inject someone with mRNA,
encoding anything other than approaching that belongs in you, you will trigger autoimmune attack,
and depending on the dose and the distribution and how long the stuff persists, you could get,
mild symptoms or it could kill you, but it will not be good and it will happen every time with
everybody, it's just a question of whether it would be seriously bad or not, and that will
depend on, as I say, dose, distribution and your luck. So that's the first thing. It's the wrong,
it's the wrong approach. What do I mean by that? If you wanted to make a vaccine and I'm really
now not happy with with vaccinology at all, but if we just go along with the original narrative,
if you wanted to do that, you wouldn't do it this way, you would do anything else, you know,
extract the pathogen and whatever, show that to your immune system. I know that doesn't work,
but that would have been at least what people expected. So why does this technology exist at
all? Dr. Rawen alone, I think, had patents for its invention. Why does it even exist?
Well, originally, I think people just wanted to know if you could do it, and perhaps that's where
Dr. Malone's PhD research or postdoc research came in, but I remember hearing about it 15 or 20
years ago in Pfizer, and it was presented to me with a perfectly sound rationale, which I'm just
going to briefly explain. It was the idea was that you could use the destructive power of your
immune system to kill tumors that you couldn't get to with surgery, so-called non-resectable
tumors, so like a certain brain tumors. Most tumors have unique markers on their surface,
they are deranged, but they identify themselves with a different postcode on their surface.
And so if you could direct an mRNA sequence to that postcode and inject it, it will mostly go
to that tumor, and your immune system will then kill it. I don't know whether it works,
but the idea is rather beautiful. As a drug discoverer, I thought, yeah, that's pretty clever,
and it's called immuno-oncology. It is a division of many drug companies. There are biotechs
funded to do this stuff, so it does have a potential use, but if you give it to healthy people and
you force them to express something that doesn't belong in their body, it cannot help them.
It's hopelessly inappropriate. It feels still like we're at number one. That's number one.
Number two, I've only got three. Number two, it's not just making your body make something
that doesn't belong in you. The question is, what did they choose to ask or to make your body
manufacture? They could have picked anything from this so-called virus, the so-called SARS-CoV-2,
to which apparently we have the sequence. So they could have had the messenger RNA
in code and make your body make any of the bits of that. So I put it to you. The rule of thumb would
be, don't make it make your body make something you know is dangerous. The only known dangerous
protein in this material, I don't know whether the virus is real or not, but I know the sequence
exists, and if you convert that sequence into protein, the only bit that we know is poisonous
is the so-called spike protein. It is of a nature for which there was much literature,
published literature in the peer review journals to show that these were kind of venom-like
proteins that would activate blood platelets and certainly would stimulate blood
calculation. They were toxic to cardiac muscle, and they altered damaged neuronal transmission.
And so not only do we have a technology that forces your body to make something foreign,
and I told you and no one has told me I'm wrong, that that will make your immune system
think it's invaded and attack your own tissue and destroy it. So the only way your body can save
you from that perceived infection or tumor, as I say, tumors are the other things that causes
this derangement, and your body probably saves you from a tumor every other day, that you never
knew you had from like a solar gamma ray went through you, damaged your DNA, your immune system
noticed a deranged cell and killed it. Good job. But not only do these materials force your body
to make non-self proteins, which will lead to this autoimmune attack, but your body is now making
something which I knew and I can point to the literature, it makes something analogous to
things already proven as toxins. Or guess what? My guess is, you know, depending on where it went
in your body after injection, how well it was taken up, how efficiently it was converted to protein,
and how long that went on, which frankly is a perhaps a lottery for every single individual,
you could get blood clots, you could get heart injury, you could get neurological conditions,
and you're all of those, didn't you folks? And they were predictable, because they follow
from the design choice. And the last one I'm going to mention, there are many more, but I think
three is powerful because they're different and so obvious, the third one. The mRNA products,
Modena and the Pfizer-BioNTech, were formulated. What does that mean? Usually the drug substance,
the actual active, is tiny, often so small you can't see it, it might be milligrams or even
micrograms, you have to bind it up with fillers and, you know, things to to bulk it up so you can
make a tablet or a spray or an ointment or an injection. And that whole process is called
formulation. So you take the drug substance, the thing you've invented, and then clever people in
pharmaceutical sciences work out how to stabilize this molecule, how to make sure it's pure,
that it's stable, that it'll be released when it needs to be and so on and so forth. It's very,
very complicated, not my skill area, but I learned quite a lot about formulations in the respiratory
side. So when I looked at this formulation, the formulation is lipid nanoparticle, so it's a
kind of grease, but it's a particular kind of grease formulated in a particular way. And so I
saw, well, yeah, I can see why you would protect this vulnerable genetic material in this blob of
lipid when you inject it. The lipid will help it just slide through the wall of a cell,
straight through the wall of a, it'll go all around the body, that's what it's designed to do.
So when I was looking it up, when I stumbled upon a 2012 paper, and I read it with mounting
horror, because lipid nanoparticles is one of a category of sort of macro molecule, that means
large molecule carriers, transporters, vehicles. So they've been in use for quite a while,
and it was well known to people in the pharmaceutical science, the formulation end, that these particular
macro molecules lipid nanoparticles have a propensity that is are inclined to accumulate
in the ovaries of every species tested to date. And so I thought, well, I'm a toxicologist.
I can tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that if you have an observation in your top studies,
toxicology studies, you're not allowed to ignore it. You have to assume that that's what's going
to happen in humans unless you've got data to show it doesn't. So I am now faced with a formulation
of horrible material, which I think is going to damage people by an autoimmunity and a direct
toxicity that's going to accumulate in their ovaries. Then some enterprising person wrote to
the Japanese regulator, and under their Freedom of Information Act, was able to obtain studies,
you know, distribution studies of the finance products. And we translated it from the Japanese.
They had studied its injection distribution, I think, is either in rats or mice. And guess what?
It accumulated in their ovaries as predicted from the literature. So these are not accidental.
The choice of mRNA is dangerous to healthy people. Its original use was immuno-oncology
for people who are beyond saving by chemo or surgery. I've got second thoughts about a lot of
this stuff. But then the spike protein, it's analogous to materials known to be toxic to human
cells in the mainland cells, and they made your body make it. Finally, they formulated a material
already known by people in the industry to lead to accumulation of the payload in the ovaries,
where it will do the two things I just mentioned. So I'll tell you a couple of other things.
The most common reason drugs fail in development. Two most common reasons. One is they don't work.
You know, medical hypothesis was wrong. You put it in people with itchy red skin, and you put it
in a vehicle group and a test group and it's blinded and so on. It's all done properly. That was the
single experiment we did in my biotech. You break the blind and damn it, they're both the groups
of the same. You drive them down anything. So that's why it was so miraculous when ours did work.
But that's the most common outcome. You're wrong. We're not clever enough to work out what's going
to happen. And that's one of the reasons why the industry is it's not just failing. It's failed.
It can no longer, it can't make profit anymore. It's a dead industry. I don't think there'd
been any significant new products that I personally would have been happy to have got behind.
There's something one million pounds anymore. I have to work out what's going to happen.
And that's one of the reasons why the industry is actually it's went properly. That was the
thing that you put it in people with itchy red skin, tooth formulated, and material already known by
people in the industry to lead to accumulation of the payload in the ovaries, where it will do
the two things I just mentioned. So I'll tell you a couple of other things.
The most common reason drugs fail in development. Two most common reasons. One is they don't work.
You know, medical hypothesis was wrong. You put it in people with itchy red skin,
and you put it in a vehicle group and a test group and it's blinded and so on. It's all done
properly. That was the single experiment we did in my biotech. You break the blind and
damn it, both the groups are the same. You drive and die anything. So that's why it was so
miraculous when ours did work. But that's the most common outcome. You're wrong. We're not
clever enough to work out what's going to happen. And that's one of the reasons why the industry is
it's not just failing. It's failed. It can no longer, it can't make profit anymore. It's a dead industry.
I don't think there'd been any significant new products that I personally would have
been happy to have got behind. You know, they're like one million pound a patient,
cancer, biologicals, which I've looked at the data and they might give you a month. I don't even
trust the clinical data now. I think they cheat. So I think they're now at a point where they've
got enormous financial resources and they can't make money in the normal way and whatever. And I
think this is one of the motivations for what's happened is it's between an enormous income for
the pharma companies. But I was going to say that's one of the two main reasons why we fail.
One is we're wrong in the medical hypothesis and the drug simply doesn't work. Now, sometimes
you get a chart and another chart because a different hypothesis comes up and you find a use.
So the classic example is Viagra. Its original use had been to relieve angina by relaxing blood
vessels in the heart and it didn't do that. People did not report improvements. But the famous use
that eventually was discovered was it dilates blood vessels in the penis and helps men have
bigger erections and billions of dollars were made out of it. So you were wrong. They were wrong
in the medical hypothesis, but another medical hypothesis was able to make use of the drug because
it wasn't obviously unsafe. But the other reason drugs fail is because they're toxic. There we go.
Either in people or, you know, in multi dose studies in rats, dogs, monkeys, whatever is required.
So I'm very sorry if there are people who are philosophically set against the intersection
and I do understand that I grew less and less comfortable with that as I got older. Nevertheless,
someone has to be as it were at the guinea pig and I don't want it to be people.
So the main, the second main reason and it's extremely common, unfortunately, is that
for reasons we were not able to anticipate the drug when taking the required dose for long periods
of time, if it was a chronic drug produced unacceptable tops, unacceptable side effects.
So with the first one, medical hypothesis being wrong, my god, you would be grilled.
Like you need to explain your medical hypothesis. What's the evidence supporting that? Is the
counter evidence? What were your peers doing? You know, how quickly could we test the hypothesis?
It was people all over it and rightly so. The second one, everyone got a shot at it. What do I mean?
Before you nominate as a compound, we literally would have
like all hands meetings and your job was if you've been in the industry, you may have an opinion,
you may spot something about the design of that molecule that twiggers a thought where you think
I've seen that before and it led to kidney toxicity in 1978 or something. So we would go
over these damn things and it was called like a structural alerts meeting after something like
that. Each drug company will have its own process because what you don't want to do
is five years down the road after 50 million dollars has been spent to find it fails for
toxicity and someone goes, oh yeah, I thought it would do that. So seriously, that's what used to
happen. So I'm saying these products, if they were proper, would have gone through like a structural
alert review or a top's prospects review and anyone like me or anyone who had been hired by me
would have looked at this and thought, no, you can't meet non-self, it'll cause autoimmune
reactions. No, you damn well better not meet their bodies, make that funny spike protein
because that's analogous to lots of venoms. What the hell are you doing using this
macromolecule lipid nanoparticles? Do you not know it's going to accumulate in ovaries?
So I'm promising you this would not have got out of the door. So I'm going to take a long pause,
but just to say, there are at least two other independent mechanisms of toxicity built into
these molecules. I can't name them because I'm not a molecular biologist, but they are apparently,
there's a nuclear localization signal in the sequence, which means it's going to traffic to
your nucleus, which it doesn't need to be in. And what was the other one is that there is
something called, I think it's a partial SV40 promoter. I think that has something that might
be too mixed up bad for oncological reasons. And apparently you would not tolerate either of
these two things in the product. So that's fine. So I'm going to ask you on the call,
having, having heard me describe my history and training, the processes we use, the most common
reason for failure and what we tried to do to avoid it, and my description of what I thought
would cause harms, and the fact that we wrote them down before they were launched. And then
those things happen. I'm going to ask you, is there anyone on the call horrified that you may be
that doesn't think, as I do, that these were designed intentionally injure, kill, and reduce
fertility. So I will stop. Mike, thank you so much. And for those watching the recording,
who didn't get the note, Mike chooses not to have his video showing at the moment because he's
in in holiday mode. So thank you so much for articulating so beautifully. You addressed us
a couple of years ago, and I've kept your notes and again, you articulate so well.
And many of us know that someone who truly understands their craft can articulate complex
ideas in ways that non experts can understand. So I'm very grateful to the way that you have
done that. So my Stephen Frost gets the first 15 minutes and then we've got lots of hands up,
which is wonderful. So and Stephen, Stephen will have far more than 15 minutes. But anyway,
Stephen, are you ready to go? Yeah, so, yeah, Charles, I'm sorry. I want to say sorry for
losing my cooler little before the meeting. I didn't mean to be sharp with people who were
trying to help me, but I was just trying to concentrate on what I thought I knew was the
correct thing to do and what you also agreed most of the time at least. So I didn't mean ill
towards whoever I snapped at, but I was really under pressure in my mind. Sorry.
As far as your presentation, Mike, it was just brilliant. And
if there were two people born for this crisis, I think you are one of them. Oh, three, maybe.
A secret back to you is another and Archbishop Vigano is another. So I agree with you on everything
you've said. You're so, how shall I say, precise in your use of English? You're maybe shy, but you're
incredibly articulate. And the last one was Archbishop Vigano. And you're always
or is it Begano? I don't know. But a lot of people, of course, including me now,
think that what we need to solve this nonsense, these Trojan horses for totalitarianism
is a spiritual element and that doesn't always involve logic as I'm told. I agree. I absolutely
agree. And I used to be embarrassed in saying what I'm going to say because I'm a scientist
and this isn't science. But in the summer of 2021, I had an encounter.
And I think I took from this encounter an instruction to do what I'm doing. That was it.
No promises. It was like, you have to do this. Good for you. I mean, I was already committed,
but it was there. And also, it had been a terrible time in the previous, as I started to discover
what I've described to you, which I hope I haven't been too cool about. I fell apart because I'd
been a normie until 2020. I listened to the BBC for 41 years. I got the Sunday Times every
Sunday for about 25 years. I kind of believe roughly what I was being told, bits gets
glibbering out again. So to follow the data, as I did, so my head was following and my soul was
screaming. I describe it as psychological whiplash. I think I probably had a mini breakdown by the
end of the year. And I was climbing out of it again, past very, very dark thoughts. And then one night,
something appeared. And it was like, more or less, here's a handful of courage to get on with it.
And I've never felt frightened since that moment. And that was it. That was God. That was God.
Good for you, Mike. Yeah. So I don't know whether you can remember, because at the time, I now
realize you were really psychologically tortured into a corner. And so was I. And I didn't, I thought
we were immune from this psychological torture. And I happen to think, Mike, and I think you
should know this, because you're British as well. I want to hold these bastards to account. And I
I'm also giving information to the police. I wrote to the police. I haven't published it.
Maybe I should, but I kept it very, very tight so that they couldn't gainsay what I'd said to them.
But I think, you know, your letter is absolutely brilliant. Someone was saying to me the other day,
trying to draw my attention even more to your letter. And I will have a look at it again. But
so, Mike, the terrible thing in the United Kingdom is that actually it appears to be better
than in France. And the other countries, you know, which had had hard measures, should we say,
an inverted comment, which were never just because there was never any pandemic. There
wasn't even a disease called COVID-19, in my opinion. It wasn't properly diagnosed. And I'm
and that's one of my strong points to the police, because I am a medical doctor. And even if no
one in the world agrees with me, I have a right to a medical opinion. No, you do. Yeah. And I don't
approve it beyond reasonable doubt or beyond the plans of probabilities as in court of law.
And I don't have to, as a scientist, do enormous numbers of randomized controlled trials,
double blinded or whatever. So, but I'm trained as a doctor and my duty is to diagnose
for the patient in the best way possible using all my experience and all my hopefully good
training. And somehow or other, I think I did get a good training because when I was training,
we were told that, you know, even if you believe in viruses, which I'm not sure I do now,
I'm pretty sure I don't, you know, everybody's throwing the viruses out with the bath water,
cause a pandemic. And I was fascinated by that. So, and I can't remember the name of the professor
who taught us this. But I remembered it. And I found out Christmas is a time for me writing
an email to all the people I qualified with and challenging them. And guess what, Mike?
I can't get a single person I qualified at Liverpool University with
to engage with me, even privately, even people I shared flats with. They're that terrified of me.
That's the thing that I have to say that's made me. So, I think I've recorded something like 250
interviews, something like that. And I would just comment actually, it's important for me to mention
in case anyone's listening for the first time. It's no use googling. Dr. Mike Ye, don't please
don't use Safari, Google, whatever they are. Don't use the mainstream search engines or at least
don't only use them. In fact, I invite people, there's a very interesting experiment I did
yesterday is that it's still valid. Most people, including me, I thought that browsers or search
engines were pretty much a generic function. You type in what you want to find and they find it
for you. I didn't understand how it did it, but they're all about the same, right? Well, they're
not. If you type Dr. Mike Eden into Google and then just have a look at the first two or three
pages, you'll find that I'm a very famous anti-vax conspiracy theorist. And you'll find articles
from Reuters saying how wrong I am about all sorts of things. If you type Dr. Mike Eden into
minority search engines of which there are dozens, like something called Mojik, M-O-J-E-E-K,
or Yandex, Y-A-N-D-E-X. If you put a Dr. Mike Eden in any of the small ones,
you get hit with about 50 of my presentations. How interesting. Now, that can't happen unless
someone has decided to filter the... It's not an algorithm. Most people will get because the most
people will use mainstream browsers. It's not an algorithm. You see, it's just a switch that they
flip. If they don't want you to see giga-ome biological, they just flip the switch and it's
not there on the front page. If they don't want people to find Mike Eden, it just won't show up.
It's not a special algorithm. It's a switch. It's an if-then statement. It's basic programming.
And that's the part about it that they want you to think is AI and an algorithm and it's a
black box. We don't really understand, but they can tweak it a little bit. It is not. It is just
very, very simple. If they want everybody on the right that watches Fox News to see
Robert Malone this week, it's done. They just flip that switch. They just add him to that box
and that box and that box and then it goes wherever they go. It's not some magic thing that they have
to know exactly how to tweak the formula. They just have to click a checkbox on his...
I mean, it's that simple. That's the reason why Elon Musk bought the platform X in the first place.
It wasn't to restore free speech. It was to be the controller of it, to be the guy who could
flip that switch and then also go around saying that it's AI and algorithms and stuff like that
and bots. It's simple. The illusion is to try and make you believe that it's a complex thing
that you can't really blame on anybody. It's not. It's really simple. They lie to you on purpose
and they can game the system so that you're not heard and then you can't see the extent to
which you can't be heard. It seems like everybody can hear you. I mean, I can see all the people in
the gym. I can hear my voice echoing in the gym, so I guess everybody can hear me, but that's not
what the internet does. It's an illusion. Mike's seeing it now too and it's exciting because the
more people that see it, the more people we will be there. And what you find lies about me.
Why would someone go to the effort of lying about me and hiding things I have actually done?
And I think the answer is obvious. They don't want you to hear from me. Why would they not want you
to hear from me? It could be because I'm telling the truth. It seems to me in a elaborate piece of
work that they would do that. And of course, they may get rid of it now. I've pointed it out. But
I would say that's sort of thing that's quite useful. You can show someone on their own phone
and you ask them beforehand, what would they expect to happen? It should be roughly the same,
right? Because if it's not, what uses a browser is you're just going to get a random garbage.
So it should be roughly the same. It's not even roughly the same.
Anyway, so one of the reasons people have said to me, oh, my sister in Australia,
who thinks I'm a conspiracy. So you can find the rest of this video,
they said. You said it's true, Mike. Why haven't they killed you? I've got a perfectly good answer.
They need to do this. Let me give you that link. If the person lives in the modern technological
world, they have the IT tools that serve the same purpose. They can censor and smear you.
I want to end this stream on a different note because I do think I have another message to send.
It's those listening. This is the full video there. I can see it.
I think I cannot reach further than I have done.
It's not defeatist. Every now and again, we travel. So we'll be in say Heathrow.
So he's saying, he's kind of feeling like the system has limited the extent to which he can
get his message out and he's given 250 speeches and he's tired of it. And I don't totally, I can't
possibly imagine how tired he would be. He was in front of the parliament in the UK at some point
thinking that if he just spoke up, everything was going to be fine and it wasn't. So if anybody
has been staring at the alien for longer than him, I don't know who it is. Maybe Wolfgang Lodach.
But it sounds like to me, according to that description, that when he realized that people
were going to lock down and that there was no going back from it, everybody was committed to it.
He was scared. That sounds like a real story to me. And I got to respect him a lot for telling it.
I felt like that was one of the most honest and that's what it is. Just like Mark Twain said,
if you don't tell lies, you don't have to remember anything. And it feels very much like
Michael Eden does that quite regularly. Now when you get him, he gets a chance. He tells
it as truthfully as he possibly can. Because the moment you start pulling punches, the most
perceptive of your listeners can feel it. And I've been trying to use that strategy as well.
I want you to listen to the bad ideas. Remember we talked about what Peter Thiel said with regard
to these bad ideas and the propensity to be able to lie and exaggerate. And this is how he
thinks things are done. I noticed something interesting when I was looking up listening to
Stephen Hatfield on a recent Tommy podcast. And I was actually listening to it because I wanted
to review this time segment where apparently he said that Robert Malone did not have a vaccine card.
And so while I was reviewing that, I was also looking him up on Amazon because Tommy mentions
that Stephen Hatfield has a book or it's his first book and the book is called
Something. And so I look to see if Amazon has it.
It's Tesser rubbish. It's junk.
Community mayors are spent. And so what he's saying there is that the tests are rubbish.
Okay. So what he's now going to say is that community mayors spend a lot of money on it.
And then he's going to describe a test that we should have used instead. Now keep in mind,
this is narrative. This is narrative recapitulation. And at the same time, we know that we've seen
a video on our own stream. We watched it where he talks about Barney needs to be in a mask so we
convince kids to like little tiny kids to wear a mask. And the idea that if your kid gets sick,
you should wear an apron and booties when you go into their room. This was an extraordinary
interview early on in the pandemic. And this is a guy who released a book in 2019 just before
the pandemic started about the inevitability of a pandemic. And so I wanted to order that book.
And I looked down there and in his in his little about the author, it says,
if you can see my my thing here, he served as a course developer and senior lecturer for the
hospital provider section of the non Luger domestic preparedness program,
which basically means that he did some private contracting for what would be the organization
that would become DITRA, right? DITRA, this organization that Mark has made a pretty cogent
argument for the possibility that DITRA might be more State Department than DOD, or at least
it has its feet in both places. And so cannot be really considered a DOD asset per se,
but some kind of bridge organization between a lot of these agencies. Now, that's pretty
curious because again, remember that I believe another person very high up in DITRA, at least
at the start of the pandemic was David Hone and David Hone and Robert Malone go way back.
So then Robert Malone and and Stephen Hatfield doing a couple three episodes of the Tommy podcast
becomes less surprising if they share some colleague in histories with the the whole DITRA
organization, which is curious, right? So let's hear let's hear Stephen Hatfield describe
the the testing and how silly the testing was. And then let's listen to him describe his trip to
Rome with Robert Malone. His tests are rubbish. These tests are rubbish junk junk.
Community mayors are spending thousands of dollars on this crap trying to screen their employees
and their nursing home sounds like he's been doing too much for something that's not going to turn
positive for a week, even though you're infectious. I said, dude, you gotta you need these capture
antigen things where you're not looking for antibodies. You're actually looking for the virus.
So they're expensive. But the antibody is what's on the membrane, the antibody specific to the
COVID virus. Now, remember, oops, ships. And I had my mouse in the right place. Remember
that antibodies at the start of the pandemic became a much less valuable commodity and a lot more
difficult to declare as intellectual property. And I think that Mark has and I have made a
reasonable argument that this probably played a role in the evolution of the response to
whatever it was that we were responding to because there might have been more motivation and more
products based on monoclonal antibodies in their use and diagnostics had the patenting of monoclonal
antibodies not been legally encroached upon by a a Supreme Court decision which cited this
Yale Law School review titled the antibody patent paradox. So kudos to Mark again. So let's listen
to him describe what we should have used as a test, which is a more expensive version of a lateral
flow, but now looking for antigen instead of yeah, well, that's what they wanted. That's that's it.
Positive for a week, even though you're infectious.
I said, dude, you gotta you need these capture antigen things. Dude, you need these looking for
antibodies. You're actually looking for the virus. Dude, dude, they're expensive. But the
antibody is what's on the membrane, the antibody specific to the COVID virus. So patient sample,
mix it up, but the whole virus is coming through. And if it latches one of them,
another antibody comes through and it turns color. So the funny thing is, is that that guy
Lieber, I think it was that was selling like nanotechnology to the Chinese at $50,000 a year
at Harvard or wherever he was Columbia. The technology that he was selling were chips
that could identify different biomarkers that were flowing over them. Oh, isn't that an
interesting parallel here? Isn't that an interesting funny parallel here? Yeah, right. Come on guys,
let's wake up and apologize to our children soon so that we can pull our heads out like the
pregnancy test kit. The first one of these I saw, we 2021, we had to go to Rome to speak to the
Italian Senate. And I'm not vaccinated. I don't have a card. Neither to Dr. Malone.
He didn't have a card. So we're raising help. So they're going to take us to see the
Senate doctor. 2021, we had to go to Rome to speak to the Italian Senate.
And I'm not vaccinated. I don't have a card. Neither to Dr. Malone. He didn't have a card.
So yeah, I know you can't come in the out. So we're raising hell. So is this a mistake?
Because in 2021, Robert Malone said he got the shots so that he could travel.
So the only way this would jive is if they went to Rome before June 2021. Because in June of 2021,
and maybe even earlier, he was telling people that he took two shots partly to travel and partly
because he was told that long COVID might be cured by it. And he had long COVID. I think that's
really important because anybody that claims they have long COVID and is an MD, I gotta say,
I don't buy it. I don't believe you for a second.
Because we all know that chronic fatigue syndrome and pots and all this other stuff
was around before the pandemic and nobody took it very seriously.
Sometimes people were even laughed out of out of medical practices. Ladies and gentlemen,
the idea that Robert Malone had long COVID and then took two shots in order to travel and maybe
even because he was so you heard rumors that it might help with long COVID.
There's no other way to interpret that because in the same out of the same mouth comes a description
of how we knew that this kind of technology wouldn't work. So we gave it up. And I stopped
working on it and worked on Enovio's electroporation.
So it's really extraordinary if you see this. It's either a chronological anomaly that he
can say that Robert Malone didn't have a vaccine pass when Robert Malone in his coming out party
claims to have had a vaccine pass specifically to travel. But Hatfield says that when they went
to Rome to talk to the Roman Parliament, he didn't have a Vax card because he's not vaccinated.
And they
and the funny thing is, is that Robert Malone didn't have didn't have a card either, right?
I'm sure I'm just mistaken. I'm sure I'm making a mountain out of a molehill, right?
So they're going to take us to see the the Senate doctor. He's got these little rapid flow
can and it rips it open and I'm I'm reading this thing antigen test kit, not antibody antigen,
the protein on the it's testing for spike protein. And it's accurate. And it's as accurate as the
PCR test would have been if you ran into the CT of like 30.
So wait, why can he just say that? It's as accurate as the PCR test if you ran the PCR test at like 30.
So again, sometimes we ask questions, sometimes we're given answers to implied questions. And in
this case, Tommy and his listeners are being given an answer to an implied question, which is how
are the PCR test used? Were they accurate or not accurate? And then they're given the answer that
the media has given them before and social media has slipped in before, which is that if you cycle
them right, they're pretty accurate. And then not only that, he's telling you that accuracy,
the fidelity of those PCR tests is actually pretty equivalent to a lateral flow test looking for
the antigen, which are more expensive, what we should have used and what they used on him when
they didn't have a vaccine card and went to Italy to speak to the parliament. What a
spectacular enchantment that he's casting here. Filled with answered questions, filled with models
of reality that have nothing to do with reality, but have such implicit assumptions in them that
that Tommy can't even hear them. It just washes over him like one big mythology blanket that he
can keep his legs warm with while he plays video games between podcasts. Let's listen to this part
now. Again, this is at the end of this last video. We had to go to hern's color, you get like the
pregnancy test kit. The first one of these I saw, we, 2021, we had to go to her own to speak to the
Italian Senate. And I'm not vaccinated. I don't have a card. Either to Dr Malone. He didn't have a card.
So yeah, I know you can't come in the out. So we're raising hell. So they're going to take us to
see the Senate doctor. He's got these little rapid flow can and it rips it open. And I'm
reading this thing, antigen test kit, not antibody antigen, the protein. It's testing for spike
protein. And it's accurate. And it's accurate. As the PCR test would have been, if you ran it at a
CT of like 30. But before I left, I had to get a test. And they were still running at 40. The CDC
never put the word out. You know, you got to run it at 30. Or it's just a shambles from the word
go mate. Honestly, mate, I never seen such incompetence anywhere in my life.
It's like Al Bundy was running everything.
Excuse me. What'd you say?
Have you seen the badge? No. Oh yeah. I've got a pen, a lapel pen. Yeah.
COVID-19. That's what it says underneath. He's got a lapel pin, he says. He's got a lapel pin,
he says. Interesting. Isn't that what has he got a lapel pin that says? What's he got a lapel pin
that says? He says he's got a lapel pin that says this. COVID-19 with the C word. Isn't that what he's
saying? What a strange thing to say. Isn't that interesting? Isn't that an interesting thing to
say? I find that very interesting for him to say that because it's really co-opting what we have
all been saying for a very long time when I've been wearing a jacket for three years that it says
it multiple. Actually, I have green and red patches like that. It's really amazing. They are
going to absorb every little piece and try to make it a part of their limited spectrum of debate
so that everybody possible can be pulled inside of this little egg of nothing and never question
the basic public health narrative. And this guy's not going to do it. Nobody's going to do it.
Imagine this guy is in a bubble suit in a photograph just like Shenxie Lee was conveniently in a
photograph in a bubble suit. Have you ever thought about whether or not the photographer that's
taking a picture of the people in the bubble suits is also in a bubble suit? I guess the bubble suit
implies the existence of something very dangerous in that little epindorf. And if I put that bubble suit
on and held that epindorf in my hand and then I threw that epindorf at you what would your reaction
be? Do you see how powerful these these these images are and how ridiculous it is that this
fireside chat with a geriatric virus hunter should not be taken seriously
with a guy who seems to have been there at the start of Ditra.
I don't know ladies and gentlemen I'm not feeling it anymore I'm not feeling it anymore with this
dude because this dude is like way too entangled in in in dramas and in stories and that Barney video
where he says that you should wear apron and and face mask and footies when you have a sick kid
this guy is part of it he is cooperating to enslave our children please come on
because that's what it was left-handed know what the right hand was doing
um and I mean shot dr. Shaw he's going well well what sensitivities should it have
why are you asking me you're the one with all the scientists and labs
I shall let you use common sense don't you think it should just be as accurate as a pregnancy test
kit yeah or you're going to have some college girl jumping off the top of the dorm building
because she's got a false positive test yeah who jumps off the top of a dorm building when they're
pregnant holy shit what is that what kind of statement is that to make and then you're saying
that a pregnancy test because of the way that it works is is very accurate and that a COVID test
should be just as accurate but do you see the the ridiculous bait and switch there that apparently
Tommy's not sophisticated enough to see one is an antibody against an a hormone known to be present
or not present in the urine of pregnant women
the other purports to be an antibody that is specific for a circulating RNA that's not known
to be present in the respiratory tracks of humans but is supposedly there for the first time ever
starting out at a point and now found almost everywhere but that bait and switch is so fast
those shells move so quickly Tommy and his listeners don't stand a chance even when this guy's that
old and that decrepit he still can do it maybe because he's totally enchanted himself and actually
believes the nonsense that he says maybe he does believe the worst case scenario was narrowly
avoided it's possible i guess but i so much doubt it
i so much doubt it there might be a little bit more left yeah don't you think
so they brought in uh
uh when was this video i will find it i can find it i can't remember that i'm sure
somebody already put it in didn't they already put it in the chat from national cancer institute
yeah so it's uh i'm going to open it another in another copy the current address and then i'll
put it over here i think it's uh oh gosh why can't i see my cursor
it's uh let's see
no that's not what i want i want this
sorry i'm looking it up this is from this podcast is from June 7th of last year i presume
so it's it's eight months old i mean this this is part of the you know the scooby-doo is still
going on it's still going on now but this was really in the heart of last year so last summer
um it was probably in that string of of robber Malone you know robber Malone and Hatfield
robber Malone and Hatfield's all those things um
so the reason why i brought us here an odd last name like that yeah oh yeah that's right he started
test yes people started to start sharply where was the FDA they're supposed to be testing things
why are you handing it off to NCI so i found this interesting because actually he says that some
guy at the um the national cancer institute uh i mean it's just so bizarre
the national cancer institute
was what is it sharpless i think so i'm sorry i gotta get it up in my history again because i don't
don't have it all there where is this dude sharpless there it is let's open that in another
so sharpless is the guy that he just mentioned and what he says is that it's really strange that
the FDA the CDC wasn't doing the testing but they passed it off to the NCI this guy the head of
the national cancer institute at the during the pandemic used to be the professor of medicine
and genetics at the University of North Carolina isn't that interesting he also acted as the head
of the FDA between the current dude and and uh what's his name maybe it says it over here yes
Scott Gottlieb he's also interested of course in aging and finding a way to measure molecularly
measure a aging in T lymphocytes oh my gosh and look who he paired up with some other lady who
also works on aging so you can see the transhuman people here right she's working on the major
histocompatibility complex so this is all about immune recognition of epitopes it could also be
very closely related to what epivacs was doing where you could look at and look for epitopes
that could activate and would activate antigen presentation it is extraordinary how tiny the
ip window is in which all of these people are involved now if you just throw in a few other
things like the fact that he passed through massachusetts general hospital which is
harvard's hospital which is where will insky was and and and and so many of the others uh
mirtha was there the data fiber cancer institute i mean come on ladies and gentlemen do you see
it they're all protecting the same giant lie that they need us to give all of our medical data up
all of our sequencing day all of our sequence data they need to give up all we need to give up
all of our molecular data that they can possibly collect and they don't want ours they want our
grandchildren's and so they need to separate us from our kids so that our kids trust them more
than they trust us and then they're gonna eventually convince our kids with one or two more crises
that this is the only thing that we can do you got to turn it all over to us that's where i think
this is going that's what i think this is all about these people want to be part of the ruling
class and so they are willing to throw out all truth in order to get on that boat they want to
be on the elite train when the when the airplane stop flying they want to still be able to fly when
the when the five course meals are all gone they still want to be able to get them when the when
the really big fancy parties are thrown on yachts they still want to be invited that's what this is
all about if we want to crack it i think we need to start to understand how models are supposed to
be used to generate knowledge how models are supposed to be used to make predictions that
can be verified by measurement and if we start to understand how jeff and and greg glassman
and and stove and these people who who understand this matt briggs have been trying desperately to
wake people up to this understanding and we start to bring people to understand this philosophical
difference between hypothesis falsification and knowledge generation we're gonna get very far
because these kinds of magic spells won't work us a work on us anymore because we will see this
for a model of reality and then we will use it to make predictions and if those predictions won't
don't come true then we will discard it rather than reiterate it over and over again even though it
can't make predictions that can be validated it can't make predictions about measurements in
the future that can be validated therefore this is a terrible model it's not a valid model of the
immune system a terrible model of the immune system would make some predictions and this is a terrible
model of mother nature where there exists pandemic potential in bad caves and in laboratories and
in stitching it's a terrible model because what it predicts doesn't happen what it predicts about
our immune system doesn't happen what it predicts about the fidelity of these viruses doesn't happen
what it predicts about what we should find in these infected people it doesn't happen that's why we
saw that video yesterday they were there looking down on the on the huge preparation area where
they were butchering chickens by the hundreds and exclaiming how much virus is down there and
how those people are just swimming in it and then moments later they're down there with no mass
standing there watching them themselves knowing that bird flu kills 50 to 60 percent of the people
that are infected and that walking contradiction that that idea that that scientists can have models
of reality in their head that are not verifiable in common sensical every day experience and yet
somehow or another they still use them to formulate grants and to give talks and to expound as a
professional authority it is absolutely extraordinary and that the spread of these bad ideas is much
scarier than the the molecule that they tell us has gone around the world that that came from a
bad cave that might have come from a laboratory that they first found in a bad cave
we can't let this lie become the truth we cannot pass this on to our children ladies and gentlemen
we can't let these people pass it on to our children and this is the idea they're trying to pass
on to our children that there was a novel virus it killed millions of people the millions more
were saved from it it's likely gain a function and gain a function will that means it'll come
again so transfection better be good next time please ladies and gentlemen don't take that seriously
i really hope that you enjoyed the little show i've got to go upstairs and get my kids ready
ladies and gentlemen please stop all transfections and humans because it was criminally negligent
as mike eden mr sparkle obviously can explain better than most of us can they want to eliminate
the control group they want to eliminate the free thinkers um and that means that more than
ever you need to understand these three things and spread them among your family and friends
as fast and as often as possible ladies and gentlemen thank you very much for joining me
this is giggle home biological high resistance low noise information for you brought to you by
biologists you can find me at giggle and biological.com stream dot bio or giggle home dot bio and giggle
home dot bio all of those things giggle and biological.com thank you very much for joining me
thank you very much for subscribing um and uh yeah we're going to see you guys again really
really soon this is the independent bright web
thanks guys
so
You