I have no responsibility for the current pandemic.
military operations, but they were global military operations, right?
Every country had exactly the same narrative.
I was fortunate to be able to travel during COVID because I had natural immunity.
Having had it for two days, I took ivermectin, I was fine.
And so I saw, you know, two meters, masks, you know, be afraid, stay at home, lockdown, you know, schools closed, businesses tanked.
All of that was on a global basis.
in condition that we will not call autism.
I don't like the word autism.
He was vaccine damaged.
He was neurologically damaged.
In condition that we will not call autism.
I don't like the word autism.
He was vaccine damaged.
But you can tell if someone's lying.
You know, you can sort of feel it in people.
And I have lied.
I'm sure I'll lie again.
I don't want to lie, you know?
I don't think I'm a liar.
I try not to be a liar.
I don't want to be a liar.
I think it's, like, really important not to be a liar.
I don't care how you get there.
I don't care what you do to get there.
The goal is to win.
It's like I can't make the mouse click over there.
It's getting harder and harder.
harder and harder to stay focused on the biology not to take the bait on social media just watching a video like this and realizing how many of these images almost instantaneously your brain can recognize and the reason why is because we've been training ourselves for the last five years on social media to think in these
Simple things these simple terms these simple Memes more or less right and so it is extraordinary what they can do with with a little computer program Of course, it's not a lot of hard work here to create something that can do this more importantly what you should see is how your
The fervent use of social media has sort of created this ability for you to see certain memes and certain ideas instantaneously.
That's a pretty hardcore processor you've got between your ears there that can see faces and put them into context almost in an instant.
That's really what should frighten you because that's exactly how quickly
People on social media can manipulate you.
They can occupy your mind, and how they occupy your mind is by convincing you that certain questions are interesting, certain conclusions are inevitable, and anybody that needs to be paid off will be paid off.
Anybody else that needs to be just ignored will be ignored because that's what they can do with simple programming on social media.
They want you to believe that all this stuff is out of their control.
But actually, autism disorder is a mythology used to make sure that intramuscular injection is never questioned as a methodology, that virology is never questioned as a science, and that public health is never questioned as a reason.
And you can say exactly the same for pandemics and gain of function.
These are also myths.
used to make sure these things are never questioned, and that these answers are never questioned.
If you don't understand why the cheese is free on social media, if you don't understand why that sound in the background is an air conditioner, you might be confused, but certainly it won't be a trap that your grandchildren will wake up in.
And this is.
This biology is a trap
that actually we have a chance to prevent our grandchildren from inheriting.
This is a big opportunity that we have, and it's an opportunity that will only present itself one in many generations, I think.
to learn this biology and pass this real biology on to our children is an opportunity that we have.
I don't think that this opportunity is indefinitely available to us.
And in fact, I think, you know, the human race is vulnerable to slavery and it is invulnerable to enslavement.
And it really comes down to whether or not we take responsibility for teaching our children or not.
Ladies and gentlemen, shout out to Mark Hucytonic in Boston.
Shout out to biologyphenomenon.substack.com.
It's a substack about the murder in Scotland.
And may you know the truth, and I hope you can find it.
I hope you find a little bit here.
I still really enjoy this mix.
Coming to you live from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
This is a stream from an American out of America.
But I am calling CQDX.
I am looking for long-range contacts.
I'm looking to alert the world that America has been infiltrated.
We are being undermined from within, and maybe that's the case for quite a long time.
With regard to the biology, if you're here for a while, you're at the top of the wave where you stay focused on the biology, not take the bait on TV and on social media and love your neighbor.
If not, you might be a skilled TV watcher, a skilled social media user in need of saving.
And we are training lifeguards here every day in the basic biology and we need more trainers.
It doesn't have to just be me.
But I am a long-time academic struggling to get tenure in the field of neuroscience working on the brains of mice and monkeys and humans actually in Rotterdam.
So I'm not without fault here.
I fell for the academic trap a long time ago.
I fell for the p-value trap.
And you can find the evidence of my work as an academy magician on the National Library of Medicine's website, PubMed.
You can find my more recent work garbled up in the Wuhan cover-up book written by the Secretary of Health and Human Services of the United States of America, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
You can't find very much of me by Children's Health Defense, although I was employed by them as a staff scientist for a time.
And you wouldn't know it, but Jay Bhattacharya and I are actually pretty good friends.
We've been friends for what would amount to a few years now.
But he's been very busy since he's been appointed and confirmed as the
NIH director, so I haven't heard from him since.
Hopefully I'll see him at a barbecue this summer, maybe.
Anyway, this is Giggo and Biological.
The voice that you hear is that of Jonathan Cooey.
I am the chief biologist here.
I am in the back of my garage, and that noise you hear is the air conditioner on the wall.
It's hot.
Hot in Pittsburgh, I tell you what.
It's hot.
Like jungle hot.
I used to have a YouTube channel called JC on a Bike.
Still do.
Don't use it.
Great videos there.
A great, you know, kind of evidence of what I was up to.
How I was fooled.
JC in the Woods is where I'm currently streaming on YouTube.
It's not necessarily the best place, but I know that some people like an archive there, so I do it.
Welcome, welcome, welcome Howard the Duck.
Christy was first in the chat, unfortunately, but good to see you there, Howard.
How it works is that people are sharing my work.
That's the most important thing because
People that just find my work for the first time, a lot of them are actually inspired to donate in some way or another, and so that helps a lot.
Sharing the work actually does more to push the ball than you might think.
You can share the work by pointing people to GigaOMBiological.com.
I don't think it's that bad of a website.
If you're clicking around on there, you'll find some things.
The one trouble is we're not really good at collecting people's email addresses, so we have a couple different
places where that could happen, where I don't necessarily know all the ways that we can access that list.
I think probably our web host has more access to it than we do.
So I'm still working on that.
Phila's still working on that.
Phila's not an IT expert.
She is an actual plant physiologist, heavy metal plant physiologist.
Used to work on eridopsis, one of the model plants in genetic biology.
Anyway, welcome to the show Skigo and Biological.
I'm going to transition over to the Star Trek set in just a second here.
Yes, this will work.
That should do it.
This mouse is not always clicking somewhere useful.
So strange.
My computer is still doing goofy things.
I think I might even shut it off.
What I think happened was my laptop stayed on all night.
It's very hot in here.
And it ran its battery dead, but it was on, you know?
So, like, something... When I got up this morning, it was pissed.
And when I started it up, it was really mad.
And also hot, which, generally speaking, if it's been off all night, it shouldn't be.
So I'm hoping that's the problem.
I'm hoping we're just still coping with that issue.
Let me just see if this is still goofy here.
Can I play it again now?
and pause it.
Yes, I can.
Okay, so it seems to be working again.
I don't know.
The DJ software seems to take up an extraordinary amount of space and CPU just to represent the sounds, I think, or something.
It's really weird.
It can overheat if you're just playing music with the DJ thing, which I find extraordinary for a computer that can do, like, you can have Photoshop and Adobe Premiere open and work that thing all day long and, you know, it'll be fine.
And so when you put this DJ thing on, something else is going on there.
It's taking too much.
Anyway.
Yeah, that was the pickup line I used on my wife.
She did work on heavy metals though.
Cadmium and Zinc in Aerodopsis and their compartmentalization.
You know, like where does the plant put them?
When it sucks them up in the roots, how does it get rid of them?
Where does it go?
Does it go in all places or whatever?
And then seeing if there was a possibility to genetically modify a plant maybe to make it go somewhere else because the ultimate idea or maybe breed plants was probably obviously the better way to do it.
That's what the EU wanted.
So that you could use a remedial plant that might also have a secondary use like rapeseed oil.
So you could use rapeseed for example to clean up soil in the south of Belgium where it's all got a bunch of heavy metals in it.
Maybe that would be something that in theory
would be useful in Pittsburgh.
And so I'm not, you know, I'm not going to evaluate it live on on stream here, but that's the kind of thing that they fund.
And so it's a combination of genetic modification, breeding and also, you know, soil, environmental cleanup.
So you get all these boxes ticked.
And I think that probably in plant
science in general has really got to grab as many of those as possible and juggle them because there's so little funding for plant science.
So the more things that you can check, you know, approved by Greta Thunberg and also by Bill Gates and also by, you know, anything that Alzheimer's, you know, whatever you could possibly imagine would need to be put into a plant grant in order to get it funded.
And so this kind of thing where, you know, you're using a model plant, you're looking at sequestration, I can't say it quite right, I'm sure, of heavy metals, and then under the
under the intention of, I would maybe use the word guise of environmental remediation, while not evaluating anything else, right?
They didn't like first have my wife go out into the field and find out which plants take up the most heavy metals.
They started with a couple
you know, ideas.
The rapeseed part didn't even last very long, but the rapeseed part was the idea, because if you could get rapeseed to put the heavy metals in the leaves and the stems, but not in the seeds, then you could grow rapeseed on that soil, get the rapeseed to pull the metals out, and still have a semi-useful crop.
Rapeseed oil, I guess, is used for some things.
I don't know if you eat it or not.
Anyway,
You can see how far this goes.
You can see how far academic science goes where you're this incredibly narrow sort of expertise.
And Firla was trained in a bunch of other stuff and then became kind of a biologist when she started doing her PhD, but it fit right in because her background was all this environmental stuff and this, you know, thinking about water and she had some kind of like
almost like a degree where you might go into a bachelor's degree and work for the UN.
And they have a lot of that in the Netherlands, of course, you know how that is.
So both Phila and I really have some crazy kind of, you know, conversations where we'll be sitting on the porch and out of nowhere we'll veer off into this idea of how money is spent in the tropics for nothing and how they
you know, interfere with the way those countries, you know, operate and are governed and can extract natural resources under the pretense of these other things.
And she actually knows a lot more about that than I do, because I think in the Netherlands, there's a lot more activism associated with that, a lot more kind of brass tacks talking about it too, because it's a smaller country.
And at least at the, you know, in general, there's a lot of very well read and active people thinking there.
And so it's,
The Netherlands is one of those places where you could have a lot of hope and at the same time be very scared because you know, they're not waking up yet.
They don't seem to have realized that they're like at the center of this
this whole mess in the EU, and that they have one of the populations that still could pull their heads out, but don't seem to be likely to do it.
This whole idea that Mark Rutte, their former prime minister, is now the head of NATO, it's this remarkable place where we are.
And so it is it is sometimes, you know, maybe almost a little refreshing to come back to the biology and try to think about How we can still if we stay focused We can still try to rescue our friends and family from this trap And the trap is that there's something real happening in America right now that there's something that we've got to go protest There's something that we've got to organize around and all of this
this illusion is sustained because of what we do with our phones and because sometimes some of us are doing it on a computer too but the vast majority of Americans are doing it on their phone which is an extraordinary
It's an extraordinary situation where only that sound really makes any sense.
And so there is, we are in a red alert situation.
There is a fake anti-vax movement, a fake health freedom movement in America.
And in actuality, probably in many other countries around the world, like the UK or even the Netherlands.
And so the question is, how many countries in the Western world were already essentially providing remnants, a remnant stream, and how many of them are also now, in a new way,
producing a remnant stream that they never did before the pandemic under the pretense that again, PCR is a reliable gold standard diagnostic.
I'm not really sure that there's any country in the world that has made any useful resistance to that proposition.
And one might even predict that it's going to be said that the FDA of America is the whole reason why everybody has approved it.
Everybody just kind of assumes that if the FDA says it's okay or isn't going to step in, then why would we?
I think there's something in the EU called the EMA.
I don't think they're thinking at all about reconsidering the possibility that PCR as a diagnostic in general might be assumed to be a lot more accurate than it is.
And that, you know, maybe we should be careful with that.
We're not even gonna approach that at all.
And the reason why is because that testing regime
that Mary Talley Bowden was fully supportive of when she came on my show in 2022, that Kevin McKernan was fully supportive of when he wrote the review with Claire Craig and Mike Yeadon and who else is on that, and Thomas Binder, where they all speak out about the PCR test as being inappropriately designed and inappropriately peer reviewed and maybe producing primer dimers.
So it's not the perfect methodology.
But in no way, shape, or form are they objecting to the existence of the virus, the tracking of the virus, or the sequencing of the virus.
And now we are still at a point where, again, there are tests all over the world and every hospital in the world, as far as I know, but certainly in America, that are used to test for more than 10 virus signals at a time.
This is unprecedented, and it is only possible because, essentially, a shell game has been played where this occurred.
We didn't do this before 2020.
And the electronic medical records of our young people, of people on insurance, of people on Obamacare,
The electronic medical records are available for the first time.
I mean, 20 years ago, electronic medical records, what?
Maybe the military had them.
But not us.
And so now that there is a preponderance of average citizens on electronic medical record databases like Epic, now that the vast majority of college age kids have been forced in one way or another because of the requirement to have insurance when you go to college,
that they're also on an electronic medical record, that this whole process of trying to figure out if it's possible that we can read a phenotype, see a phenotype, see the signal in genetics, how much of an interface can we do there?
How much of a, you know, matching these with those can we do?
Now remember, this is a different task than solving the game of Go.
It's a different task than solving the game of chess.
And so there had to be iterations of this.
There had to be simpler iterations of this.
And those simpler iterations are probably hidden, way hidden.
And we don't know when they did it.
Did they do it with AIDS and homosexuality as a possibility of trying to look for gay genes without telling you?
Did they do it in Nevada with this baby doctor?
Because that of course creates a very interesting situation.
I don't know if we should maybe just do it here.
I don't know why I feel like doing it here, but I feel like doing it here.
It's a dude, right?
Who apparently through his fertility clinic
inseminated a bunch of women by putting his sperm in also as a chaser to help the dad's sperm go.
And so maybe sometimes there was a successful fertilization, but I think if they looked into all these people and found out that it was always his Y chromosome, you couldn't really say that he was putting a chaser in there.
He was just putting his own sperm in.
So what does that do?
Maybe I'm just going to let the chat do a little bit here, or I don't know if you want to, but so we have a certain number of chromosomes, right?
So we have a certain number of chromosomes, and maybe I should use a pen so you can see it better.
I like to use pencil, to be honest, but I don't mind.
I mean, it's just can't fix it, right?
So we have a number of chromosomes.
And we don't need to really think about how many, how many there are.
What you need to think about it is, is that you always get, you always get one from your mom and you get one from your dad.
And with regard to the sex chromosomes, so we have pairs of chromosomes, right?
Because our gametes are supposedly haploid.
They have half the number of chromosomes.
And the gametes then fuse and become a diploid organism.
And that diploid is the two chromosomes, the copies of each.
And so one of the things that is very perplexing to understand from the perspective of genetics is that they know for sure that in any given organism it is very likely that most of the cells are mosaically expressing these chromosomes, but one chromosome is always dormant.
And now these are all things that I'm still regurgitating that I've been taught.
And so some of these things I'm still in the process of checking myself and trying to understand what they know and what they don't know about chromosomes.
And so I apologize ahead of time if some of this stuff is a little off base in a few weeks and I come back and correct it.
But for now, I just want to work through the idea that chromosomes are this because
In the context of the 50s and the 60s and the 70s, that is the working assumption.
That is what people think.
That is how people are dissecting the challenge of looking at genetics.
And so if we just do it with letters, okay, and I'm just going to make up chromosome letters so that we just make a model here.
This is how you either become, right, a woman or a man, for example.
And that's why they have this whole debate right now is going to try and get you to argue that sex is determined by chromosomes.
And it's just whether you get a Y or an X from your dad, because you're always going to get an X from your mom.
And I'm not arguing with this preposition.
It seems to be, as far as I can tell, there's a lot of biology to support this idea.
But then, let's go to the logical conclusion here, and that is that for each of the chromosomes that dad and mom have, it is an assortment thing where you get one or the other.
And so, mom and dad might have a chromosome, let's use letters, okay, and I'm going to start in the
in the middle with M and then we're just going to have five chromosomes so you have an M and an M and an N and an N and an O and an O and a P and a P and a Q and a Q. Okay and so then every person would have five chromosomes and then plus the you're either a man or a woman in this case he's a man
Now, the problem with this is, of course, is how do you start thinking about, you know, what what's carried and where are the genes and how do we how do we do a genetic experiment in humans?
Well, the way, in my humble opinion, one of the lowest hanging fruits to do an experiment in humans, especially because of the size of the chromosome, would be to look at the Y chromosome.
And so what's interesting is it doesn't matter what all these other chromosomes are.
You can just leave those as blanks because you know what?
All of these kids that that guy fathered have this genotype.
That Y.
Their X is all going to be different because they all had different moms and the moms can give two different X chromosomes.
But they're all going to have this Y chromosome.
That's a very, very, very, very, very interesting phenomenon because the sisters will also have specifically one X chromosome that will be the same because he can only give one.
He's only got one X chromosome.
You see, that's how males work.
And so now you have perhaps the only low-hanging genetic experimental fruit available in terms of breeding humans.
If you could do a breeding experiment, you wouldn't gain very much by having a woman be the mom of the same kids, because the X chromosome that those kids will still be one or the other, which means you're still creating two groups, but not as many.
It's not as homogenous of an experiment.
Not only that, but that woman's got to give birth to a bunch of babies.
Whereas this guy, you know, it could be thousands of babies that are either sharing a Y chromosome or sharing an X chromosome.
That's pretty handy.
As far as I can tell, that's a pretty interesting experiment.
Because any patterns that emerge in the boys or patterns that emerge in the girls could potentially be connected to this shared genotype.
As far as we know, what else are you going to do?
Are you going to have a Mormon family submit all their genetic data?
Are you going to have a bunch of Arab families submit their genetic data?
What, are you going to go to Israel and study the Bedouins or something like that?
Or these other people?
I don't know.
Anyway, is there a third possibility?
Type it out.
I mean, I'm not saying that that's what they did it for.
I'm saying that that's kind of the possibility here.
That's one of the lowest hanging fruits.
Remember, again, thinking about how they thought about biology in the 50s and the 60s, this would have been within their grasp.
Let's say it like that.
Go ahead and type it in, SolarFire, if you, or maybe you're not talking about this.
Maybe you're talking about something else.
So yes, they are going to, they are intentionally intending to try and take genetic data and interface it with electronic medical records to try and use machine learning
to get farther with our understanding of the genome.
I don't think they can predict what their potential results will be.
They just hope it'll be something useful.
And it's incredible because in this BBC article from two days ago, it comes after a study analyzing the genetic code of up to 100,000 babies.
That sounds a lot
like what Claire Craig was working on when she was working on the 100,000 Genomes Project before the pandemic.
It would be very curious to see if she's on that paper.
I couldn't find it yet, so I'm still working on that.
And so we also see this paper, which is just crazy because it has Steve Hatfill, Tess Laurie, Robert Malone, Jessica Rose,
Harvey Reich, it's Norman Fenton, it's nuts.
And this paper says the entire narrative, including, of course, that endemicity has occurred.
Essentially, it's there forever now.
And this is the myth.
This is the foundational myth of virology that just doesn't really make any biological sense.
As far as this group of people goes, I think the most incriminating, again, picture is here.
Probably the reason why they did this whole thing in Romania is something to do with NATO.
I don't know exactly, but it's also maybe so that they could talk to Denny Rancourt and make him feel really important in a place where it didn't matter, and make sure that they kept him on narrative, make sure that they could brief him about me.
and that he could effectively not talk about the fact that there is a population pyramid.
And it takes their commitment, their commitment to these lies.
That's all that's really required.
I don't know why this is doing that right now.
Am I supposed to be here?
Oh yeah, great.
So you may not be aware, but Scott Shar's case ended and the jury sided with Ascension Medical, whatever it is, the hospital corporation in Wisconsin.
And so after the trial, his lawyer, Mendenhall, has been on some social media saying, yeah, I know it sucks.
And now he's going to be interviewed or was interviewed very recently by Mary Holland.
So I'm going to play that now.
And try to give an objective analysis of what's going on and try to not be as emotional as I was earlier.
It's hard because I'm not optimistic right now.
Other than if people can finally accept that something is wrong.
Something feels crazy about this.
And I will turn down my mic so that you don't hear that blower in the background.
Good morning, Children's Health Defense.
Today is Monday, June 23rd, 2025.
And I'm delighted to have as our first guest, Scott Shara, father of Grace Shara, who died in a hospital.
And we're here to talk about the jury's decision in the trial that concluded last week.
So there you go.
You're going to start out right away the interview with not using the word murder.
Died in a hospital is what she said, which is an extraordinary thing to say now that the case is over with.
What do they got to lose?
I mean, finding in favor of the defendants, the doctors, nurses and hospitals across the board.
We're also going to be followed by my interview with Dr. Rainer Fulmich's lawyer Katja Vermer and interpreter Masha Orel.
Rainer Fulmich has been an advocate about COVID, a very important one in Germany and is currently in prison.
So again, I just want to emphasize that the lack of specificity of message, of content, of knowledge, there's none.
He was an outspoken advocate during COVID or something like that, she said.
So we're looking for specifics here.
After 15 odd years of being the head of this movement, at the head of the health freedom movement in America, this woman has made an extraordinary lack of progress seem like success.
And I think that illusion needs to be broken.
Otherwise, America's children will be enslaved by these people.
These people are a useless bunch, and they're a useless bunch because they don't accomplish anything.
They don't have a message.
Their message remains as ambiguous as it was in Georgia two years ago.
Rise and resist, people over profits, truth over lies, courage over fear.
followed by a segment of Mothers to Be.
So I'm excited about the program and really delighted to welcome Scott Shara back to CHG TV.
Scott, thank you for coming.
Glad to be here.
Tell us what happened, Scott, briefly.
We all were watching the trial.
We covered it here on CHD TV.
There were some extraordinary segments showing your experts and showing comments from your lead attorney, Warner Mendenhall, that suggested to many of us that, in fact, the jury would find that there had been medical battery, wrongful death, lack of informed consent and illegal do not resuscitate order.
And yet we understand that the jury found in favor of defendants.
So tell us how that happened.
What happened?
Well, how, that's, I can say what, and then I'll attempt to cover how.
So what happened is we had four claims.
We started with five claims, four ended up going to the jury.
We started with wrongful death, medical malpractice, lack of informed consent, medical battery, and a declaratory judgment for the illegal do not resuscitate order.
The battery was dismissed before the case went to the jury.
The illegal do not resuscitate order
And yet we understand that the jury found in favor of defendants.
So tell us how that happened.
What happened?
Well, how, that's, I can say what, and then I'll attempt to cover how.
So what happened is we had four claims.
We started with five claims, four ended up going to the jury.
We started with wrongful death, medical malpractice, lack of informed consent, medical battery, and a declaratory judgment for the illegal do not resuscitate order.
The battery was dismissed before the case went to the jury.
The judge held the battery open through the entire trial because he wanted to wait for all the evidence.
Ultimately, he dismissed the battery because an element of battery is consent.
And he said, just by the fact that we were in the hospital, we were giving consent.
And we showed on the last day, my last testimony, we showed that the consent document was even a fraud because they claim that Grace, my daughter Grace with Down syndrome, orally approved the general consent document.
Think about that, Mary.
That was, you know, roughly 20 minutes we're in the emergency room and they said that Grace orally approved the general consent.
So obviously a fraudulent document submitted as part of the medical records after the fact.
We thought that would be enough to convince the judge to keep the battery claim alive, but he said that we consented simply because of being in the hospital.
big picture relative to the battery.
We invested a lot of time on that.
There's a number of public filings now that other attorneys can see how we pled the battery and it can be used as a model going forward.
So I'm not sure how it can be used as a model going forward if they lost
And the medical battery lost.
I don't know how that is a a Model going forward now.
I'm not a lawyer so I can't make the argument that they should have argued it was murder Because I guess murder has a number of things that you have to prove And if you the lawyer didn't think that he could prove all of those things I don't know if it's motive opportunity, you know, I watch TV shows that's how I know my law, but it's very very curious that
wrongful death, medical malpractice, lack of informed consent, medical battery.
I'm not sure really what the assumption is about going into the hospital other than you are going to come out alive.
I don't know how you would argue that.
I don't know if they argue that at all.
I don't know if that's, you know, dumb.
But it seems to me that the way that this has happened is that
It's you by going to the hospital consented to us not resuscitating you, which is a strange contradiction in my humble opinion.
We didn't come to the hospital for you to let us die.
We came to the hospital for you to do everything you can to save our daughter from this.
So I'm still a little confused about what really happened in the trial.
And I'm a little confused by
Yeah, I'm just a little confused.
I'm going to keep going.
It seems just as something just seems crazy to me.
It feels crazy.
Then the four claims that went to the jury.
they sided with Ascension Hospital across the board, less one juror.
So there's 12 jurors, one of them dissented, which represents 8%.
And as I look at it, you said, well, how did this even happen?
I mean, I thought we had a better case, certainly a better team, we're way better prepared.
And so it's hard for me to grasp, sitting there in the courtroom for three weeks, working with these four attorneys for,
What's strange about it is is that if it was a real jury trial, then there is some, you know, I mean, people know how to do that.
People have a strategy for what they're going to try and convince the jury of they, you know, working with your lawyers, you usually have a strategy here.
And it's strange to me that
Yeah, this is just all coming off very, very odd to me.
It's not very defeated.
literally two years and intensely for a couple of months prior to the trial.
So it's hard.
So for two years, he's been working on it, but then a couple months intensely before the trial.
So maybe it's not very much of a strategy for me to grasp losing.
But, you know, in this system, this system is not designed for the plaintiff.
And I'll give you a specific example of that in a moment.
But, you know, what I believe is the case is that
There's, if the average age of the juror, for example, is 50 years, they've got 50 years of programming.
So they're programmed to trust the system.
And so 8%, one juror cited for us.
So you're, he's trying to say that they trusted the system.
That's why he lost because the jurors trusted the system.
That's weird.
So it wasn't medical malpractice for doctors to use supplementary oxygen.
It wasn't medical malpractice for them to use oxygen in a way that should have been general knowledge not to be used that way.
It wouldn't have been medical malpractice for them to use ventilators in a way that in textbooks, it's not supposed to be used.
See, this is weird because I don't think they made that argument in the trial and so that it,
I don't know what the medical malpractice was then.
Was the medical malpractice putting a DNR order on her?
Cause that's not medical malpractice.
DNR orders are a real thing.
It's strange.
And this is the same case that, that we had a chance to get publicity on Rogan because Mary Talley Bowden was on Rogan and she talked about it and she called it intentional euthanasia.
I mean, that's not even a real term.
That doesn't make any sense.
And so it's weird.
I don't know what law is being violated when you don't, when, what is informed consent?
Is that a charge?
I don't know, cause I'm not a lawyer, but it's.
And medical battery, I'm not really sure what medical battery is, and I'm guessing it would have to be a specific part of the protocol that was medical battery.
And I bet it didn't have anything to do with supplementary oxygen or the vent, which is weird.
It's weird.
It's almost like it's all about the DNR, which in the end, it might be the way that they intentionally sort of pulled the football away.
lucidum.
That makes sense to me logically in that is that represents the population that is awake to what is going on.
I was just going to ask you have there been any interviews after the completion of the trial with any of the jurors in many cases like this one which are high profile
Some of the jurors will talk to the press, the judges usually advise them not to, but they talk to the press and they say kind of what happened in the deliberations.
Are you aware if that's happened at all in this case?
That would be fantastic.
I haven't seen that yet.
I would really enjoy that type of thing to hear.
I'd like to ask them questions, just objective questions to get a pulse on what was the reason.
Praise God that this trial was live streamed.
With the new American and CHD parents,
pairing with each other to live stream this trial.
It was fantastic because we accomplished the goal.
At the beginning of the press conference that we had on Saturday, I started with what Grace would say.
If Grace was here right now, what would she have said
That morning Friday morning with the press conference and she would have said God did it dad and boy did he ever I mean to have a trial like this live stream to the nation millions of people saw it millions of people's lives will be saved if they have ears to hear because People's lives be saved if they see the trial What is that Wow I'm trying to think
How would lives be saved when they see the trial?
I don't get it.
Are they not gonna go to a hospital anymore?
They're not gonna believe in COVID.
They're not gonna take a PCR test.
How would lives be saved because of this trial being televised by a collaboration between the New American and CHDTV?
What in the Sam hell is going on here?
They saw for the first time what's going on behind the curtain.
Think through this fact, and I'm putting fact in quotes.
I mean, they hired experts from Johns Hopkins.
These people are cutting edge in where our society is going with AI,
and turning everything over to the medical industrial complex.
So these experts said specifically that a doctor in a hospital setting can put a DNR on a patient without a witness and without a signature unilaterally.
And so the jury accepted that, Mary.
So that becomes, oh, it's hard to grasp.
It's hard for those of us who followed this to
You're going to cut it off.
You're not going to actually say that that sets a precedence in American court.
So this has nothing to do with what the protocol was.
It has nothing to do with how they got there.
It has to do with the DNR order and the fact that that's okay.
And so it makes it seem as though anybody that would go back and look for something to find with their old family, their whatever, oh my gosh, this is crazy.
The DNR was legal.
Wow.
I don't know what, wow, I don't know what to say.
It was never even questioned about, even the medical malpractice then I guess is about the DNR.
It's not about the use of supplementary oxygen when you didn't need it or not using it with good prudence and understanding of the dangers of it.
I noticed that Mark Kulak posted a YouTube video or a video that he found somewhere else about the application of pure oxygen in the ICU.
It's a really interesting video that certainly doesn't say that 60 liters a minute of pure oxygen is a great idea.
I mean,
This is a very, very important, crucial time right now to see.
Something doesn't make sense.
Something feels crazy about this because
grasp how the jury could have come to the conclusion that it is acceptable for a doctor to put a DNR on a patient when the parents and the sister are immediately available.
Honestly, Scott, it shocks my conscience.
It really does.
It's shocking to me how the jury reached this conclusion based on this really outstanding set of facts that were presented in front of them and really competent counsel.
I can't quite grasp it to be honest with you.
Amazing set of facts presented by an extremely competent counsel.
I mean,
But you're right that maybe the bigger win is in terms of public opinion and having live streamed it.
You're right that millions of people will see sections of this through social media.
Millions of people, really millions of people are seeing it on the New American and CHD.
Millions of people.
I mean, are they just bamboozling him?
Is that just a hope?
What are they talking about, millions of people?
The most visibility he got was Mary Talley Bowden on Joe Rogan and she blew it by calling it intentional euthanasia.
They have not used the word murder yet.
It's remarkable.
Social media will come to New America and our children's health defense TV and see the whole thing and understand that the system is just extraordinarily broken.
The clip that's up right now is Dr. Burdine and he really laid it out.
I mean, Dr. Burdine, this was the first plaintiff's case he ever testified in.
He had always worked for the defendant in the past.
He did not take a nickel personally.
He bills through Texas Tech University where he works.
So the invoices that I received were through that organization.
He doesn't take anything personally.
And he also chose
that his $350 an hour billing rate when he would be working on the case full days, he would just charge $350 a day.
So he would only charge for one hour even though he's working a whole day on the case.
And he said bluntly at the trial, it was the most powerful piece of the trial in my opinion, he said that
When Dr. Shokar gave Grace morphine, when she didn't have a pulse or a blood pressure, was the single most egregious act that he's ever seen in 46 years of experience.
Scott, I saw that.
When she didn't have a pulse and she wasn't breathing, he gave her morphine.
That sounds like euthanasia, like in the sense of
She's gonna die.
She's dying.
So I might as well make sure that she doesn't die in pain Why are we starting there at the more that's the single worst thing that that guy found was the morphine but he didn't that's not Explanatory for how she got to the point where she wasn't breathing and someone could give her morphine It's really crazy, I don't I don't know what to say I
Something feels so concocted here.
And I don't know if... It doesn't feel like... It doesn't feel like the prayers were answered here.
I don't know what's going on.
This is strange.
I posted that to my social media account.
It's extraordinary that that doctor had never testified on behalf of a plaintiff against the medical system ever and did so and basically said what occurred.
was egregious beyond anything he'd ever seen.
So it's so hard for me to get my head around how the jury really didn't heed that, that this was absolutely egregious practice.
of claims that they made, the ones that went to trial, and why or why not you couldn't have approached this from the perspective of murder because you don't bring your kid to the hospital except for them to live.
And so if you go into the hospital and they started right away doing things that are
easily demonstratable as toxic, as dangerous, as incongruent with standards in a hospital or an intensive care unit or an emergency care, then I think that would have been the angle to go on.
That's the angle I thought they were going on.
That's the whole thing, right?
I mean, we didn't hear anything about anything except for a DNR order.
And now we're hearing about morphine when she wasn't breathing.
this was not medicine.
I'm hopeful you will get to hear from some of the jurors after the fact.
I mean, oxygen is not medicine is a perfect thing for them to have started with.
Oxygen is not medicine.
And so they were actually bamboozled by the FLCCC protocol that said at 96% oxygen you better go seek help.
He said it in this interview.
That's the reason why he found himself at the hospital.
Because the FLCC told him to go there.
Maybe he should have been suing the FLCCC for recommending to go there because the dumbass hospital was going to give them supplementary oxygen in an inappropriate way, but they didn't address any of this.
It's almost like it was a murder that isn't investigated.
It's a death being investigated, right?
It's a died in the hospital being investigated, not a murder being investigated, right?
That's the whole crazy part.
If somebody dies at a, this is just coming to my head right now.
If somebody dies at an amusement park,
And you find out that they collapsed at the concession stand, and they had just finished eating a hot dog.
You might investigate the hot dog.
You might investigate what they had for breakfast.
You might investigate who they slept with the night before, or what they drank at the hospital, or sorry, at the hotel breakfast.
Like there's lots of things to look at and you wouldn't start with the, well, yeah, but you know, he died at the hot dog stand.
So I guess the hot dog killed him and the hot dog was legal because he paid for it.
So that's it, right?
That's it.
That's the end of it.
I don't know what to say.
No more can be thought about here because nobody's at fault, you know?
Nobody's at fault.
No doctor should be responsible to know that you can't just give oxygen to somebody because their pulse ox is low.
No doctor should need to know that.
No nurses should have had the requisite knowledge to question that.
It's just in a few textbooks.
It's just in a few papers.
It's just in a few videos.
And yet we haven't talked about anything to do with anything to do with the protocol, which would have been what malpractice might've been.
Like, you know, a shithead doctor that was injecting people with his own sperm, you know, he knows what's gonna happen.
A doctor worth their license, a doctor worth their training should have known that you don't just give somebody pure oxygen through a face mask, that you don't just ventilate somebody who can talk.
You gotta start with the basic bullshit.
You can't start with her on a vent and say that the do not resuscitate order was not fair, that that's not informed consent, that that's not, that's exactly how they avoid saying murder and accusing the hospital of murder or manslaughter.
How come manslaughter's not on here?
What does wrongful death mean?
I need to know all this stuff.
But I'm frustrated because I think there's something crazy going on here.
Dang it.
Because I think it is important to understand what was going through their heads.
Well, I agree.
I mean, I'd love to have them on my podcast.
We could get them on CHD.
I mean, it would be fantastic.
I'd love to have that happen in a public forum so that we could just- Okay, so that's good.
That's good.
There's some help there in the chat that you don't accuse people of murder and go to a civil trial.
If this was a civil trial, then okay, that's a total different thing.
Again, I need to figure this out, but I'm frustrated because something doesn't feel right.
One of the things that happened
I thought the judge, I really thought he did a great job.
His sense of humor was really neat to the trial.
But the one thing that he did, which you asked me, how could the jury have come to this conclusion?
As you are well aware, there's a lot of pre-trial motions, and I'll call them pre-trial shenanigans.
And one of those pre-trial motions are motions in limine.
And in motions in limine, what you're doing is you're narrowing the case so that evidence that's not related to the case doesn't come into the trial.
And in our case, we only filed motions in limine relative to the things that I've been researching post-trial.
So when I walked into that hospital with Grace, obviously, I was not awake.
If I was, I would have never taken Grace to the hospital because she was not short of breath.
We were fixated on the pulse oximeter, and that's why I took her to the hospital.
But if I would have been awake, Grace would be alive today.
So the things that I have researched, I mean, I...
think you could go so far as to say that if you went to the hospital and you said that my pulse oximeter says my pulse ox is 94 with a with a mask on and a doctor and you said to the doctor can you put me on oxygen can you help me I need something and the doctor didn't say dumbass take the mask off go out in the fresh air relax we're not gonna give you oxygen
Then we have a problem.
You see, then we have a real problem with the people that were in the hospitals at that time, because according to everything that I can find, according to everything that I can find to read, this was in textbooks.
Pure oxygen is toxic.
Up to 80% pure oxygen is pretty close to the same level of toxic.
And so its use,
must be very short in duration and very carefully monitored for the potential toxicity that is generated by pure oxygen and its administration.
It is absurd because the partial pressures of oxygen in the blood are important to maintain for proper travel of all the other things.
This is not a simple little thing.
Pulse ox low, give him oxygen.
That's not how that works.
And they have decades of experience with this because at first that's what people thought.
I've become a full-time researcher and advocate in public speaking since Grace's death.
I have 4,000 hours of research.
So what we wanted to do... 4,000 hours of research.
He's catching up to people like Matt Crawford and Charles Rixey and Matt Erett.
Is he also building an archive on his website of all the materials?
Because if he is,
is to not have that research come into the trial.
During my depositions, of course, they pounded those, they attempted to pound me with me sharing the research, which I did.
I just openly shared it with them during depositions.
And so the, during depositions, he shared his research about what?
About oxygen toxicity?
about over ventilation, about ARDS correlating with those two things, about research, about what?
And unfortunately, the judge did not entertain our motions in limine to not have that stuff come into trial.
So it did come into trial.
And did that influence the jury?
It probably did because the jury, to the extent that they're not awake, they're not going to understand
that we only have 4.2% of the world's population, but consume 45% of the world's pharmaceuticals, 5 billion prescriptions a year.
We're a country that's hooked on big pharma.
They do not understand that hospitals have become state actors.
All this stuff came into the trial.
It came into the trial about the incentives
that the government had during COVID for ventilators, toxalizumab, remdesivir, all that came into the trial.
And even though I presented it objectively, this was the first time I believe many of those jurors had heard any of this.
I think that was part of it.
Oh, so all of his research came in and essentially he discredited himself.
He discredited himself by talking about New World Order, and they want to kill you, and maybe whatever else he said.
I mean, that sounds kind of like what happened here.
When he came to my live, live event, and I invited him, I said he could speak.
He spoke for a long time.
And at the end of his talk, he showed a video about a cartoon that looked a lot like South Park.
about Satan.
And I was pretty surprised by that.
Also at that thing, there were a whole camera crew of people showed up to record the event, and I didn't know who they were.
And in fact, when we ended the live stream event, and we got all the food out, which my wife had worked on multiple days over the weekend, and it was
Amazing.
Those guys packed up and left so quickly that they left a whole bag of camera equipment that included like $1,000 super zoom lens, autofocus lens for Nikon cameras.
I don't know what to say other than that's what happened.
There was no room for Joe Marshall to come up on stage and speak, no real time for Mark Kulak to come up on stage because by the time the whole presentation was done and the movie was shown and then the questions were asked, we had run out of time in the community center.
We didn't have time to eat, we still had to clean it up.
And so I had to make like a managerial decision and just say, I'm sorry, Mark, but we're not even going to be, I'm not even going to do anything like we don't have time.
And so I think that Mark and Joe were even a little disappointed that, you know, they traveled all that way and, and, and.
Came all the way here and and then you know, they didn't even get to get on stage So I still feel strange about the the live live event I still feel very bizarre about it, and I'm still considering the possibility of doing another live live event After July of this year, maybe in August or September and have it be a live live event where everybody just brings their lawn chair and
And we do it in the backyard and I'll have like a screen outside or something so that live stream can be seen And heard and then we just like have a spontaneous barbecue or something like that.
I don't know I Know that that big Mike won't like that, but you know, we'll have to listen to him bark the whole time That's because that's what he does He's he's a little nutcase Scott.
What's next?
What's next for you and the legal team on Grace's case?
I
or just in general, not necessarily the legal team.
What's next?
Because you've been so devoted to grace and to her memory and to educating the public.
What's next?
Well, that's the million dollar question that I get asked that all the time.
I mean, I already know what's next unless God opens a different door.
We're not going to be appealing.
Well, this is awkward, Mary.
Sure, I'm so sorry.
We seem to have I might say that I might say that Pyrenees always are seeing something Lost the transmission for Scott Shara RC back What did you oh great?
Yes, so we we lost you, but what's next Scott?
Oh
Okay, so what's next?
You know, that question gets asked regularly.
I mean, and to be blunt, you know, there's no reason to appeal.
We accomplished the goal that was set out with the trial.
And that was, you know, we publicly, I've said many times, the goal of the trial was repentance.
It was to rebuke evil and, you know, get this trial live stream.
So, I mean, those with ears to hear, we did what God called us to do.
So what's next is I'm going to pick back up.
I took about three months off the last three months, not literally off, but I've been working approximately 15 hours a day with the legal team for the last three months.
So I haven't done many interviews and I put all of my research on hold.
So what I was working on when I took the three months off was how to escape Babylon.
You know, we are in a Babylonian system, and I had just recorded the physical escape, and now I'm working on the spiritual escape.
That's what I stopped working on.
So that's what I'll pick up on.
I see, you know, my research is much bigger than what people connect the dots.
They're looking, unfortunately, just at the lawsuit.
But if you zoom out, you know,
the hospitals have become state actors.
Okay, so now zoom out from that.
How did that happen?
Well, it happened through CMS controlling standards of care.
Well, how did that happen?
Well,
When Medicaid and Medicare was passed in 1965, the idea was we are going to give free healthcare to the disabled and the elderly.
Well, nothing could be further from the truth.
That was all by design to set up the ration care model.
And the elderly and the disabled are the first to go in this ration care model under the lie of the need for a balanced budget.
So we've got a rationed care.
These non-contributing members of society don't deserve medical care.
That's all embedded in the culture of collectivism that is going on literally right now.
And what the jury doesn't understand is every single one of the people on the jury is either.
This is super strange because to say collectivism to somebody like Mary Holland who is for her whole
public career basically advocated for global human rights, which is, as Joe Marshall has shown you in his book, is code for this collective idea, this global idea of one human race that needs to be governed by one technocratic government.
It's, it's bizarre.
It's bizarre.
It doesn't, this something is crazy here.
they're going to be disabled or elderly someday.
And that's what I'm fighting for, is to expose this evil to the population.
Scott, thank you so much.
Our hearts go out to Grace and to you.
And we are so grateful for all that you've done and for bringing this trial to public attention and allowing CHD to cover it.
So thank you so much.
Thank you, Mary.
God bless you.
God bless.
So now we'll go on to the interview with Reiner Fulmix attorney Katja Vermeer and interpreter Masha Oral.
Thank you.
There's a bigger agenda driving this.
OK, so if you don't know who Rainer Fulmich is, I think he's a German and an American citizen.
He's got both passports.
He's a lawyer in both countries, apparently.
At least that's how he was represented to me.
And he was one of these guys who sat on the Coronavirus Investigative Committee based in Germany with the blonde lady with the barrettes in her hair.
And oftentimes actually Wolfgang Wodach as well.
It is even possible that these people were tasked specifically with being the front for Wolfgang Wodach, you know, to keep him in line and make sure that, you know, it never really manifested in anything useful that he would lead anything.
And so I that's how I got to meet Wolfgang And I'm very grateful that I got to meet Wolfgang Wodach and in contact with him or at least was But this guy is a lawyer who apparently Would have had control over the money that was donated to the coronavirus investigative committee And may or may not have used that money to put a down payment on a house take out a loan or build a building
or put a down payment on a loan to get a house or buy a house and then sold that house for a big profit and then maybe was planning on giving the money back to coronavirus investigative committee when they needed it, you know, because it's just sitting over there and I could put it to use and then I'll give it back.
And so right now there's apparently some reason why he was arrested in Mexico while on vacation and brought forcibly back to Germany where he spent time in jail because of this money.
And so here, this is him being interviewed actually in 2022 right after and on stage with Mary Holland in Nuremberg, Germany.
And this person is actually the head of CHD Africa, and I'm not sure what her ethnic background is.
But I'm pretty sure she's not Chinese.
This agenda is about life and death.
Only if people understand how serious it is.
These people are trying to literally kill us.
So we've just heard Mary Holland, President of Children's Health Defense, speak a powerful, rousing speech.
The crowd here in Nuremberg responding to her and of course her perspective as a lawyer on the human rights aspect of Nuremberg Code and what it means for us during this episode and what we're experiencing right now during COVID-19.
She closed with very powerful words, we can do it.
And of course, the crowd all responding.
And one of those people to whom the crowds also respond is lawyer Raina Feulmik, certainly no stranger to the health freedom movement around the world.
Raina, thank you.
Again, casting the spell of a health freedom movement around the world because they say it exists, it exists, it doesn't exist anywhere except for in the imagination of people that follow these not grassroots organizations, these ridiculously sabotaged organizations like CHD, ICAN, etc.
You were joining us today.
Hey, thank you for giving me the opportunity.
It's a pleasure.
So tell us Rainer, why are you here today and what is the significance of Nuremberg 75?
Well, that's actually the reason why I'm here.
It's the 75th anniversary of the Nuremberg Code, not the trials.
And that is exactly the platform on which we need to fight this fight, on which we need to win this battle and the war.
And I think this is what's happening.
So maybe one of the issues here to realize now is that Reiner Fulmik is arguing that we need to use the Nuremberg Code
as the legal basis for resisting the pandemic.
And I don't know if that's right or wrong, but I think that's what I just heard him say.
I think we should be trying to boil down what these people are saying, as long as you're not talking about Mary Holland, who's always going to be abstract, rise and resist, people over profits, truth over lies, courage over fear.
But this guy seems to now say that the Nuremberg Code is the basis for his objections.
Mary said we are winning.
We have been winning for the last two and a half years.
But this is what everyone needs to understand.
There are two really important outcomes.
So winning looks different for different people.
You know, when I start the stream out with winning isn't for everyone, sometimes winning just isn't what people say it is.
of the Nuremberg trials.
One is informed consent, because no one must be forced to get these injections, which we don't even know what it is.
They're not really vaccines.
And the other very important outcome is that the defense of, I was just following orders, is not a valid one.
So based on these two aspects or major outcomes, in my view, of the Nuremberg trials, we will go into battle.
Absolutely.
And so one of the principles you spoke about of informed consent is the law in all of our countries.
We learn it as lawyers.
Doctors learn it as doctors.
And despite that, there's been this violation of informed consent by both doctors and both lawyers.
How can we help them find their way back to living?
So she said that she was a lawyer there, just to make sure you caught that.
And yes, he said they're not really vaccines.
So that's good, but it's not saying transfection.
And he interviewed me, so I don't know.
Not only did he interview me, but they interviewed me again with Wolfgang Modach and the lady with the barrettes.
Being what informed consent is.
I think the only way is to get all of the really relevant information out.
They must understand that this is not just about the proportionality of the measures.
This is not just about is it constitutional or unconstitutional.
Quite obviously it's not.
But they must understand that there's a bigger agenda driving this.
And this agenda is about life and death.
Only if people understand how serious it is, it is about their lives and deaths.
Only if they understand that will they make the right choices.
Up until then they'll talk about fringe issues, they will not ever address the core issue.
And the core issue that there are a few people out there who are using millions of other people who they bribe or who they put under pressure or they promise them a career or something.
These people are trying to literally kill us.
Good morning, Children's Health Defense, wherever you are.
So literally trying to kill us.
I mean, if you're talking about managing the population pyramid, if you're talking about, you know, managing this inconvenient, imbalanced population pyramid, then I agree.
I totally agree.
I don't think they're just going to slaughter people and put them in ovens, though, because they really, really need genetic data.
They really need it.
That's not a joke.
And they need to transition our kids into accepting that their genetic data is just another part of their medical data, and that belongs to their insurance provider.
I am so happy to have two very important guests with us today.
Katja Vermeer, an attorney based in Germany, who is representing Rainer Fünnmich, who has been a friend to Children's Health Defense and an important figure in the battle against COVID and all that happened with it.
And Masha Aurel, who will be interpreting for us today, and she is representing We for Humanity.
Welcome, ladies.
How are you today?
I hope well.
So we want to talk particularly about Rainer Völmich who is now serving a criminal sentence in a German prison.
Katja, perhaps you would start and tell us what were the charges against Rainer Völmich and what was the sentence for him to be in prison?
In the first proceedings, it was about two credits, which amount to 700,000 euros.
Okay, and how long has he been sentenced to jail for?
It was, he sentenced to three years and nine months.
Okay.
And five months of the time he so far spent in the prison are not accounted for.
Okay, so he spent, correct me if I'm wrong, that he was arrested when he was traveling back from Mexico to Germany and he was put in prison and he was there for over a year, considerably over a year.
and that's not counting towards his sentence.
And he was this stealing $700,000 from his group Corona, the name of the committee, the Coronavirus Investigation Committee.
Is that correct?
I translate quite brief.
So he was not on his way to Germany.
He was just kind of abducted under wrong pretext.
And they don't blame him of theft, but rather of embezzlement.
And Katya is not sure if there is something like this in the US.
Yes, embezzlement is a crime in the United States.
Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I think embezzlement means improper use of money from an organization that you are in control of so if you if if Mary Holland was to use money from a CHD account to buy a car
for herself or to put a down payment on a house, that would be embezzlement.
To, I don't know, buy stuff for other people or to lobby, I don't know if that's the same, but when you buy shit for, you just use it inappropriately, I think it's embezzlement, but again, I'm not a lawyer.
He's been sentenced to, am I correct, Masha, that he was already in jail for about a year and a half?
Is that right?
By today, these are exactly 20 months that he's been in imprisonment.
Okay.
And tell us about his conditions in prison.
What have been the conditions for his imprisonment so far?
Of all sudden, Rainer was moved from the prison where he's been so far to a different one and now he's enjoying in much better conditions, meaning he's allowed to talk to the other people in the prison and he is more free to call his wife, for example.
All of this was not given in their
prison where he was kept prior to indictment.
So he was not allowed to talk to other people in prison.
He's saying indictment as indictment.
He had really limited possibilities to at least communicate with his wife.
Is this sentence of three years plus, is this characteristic of sentences for... So just to address Reginald Perrin in the chat, he had a bank land charge placed against his property, he got zero out of his house sale, took the money and bought gold with it.
Okay, I don't know how to verify all that stuff.
But later in this video, this lady is going to translate that.
Let me see, I wrote it over down, down over here, that he made $1.3 million from his house sale of which he got 125,000.
And the rest of that money sits in the account of one of the complainants.
one of the people that brought the charges against him.
That's what she's gonna say later.
So just see how that interfaces with what you're thinking there in the chat.
Embezzlement, is this a typical kind of a sentence from the court?
No, it is not rather typical, at least not for the first offender, which Rainer is.
For the first offender it should have been much less and usually in the case like this, they would actually suspend on probation, which has not happened this time.
It's rather harsh.
Yes.
He should have embezzled many millions.
And even then, the sentences are not that harsh.
Okay.
So Katya, as his attorney, why do you believe he was held in such harsh conditions pre-trial?
And why is his sentence so long?
It is clear from inside and to the altogether 13 folders.
the court has got, that it's about corona.
So they refer to the corona as matter.
And it is also not typical, in this case, it's just an economic offense.
So it's not really typical that state security was involved.
It's not really typical for a
pure economic offense that the defender is being led to and from the court handcuffed at hands and feet.
So it is obvious that political motivation is behind these proceedings.
So it's interesting because she's sure it's politically motivated.
But it couldn't be to make him a sort of ineffective, useless victim for the resistance to discredit it.
Because I haven't heard anything about the conclusions of the Coronavirus Investigative Committee.
I haven't heard any elevator pitch about what he thinks other than, I guess, that it wasn't real or that this is about killing all of us.
So again, you know, the Nuremberg Code and this kind of, there's a lot of,
lack of specificity, lack of, you know, at this point, after five years of interviewing all those people and recording all those videos, don't we have, haven't we whittled it down to something that we can, we can smack people with?
It seems like we should have by now.
Pachi, do you consider Rainer Funmich to be a political prisoner in Germany today?
Yes, absolutely.
He is a political prisoner.
Think about where this puts you if you were to try and talk to somebody from the perspective of the health freedom movement and say there's this guy in Germany, he's a political prisoner, while they're worried about Gaza, and they're worried about Iran, and they're worried about China, and they're worried about immigration, and they're worried about trans rights.
Can you imagine
how separated, how much more separated people who watch this shit could be from the rest of the United States.
And those people were roped in, hook, line, and sinker, and they're still there now.
It's crazy.
There are, for example, doctors, medical doctors, who are still persecuted for
for exemption, max exemption or vaccination exemption.
Today still, some of dissidents are in prison, the same as Raina is.
And the time which Raina spent in the prison so far and the conditions were absolutely disproportionate measured at what
are the crimes he committed or not committed.
So do you imagine, Katja, that the German government is trying to send a message with this harsh treatment of Rainer Fulmisch?
And if it is trying to send a message, what is that message?
Yes, absolutely.
They are trying to send a message.
And the message is basically, punish one to educate thousands.
And the people who were criticized on all of these corona measures, they were denigrated, they were called idiots and other names.
Technically, that's not a very good translation, because, ja, natuurlijk, in Nederlands, that would mean something more like, of course, absolutely, in Nederlands would be absolute.
So, it's interesting.
Anyway.
Right now, on his end,
He showed the unlawful activities by the government.
And this is, of course, another purpose behind these proceedings, to stifle him and to show others that they should not expose government.
One thing that I see here quite frankly is is that this puts Reiner Fulmich in terms of the CHD You know mouth breathers and and people following this at all We're not hearing about Sukhrat Bhakti at all anymore and Sukhrat Bhakti has the credibility to speak against the biological narrative much more so than
than this clown does, but somehow or another CHD is so concerned about him that they're promoting a video from him from back then when they were on stage together.
You see?
That's where you can start to see this malevolent Lollapalooza of liars for what it is.
And I'm not afraid to say it.
I think the promotion of Reiner Vollmich by CHD virtually guarantees that that guy is a stuntman.
That's all he is.
A stuntman just like Asim Malhotra is a stuntman.
A stuntman just like Jessica Rose was a stuntman.
Just like Peter McCullough and Pierre Kory and all of these people have become stuntmen.
And they're gonna be stuntmen for the rest of their lives until they admit the whole thing was a hoax.
That they participated in.
As a criminal.
It is easy to set people into panic by creating a virus or by creating the illusion of there being a dangerous virus out there, because everyone is concerned about their health, obviously.
So the problem is that there's a specific way or a specific means by which the illusion could be created, a specific set of circumstances that exist that would allow the illusion to be created.
And that illusion has details.
It's like a magic trick, saying that you cut somebody in half, but then saying, oh, it's just a magic trick, but you don't show anybody how it's done.
You haven't proven that it's a magic trick.
And these people talking in these generalized terms saying, oh, it's a magician on stage.
You don't have to worry about him.
But if the illusion is so freaking good,
It's going to require more than this guy just saying in general terms that, you know, they could release a virus or it could be a make a virus or see, it was already a specific enough to lay that down.
And he did it perfectly.
He just probably missed it.
So they're using this as their major crowbar, the World Health Organization.
And right now it looks as though through the World Health Organization's international health regulations, they're trying to overrule our national constitutions and our national laws.
Just like Merrill Nass, he believes that the World Health Organization and Bill Gates and the United Nations are trying to take over our nation states using this narrative.
Well, sounds more like an announcement to me.
Sounds more like you want everybody to accept that, that it's a situation that you can't control, you could never change, you might as well acquiesce to it, it's already over.
It sounds like that's what he's saying, very much like a lot of these other people say, which I just find absurd.
We're not all in the same bucket.
We're not all have the same problem because we don't have the same constitution.
We aren't in the same countries.
This is bullshit.
All 194, I believe, member states of the World Health Organization will then be ruled by the World Health Organization or by the World Economic Forum or rather by the people who are pulling their strings.
If this is not about health, what is their goal?
Well, the ultimate goal is it's all out there in the open.
You can read up on this in The Great Reset, which...
Seriously, this is as far as we've gotten in the last five years to replace something from 2022?
Really, this is as far as we've gotten at CHD and Mary Holland?
This is the news?
Holy shit, are we in trouble.
It was written by Klaus Schwab.
Or you can listen to the interviews that this aforementioned Harari did.
What they really want is complete control of the world.
not just of animals and plants, but also of humans.
This may sound like it's, I've watched too many James Bond movies, but unfortunately it's the truth.
And, you know, it's all out there in the open.
What they really want is they want to have us agree to two things, to a one world government under the UN,
which they own, the World Economic Forum, and they want us to agree to a one world digital currency along the lines of the Chinese social credit system, which they own.
One bank, one digital currency.
If you don't behave, you're not going to get any money.
You're not going to get any access to anything.
Those are the goals.
Ultimately, they want to control the world.
Again, who is they, has never been answered by any of these people.
Who is they?
Who wants to get control of the world?
Who is, is, got control of so many countries that in Germany this guy could be in jail?
And in America, I guess, I don't know, Robert Malone would have been in jail if we had a justice system, but he's a good guy now and he's on the ACIP or something.
I don't know what's going on.
I don't know what he's talking about, but this is not the narrative that will escape, that will lead our grandchildren out.
This is bullshit.
They're all powerful.
They have all the money.
They have all the resources.
We can't win.
He's not saying social media is the way they accomplished it.
He's not saying that we have to get our kids off of social media.
He's not saying we have to, you know, that's how you avoid the digital ID is you get your kids off of social media.
You make social media irrelevant so that, you know, fake accounts and AI accounts and fake videos and AI generated videos don't mean anything because you're not on social media and neither are your kids.
In order to get there, they need to create as much chaos as possible and they need to keep us in a constant mode of fear and panic.
Number one, the Corona crisis.
Number two, and it's still, the Corona crisis is not over.
It's not over.
And even though in some parts of the world, it seems like it's over, but they're still working on this behind the scenes.
They may come up with something new, another virus.
I don't think so.
I think the next thing they're gonna do is they're gonna say, oh, we just realized that HIV is back.
Why?
Well, because one of the side effects, one of the adverse effects of most of the vaccines, in particular the mRNA vaccines, is that they destroy your immune system.
And all of a sudden, you have an autoimmune deficiency problem.
your immune system turns against your own body.
And this is what happened with AIDS, or at least they claim that this is what happened with AIDS back then.
There's a big, there's still a discussion about whether or not AIDS was caused by HIV.
Judy Mikovits says no.
She... Bang!
He says Judy Mikovits says no AIDS!
Wow!
Stop lying!
Oh, that's awesome.
That is fantastic.
That is fantabulous.
That is brilliant.
Because that means, like we've said for a few years now, this is all one malevolent show.
These guys are all backstage together.
And we can move from stage to stage on the Lollapalooza of liars.
And you can think that they're all different bands, but they are not.
They are not, ladies and gentlemen.
He sees the parallels between what's happening now with Fauci et al and what happened then with Fauci et al.
So we believe that the next big thing they're going to pull out of the hat is a new crisis, a new what they claim viral crisis, HIV.
in order to distract our attention from the adverse effects of the vaccine because that's what the mRNA vaccines cause they destroy your immune system after the third shot or so you have probably less than 30 percent of your immune system how and so you can debunk that really easily because you can say i know a bunch of people who got in their immune system is fine
And so the problem again is that the only way these manufacturing quotas were made is because they rolled out placebo in the vast majority of shots in the vast majority of countries.
And where they didn't do it, they had something else going on.
I don't know what it was, but they didn't just transfect everybody.
There's no way they did it.
Look at these pictures.
What is going on here?
in prison?
How is his health?
How is his physical health?
How is his mental health?
Rainer is combative, strong.
He's a fighter.
He's got a very strong character.
And now that he is allowed to communicate with the co-prisoners, he can also engage
and help people, which is of course good for him.
But nevertheless, he's surely traumatized.
20 months in prison, it's not nothing, sure.
That doesn't sound fun at all, 20 months in prison, but she's talking about the fact that he can now talk to other prisoners, which means he can help people in prison.
It's interesting.
It's just an observation she made.
They take the attribute.
Does he have support of a health freedom movement in Germany or in Europe?
Are people concerned about his imprisonment and about what this means for criminalizing information and exposing the government?
Is Mary wearing costume jewelry there?
Would she be wearing costume jewelry or would those really be real diamonds?
I wonder.
Is it cool to wear costume jewelry as a health freedom activist?
Yes, Ryan is enjoying support.
He receives up to 100 letters per day.
And he is trying to answer all of these messages.
This kind of support is what keeps him going.
People write, people inform him about what is going on in the world.
And he is interested in knowing this.
And there are various actions.
For example, an organization named Translated Lawyers for Enlightenment sent an open letter
Alternative press is there to report.
Bittel TV reports weekly about what's going on in the proceedings against Rainer Földmerich.
So yes, he does have support in alternative media, in opposition, but the mainstream, of course,
either does not report or report in a specific way to belittle him.
Is it possible for Reiner to get out of prison before the end of this sentence?
In the United States, often sentences are commuted for good behavior and people can be released sometimes in as little as a half of the prescribed sentence.
Is that possible for Reiner?
In principle, this is also possible in Germany.
But in this case, many things are just different than usually.
Five months of investigative detention were not taken into account.
This is unusual.
he spent so far in prison prior to the sentencing should be taken into account.
This would be a normal procedure.
This didn't happen.
And they explained it by saying he did not show any remorse, no regrets, no excuses.
And he also insulted
It was very harsh towards the judge, towards the state prosecutor, because he felt that it was unjust what was done to him.
And they said this is the reason for this harsh treatment.
sentenced for not taking into account the time he spent in prison so far.
He says he is not guilty, he is innocent and Katya says in her eyes, in her opinion, he is innocent.
Again, this, of course, is even more true if the German intelligence service uses agents to make them, the agents, commit crimes in order to blame these crimes on others, or use these crimes to file criminal complaints against others.
So this investigative crimes investigative committee,
International Crimes Investigative Committee, ICIC.law, is the organization from which he supposedly embezzled.
Is that the right word?
Yeah.
And now CHD is playing his statement from June 8th.
This is precisely what happened here in my case.
The government's agents, having been granted full immunity by the government, stole my money,
in order to be able to file a criminal complaint against me in which they accused me of having taken out a loan, which I never paid back.
Well, obviously I never paid it back because they stole my money.
At any rate, um, Schindler.
So I think that's the part about the house.
He took money from his organization, put it as a down payment on a loan to the house.
paid it off or something like that, and then sold the house for profit.
So there's some money here that moved around because people shuffled money around and then somebody of the organization filed suit against him.
Downplay the measures, the white torture stuff.
White torture is now what he's going to define.
White torture is, I guess, when they do stuff to people that's not like waterboarding.
It's called white torture now, which I think when you start to redefine terms or define terms and do it as stupidly as he's doing right now, it can only serve as an incredible discreditment bomb.
It's like
You just shit all over yourself in front of everyone on stage.
Like what are you doing when you say something so dumb as white torture to describe what you're experiencing?
Solitary confinement stating that this was normal procedure for pretrial detention.
He doesn't even mention the story about my mother.
And, of course, he says that the defense lawyers lied about being threatened and attacked by the government's agents, completely disregards the evidence we showed in court proving that it was the government's agents, you know, the guys who filed the criminal complaint, who are behind the threats, including death threats, hiding behind fake identities.
What would you like, are there any websites first where we could learn more about the trial, find out how Reiner is doing, but also what would you like our viewers to know or to do about this situation?
We are nowhere near saying anything about what happened in Germany.
We're nowhere near saying that they killed people in Germany and lied about it.
We're nowhere near saying that they killed people in specific places and lied about it.
You know, like Scotland.
There's a whole substack about it.
Or like America.
Nowhere.
We haven't said anything specific about anything.
For all I know, he was fighting for Whole Foods to be present in Germany.
I don't know what he was fighting about.
I don't know what he was fighting for.
I don't know what the organization from whom he embezzled was fighting for.
Because this seems to be all about Reiner being a political prisoner.
Stop lying!
Since in Germany, the jurisdiction of the courts
In the jurisdiction of the courts, if it comes to the corona investigators, educators, then there are little chances of being treated fairly.
And for this reason, what can really help is international public attention, pressure, this could
maybe even help to get it will be a waste it will be a waste of anybody's time in america to spend any time on reiner fulmik it's absolutely absurd that mary holland is pretending to be some kind of journalist activist host of a show it's absolutely atrocious what these people have done
for the governments of the world against the people of the world is they've conjured a new gold standard in PCR and in transfection and they are going forward with it with a pseudo-resistance which will never stop the progression of this narrative, only explain to you what's happening.
And that's what these people are.
They are fraudulent.
They are saboteurs.
They are traitors to our grandkids.
Please, please see them for what they are.
Oh my goodness.
Sorry about that.
Drop that ball there.
Here we go.
This was the right one.
I think you can tell us the most.
dreams.
We play that song for this guy down here in the corner standing with me right there.
That guy right there is a...
was my best friend from college.
I've known Nathan since I was his class's calculus tutor.
I wasn't that good at calculus, but I was really good friends with the teacher, and I got to be a tutor.
And I learned a lot of calculus by being his tutor.
In that class, he actually met and courted his wife, who he left behind a couple years ago.
with a freak aneurysm and I'm never gonna forget Nathan and I probably won't stop doing this stream ever because some part of me hopes that at some point his family will find this work and understand that
Although I haven't been the best friend since Nathan left this world, um, I'm trying to do what I can to make sure that his memory, uh, that some justice happens.
Um, ladies and gentlemen, these people are posers.
Um, they're really awful people.
Um, and some of them I've had interactions with.
And others I haven't.
I'm sure that this is one of the worst ones.
I'm sure that this guy here is awful.
I'm sure that that dude over there for Brownstone is awful.
I've had the unfortunate experience of sharing a room with that guy and actually also shaking his hand.
Some of these people are just, they're just revolting because of the role that they are playing, their commitment to the lie.
For MicroTV, this is beyond the noise.
Episode number 70.
Don't forget that Paul Offit's been on stage for a long time.
He still is.
Watch how it's evolved.
Surprise!
I'm Vincent Racaniello, and joining me today is your host, Dr. Paul Offit.
Hi, Vincent.
This is the video version of Paul's column on Substack called Beyond the Noise, cutting to the chase on important health topics.
Today, we'll talk about Paul's column.
So for 15 years, this guy has been at the extraordinary forefront of opposing the fake anti-vax movement, the now called health freedom movement, that's, I guess, global, headed by, in America, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Mary Holland, Meryl Nass, Brian Hooker, Del Bigtree, Tony Lyons, and their political strategist...
Steve Bannon as far as I can tell and their scientific crew basically consists of Robert Malone and and Kevin McKernan and So this is the flip side of that whole, you know limited spectrum of debate This guy's just on another motorcycle riding inside of the same flaming spear Sphere all I'm cold.
Don't trust the old FDA trust us It was like a bad car dealer commercial.
Oh
Okay, let's go.
So Marty Makary, the head of the FDA, and Vinay Prasad, the head of CBER, which is the division that regulates vaccines, wrote a New England Journal of Medicine opinion where they claimed that there's been a loss of trust in vaccines.
And what's their reason for this?
Well, they believe there's been a loss of trust in vaccines because we haven't done placebo-controlled trials when we have every new COVID vaccine each year, which updates it to the circulating strands.
And that they believe that by doing a prospective placebo-controlled trial in otherwise healthy 50 to 64-year-olds with each new update, that that will restore trust.
Is that not extraordinary?
Can you not see what we've been set up to listen to?
What stupid questions they're asking based on the fact that the Egyptian UK citizen guy at the head of the FDA, the Indian at the head of CBER, these people have been put in place to set us up for this bullshit argument.
this bullshit discussion.
And we're supposed to defend Marty Makary and Vinay Prasad against this guy?
The same guy that we were supposed to defend Mary Holland against?
That we're supposed to feel bad because he's not being honest when he talks about Robert F. Kennedy Jr.? ?
This is all the worst possible show you can imagine.
And they are all on the same team.
They go backstage and it's the same location.
It's just different stages.
And Vincent Racaniello and Microbe TV are one stage.
CHD TV is another stage.
The only thing that's not happening is you're not seeing them behind the scenes pulling bongs together.
Otherwise this Lollapalooza of liars would be absolutely complete.
while they're right that I think there has been a loss of trust in vaccines, I think that has nothing to do with why there's been a loss of trust.
They also claim that limiting the vaccine to 65 and under will restore that trust as well.
But first, we'll cover that.
First of all, are they correct that public trust in vaccines has declined?
I think it has to some extent declined, yes.
If you look at national polls, the sense is that it has declined, that there are
States now that are considering eliminating non-medical exemptions like philosophical or religious exemptions I think there's a pushback clearly on vaccine mandates.
I think the word mandates has become A dirty word and I think it I think mandates has become a dirty word I think mandates is what everybody is supposed to fight about I think mandates has been the script since already when mary holland was on democracy now opposite at pal offit in 2015 where she said one component or another of the untested mmr vaccine
injured her son.
These people are the most malevolent liars in America.
It was a consequence in some ways of the first couple years.
In reality, it is possible for me to easily conceive a scenario where professionally, biologically, and in a real sense, Paul Offit actually believes everything he says and therefore is not actually lying about very much.
Whereas the flip side cannot be said about Mary Holland.
It cannot be said about Brian Hooker.
It cannot be said about Pauly Tommy.
It cannot be said about Andrew Wakefield because they have been making inept, non-progressing, non-evolving arguments about a limited spectrum of questions for more than 15 years.
And it's bullshit.
It's the pandemic.
I think in 2020, when we didn't have anything, we didn't have monoclonals or antivirals or vaccines until the end of 2020, what did we do?
We shuttered schools, we restricted travel, we closed businesses, we isolated, quarantined, masked, social distanced, and I think there were... Do I have to play Mary Holland's recording from being on stage a year ago where she's in the mask and everything?
I had COVID for two days and I took hypermedicine and I was fine, but I could travel because I had natural immunity.
Holy shit.
For some that really felt that was government overreach.
And in 2021, when we had a vaccine and you couldn't go places like your favorite bar or restaurant.
So both sides of the coin are not going to ever talk about the fact that people were murdered in America.
When is Scott Shara going to say that Grace is just one of a million people in America that may have been murdered?
And there's all different ways they did it.
When is he going to say that his kid isn't the only kid that died?
When is he going to say that his family member isn't the only person who had loved ones?
When is he going to talk about the other 999,000 Americans that are supposedly have killed by COVID when in reality they probably died in some way related to his daughter?
When, when are we going to hear that?
We're never going to hear it.
Never.
or you were fired from your job, replace of worship, you couldn't go.
There was again this sense of massive government overreach.
that we're feeling the result of that.
I think we're feeling the result of that in many ways.
I think that it became easier to vilify vaccines when we did that.
And I think we did.
So we're already past the possibility of even addressing the murder that took place in 2021 and 22.
And we're already on to debating the COVID shot.
Exactly like what arguing about a DNR order
And whether a DNR order can or can't be given by a hospital, whether you're giving informed consent or not, you're giving consent.
Not informed consent.
Consent.
You see the problem here?
That's another game that they're playing with Grace Shara's dad.
Is this informed consent or consent?
If you sign a form and it's a consent form, that's different than informed consent.
Holy shit.
I mean really this is a problem ladies and gentlemen.
We need somebody on this.
We need to get this done
This is bad.
Right now, it is red alert bad.
And we need to get this done while it's still hot.
The Grace Shara case, there's something that feels crazy.
And this is part of it.
This whole bullshit show at the FDA about the COVID vaccines is also extremely pertinent to understand the bullshit that's here.
we're about to say that it would be unethical to do, I don't know, what study.
Did lose some trust.
All right.
So, how will requiring placebo-controlled studies for yearly COVID vaccines, how is that going to restore that lost trust?
I don't think it will restore it at all.
First of all, we do know from the last, say, three years, we have done
retrospective trials looking at people who did or didn't get the updated COVID vaccine to see whether or not it was a value.
And of course it was.
I mean, at least for a few months, you were protected against mild to moderate disease.
And it was really independent of age and risk factor.
So you have that information.
And also in terms of safety,
There's probably been 2 billion doses of this vaccine that have been administered.
I would argue we know more about this vaccine than any vaccines we've ever had before, so I think we have that information.
The other thing about doing a prospective placebo-controlled trial on otherwise healthy 50- to 64-year-olds,
Sorry, I had to send a text to my son.
Look, he's saying it right now.
We have more data from this vaccine than any vaccine before.
This is again what makes it so malevolent that the fake anti-vax movement, the fake health freedom movement never considered the possibility
that the vast majority of the rollout would be placebo, and that's why the vast majority of people never saw any side effects.
Instead, we had a person like Jessica Rose saying that, oh, there's a signal in VAERS that's never been there before.
And she's still doing that right now, five and a half years, six years later.
Six and a half years later.
Think about that.
Because he just said it.
And it's not by accident, it's because this is the stupid script that we've been on for like 15 years, ever since Mary Holland broke away from Columbia University to work with Brian Hooker to create Children's Health Defense with Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
and absorb people like Laura Bono into the illusion.
is that I don't think you can ethically do that study.
You know that the virus is circulating.
You know that this vaccine will be of some value.
You know that a 50- to 64-year-old, although not at high risk, is at some risk.
And could you really conscience, say, a few people in the placebo group having serious or even fatal disease?
I don't think you can conscience that, given what you know about the
That is spectacular.
And again, this is the same bullshit argument that they've been making, that Aaron Siri's been repeating.
And even though Pierre Cory seems to realize that SIDS might have to do something with vaccines, these malevolent lying assholes
have still not been able to explain to you that if sudden infant death syndrome is from vaccinations, then we could just give placebo vaccinations to kids and then 30 days later, give them the hot doses.
And then if they just mix that up, you would have a pretty good study done already right now.
And it would be over.
And they could have made this argument 15 years ago, or 10 years ago, or 5 years ago, hypothetically, or for real, this could have been done by doctors.
For shit's sake, CHD could have organized doctors to do it, because any doctor worth their salt would see that that's a pretty easy experiment.
You're gonna come in, we're gonna do a baby wellness check, and in 30 days we're gonna do another wellness check.
And I'm gonna have my nurses blind me to whether it's a flu shot or whether it's a placebo.
And I'm gonna do it for all my patients.
Shit, I'm gonna find out once and for all if this vaccine stuff is nonsense or not.
for some reason after all these years nobody's ever come up with that movement nobody's ever come up with that experiment this guy's never put his money where his mouth is and said it to say that these people could just be shut up with a simple experiment if they think that vaccines are hurting people and that my son transformed and
started screaming and banging his head on the wall and shitting all over the place, well then we should be able to do a short-term placebo-controlled trial that won't risk anybody getting a disease, but will still test the short-term effects of these... medical... interventions.
And the only reason why both Paul Offit and the other side have never been able to get there is because they are... They are liars.
this vaccine already.
Well, they have no conscience, Paul, and so they will just rewrite the rules saying you can withhold standard of care, which is what we're saying would have to be done, right?
Right.
In terms of safety, they make a big deal about this.
And you say in your piece that no vaccines have been better studied, right?
Right, and they've made a very big deal, and Marty Makary's made a very big deal about, you know, myocarditis and, you know, was it hidden from us?
They decided to wait on this data because they were worried that it might result in some families choosing not to vaccinate their kids.
I mean, did we not tell people quickly enough that this was a rare cause of myocarditis?
And we did.
I mean, I was part of, I am part of the vaccine
related biologic products advisory committee at the FDA.
And very quickly, as soon as it became clear through things like the vaccine safety data link that this was a rare cause of myocarditis, primarily within four days of dose two of the 16 to 29-year-old, we knew that very early in the first few months.
What's interesting now, though, is although Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
has insisted on putting an enhanced warning label about myocarditis on these mRNA vaccines, there was a presentation in April at the CDC showing that myocarditis has essentially disappeared.
First of all, it was always much milder than was the natural infection.
It was always much milder than, I'm sorry, always much milder than the national and rat, the natural infection.
So again, here's Paul Offit reinforcing the original narrative that the original virus, which may or may not have come from a laboratory was much more severe than the spike protein in the vaccine.
And this is the same narrative that Kevin McCairn and Charles Rixey are selling you.
The same narrative that somebody like Richard Fleming is selling you.
The same narrative that all of these people sold you at the beginning of the pandemic, including Jessica Rose, including Brett Weinstein and Robert Malone and Steve Kirsch.
And they're still selling it to you now.
that the original virus, whether it came from a bat cave or from the diffuse proposal spray bottle or from a, you know, somebody's shoe.
It had all kinds of consequences, all kinds of biological oddities.
It was weird.
It was strange.
I had it, you know, it was strange.
It's funny that Mary Holland in that video, in that, that audio that I'm playing says that she had COVID, but it was only two days long.
She took ivermectin and she was fine because I have another interview where she says she had COVID and it was very strange.
It's not the same thing as, you know, I had COVID, but I took ivermectin and I was fine.
These people are malevolent liars on a shitty script, and if you've paid attention long enough, you can see it.
And if not, if you've been skillfully using social media and reading whatever it puts in front of you without much wherewithal for realizing how it could be weaponized against you, you don't know what's been done.
You don't know how it's being done, and you can't see through it.
because such a large percentage of the population has now been naturally infected or vaccinated multiple times, you really don't see much myocarditis anymore.
But yet it was seen in the original trial, so you probably need something on the label, right?
Sure.
I think that's true.
But to sort of enhance the label now, to make it more frightening now, makes little sense given the current epidemiology of myocarditis.
So the Macari claim that myocarditis was covered up is just a lie.
It's just a lie.
And he goes on Fox News and says that.
Why?
What's the point?
To scare people?
Why would you want to do that?
Prasad also says that COVID vaccines are useless for kids.
Is that true?
No.
And that's been upsetting to me.
We talked about that on a previous episode, but you have,
You know that last year that there were roughly 6,700 or so hospitalizations in children less than 18.
You know most were in children less than four.
You know that one in five of those children were in the intensive care unit among those hospitalized.
You know that about 152 children died.
You know that virtually all were unvaccinated.
You know at least half were previously healthy.
So,
So it's the way that he says it, I keep looking at the wrong camera, it's the way that he says it, that he's so, you know, we know, you know, we know, it's, this is certain, we're certain about this, we're certain about this, we're certain about this.
And just like our side, just like Robert Malone and Steve Hatfill and Jessica Rose and Tess Laurie and Mary Holland and Meryl Nass will all say that the PCR worked, that the sequences are evolution of the virus, that the new variant is a new variant,
This guy would say the same thing.
This guy would just, would say exactly the same thing.
Because they're on the exact same shitty script.
It's Tony Fauci's script.
It's Robert Malone's script.
It's Kevin McKernan's script.
It's Mark Lander's script.
It's Francis Collins' script.
It's the script of the Human Genome Project.
The Human Genome Project isn't over.
It keeps going on to a next stage, a bigger stage, a more risky stage, a more invested stage, a more all-in stage.
Please understand, these people are a joke.
Healthy children benefit from a primary series, of course they do.
I mean, I have two grandchildren.
When they're six months of age, the maternal antibody that's transferred to them transplacentally will have worn off.
And now they are fully... Now he just says that the antibody, the antibody that was transferred transplacentally will have worn off by six months old.
So we're not talking at all about breastfeeding his grandchildren.
We're not talking about the benefits of breastfeeding and what might also happen during breastfeeding, but we're actually talking about the fact that once you're born, you're on your own.
Once you're born, you're on your own.
And what about vaccinating the mom during pregnancy?
Are we going to talk about that?
Were your grandchildren exposed to the transfection during pregnancy?
He doesn't seem to give a shit about that.
we're going to the intensive care unit, or worse, is very small.
It's not zero.
And the safety of the vaccine and the efficacy of the vaccine clearly shows that its benefits outweigh its small risks.
Well, also over five years old, I suppose there's also the higher risk of long COVID, which is partially ameliorated by vaccination, right?
They never talk about that.
Exactly.
So if you've not been vaccinated or you've not been nationally infected, you're at risk.
And so that risk can be... It's strange because Robert Malone on the ACIP told the story in 2021 that he took the vaccine because he heard on the internet that it would help with his long COVID that he got from SARS-CoV-2.
being one of the old early COVID survivors.
You can go to earlycovidsurvivors.com and see that Robert Malone was probably the super spreader at the Boston Amgen event.
This is such an absurd narrative with such absurd, jackass, traitor liars doing the narrative only possible on social media.
America must wake up.
Only if America wakes up can the rest of the world wake up.
Otherwise, the whole shit show is just going to keep rolling on.
So you got to pull your big boy pants on.
You got to pull your big girl pants on.
We got to wake up America right now.
The children of America need to awaken.
The head of CBER, the Centers for Biologics Evaluation and Research, says that, you know, that children don't need a vaccine.
And RFK Jr., actually, when he stood up there with Marty McCary to his right and Jay Bhattachary to his left and said, we are not going to offer this vaccine for healthy young children, it's just awful.
As of today, the COVID vaccine for healthy children and healthy pregnant women has been removed from the CDC recommended immunization schedule.
How can anybody explain that I have been to barbecues with Jay Bhattacharya, that I've been in many, many Zoom meetings with Robert F. Kennedy Jr., that I used to work for Brian Hooker and Mary Holland, and yet now they are
drawing down millions of dollars a year in donations.
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
paid his security off from his campaigns for president, and he's now at HHS overseeing an HHS populated by directors that are with other passports.
What in the Sam hell is going on in America?
And it's the opposite of what he said he would do.
He said he would, you know, go along with the ACIP recommendations.
He had said that when he first was brought up before the Senate confirmation hearing, that he wouldn't change those recommendations.
That's exactly what he's doing.
Well, of course, what he didn't say was that he was going to read appoint the ACIP to do what he wants.
Right.
So
What's going to be the effect of limiting COVID vaccines to people over 65 unless you have some issue?
Well, so the vaccine would be licensed for those over 65.
It would be licensed for those under 65 who were in one of what were 23 listed high-risk conditions.
The question is, how about people who can reasonably choose to get that vaccine, one, for the issue of long COVID, which you mentioned, or because they're taking care of an elderly parent, or they're taking care of a
a child who has cancer, will they be able to get the vaccine?
Will insurance companies pay for it?
And if insurance companies can't, don't pay for it, and they can't afford it, what's going to be the result of this?
Yeah.
Of course, they also removed pregnancy from the high-risk category, and that's even worse.
Look at those eyes.
Look at that eye roll.
That's amazing.
Look at that eye roll.
Wow.
Worse.
We're the only country in the world that doesn't consider pregnancy to be a high-risk condition for severe COVID.
What I don't understand, Paul, is... We're the only country in the world that doesn't consider pregnancy a high-risk condition for long COVID.
Stop lying!
I mean, that's such a specifically certain statement.
It's got to be bullshit.
We're not talking about mandates, okay?
That's their theme that we overreached.
Okay, fine.
But when the ACIP makes a decision, it's a recommendation.
It is not a mandate.
So why not let people still have a choice?
I don't understand that.
I think what happens is that
For school entry requirements, you can't require a vaccine for school entry that's not recommended.
You can't.
And so if you don't recommend it, if you say shared clinical decision-making, then that eliminates mandates.
And I really think where they want to go on this is the Project 2025 thing for the CDC, which is the CDC is no longer a recommending body, that we just throw it back
to the parent-doctor interaction and let them decide.
But the minute you do that, you're saying that vaccines just aren't necessarily important, that you could reasonably choose not to get any of them.
And I think that's really where they're headed.
Wow.
None of this can have a good outcome.
It could be a great outcome if your goal is to kind of destroy the FDA and the CDC insofar as they regulate shit.
so that you can roll out, you know, basically anything you want, include just the idea that, you know, this is a personalized therapy made just for you based on your genetic and medical background.
And so there's no place for the FDA to evaluate this.
We made this for Jay.
And so since we're not going to give it to anybody else, why do we need the FDA to be involved?
This pivot
also to an unregulated supplement market is gonna be one of the consequences.
And we're gonna be fighting about whether vaccines are good or not, or what's a vaccine or whatever.
That's the whole point of this.
Because in order to just have a discussion on this side of the field, you're assuming that most or all vaccines are not only good, but they're very, very good.
And so then you can have this whole discussion that these people are having on our side.
We're assuming that nothing should be mandated and everything should be free choice.
And some of this stuff is untested.
And if we tested it, we would figure out which of those components, you know, the adjuvants or whatever are responsible for autism.
It's just a stupid, malevolent show, a Lollapalooza of liars.
No, I think what may save us, and I'm an optimist, but I think what may save us is that there are groups now like the American Academy of Pediatrics, which always make recommendations about vaccines.
Those groups are now working with insurance companies to make sure that if they make a recommendation, that that also has the same strength as if the ACIP made the recommendation.
So it's not really shadowy.
There we go.
We'll just make it all private.
We'll just make private, private recommendations that, oh my gosh, can't you see it now?
This is just so dumb.
So the Malone Foundation says no, but the American Academy for Pediatrics says yes.
I wonder what the Brownstone Institute recommends for a vaccine schedule.
Because the AAP, American Academy of Pediatrics,
does that anyway.
But there are other groups like American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology or American College of Physicians.
Those groups then can have recommendations that have the strength of an ACIP recommendation because the ACIP has just been blown up and now has people on it that are like Robert F. Kennedy Jr., anti-vaccine activists and science denialists and conspiracy theorists.
Wow.
As you wrote, I saw an interview with you, the ACIP has now lost the confidence of the medical establishment.
For certain, they've lost the confidence of the medical and scientific establishment.
If you look at the people who are now giving advice, these are not people who you would trust.
And I think people at the CDC have called me recently and said, you know, I just don't know
If I can continue to work here, I feel like we've lost the trust of the American public.
And I think that's sad.
And hopefully this won't last long.
Hopefully we'll get past this phase of our lives.
Ladies and gentlemen, if you didn't see yesterday's show, please check it out.
I'm going to drop this one right now.
I think I'm pretty much done.
My knees hurt.
That's why I was starting to do those squats back there.
I need to move around a little bit.
My back is still killing me.
That's why I'm standing today.
Maybe I've been sitting way too much lately.
I just want to say thank you for being here.
Thank you for making it possible.
It's hot, hot in Pittsburgh.
And I will definitely be on again tomorrow.
Thank you very much for being here.
Don't forget that Maha is a joke on America.
Don't let it be a joke on your grandkids.
Even if these people are unwitting participants, it's not acceptable anymore.
This has been Gigaohm Biological, a high-resistance, low-noise information brief brought to you by a biologist.
Thank you very much for being here.
Whoops, that wasn't what I wanted to do.
And I will see you again tomorrow, because that's what I do.
This is what I do.
This is me, and this is my message.
Thanks for being here, and I'll see you again soon.
Where's my music?
Oh, I don't have it queued up even, because I had the other thing up.
um come on come on where is it there it is i'm sorry about that i got it now here we go thanks for being here
Autism.
He was vaccine damaged.
He was neurologically damaged.
In condition that we will not call autism.
I don't like the word autism.
He was vaccine damaged.
He was neurologically damaged.
In condition that we will not call autism.
I don't like the word autism.
He was vaccine damaged.
He was neurologically damaged.
In condition that we will not call autism.
I don't like the word autism.
He was vaccine damaged.
He was neurologically damaged.
a condition that we will not call autism.
I don't like the word autism.
He was vaccine damaged.