Welcome to the
show, David.
Thank you. It's lovely to be here.
I have a friend that works in the school system. She got a
letter suggesting that she's an essential worker and that
she needs to get this one of these new vaccines being
developed against this COVID virus.
What should she know
before she goes for it?
Let's start with your opening sentence. None of the words in
the order that you use exist in reality. Let's unpack that.
First of all, there is no vaccine that is in development or
contemplated that is a vaccine against the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
That doesn't exist. That hasn't been developed. It isn't
even, in 2021, in contemplation.
It's one of the unfortunate
things about what's going on in the propaganda war, which is
in February, the World Health Organization made it
abundantly clear that SARS-CoV-2 or the virus and COVID-19,
which is a series of clinical presentations of illness were
two distinct things.
You're making an interesting distinction. I have heard that
SARS-CoV-2 is "the virus" and that COVID-19 is the disease.
Is that what you're saying?
COVID 19 is not a disease. It is a series of clinical
symptoms. It is a giant umbrella of things associated with
what used to be associated with influenza and with other
febrile diseases.
The problem that we have is that in
February, the World Health Organization was clear in stating
that there should not be a conflation between the two of
these things. One is a virus, in their definition and one is
a set of clinical symptoms. The illusion in February was
that SARS-CoV-2 caused COVID-19.
The problem with that
definition and with the expectation is that the majority of
people who test positive using the RT-PCR method for
testing, for fragments of what is associated with SARS-CoV-2
are not ill at all.
The illusion that the virus causes a
disease fell apart. That's the reason why they invented the
term asymptomatic carrier.
In other words, I might get a positive result from this PCR
test and the reason I'm not asymptomatic, what's happening
is I'm not sick at all.
They've made a false assumption that
SARS-CoV-2 causes COVID-19.
That's never been the case, never has been the case and
never will be the case. There is a causal statement that is
made in the media where, for example, Johns Hopkins or the
COVID tracker platform or any of these things has
intentionally misled the people.
There are not 5,000 new
cases in Virginia. There potentially may be several thousand
positive PCR tests but most of the people who have a
positive test will never have a single symptom.
Most of the
people who have symptoms do not have positive tests.
I know some individuals who said that thing. They were like,
"I was feeling sick and I got a negative test. My
sister-in-law, who was feeling great, got a positive test."
It will always be the case.
The causal link that the media,
the CDC made and the COVID tracker, which is the
collaboration between the Bloomberg Foundation, the Gates
Foundation, Zuckerberg Foundation and others, the official
numbers that we get trapped across the screens every morning
of our computers in our televisions, those numbers are
willfully lying.
They have been willfully lying since the
inception of this. There is not a causal link between these
things that have never been established. It has never even
been close to established.
We have a situation where the
illusion of the problem is that people say,
"I don't want to
get COVID-19."
What they mean is they don't want to get
infected with a virus. The problem is those two things are
not related to each other.
A viral infection hasn't been documented in the majority of
what is called cases. There is no basis for that conflation
other than the manipulation of the public. That's the first
half of the problem.
The second half of the problem is that
what is being touted as a vaccination, which as you well
know when somebody says the word vaccination, the public
understanding is that you are being treated with an
attenuated or alive virus or a fragment of an attenuated and
that the treatment is meant to keep you from getting an
infection and it is meant to keep you from transmitting the
infection that vaccine in the common definition of a vaccine
is meant to do.
The problem is that in the case of Moderna and Pfizer, this
is not a vaccine. This is gene therapy. It's a chemotherapy
agent that is gene therapy. It is not a vaccine.
What is
this doing? It's sending a strand of synthetic RNA into the
human being and is invoking within the human being, the
creation of the S1 spike protein, which is a pathogen. It's
a toxin inside of human beings.
This is not only not keeping
you from getting sick, it's making your body produce the
thing that makes you sick.
In that sense, it does sound like a vaccine?
No, not at all because a vaccine is supposed to trigger
immunity. It's not supposed to trigger you to make a toxin.
That's how this differs.
Vaccine:
In the case of Moderna and Pfizer,
this is not a
vaccine.
This is gene therapy.
It's not somewhat different. It's not the same at all.
This
is a public manipulation of misrepresentation of clinical
treatment. It's not a vaccination. It's not a prohibiting
infection. It's not a prohibiting transmission device.
It's
a means by which your body is conscripted to make the toxin
that then allegedly your body somehow gets used to dealing
with, but unlike a vaccine, which is to trigger the immune
response, this is to trigger the creation of the toxin.
The way I've heard the companies put it is this is to teach
your body to fight this virus when it comes around.
That's
how they're presenting it.
Their clinical trial didn't include any of that as even a
possibility within the clinical trial. The clinical trial
did not measure the presence or absence of a virus or a
virus fragment.
The clinical trial did not measure the
possibility of transmission suppression, the clinical trial
didn't measure any of those things.
This is a case of
misrepresentation of technology and it's done exclusively so
that they can get themselves under the umbrella of public
health laws that exploit vaccination.
What you're saying is different from what most of us have
heard in the mainstream news and even from the press
releases from big companies.
That's because people aren't reading the actual clinical
trials.
If you read the clinical trials, nothing that I'm
saying is even remotely different. As a matter of fact, the
companies themselves have said what I'm saying. They said,
they could not test for the existence or absence of the
virus and they could not test for the transmissivity because
they said it would be impractical.
The companies themselves
have admitted to every single thing I'm saying but they are
using the public manipulation of the word vaccine to co-opt
the public into believing they're getting a thing, which
they are not getting.
This is not going to stop you from
getting Coronavirus. It's not going to stop you from getting
sick.
In fact, on the contrary, it will make you sick far
more often than the virus itself.
How can you say that so definitively?
Because the data is nothing but that, for people receiving
by the time they got the second shot, 80% of people had one
or more clinical presentations of COVID-19, 80% of people
who have an infection according to RT-PCR have no symptoms
at all.
People are getting it more from the "vaccine?"
Yes. You will get COVID-19 symptoms from getting the gene
therapy passed off as a vaccine. You will get COVID symptoms
from that 80% of the time.
If you're exposed to SARS-CoV-2
according to RT-PCR, 80% of the time, you will have no
symptoms at all.
What is the purpose of getting this vaccine or this gene
manipulation as you call it?
It's a gene therapy technology. That's Moderna's own
definition. Let's stick with what they say they are. The
benefit is non-existent.
A human being is going to be
potentially exposed to unclassified, both short-term and
long-term risks of altering their RNA and DNA from exposure
to this gene therapy. This is important to understand, there
is no clinical benefit except that in certain instances of CoV infection and/or COVID-19 exposure, there were a few.
By
that, I mean less than a few hundred out of nearly 40,000 in
the clinical trial. A few hundred people had a few days less
severe symptoms with the gene therapy when compared to the
other control group.
Even in that comparison, if you look at
the methodology that's in the published papers for the
clinical trials, they play games with the data because what
they're doing is, they're separating reactivity, meaning the
way in which a person responds to being exposed to the gene
therapy, they separate out adverse events from actual COVID
symptoms.
The problem is that COVID symptoms include things like
fever, body ache, muscle pain, muscle weakness and things
like that.
They got rid of a lot of what would have been
considered to be COVID symptoms by calling them adverse
events.
If you pull that data out and you say,
"Compare the
population that got the gene therapy with the population
that didn't get the gene therapy."
The population that got
the gene therapy had way more illness, including COVID-19
symptoms, than the population that didn't get the gene
therapy but because they classified an enormous number of
things as adverse events, they technically wiggled
themselves into what was this ridiculous 90% plus
effectiveness.
Effectiveness was not effective in blocking
illness.
It was effective in allegedly shortening the
duration of symptoms.
People are afraid that they are ready to believe what they
want to believe and holding onto that one bit of information
that you shared, that the likelihood with the flu vaccine,
"At least it will tamp down my symptoms and limit the
duration of my illness."
They held onto that one bit of
information that was data manipulation, as you're saying and
they're holding out hope that this will be their saving
grace to help them avoid COVID-19.
Nothing about this will avoid COVID-19 and nothing about
this will avoid SARS-CoV-2.
We've been talking mostly about the Moderna and Pfizer
vaccine that is gene therapy.
Is there another one in the
works or getting to the market that is not using gene
therapy?
The AstraZeneca Oxford trial is using a viral fragment. It
is more along the technological lines of what you and I
might consider historically, to be a vaccine.
The
AstraZeneca Oxford trial has been an interesting one to
watch because they have a methodology problem that is quite
challenging in terms of trying to fool data and understand
what's happening either on the safety or efficacy side.
The
reason is simple, that in certain instances, the AstraZeneca
Oxford trial has not used a saline control group.
They've
used another vaccine as the control. In other words, they've
stacked the deck. They're making it look like they are
somehow neutral compared to another vaccination in several
of their data collection efforts.
As a result of that, we have both a methodology problem,
which by the way, has been criticized by a number of
clinical scientists. The bigger problem is that they're
still not measuring viral susceptibility and viral
transmission.
Those are the two legs of the stool that is
required for anyone to say that they are vaccinating a
population for public health reasons. There is no means by
which.
This is a simple thing to wrap your head around.
If I
said,
"Everybody needs to take chemotherapy for cancer they
might get."
People would laugh in your face.
That's exactly what is happening.
This is not prophylactic.
This is not helping us. We're being told to take a treatment
for a disease we don't have and most likely will not have.
We're being told that using careful marketing manipulation
and propaganda, calling these things vaccines for public
health.
Historically vaccines, we've taken them for that reason. "I
don't have the measles. I don't want to get the measles, so
I'm going to get this measles shot."
We've been primed to
accept that approached.
That's the narrative everybody expects.
Why don't you expect that though? What's made you dive deep?
That's not what's being measured.
That's not what's being
done and that's not what this technology is about. mRNA is
not a vaccination. It's a gene therapy that was originally
developed for cancer treatment.
That's why I'm using the
chemotherapy analogy. This is not a vaccination.
I have colleagues, I'm sure you do too, friends and
acquaintances who are going for it. What can we tell these
people or share with them that might wake them up?
That's a complex issue and I have chosen a long time ago to
not engage in the energy of this waking sleeping metaphor
because the fact of the matter is if people are conditioned
to react to fear, this is reflexive and it's not conscious.
If we examine our behavior and what we do is engage in
self-harm because we are convinced that somehow or another,
there's a worse future ahead of us, that's something that I
don't have an ability to say facts are going ever to
overcome.
I have yet to meet in my life someone who allowed
a fact to overwhelm a belief.
Once you've adopted a belief,
facts are not welcome because what they do is, they not only
indict your belief but they indict the energy that you hold
that says,
"I have to believe what I'm told."
The minute you try to engage with facts, all you do is
trigger conflict.
What I do is I try to take the complex
science and the complex reporting, and I try to make it
accessible and easily understood. The goal is that in
certain instances, people will go, "I can't even believe
that what he said was true."
The cool thing is you don't
have to believe what I'm saying is true because I don't
value belief. I value the objective reality of facts. It
turns out that in this particular case, it is simple and
straightforward to say to any person in Moderna's own SEC
filings, they make it abundantly clear that their technology
is a gene therapy technology.
In their clinical trial,
they've made it abundantly clear that they could not measure
the presence or absence of the virus and they could not
measure the presence or the absence of the transmission of
the virus.
Every single thing that they represented to be
doing that preys on the public understanding of what
vaccination is, they explicitly said,
"They're not doing
that."
You have been careful to lay out the facts to me and the
audience and we're thankful. I want to ask you on a more
personal note, would you even take this PCR test if you had
to for travel?
I'm getting all kinds of emails and people
reaching out to me and I'm not even talking about the
vaccine or the gene therapy technology but certain things
are being required to participate in life.
I'm actively involved with many of the significant pieces of
litigation that are going on to try to unmask the conspiracy
that is driving both the PCR, as well as the medical
countermeasure interventions.
I'm at the vanguard with a few
other souls who are fighting for the rights of citizens to
make decisions informed by facts, not informed by
propaganda.
The fact of the matter is the PCR test has never
been approved as a diagnostic. It is not diagnostic.
There's
nothing about taking a PCR test that does anything other
than reinforce a propaganda narrative. It doesn't tell you
anything.
The reason why we're not doing influenza testing is that we
don't want to admit the fact that the majority of people who
are in hospital, who are sick and who are dying are
experiencing exactly the same thing that's happened every
year, which is influenza-like, flu-like and pneumonia-like
illness.
In many cases, when someone has immune compromise
or other comorbidities leads to fatalities. It's a sad
reality that that happens but it is part of the human
experience that it happens.
The fact is that a PCR test is
not going to make or not make a confirmed diagnosis of
anything because PCR tests cannot confirm a diagnosis.
I've interviewed Dr. Tom Cowan and Dr. Andy Kaufman, and
they say the same thing. The person who came up with or
developed the PCR test says that it's not to be used to
diagnose anything.
So does the FDA so does everybody else.
The only reason we
are using PCR tests is that governors and the Department of
Health and Human Services are maintaining a state of
emergency. The second that that state of emergency is lifted
in any state or in the country, the PCR test won't be
allowed to be used.
We're maintaining a state of emergency
so that manufacturers can keep selling a thing that would
never be approved if it was subject to a clinical trial. It
goes for what's being called vaccines too.
The gene therapy
that Moderna and Pfizer are doing, both of those would be
suspended immediately if the state of emergency got lifted.
People don't understand that if you lift the state of
emergency, the whole house of cards falls.
That is something else that you and your team are advocating
for?
It's because the emergency use authorization falls with the
state of emergency.
Is this one reason, do you think that they have cast
aspersions on hydroxychloroquine or any other protocols that
could possibly treat the symptoms of SARS-CoV-2?
There's no question.
If you look historically, for many
years, Dr. Anthony Fauci at NIAID has held his annual
advisory committee meeting. Every year he laments the fact
that they're trying to build this universal influenza
vaccine, which he refers to using as an infant in-print
vaccine.
They've been trying to do this for years and it
hasn't worked.
This happens to be an opportunity for Anthony Fauci to get what he has not been able to get through legal
means, which is he wants to get to a place where he forces a
vaccine on a population. He's manipulating this situation to
force a vaccine on a population.
The fact of the matter is
he forgot that if he's going to force a vaccine on a
population, it should at least be a vaccine.
What would his motives be for that?
Always has been financial. There are billions of dollars at
stake and NIAID is essentially the incubator for the
pharmaceutical industry.
He's serving the paymasters that
have let him manage $191 billion in his career at NIAID.
There are lots to consider here. You've given us a lot of
food for thought.
We want to have another conversation with
you again but let's say I'm an individual that was reading
all these facts and I've been persuaded. I do not want to
get this gene therapy technology. I don't want even to get
the AstraZeneca vaccine.
I don't want to get any of this but
I'm under pressure either because of my job or for travel
purposes to do so, what would you advise me to do?
I can't advise a person at all.
That's not my role but what
I can tell you is that this is a decision that any human
being is going to ultimately have to make based on whether
or not they choose to live or they choose to be enslaved.
This is like any point in history where you have to make
decisions that are based on what is moral and ethical and
right with respect to your own sense of responsibility and
accountability.
The fact of the matter is like wearing a
seat belt, like doing a whole bunch of other things, your
choice to engage in an activity is ultimately going to be a
decision that you have to live with.
Vaccine:
The more you have the lived experience of health,
the less you can be told you're unwell
when you're perfectly
fine.
I will not touch a thing and I will not allow my body to be
invaded with a thing that is been developed in an unethical
and illegal way.
I am not going to let anybody have the
opportunity to manipulate my genetic code.
It's not going to
happen. If that means that it comes at a cost of a
particular employer or a particular relationship or whatever
else, my life happens to be worth more than that.
We've been
conditioned to fall into this trap, which is,
"We might not
be able to get on a plane."
So, drive.
I thought about that. I'm going to start taking a boat.
I'm not going to let my future and my well-being be enslaved
to a commercial interest that is trying to extort or
blackmail me into a thing.
That does sound like living. That does sound like freedom as
opposed to slavery. I appreciate that. I think that's what
we're about to hear at the foundation.
We want people to
live their best lives to take responsibility for their own
health and look to ways to nurture it that may not be the
most modern or the most profitable for health companies but
will be best for them.
Let me wrap up by asking you the
question I often pose at the end. If the reader could do one
thing to improve or sustain their health, what would you
recommend that they do?
Pick a lifestyle modification first and foremost and pick it
with someone else.
Begin exercising, engage in a more
wholesome way of engaging with the food you consume.
Anything that involves bringing together the sense of
wellbeing, which involves fellowship, nutrition, vitality
and empowering you to become a person who not only has a
conceptual idea of what health is but has a lived experience
of it.
The more you have the lived experience of health, the
less you can be told you're unwell when you're perfectly
fine.
Thank you so much for your time, David. This has been a
great conversation.
You are most welcome. Take care.
