He goes over the major issues surrounding
them.
He reviews the mRNA technology and explains how it is gene
therapy, not a vaccine and our usual understanding of the word.
He reviews the problems with the PCR tests and even helps us
understand our broader state of emergency.
Finally, he explains how
fear
on a subconscious level can make us resist the truth...
***
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 (WHO) 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,
...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.
