YouTube Transcripts

TRANSCRIPT TO 7MIN PODCAST rumble A protection against bioweapons, VDJ recombination explained

https://rumble.com/v56wtr9-a-protection-against-bioweapons-vdj-recombination-explained.html

The human immune system is a marvel of biological engineering, designed to protect us from a vast array of potential threats, including viruses, bacteria, and even man made bioweapons. God designed the human body to be able to do this from birth. And if we could not do this, we would not be able to survive as a species. At the heart of this defense system is the ability to recognize any foreign proteins that could ever exist. Even ones those evil scientists haven't thought of yet.

The recognition is intelligent and comes from living cells. It does not come from unintelligent lock and key actions of antibodies that are nonliving proteins. Antibody actions are secondary happening only after the intelligent recognition has taken place. This extraordinary capability is largely recombination, which is crucial for the development of diverse and specific antigen receptors on b cells and t cells, vdj recombination is a genetic mechanism that generates the diverse repertoire of antigen receptors necessary for the adaptive immune system to recognize a wide variety of pathogens. This process occurs during the early development of of b cells in the bone marrow and t cells in the thymus gland.

For b cells, vdj recombination happens in the bone marrow. The process involves the seemingly random assembly of variable, v diverse d and joining j gene segments to create the variable region of the b cell receptor. Each b cell ends up with a unique receptor that can recognize one specific antigen. So each b cell has thousands of receptors that are exactly the same for that b cell, looking for only one specific protein antigen. For t cells, v d j recombination takes place in the thymus gland.

Like b cells, t cells rearrange their v, d, and j gene segments to form the t cell receptor. Each t cell has thousands of receptors that are exactly the same for that t cell, looking for one protein antigen. There are billions of t cells and billions of b cells, but they are not all unique, there will be a handful of these cells that are the same and are looking for the same unique protein. Although, the vdj recombination for b cells and t cells are similar, the way they identify the proteins they are looking for are completely different. B cells can detect free floating soluble proteins or something that was injected in a product called a vaccine.

But t cells cannot do that. T cells can only recognize proteins that are presented to them by APCs or antigen presenting cells like dendritic cells and macrophages. This creates a huge problem for vaccines because if the vaccine contains or makes too many antigens, b cells can directly detect them and start making suboptimal antibodies cells will present smaller protein pieces of the foreign invader to t cells on major histocompatibility type 2 sites, and those activated t cells will help b cells make more refined antibodies against all parts of the invader, not just a piece of it. This makes immunity from a natural infection far superior to any immune response to something that was injected. The v d j recombination process is highly complex and allows for the generation of billions of unique b cell receptors and t cell receptors.

This diversity is essential because only a small subset of these receptors will match presented by the pathogen. It sounds impossible, but this is of threats. So there is no need to be afraid of the threats. It is important to understand that it is the living immune cells, b cells and t cells, that actively patrol the body and eliminate infections. Antibodies, which are produced by b cells, serve only as markers that bind to antigens.

They do not destroy pathogens directly, but flag them for destruction by other immune cells. The intelligence and adaptability of living immune cells are what make the immune system so effective. These cells can recognize, remember, and respond to specific pathogens, ensuring long term immunity. Despite its robustness, the immune system can be compromised by certain medical interventions. Treatments such as chemotherapy and radiation therapy can damage the bone marrow and thymus, where vdj recombination occurs, thereby reducing the production of new b cells and t cells and impairing immune function.

Immunosuppressive drugs used in conditions like autoimmune diseases or organ transplants can also inhibit the proliferation and differentiation of lymphocytes, indirectly affecting vdj recombination. Genetic disorders such as severe combined immunodeficiency or SCID result from mutations in genes essential for VDJ recombination, leading to a lack of functional b cells and t cells. And if we're not careful, the injection of mRNA gene therapies could end up negatively affecting vdj recombination. The human immune system's ability to recognize any foreign protein is critical for our survival. BDJ recombination plays a pivotal role in generating diverse and specific receptors on b cells and t cells, allowing the immune system to mount an effective response against a vast array of pathogens.

Despite the complexity and seeming improbability of this system, it functions remarkably well, protecting us from countless threats. However, it is important to be aware of medical interventions that can weaken this capability, highlighting the need for careful management of treatments that impact the immune system, especially when it comes to shots called vaccines.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

transcript to 12min podcast youtubeThe Donald Trump "FAKE" ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l560kz7Suhc&t=131s 

Holden, if you, wanna really see something they said, take a look at what happened. You are now tuned into another edition of the truth zone and surprise, surprise. The fake assassination attempt on 1 Donald John Trump has finally happened. I guess the conspiracy theorists have been proven right yet again, and it's more predictive programming because the Illuminati card game literally talks about this being the case. Because on the description of this card, it talks about how snipers can drop you at any time.

Have a nice day, and it has the face of what appears to be Trump. This is clear as day a WWE scripted event. It's clear as day that he bladed it just like what they do in wrestling to sell a move. Sell that they're severely hurt, and then they begin to bleed. And this is just being done to garner more sympathy towards Trump.

One has to wonder if he could possibly be the antichrist because look, he received his head wound. Now, am I saying he's the antichrist? No, But one has to wonder, but it is clear as they that this was a scripted event. Yet again, this is more masonic theater. And now all you have people talking about is this, because this is the first time that this has happened to a president or a former president in quite some time.

And I wonder why that's the case. This is scripted. It happened in Pennsylvania of all places, and Pennsylvania adds up to 33. Oh, and, who else is from Pennsylvania? Joe Biden.

This is all part of the show. This is a bread and circus show. You are literally watching a movie being played out a movie script with a bunch of actors to create division, to cause confusion, to divide and to distract, and people need to wake up and realize what is going on. This is all part of the show. Donald Trump is part of the club.

Joe Biden is part of the club. All of these presidents are part of the club. And look. Trump is fine after the apparent shots ring out. And look how he got up.

He looks like he is ready to fight. I mean, come on. This is a movie script being played out. This is more masonic theater because the left versus the right is nothing more than one big illusion. It's fantasy is all that this is.

And now you're going to have even more people fall in love with Trump than ever before after this. So again, could he potentially be the antichrist? I guess we shall see. I'm not saying he is but it is just very telling, everything happening. And if people can't see what's happening here, I don't know what more to say how I can wake people up because it is clear as day that this is part of the WWE script.

Your votes do not matter. I hate to break it to you. Presidents are selected. Presidents are put into place. I mean think about it.

If politics were as real as they claim they are, why is it always a republican or a democrat in office? Why can't it be sometimes an independent in office? And, again, this is coming from somebody who was under the spell of believing politics were real. I voted for Trump twice, and then I woke up and I realized that this is all a show. You and me, we do not have a say in who's in office.

We don't. They are put in the office to cause division, to cause chaos. They don't run the country. The people behind the scenes are the people that runs the country, but this has been predictably programmed. You've been having people on the right especially like Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, stuff like that.

They've been talking about the possibility of a Trump assassination attempt, and guess what? It has finally happened. Wow. It's amazing how many times conspiracy theorists have pointed this out too, How they are conditioning people to this happening and then it finally happens. I mean, you really can't write a better script than this.

1st, Trump was made to look amazing during, the debate with Biden where Biden was stumbling over his words and stuff like that. And then now you have this, and then he pops back up all heroic like. I mean, come on. This is a movie script. They have been telling you this was going to happen for quite some time, and it has finally happened.

You really can't make it up. And, of course, it happened on a date with 13 in it. 13. One of their numbers they love to, you know, use. I mean, come on.

And the fact that it happened in the state where Joe Biden is from is laughable to say the least. People need to wake up and realize what exactly is going on. I mean, again, the CIA controlled puppet himself, Tucker Carlson, has been talking about this. So if you wanna know what things are going to look like in the future, just chart out what has been happening recently and ask yourself So get your popcorn because the movie is being played out right in front of your very eyes and my very eyes. And who knows what else they are going to try?

Could they even create a crazy civil war from this? That remains to be seen. But this is clear as day, another scripted ritual. This is clear as day, another masonic showing. Masonic Theater, Freemason Theater.

This is what this is. People need to wake up. This is nothing more than more spellcasting. I mean, it was even predictably programmed in a sense with Eminem's new album, the death of Slim Shady because what color of hair does slim shady have? He has blonde hair.

What color of hair does Trump have? He has blonde hair, and the death of Slim Shady album cover showcased Slim Shady in a body bag. So don't worry to everybody that is worried about Trump. He's fine. Wink, wink.

Because this was all a big show. So, of course, he is fine. Of course. So enjoy the staged PSIOP event. This is a major SIOP event and finally something major has happened after a couple of weeks.

It just seems like there was a major event on the horizon. We didn't know exactly when it was going to happen, but low and behold, here is the major event of the summer so far. The summer blockbuster. Trump's assassination attempt. I mean, the movie script writes itself.

And it's just getting more and more ridiculous by the day how people fall for this charade known as politics because politics are nothing more than a WWE show. They are nothing more than scripted propaganda. And again, this is going to lead to more and more people loving this guy, worshiping this guy than ever before. They're gonna be like, oh, he could do no wrong. He's going to make America great again.

He they tried to even kill him. He's the man for the job. I mean, just watch. Just watch what this is going to turn into. It's gonna get 10 times worse.

The Trump idolatry. It's going to get 10 times worse from here. And that's what they want. They want this man front and center. Notice how they always use this man as a way to distract people from more pressing issues.

And this is all you're going to hear about for the time being is Trump was almost assassinated. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. This is all you're going to hear about for a little while. This is all part of the show. This is all part of the ride.

This is all part of the entertainment known as the WWE politics. This is all Freemason Theater. People wake up. Do not be deceived. This is all magic because mega is the highest degree in the church of Satan.

So do not be deceived. This is just more of the same from these people. And I can only imagine what else they have planned, what else they have in store. As always, please like the video, comment down below. If you're new to the channel, please consider subscribing to the channel.

God bless each and every one of you, and this is truth seekers.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

transcript to 75min podcast Healthcare or Covid crisis? Cardiologist Aseem Malhotra is on a Mission

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kD6XQ6ycvGY 

They had a lot of starch but in the corner of the plate I'm glad you've asked me this question. There's a very interesting story I'm about to share with you which I've never publicised. He gets served a burger and fries Yeah. During that conversation. Yeah.

And he looks at me and says, doctor, how do you expect me to change my lifestyle if you're serving me the same crap? There is good research to suggest that if you have good community relationships, good, family relationships, good friendships, good meaningful, good quality relationships, that can actually protect you from the external stresses of life. McDonald's, Coca Cola Yeah. Cadbury's. Come on.

This is a joke. Yeah. Why have you even got those brands and the, you know, those types of foods on the e well plate? And the response was, Hassim, you've got to understand. 1 of the biggest contributors to our economy is the food industry.

I mean, it's very well documented that when the food industry know that a product is harmful, they will actually market it as being healthy. We have a pandemic of the vaccine injured. It is a massive public health crisis. And in my view, is the main likely driver of the excess deaths going on around the world. Highly likely.

I'm not gonna I'm gonna I'm not gonna be. I have my own personal opinion, but let me say it as a scientist. Highly likely that millions of people around the world have either been seriously harmed or killed by this vaccine. I can tell you right now, she comes from a place of purity and good intent, and she will be proven to be on the right side of history. But the princess Maxima needs to get involved.

This is very bad for the reputation of that institution, which her name is attached to. My personal view, and I think that it's quite clear for me and everything I knew about him, is I think that the vaccine is what killed him. Doctor Asim Malhotra is on a mission. My name is doctor Seymour Hotra. I'm a consultant cardiologist, and my mission is to save lives a million at a time.

And he says to me, doc, how do you expect me to change my lifestyle if you're serving me the same crap that brought me here in the first place? I think now it's high time that policymakers around the world put an end to the mandate. So what you're saying in terms of the mRNA link to cardiovascular risk, is that that is a proven it's been proven medically, has it, scientifically? Yeah. But I wanna say that basically big food and big pharma are actually enemies of democracy.

Doctor Asim Malhotra. Doctor Asim Malhotra, welcome. In our studio in Edan. First time in the Netherlands, first time in Adam, I guess? It's first time in Adam and actually I, yeah, I've been a big fan of of your cheese actually for a very long time.

Oh, okay. But no, but not my first time in the Netherlands. I've come here quite a lot and, I have a lot of affection for this for this country and it's treated me very well. My first book was a number 1 bestseller here Mhmm. For several weeks, in 2, 000 and 17, 2018.

Yeah. So, yeah. No. It's nice to be here. Yeah.

Gotta talk about that, of course. Also, in the video you mentioned you wanna save a 1000000 lives at a time. That's hard as a cardiologist. Well, I think if I was just focusing on doing what I was trained to do initially which is just putting in, you know, my subspecialised in keel heart surgery which is essentially putting stents in people for blockages, for heart attacks for example, then it would be difficult to save a 1000000 people. But actually, Christian Barnard, the, pioneering heart transplant surgeon in South African, he said, I've saved a 150 people from heart transplantations, but if I concentrated on preventative medicine earlier, I would have saved a 150, 000, 000.

We will discuss the status of health care, the COVID crisis, and what you have contributed to that as a cardiologist, and what you may contribute to that in the future Sure. In your role as a cardiologist. I don't know you very well, so I did a lot of research into you. I started at Wikipedia, which says, Asim Malhotra is a controversial British cardiologist. So the first question, when did you became controversial?

Well, in the time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a controversial and revolutionary act. So I think anyone that speaks the truth right now would be labeled controversial. Mhmm. Yeah. But I also saw this picture.

You are with Jamie Oliver and, Robert Lustig, writer of the book Fat Chance. Yeah. You don't look that controversial. You're pretty mainstream here. What's the story about this picture?

Well, actually, it's interesting. When I first liaised with both Rob Olustig and Jamie Oliver a little bit later, it was in relation to the, research that I had read and and propagated as an advocate on sugar in terms of the the harms of excess sugar. But, actually, when I first in the UK was probably the first doctor to vocally speak out about the harms of excess sugar in the mainstream. Yeah. I was called controversial then.

I called a quack. Can you imagine that? Oh my god. Who's this doctor that's saying sugar is bad for you and bad for the heart? Yeah.

Now it's accepted. Yeah. So, you know, things go through stages and phases. Yeah, interesting. We see Robert Lustig, writer of the book Fat Chance, and of course Jamie Oliver, He's, well, contributing to a change of the menu on schools Yep.

In schools. So this is before the the the COVID crisis Yeah. Hit us. So you're not like the TV doctor that got famous because of the COVID crisis. You were pretty active as an activist?

Yeah, I think. Yeah, I'm not like in any way Like, what's your health care? Yeah, I'm not a TV doctor. I mean, they have a role to play, but that isn't what I'm interested in. I'm primarily an act I'm a doctor and an activist that wants to disseminate the greater truth around primarily how to manage and prevent, manage, and reverse heart disease.

Yep. And that's where I started my work. But, no, I my first campaign that hit the mainstream was actually around hospital food. Yeah. And specifically during the obesity epidemic, why are we allowing our hospitals to become a branding opportunity for the junk food industry?

Like, you know, most of the food still purchased in hospital, 75% is ultra processed junk. Yeah. So if the medical profession are gonna take the be seen to be taking the obesity epidemic seriously, why are they staying silent around the fact that, you know, junk food is readily available in hospital. It makes it more acceptable. It's not good for patients.

It's not good for staff. And I wrote about this, and it became a front page commentary, the 1st mainstream major mainstream article I wrote in The Observer newspaper part of The Guardian Group in 2011. And the article was entitled, I mend hearts, then I see our hospitals serve junk food to my patients. Yeah. So that was really where I started my initial activism.

Yeah. Your eye opener for yourself was your was a moment with a patient of 1 of your own? Oh, yes. No. Thank you for bringing that up.

Yeah. No. I I was treating somebody in the middle of the night with a heart attack, emergency stenting, a guy in his fifties. And the next morning on the ward round when I'm having a conversation with him about what's happened and the pills he should take and also talking about lifestyle and stopping smoking, he gets served a burger and fries Yeah. During that conversation.

Yeah. And he looks at me and says, doctor, how do you expect me to change my lifestyle if you're serving me the same crap that likely brought me here in the 1st place? So for me, that was a moment that made me think, hold on. I need to this is a great story to try and help people understand how crazy the situation has become where the the food industry themselves I mean, I remember meeting a very senior executive, years ago who worked for Unilever, and he talked about the, business strategy of Coca Cola to make their products available to anyone, anywhere Yeah. At any time.

Yeah. Even that would apply to a bed bound patient in hospital who's had a heart attack that can't leave the hospital bed for 24 hours. There were contracts that were made between hospital chief executives and certain food companies where they would have to deliver, certain items of food, in particular junk food, like sugary drinks, you know, packet of potato chips, whatever, crisps, to the and and and chocolates and candy bars to the patient and who's bed bound in the hospital. Yeah. That how how crazy it is.

So this is from a business perspective, from their business perspective, it's great. Right? You you you make that food so available to anyone and you make it acceptable Yeah. Even to people who are sick, who are likely there because they've been eating these foods. We're talking about big food, basically.

Yeah. Yeah. We're gonna talk about big pharma later in this discussion. Earlier this week, news item came out in Holland which says recently 22 organizations sounded the alarm, including the diabetes the diabetes fund, the heart foundation, and cancer foundation. And they say we're heading for a health disaster.

Never before have so many organizations sounded the alarm. This is in Holland. How is this situation compared to your country situation? To be honest, it's a problem pretty much all over the world, certainly in the Western countries. We also know, although that's maybe a discussion for later, but we also know a recent publication in BMJ Public Health from Dutch researchers were talking about the fact that over the last 3 years since the beginning of the so called pandemic when it started, we've got a massive increase in excess deaths, almost 3, 000, 000, 000 excess deaths since beginning of 2020 to the end of 2022 and is still continuing.

That's only part of the problem, of course, is deaths. And then there's the morbidity, the diseases and chronic diseases that go along with it. UK, we've had a leveling or stalling of life expectancy since 2010. Mhmm. And now we've got more and more people living with chronic disease.

That was even before the pandemic. So more people were sick, essentially. United States, before the pandemic, had lost 2 to 3 years off their life expectancy. Yeah. So, you know, these are some of the major big countries of the Western world, and the overall population health that we are we are going backwards.

Yeah. We're not improving. We're going backwards. Yeah. Yeah.

So health care is a big issue for you, talking about the period before the COVID crisis. So that's why you wrote a book and the book is called The Payalpi. My first book. Yeah. I wrote in 3 books, but yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. But 1 of them was The Payalpi Diet Yes. And you presented that in 2017. Yeah.

Let's have a look. We have a health care crisis, a major health care crisis. More than 60% of the UK adult population are now overweight or obese. And perhaps more disturbingly, 1 in 3 children are in the same category by the time they leave primary school and the trends are getting worse. Unless we act, 90% of the UK adult population are going to be overweight or obese by 2015.

It's costing the NHS 1, 000, 000, 000. What's the root cause? Well, 1 of the major root causes, undoubtedly, is the obesogenic environment. It's become almost impossible to avoid sugary processed foods wherever you go, whether it's on the high street, whether it's in gyms, health clubs, but for me the biggest scandal is that we've even allowed our hospitals to become a branding opportunity for the junk food industry, And that's where my journey started. Towards the end of his life, a pioneering Heart Transplant Surgeon, Kristen Barnard, perhaps regretfully said 'I have saved the lives of a 150 people through Heart Transplantations.

If I had focused on preventive medicine earlier, I would have saved the 150, 000, 000. It turns out that preventative medicine is lifestyle. That medicine is a Piope diet. The Piope diet, a lot of people read the book. But tell me, for the people who didn't, why is it called the Puyopi diet?

Yeah. Well, first of all, I think let's expand the conventional understanding of what diet means. Diet comes from the original Greek word, diaata, which means lifestyle. So it's not just about but but a big component of that, of course, is food. What you eat makes a massive it's it's it's crucial to your we need it obviously for survival, but it's also important for for thriving.

Piappi is the Italian it's Italian fishing village in Southern Italy, not far from Naples, which is the traditional home of the so called Mediterranean diet, which, 1 of the biggest proponents of of that message around the the health benefits of that diet was, an American scientist called Ancel Keys, and he did most of his research from Piope. But Piope itself is almost like a blue zone area. It's a place where it has unusually high longevity. People live well into into old age. So, I I went there with my co author of the book and then we did a we did a movie actually about it first, and then a book came off the back of the movie, and the movie was called Big Fat Fix, documentary.

And we went to Piope to actually try and understand and speak to the people there to get a better, feel of how they lived and how could we apply that with our modern interpretation of of medical science and nutrition science. And then we put that together in the book, which basically covers the components of food, activity, or not being sedentary. And perhaps the 1 that's still most neglected and maybe the most important, because everything stems from that, is chronic psychological stress. They had a very strong sense of community. Like, a lot of these places with high longevity, 1 of the common denominators because the diets can change a little bit.

Clearly, the 1 factor that is common to all of them is that there's very little ultra processed food. Right? They eat real food, home cooked food. Right? And that's very important for sure, but they all also had a very strong sense of community.

And if you look at the fact that chronic stress is a risk factor for heart disease like smoking is, and most people now are in chronic stress and not managing it. Okay? There is good research to suggest that if you have good community relationships, good, family relationships, good friendships, good meaningful, good quality relationships, that can actually protect you from the external stresses of life. Yeah. And that's based on the, the life expectancy in that area?

Yes. Yeah. I mean the average life expectancy around when I was, you know, when we were there I think was was above well above 90. Yeah. Yeah.

So, it's But they were also healthy into old age. It wasn't just that It's not just about food. No. It's about lifestyle. 100%.

Yeah. It's a complete package. But it's 1 of the reasons why you are a controversial doctor because, in Holland, the nutrition center warns against the popular, PAIA P diet. It's popular, so you have that. Which advises against carbohydrates and encourages coconut oil, butter, fish, red wine, eggs, among other things.

By following the diets, they say you miss out on important nutrition such as b vitamins and dietary fiber. That's what the Dutch Yeah. Nutrition center. No. Sure.

So so it's interesting. You know, 1 of the lessons I've learned from activists, in fact, 1 of the people that, I consider 1 of my greatest inspiration inspirations of Mahatma Gandhi. And, he said, first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. Yeah. We were really challenging the medical establishment dogma, which has been existent for movement.

Right? And, and we were basically saying actually fat is essential. Movement, right? And, and we were basically saying actually fat is essential, you know, particularly olive oil. But they, they deliberately misrepresented also, I think, deliberately misrepresented what we wrote because we didn't say avoid carbohydrates, we talked about refined carbohydrates and sugar.

Because actually I, the diet promotes, you know, at least 5 to 7 portions of fruit and vegetables every day. Yeah. And separate to that, let me say the facts. There was actually an analysis done of our diet plan in terms of the fiber content, and it was actually well above the recommended average daily, intake of fiber. So I think this is just a smearing campaign, to be honest.

And a lot of these organizations I can't talk about the the Dutch 1, although I'm I'm sure this is a link. A lot of these, unfortunately, this comes onto a bigger topic and a bigger problem. A lot of these so called respected organizations are not independent. They are funded by big food. Their scientists are funded by big food.

And big food is only interested in making money by getting you to eat more. Yeah. So there's a clear conflict here between what is good for people and what the food industry want, and they will engineer foods to become addictive so you eat more and this is what this is the major issue if you like. Course, you don't know anything about the Dutch nutrition center, but you probably know something about the English. Oh, all of you're right.

You say they are funded by Big Most of most of these they have well, okay. So in the UK, we had something called the eat well plate which was from an organize a government organization called Public Health England. Okay? And this plate, was supposed to represent what is healthy eating. And you see even in hospitals.

Yeah. And I was a little bit confused well, not confused. When I looked at this plate, I thought this is a bit odd. There was a lot of starch on there, which is not is exactly the foods you need to avoid in the current obesity epidemic and what we call people having excess body fat related to heart disease, etcetera. 1 of the most important foods to reduce at least, if not cut out, is starch.

Refined starch in particular. Right? These are foods that are gonna raise blood glucose and insulin which is a main driver of heart disease. Right? They had a lot of starch, but in the corner of the plate I'm glad you've asked me this question.

There's a very interesting story I'm about to share with you which I've never publicized. In the corner of that plate, they have cakes, biscuits, maybe sugary drinks, whatever. And on that plate, which is this is a healthy eating guide. So they've got this junk food in the corner. They're not saying don't eat it.

And very vague mention eat less often and in small amounts. There was a publication in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, a few years ago, which looked at who were the stakeholders involved in making up that healthy eating plate. McDonald's, Coca Cola Yeah. Cadbury's. Come on.

This is a joke. Yeah. I met the chief nutritionist of Public Health England at 1 stage because there was a battle going on in the mainstream media. I was getting stuff out, and I was attacking them. I'll be honest.

So I was saying this is not right. This This is not in keeping with the signs, and they're conflicted financially. And, the response from the chief nutritionist of Public Health England at the time in a conversation it was very polite conversation with me. Eventually, when I said, listen. I understand there are disagreements and that the evidence base around nutrition is not as solid as it could be.

So I can understand whether a so called diet wars about whether it's people eating an all meat diet or people going vegan or whatever. Right? Most people can agree, however, that ultra processed food and junk food is bad. Why have you even got those brands and the, you know, those types of foods on the Ewell plate? And the response was, Hassim, you've got to understand.

1 of the biggest contributors to our economy is the food industry. Yeah. Yeah. Like a positive thing. Yeah.

But this is coming we are doctors. We're supposed to give people what represent their health, not the interest of of organizations, to be honest, that are pathologically self interested when it comes to making money Makes money. Through exploit, but through exploiting people. Yeah. So it makes money.

Show shut up. Well, basically. Yeah. Yeah. It doesn't matter if they make money from lying or deceiving you or killing or killing people.

Economy. Or killing people. Well, yeah. It's a false economy though, isn't it? It's a false economy.

And we see that now because economy cannot thrive if the population is sick. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It's interesting that you bring this up because Dan DeWitt is a journalist and he writes articles and books about physical and mental health.

And, he's in Sicily right now in Italy, and he has a question for you. Hey, doctor Malhotra. Hi, Yacine. I'm here in Italy, the land of your beloved Cleopi. I would like to thank you for being such a hero already for a long time.

11 years ago, I spotted you and I quoted you many times in my book, Weight Like You 8. And 7 years later, I quoted you even more times in, Holst Romite. I was wondering, how do you look at the way science was treated, misused during the COVID era, and how it is, used also misused in the relation to heart disease and heart health? Great question, Dan. Thank you for that.

Absolutely. Yes. What has happened over decades? And I've I'm a root cause guy. What the what does that mean?

Not just in my practice in understanding root cause of people's problems and heart disease, but, as a concept. Unless you address a root cause of a problem, any solutions you offer are gonna be flawed. What happened during the corona crisis was just an extension of what has been going on for decades. What does that mean? Increasing unchecked, both visible and invisible power of big, powerful corporations, right, who have captured medical information for purposes of profit and then shaped a narrative that ultimately is at best not gonna allow patients and the public to get their optimal mental and physical health and at worst cause them harm.

And we saw this exacerbated massively because there was a huge opportunity for making money from very different many different entities from this fear that was created as a result of the COVID crisis. And whether that comes from, you know, tech companies who obviously made a lot of profit because people stay at home there and then, you know, instead of working in offices, people were now, you know, having more virtual interaction with each other and the tech companies benefited from that. The food industry benefited massively because people, again, there seemed to be because of the stress that was going on, there was an automatic increased consumption in in a lot of, junk food and other foods to cope with the stress. And in fact, 1 study in the UK showed that 40% of people gained, I think, 5 kilograms, something something crazy like that, and or or close to 5 kilograms within during the pandemic. And then we've got big pharma, who then see an opportunity to, you know, produce, rapidly produce a so called vaccine, a genetic technology.

And, you you know, it's become probably 1 of the most, in the short term anyway, the most lucrative product in the history of medicine. So absolutely, yes. And now we're dealing with the and and what's the result? Sadly, it's a it's a it's an epic fail. Yeah.

So Because all cause mortality in most of these countries is through the roof. So basically what he's saying is, you big pharma needs fear to yeah, big pharma needs fear to survive Yeah, I think. In an economical way. What what does big food need to survive? Well, we all need to eat, that's, right?

So not everyone can needs to take a drug, but we all need to eat to survive. Big food needs to get people to eat more food, basically. That's what they want. Right? That's how they make their money, and the way they do that often is through advertising, making you think you need something you don't need, even putting something I mean, it's very well documented that when the food industry know that a product is harmful, they will actually market it as being healthy.

Alright? Big Tobacco did this. At 1 stage, they would sell cigarettes saying it's good for asthma and whatever else once they internally realized it was harmful. Think about that. Only psychopaths do that, And, actually, that's a diagnosis given to these big corporations by a forensic psychologist and by Joel Bakan, the law professor that wrote the book, The Corporation, that in the way that they conduct their business, they actually fulfill the criteria for psychopathy.

That means callous disregard for the safety of others, incapacity to experience guilt from harming them, repeated lying, and conning others for profit. So basically you need psychology They well, actually, I wouldn't I'm I'm being it's very important to make this clear. I'm not attacking individuals within those corporations. I think the system makes good people do bad things. But the legal entity, the legal piece of paper that that that means that, you know, big corporations have a legal obligation obligation to make profit for their shareholders, not to give you the best treatment.

Yeah. That needs to be changed. That needs to be adjusted in the sense that they're also allowed to have what we call limited liability. So, even if they cause harm and they deceive people in the process there's only so much fines they can that can happen. The shareholders are not a lot liable, so they're more likely to take risky behaviors.

Right? They, they're allowed, for example, in medicine, and this is again quite shocking. Most doctors don't know what I'm about to say. Medical knowledge is under commercial control, but most doctors don't know that because the information that we use to make decisions on any drug we prescribe pretty much now, that data that we base that information on on benefits and harms of the drug has never been independently verified. Yeah.

Because the drug companies, they design the studies. They start off actually with a business plan. We've got a product. Before we've even done a study on the product, how do we wanna what how much money do we wanna make from it? Who do we wanna target?

Yeah. And then they will design the study to produce those outcomes. Then when the study is done, they misrepresent even the research that's within the study, number 1, by exaggerating the benefits and safety of that particular product. Yeah. And the raw data, which is often thousands of pages long in terms of actually understanding how independent was this, was never is never independently verified, we often just accept 1 or 2 studies in, for before it gets approved by the regulator who take most of their money from big pharma.

Yeah. I mean, it's not just 1 problem. It's several layers from when the, study is started to what goes down in the consultation room with the doctor and patient that is corrupted all along the way. So what does that mean? Quite often, what people think is safe and effective is actually the complete opposite.

Okay. I wanna jump to 2020, the COVID crisis. We had a prime minister. He was talking about COVID measures and what we should do to prevent the from becoming sick, etcetera. You had that moment too, your prime minister in England.

What was your first response? Yeah. It was interesting. I had become vocal on the COVID pandemic as early as March 2020 because I'd seen early data, and it made sense to me and I'd looked at it in detail that linked excess body fat conditions with, you know, suboptimal immune system. Mhmm.

But also those risk factors are the same risk factors that would rapidly improve in terms of heart disease risk within 21 days of a changing diet. So I went on Sky News in March 2020 and said Boris Johnson basically said, you know, stay at home, protect the NHS, save lives. You should add in there eat real food. Right? And then this is a good opportunity with a public health campaign Yeah.

That if people can get stuff in order quickly, they're pro and when they get COVID, because I I basically said even then, at some point, we're all gonna get it. Mhmm. We were in a better place to be able to handle it. Yeah. Then Boris Johnson got sick and got hospitalised, and I was then I wrote an article, which then featured, also on the front page of The Telegraph newspaper, which was it's about to have an honest conversation about weight and COVID, something like that.

And I mentioned in the article that I think Boris got hospitalized with COVID because of his weight, and then I was on Good Morning Britain and BBC talking about this, and then it became a big story. Of course. Yep. So so, But it's still true? Yeah.

So very interesting. I had originally said that it may be there may be a tenfold increased risk of death from COVID if you're obese. And I got a bit attacked for that at the time, and people were saying, well, this is nonsense, etcetera. Actually, it's been proven correct now. So a a large study done in America actually looked, at deaths from COVID in 2020.

And what they found was if you were obese compared to someone who's not got any risk factors at all, right, as in otherwise healthy, you had a 9 fold increased risk of death. The biggest risk factor was high blood pressure, 34 fold increase risk, and 20 times increased risk if you had diabetes and 18 times increased risk if you had heart disease. These are all conditions related to what we call abnormal metabolic health or metabolic syndrome, which are conditions of excess body fat. So, really this was the major issue for sure and, it turns out what I had talked about at the beginning of 2020 has been proven to be absolutely correct. In fact, even more even worse than we thought.

What was your opinion about vaccines at that moment, early 2020? Well, there wasn't, of course, a vaccine that, you know, there was No, but the plan to create vaccines and the mandates. What was your first response to that? Well, first of all, I, you know, I was someone that was able to analyze risk from COVID quite well early on, and the person the 1 person I that I trusted with this information is probably I call him Stephen Hawking of Medicine. It's professor John Ioannidis from Stanford, who's a a professor of medicine, epidemiology, statistics, etcetera, a genius, medical genius, very high integrity.

And, he was quite early on, again, with somebody who's become a very good friend of mine, professor Jay Bhattacharya, saying that they've done this study in Santa Clara County in California that basically gave a little bit more certainly needed, a better understanding of the risk from COVID. And, actually, what they found was if you were from compared to, say, AAA very young child to very elderly, there was almost a 1, 000 fold increased risk of, of death from COVID. But, also, to put it in perspective, at the worst stage of COVID, and this is now again, it's been published, in the over seventies, a very high risk. In the very vulnerable, say, nursing home people, the risk of COVID death was about, at the worst stage in the early strain of the virus, about 5%. Yeah.

If you were otherwise healthy, over 70 year olds, about 2.3%. And, actually, the reality now, and more recently it was published in fact and mentioned again in BMJ Public Health by Dutch researchers, that the, during 2020, the overall death rate from COVID for everybody was actually about 1 in 500. And if you were under 70, it was essentially the same as the flu. So just think about that. That's so important because even there there was a grossly exaggerated fear that then drove certain behaviors and lockdowns and, of course, people wanting a vaccine.

But the reality is, I wasn't overly you know, it wasn't something I was overly enthusiastic about except thinking, okay. Well, if you can deliver a vaccine in time, that is particularly useful for the very high risk people, the over seventies, fine. I have no issue with that. Yep. So you can your your concern came later on in November 21, where you gave an interview to GB News because you received some signals that there would be some, yeah, well the the the the issues should be damaging.

Yeah. I mean, there's a lot more to that story, but, I mean, I started getting concerned. I went on I took 2 doses of the vaccine myself, for a number of reasons. You did? I did.

I had 2 doses of, yeah, COVID vaccine. Yeah. I had 2 doses. Not just that, I went on Good Morning. That's interesting because you don't look obese to me.

No. Sure. So so my my reasoning behind it was multifold. 1 of them was I felt I felt that I would prevent, you know, I'd I'd basically gone with the narrative. But also, it's not just gone with the narrative.

The people that I have influenced me around the Too Much Medicine campaign Mhmm. Has actually been 1 of my biggest influences has been British Medical Journal. I even know she's now the former editor, but she was the editor at the time, you know, Fiona Godley, the editor there. And some of the important scientists who've been the most important in in exposing pharma corruption. Right?

They were all very pro vaccine. Right? I'm not, and and I've not been a lot of my work is informed by my patient experience. Right? With statins, for example, an overprescribed cholesterol lowering drug, I see all side effects, and I I went public on that.

There were much more problem than what we were being told. But I never come across a vaccine injury. I'm not even aware of it existing or being very rare. So I couldn't conceive of there being a harm. I was a bit skeptical about benefits because I know the flu vaccine isn't very effective.

Yeah. Right? But I thought, 1, okay, if I was gonna take it, it was to protect my patients. Yeah. The other reason was, and this is an important reason, but and I'm sure a lot of people went through this for different reasons, I had a very strong pressure from my father who was a retired GP, vice president of the BMA, who was very scared, fearful about COVID like a lot of older people were.

Right? The way that the narrative was pushed, I can understand why they got scared, especially they knew they they felt they were high risk or they were still exaggerated. And I'm You know, we'd lost our mum, his wife, my mother, only, you know, a year a couple of years earlier, and he'd lost his eldest son when I was young. I was the only surviving member of his family and he, for whatever reason, had an exaggerated fear that I was gonna get COVID and die. Yeah.

And we had arguments about it. And, actually, in the end, 1 of the reasons I took it was to appease him. Yeah. We were having rouse. Yeah.

And I and I just said fine. Yeah. Yeah. So so so that was the reason. I think a lot of people did that.

No, I know. I get and I get it, and that's why it's important me to say that because I understand why a lot of people took it. I then went on Good Morning Britain because, there was, there was increased. It was noted, this is interesting, vaccine hesitancy amongst people from ethnic minority communities, and that's across the board. The people from lower socioeconomic classes, some of the most marginalized people in society, we were the ones that have the least trust in government.

Yeah. You can understand why. Yeah. They were the ones that didn't take the vaccine. Yeah.

So they wanted me to go on TV and to try and reassure people that it's fine. Yeah. But I actually said, listen. I had some empathy with them. I said, look at big pharma and what the kind of fraud their community is.

But I also said, with everything I knew at the time, and this is still true, of everything we do in medicine, traditional vaccines are the safest. Not every drug has a potential harm. Right? Just to put it in perspective, if you look at the published data and I know there are people out there watching this who are gonna say, okay, there are all these other problems with vaccines. That may be true, but right now with the published data that we have in comparison, serious adverse event rate from traditional vaccines, 1 in a1000000.

Yeah. 1 in a1000000. So for me, I said, listen, I don't I understand the irrational concerns, but I think the irrational concerns are there. And I said stuff about people saying microchips in the vaccine. I did say at the time, and I was wrong about that.

I couldn't see an air mechanism, but people saying it was gonna cause infertility. I know now there was definitely some effect on the reproductive organs for sure. Even if it was short term, it definitely had an effect. So those are the things that I, you know, I I went to discuss. Yeah.

But at a time when we were only offering it to high risk, things evolved quite quickly, and I started becoming suspicious even after a few months when they started saying lower risk people. I said, this doesn't make sense. Fine. I'm a doctor. It's different for me, but, you know, people were contacting me, 40 50 year olds saying should I have it?

I said no. You're a low risk. You don't need it. So that was even well before this thing. But coming back to November 2021, It was a turning point for you.

It was a it was a gradual turning point. First of all, I I noticed the drug industry as they would expanding the use trying to expand the use of the vaccine to more people, which again got me a bit concerned because I thought that there may be more harm now than good. My dad suffered an unexpected cardiac arrest and died in the summer of 2021. He was a fit and healthy man. I knew his cardiac history.

I knew his voice heart scan showed from a few years earlier, and his post mortem showed 2 severe narrowings, which didn't make sense to me. Something had happened that caused a and a rapid acceleration in blockages in his heart, which were minor. Also, something to do with the health system. Right? Because the ambulance came 30 minutes ago.

Sure. Yeah. No. That's fine. That was definitely a component in what also, you know, impeded his survival because he had a cardiac arrest and if you get there within 8 minutes, you're more likely to survive.

But they didn't explain why he had a cardiac arrest and cardiac arrests are up through the roof. So I didn't explain why did he have a cardiac arrest in the first place. Yeah. Yeah. Ambulance not getting there definitely played a role, but why did he have a cardiac arrest?

That's what I was interested in. And then when you had a post mortem and it showed 2 severe narrows in his arteries, that again was baffling to me. And then in November, then there was the Pfizer whistleblower scandal, which was published in the BMJ by Paul Thacker based upon, somebody that worked within 1 of the centers for the clinical trials called Brooke Jackson, and she said there were some dodgy things going on with data collection Yeah. Potentially hiding harms, etcetera. So that opened my eyes a little bit.

And then 2 or 3 things happened simultaneously in October November of 2021. Times journalist called me, said there's been an increase in heart attacks, 25% in Scotland. What do you think is going on? The second thing was, there was a publication in in journal Circulation, Cardiology Journal, where a cardiologist had found in his patients who were being monitored, who were looking after with lifestyle changes, within 2 months of having either Moderna or Pfizer mRNA vaccines there was a there was a, an increase from 11% chance of heart attack in 5 years to 25 percent Yeah. Just in 8 weeks, which is extraordinary.

And linked to inflammation, which is my area of interest. So that made me think, ah, now I can explain why my dad may have died. Yeah. And then the third thing was a whistleblower called me from a very prestigious institution in the UK. Yeah.

And basically said there was a cover up involving, the cardiology team there that had accidentally discovered through imaging that this was causing a problem, and they don't wanna publish it because they're worried about losing funding from pharma, which, interestingly, I'm glad you've asked me this question now if we can bring it up. Yeah. A lot of the most prestigious academic so called prestigious academic institutions in the world have also been captured by pharma. A lot of their funding for clinical trials comes from the drug industry, which means they're basically being controlled by these guys, which is not right because that threatens their independence. And 1 thing that I found very alarming, disturbing, and I'm I'm I'm frankly appalled is, 1 of your most respected academic scientists of Holland, Saskia Mostert, who is a lead author on a paper in BMJ Public Health published a couple of weeks ago Mhmm.

Which was very carefully written. I've read it in detail and suggested there may be, and it needs to be questioned, a link between the vaccine and excess deaths, right, given the correlation temporal association. She is now being attacked by the Princess Maxima Center which I understand is a well known Yep. Academic institution, medical center of this It is. Of this country.

They are trying to distance themselves from her and I find it absolutely appalling. I think it's, you know and and the reason I'm mentioning that is I understand that they take money from Pfizer. Part of their research funding comes from Pfizer. So for me that's very clearly a big conflict of interest. And what is her role in the Princess Maxima Center?

Well, she has a she's an academic that works with within that institution. Yeah. And and the paper that was published affiliate was affiliated with her institution clearly. Yeah. It took it went through a peer review over 1 year.

Yeah. So it was very thoroughly peer reviewed and published by the BMJ. So for me, I think, you know, it's quite shameful that they are distancing themselves from her, and III say this honestly right now on air. You know, I appeal to Princess Maxima to get involved. This is what is going on right now with this vaccine, with all the data we have, by the way.

There's not just 1 paper. They're trying to isolate it as 1 study. No. This is 1 of a multitude of studies of overwhelming evidence of serious frequent harm from these vaccines. And this, by not having an open discussion, in Holland about this, for me, is a huge detriment to the population and the Dutch people.

They deserve better. This is anti democratic. To make that clear. You you are, you you you want open discussion about this. Absolutely.

Open discussion, free from from from from a kind of bullying and harassment. This is true, but it needs to be Listen. We have our opinions. I have my opinion. I have to change I had to change my opinion.

I had to use it, and it was very difficult for me, by the way. I had to defend my own mind and my position thinking this vaccine was safe and effective. Yeah. Think what it 1 has to go through Yeah. To be able to then turn one's mind.

But the evidence became so clear my conscience wouldn't allow me to keep quiet. And now when you look at it and look at the totality of evidence Yeah. For me it's very clear. Yeah. Very clear that this You need to be a scientist for that.

What's that? You need you almost need to be a scientist to understand. You do. And of course, that's something that's, you know, I have a skill as a clinician and I have a skill as someone who's an academic researcher as well and well published in that area. So I I am I'm, you know, I was a professor of evidence based medicine for 5 years in Brazil.

I have that credentials to at least have that discussion with people. So I understand this. Yeah. But I understand also understand the conflicts of interest. I know how institutions, they bully and harass researchers that challenge the status quo if it affects the funding from big pharma.

I have gone through it myself. Yeah. So I'm seeing history repeat itself. So Saskia should stay strong and firm, and she is, I can tell you right now, she comes from a place of purity and good intent, and she will be proven to be on the right side of history. Yeah.

But the Princess Maxima needs to get involved. This is very bad the reputation of that institution which her name is attached to. Back to November 21, your, a wake up moment in time, I I think, when it comes to vaccines. Yeah. You gave an interview to GB News Yes.

Around the possible damage to the hearts because of the vaccines. Let's have a look. Now what this abstract has shown, what this research has shown is that markers associated with increasing the risk of heart attack and probably even progression of underlying heart disease in people who've already got some heart disease has been significantly increased risk from 11% of 5 years risk of heart attack to 25%. Now, that's a huge increase. If this is true, then it's very concerning indeed.

But in in medicine, in good science, we we never rely on 1 study. We need to replicate these findings. However, what I will share with you today on GB News is a few days ago after this was published, somebody from a very prestigious British institution, cardiology department researcher, a whistleblower if you like, contacted me to say that the researchers in this department had found something similar within the coronary arteries linked to the vaccine, inflammation from imaging studies around the coronary arteries. And, they had a meeting and these researchers at the moment have decided they're not gonna publish their findings because they are concerned about losing research money from the drug industry. I think that the researchers, I really hope that they take a look in the mirror and realize the ones from where these whistleblowers come from, they realize that they should publish this stuff because their duty primarily is to patients not the interest of the drug drug industry.

And I think the third thing, and this has been a discussion that's been ongoing, I think now it's high time that policymakers around the world put an end to the mandates. Because I think if this signal is strong and if it's correct, then, history will not be on their side and the public will not forgive them for it. This is interesting. It's basically the same story that you just told us about, the Princess Maxima Centre. It's about economical interest.

I'm glad you brought it up. It's when people watch this, they're gonna make the connection. Yeah. Something else to add in. So I have been obviously campaigning.

I ultimately decided, because after I did that interview I don't want to name this institution, but I got attacked as well myself. Yeah. Because you had someone who's set the alarm in your opinion, they they approached you? Can you tell us who that is or is it still No. I mean, obviously to protect them.

Yeah. It's a cardiologist at a very prestid, he's now moved on, but a prestigious, you know, university and let's say let me just say, so people can guess, but 1 of the most prestigious well known institutions in the world Yeah. In that cardiology department. Yeah. And they were essentially they'd done some imaging tests with people with heart disease to look, and and accidentally found in unvaccinated, there was less inflammation or no inflammation that was there in the vaccinated and the arteries.

And but they decided they weren't gonna explore the findings any further because a lead researcher said it may affect our funding from pharma. Yeah. So think about that. This is a culture with that's now developed within medicine, and, this is just, you know, another symptom of how big corporations have really captured everybody. Yeah.

But something interesting, you know so I then got attacked myself behind the scenes and 1 institution I'm affiliated with. You know, there were complaints from several people in that organization, and calling me an anti vaxxer, which was just crazy because imagine I have gone on TV initially to say it was safe to There are more people, that are calling you an anti vaxxer. Are you? Well well, what do you think? I've had 2 doses of vaccine, and then I and I initially thought it was safe and effective.

So, I would say to them if I'm an anti vaxxer, you're a corruption denier. Yep. Now the question is have you become an anti vaxxer? Oh, no. No.

Not at all. No. I mean, listen. First of all, I don't even like using this term. I think it's a weaponized term.

I think it's I think a better a nicer, more compassionate way to engage in dialogue with people is call them vaccine skeptic. I think anti vaxxer is is it's been almost like they've tried to even associate it with being homophobic and anti Semitic. I mean, this is the weaponization of it deliberately, by the way. It's deliberate. Yeah.

They want to you know, big for big pharma, they have created this narrative. Like, these people are the are the enemy, if you like, or they're people that are not worthy or they're evil or they're bad. It was deliberately engineered. But on that note, what was very interesting is I then campaigned on over to helping overturn the vaccine mandates. Right?

I was very vocal. I was on BBC news this that that was what what this was about? It was about, but I went on BBC and Sky News because my dad had an ambulance delay, which I then also exposed a cover up and that became a national news story in the BBC. Did you mention that because this one's 2 months after your, father died. Yeah.

But the but the story of my investigation which then hit the news with a with a newspaper, a British newspaper in the UK, which then became BBC Headline News, It took a few months before that came out, so this was not long after that. So I was then campaigning against the mandates, but Is there a connection between the death of your father and you setting off the alarm, when it comes to the the the COVID measure? Yeah. No. I my personal view, and I think it's quite clear for me and everything I knew about him, and it's I think that the vaccine is what killed him.

Yeah. I think it accelerated heart disease and causes cardiac arrest for sure. I think that's the primary cause of his death. And you know knew that at at that time? No.

I didn't. What? No. Not just that. I'm not just I was in I I remember after he died, I tweeted it out and there was a lot of social media activity.

He was a well known doctor, and so many people were, you know, giving their opinion. And I remember reading when I was going up on the train to Manchester to see him, you know, after he'd already passed. Somebody had tweeted something like it's the vaccine. I remember getting really angry. You were you you you became angry?

I was angry. I was like, who's this mad person? Crazy. I blocked them straight away. How can you think something like that?

You know, I richly got angry. Think about it. So I understand the mentality of those people that are not fully awake yet and how they how they have been conditioned to think. But that was then, and we are now in a position where there's been so much evidence, and people shouldn't be scared of COVID anymore. They should at least allow a bit more critical thinking.

But something very interesting, I then published a paper in the end, peer reviewed, not been no rebuttals of 10, 000 words explaining what happened with the vaccine but how we got here and talking about corporate capture and the economic system and excesses of capitalism and all that kind of stuff that's led to it. And I've been around the world, and I've been giving lectures, and I've been helping to break the mainstream in in many countries where there was no discussion going on in the mainstream. Even if there was a hit piece, it doesn't matter. Right? There may well be a hit piece after our conversation today.

Go for it, please. Right? Because it's gonna get keep the conversation going. Right? We know what the truth is.

But I was then a witness in Finland in a court case a few weeks ago where a Brita a Finnish entrepreneur businessman had refused entry to have a into a a coffee shop because he didn't have a vaccine pass. Okay? So he was suing the Finnish government and this coffee company or whatever, this catering company, for human rights violations. But what was interesting in that case is the chief scientist of Finland, who is also the lead vaccine expert for WHO, Sage, under oath said, by the end of 2021 in December, under oath, she said, we knew that the protection from infection, in quotes, from the COVID vaccine wasn't 50% or 25% or 75%. 0.

And they advised, and she said the mandates give people a false sense of security because it wasn't stopping infection. Can you think about and they advised governments to whatever their government, but they didn't re release the mandate till 6 months later. And we now know that Pfizer and I was suspicious about this from the beginning. It's been shown that an investigative journalist in the US uncovered that Pfizer had funded many respectable all grassroots organizations. Right?

And given them 1, 000 of dollars, tens of 1, 000 of dollars to push the narrative that mandates were necessary because that was how they were gonna maximize their profits. And it was after we we know that they had received information that the vaccine was causing serious harm. Yeah. So think about for me, I'm sorry. It's very clear and I'm not gonna it's not in being inflammatory.

It's about accurate diagnosis. This behavior is psychopathic. Yeah. And serious harm in in European to the hearts, heart attacks and heart diseases in specific. Right?

Yeah. Yeah. So so well, actually, let me expand it a little bit more. Some independent scientists published in the peer reviewed journal Vaccine in the summer of 2022 a reanalysis of Pfizer and Moderna's original trials that led to the approval around the world of the of the drug of the vaccine, of the the genetic technology, whatever you wanna call it. And they found in that reanalysis from the very beginning, you are more likely to suffer serious harm from having the vaccine than you were to be hospitalized with COVID when everything is corrected for.

Okay? And that serious harm rate they discovered at 2 months in the short term was 1 in 800, which is huge. Yeah. And of that, 40% of those serious harm events were related to issues related to clotting. Whether it was stroke, lung clots, heart attacks, etcetera.

Yeah. You say we know what the truth is, so we have to talk about the evidence. Let's start with a quote of Joe Biden in 21. Why are you laughing? You always laugh at Joe Biden.

No. It's not about Joe Biden. It's about it's about public figures during the pandemic and and making statements with Yeah. Such certainty when there was a lot of uncertainty. Yeah.

Well, this is about quotes of him in July 21, where he said, you're not gonna get COVID if you have these vaccinations, which opened up a discussion about the relative and the absolute risk. Let's have a look. Was there ever any basis for saying what Joe Biden or doctor Sarah said? I was startled to read this earlier today. What was reported in the mainstream news as being 95% effective against infection was, in fact, relative risk reduction, not absolute risk deduction.

If we talk about the Pfizer vaccine, for example, that trial, it showed this 95% relative risk reduction infection. Everyone talk on board is thinking 95 if a 100 people were Yep. Exposed, 95 would be protected, which is not the case. It was point 84% from infection. This is actually a pretty common claim that I see repeated a lot by anti vaxxers on social media, but it is not correct.

The way doctor Malhorta got those numbers is he calculated the absolute efficacy or the absolute risk of getting COVID in those phase 3 clinical trials. But that's not really a reliable or accurate way to calculate these things. That's why we use relative risk in these clinical trials to determine the efficacy of the drug. Yeah. The last person we saw was doctor Wilson from the YouTube channel Debunked Funk.

He's a biologist and this is about the difference between, the relative risk and the absolute risk calculation. Can you explain how that works? Yeah. What In very simple terms, relative risk so if you have, 2 groups of people. Right?

Let's say clones, a 100 people and another 100 people who are clones, right, of the first group, and you wanna test a drug to see whether it's efficacious and how efficacious it is. You give 1 group the actual drug and you give the other group a dummy pill, so they don't know whether and and and 1 both groups don't know what they're getting, k, but the data is being analyzed. You then follow them up, and let's say you're looking at, does this drug prevent heart attacks? In the group that you give, the to get the dummy pill, so they're they're not getting any treatment really, anything different. Over a 5 year period, let's say there's a trial of this, right?

Over a 5 year period you follow them up, and let's say 2 of them out of 100 developed a heart attack. Yeah. Okay? Then you'd see, well, what benefit did you get from the people that took the drug? So the 100 people that followed up who were clones of the first group if you like and only 1 of them developed a heart attack.

Right? So instead of 2 you've got 1 person that that's 50% reduction. Yeah. Yeah? 1 over 2 is 50%.

Yeah? But the absolute reduction you've only you've treated 100 people with a drug and you've stopped 1 person having a heart attack. So that's what we call absolute risk reduction which is 0 point, you know, which is 1%. Okay? And we should look at that in your opinion.

Or 100 it's not my opinion actually. Although it it has become, but it hasn't it didn't originate from me. In 2009, the World Health Organization put a bulletin out, and people can look at this up online and check the facts. And this is a statement on a from an article from the man who's considered the world leading researcher on health and statistical literacy, and his name is Gerd Gigarenza from the Max Planck Institute in Berlin. He said, it is an ethical imperative that doctors patients understand the difference between relative and absolute risk to protect patients from unnecessary anxiety and manipulation.

In other words and I've met Gerd. III know him and I've read his work. And it's actually, to be honest, anyone that any good scientist, any ethical scientist, any ethic ethical doctor knows that by communicating relative risks you are misleading people. The more honest way to explain for informed consent, and in fact this is what I do in my practice, is you have to when that data is available you have to tell patients the absolute risk reduction norm. So instead of me saying to patients, if you take this pill, you're 50% less likely to get a heart attack, which you can say if you want, it has to be backed up by saying, in absolute terms, there's a 1 in a 100 chance for you if you take this religiously for the next 5 years, it's gonna protect you having a heart attack.

And you do that because actually the more ethical and advanced or better way, if you like, of practicing medicine. That also comes from the medical colleges in the UK because I was a lead author in a paper around high winding about harms of too much medicine with the establishment doctors who I got on board. Even in that paper, we said that doctors need to be practicing this way. Most doctors aren't, unfortunately, because 1 of the reasons is 1 of the barriers is some of it's training. We're not conditioned to communicate statistics this way, there's a lot of action.

Unfortunately, there's a lot of statistical illiteracy amongst doctors. You know, 1 survey in America revealed well, first of all, amongst the public, 7 and it's not a criticism. It's just a a form of educating them and making sure that's part of the conversation. 75% of educated US adults could not convert 1 in a1000 into a percentage, 25% of doctors couldn't either. So this is a big problem.

But you see, without understanding the numbers involved, the public Yeah. Are vulnerable to exploitation of their hopes and fears by political and commercial interests. Yeah. And that's exactly what we saw during the pandemic. Yeah.

The evidence of harm from this vaccine in terms of the different types of data is way worse than the harms of, the evidence on the harms of sugar for heart health. Yeah. Yeah. There's also You know? So so if if we're wrong about this and we're wrong about sugar, you know, so so this doesn't make any sense.

So the evidence in terms of the it's overwhelming. What we need to do next, actually, we have a pandemic of vaccine injured. Okay? I think highly likely let me be very specific in my language. We have a pandemic pandemic of vaccines.

Highly likely. I'm be I'm not I'm gonna I'm not gonna be I have my own personal opinion, but let me say as a scientist, highly likely that millions of people around the world have either been seriously harmed or killed by this vaccine on the best data that we have. What we need now, not just an investigation to stop this happening again, is that we need now, all of the best minds that science medical science has to find out solutions to help these people. Yeah. You know, I'm also vaccine injured myself.

You know? So and and I'm I and I I worry. I don't know what's gonna happen in the long term. Everybody's I I want I want I want solutions. So everybody that's hearing you right and took the vaccine also I'm worried that everybody who's taken the vaccine is at risk.

Is is will this recover? I hope it will, but we don't know. Listen. With with everything that we've looked at the moment, most of the serious harms appear, certainly from the cardiovascular point of view, tend to be in the 1st few months. I think with heart attacks and excess deaths, I think it's gonna go on for years because if we've accelerated heart disease from a baseline Mhmm.

There's something that was a lower risk or something increased at risk, and that will continue for years. Yeah. Okay? So people that, say let's say we had a crystal ball. They were before the vaccine, they were gonna drop dead of a heart attack in 20 years, say a middle aged person, is now maybe having 1 in 5 years or 10 years or even less.

Yeah. Do you get me? And that's gonna keep going on for a while. Right? So that's a problem, but there are so called antidotes if you like to that from lifestyle and heart disease reversal, and that's part of my area of interest around lifestyle.

You can do things to at least reduce that risk, and that's important. But other things like, for example, 1 of the most eminent oncologists in his field who's also an immunologist and has a rare expertise is Angus Dalglish, professor Emeritus professor from St. George's University London. He's made it quite clear, and there are now data even coming out from Japan suggesting that certainly there is a clear link with people who had boosters, who had more than 2 doses, immunosuppression, and increased cancer. Right?

So all of this is now coming we need we need complete transparency. We need to look at the raw data of Pfizer. What did they know from the beginning? But we need all these scientists to come together and say, listen. We now know this is these are the problems.

We need who is more vulnerable, who is not vulnerable. Yeah. These are the tests to be done. These are the solutions. Yeah.

We have a pandemic of the vaccine injured. It is a massive public health crisis, and in my view, is the main likely driver of the excess deaths going on around the world. Yeah. You you call yourself a vaccine, victim? Can I say it like that?

Yeah. I didn't took the vaccine, so I'm not You're wiser than me, man. Good for you. I'm not a cardiologist, so that's for you. But do you feel do you have any evidence for yourself within your what would you feel within your body?

Yeah. No. I felt I didn't feel right even after the first 2 doses. I had a period of depression which lasted for a while, and we know from the original What was interesting is the World Health Organization themselves, and I put it in my paper, had produced a list at the beginning of potential serious adverse potential, serious adverse effects from the vaccine. Right?

And every system in the body was involved including the brain, and there are now reports and things that it affect people mental health as well. It can Yeah. Inflammation in the brain. Right? So that's 1 thing.

I've had another issue, which has affected me in terms of, my gut microbiome, has been massively affected, and this is from a very eminent researcher in America who's looked at vaccine injured and said to me, I have the signature of vaccine injured, which is also inhibiting my ability to combat depression, which I'm also suffering from at the moment. So there's a few things going on. I have a flare up of psoriasis. You know, it's an autoimmune condition affecting the skin. I'd essentially cured it years ago and that's probably also linked to the gut.

So absolutely. Yeah. A 100%. I also spoke to Frank van der Gout. He's a forensic pathologist and he also sees an increase in myocarditis among young people.

Yeah. And he wonders whether it's clear if there if you can make a distinction between the coronavirus, the cause, and the vaccine as a cause. Is that already clear? Can you make that distinction? Yeah.

I think listen, every diagnosis in medicine has different components that are necessary to help make that diagnosis, but in general terms, 80% of your diagnosis comes from the history of the conversation. So in this particular case, I think the most reliable way to try and distinguish between vaccine induced myocarditis and COVID is actually just a conversation, did somebody have COVID? When did they have their vaccine? When did they get myocarditis? So that that's that that you can get you can give a more likelihood, it's more likely to be this.

Yeah. And I've managed many of these patients myself and made that diagnosis. So besides health care, is is is trust also an issue when it comes to the trust in the government when people have to decide, well, do I take a vaccine or not? Is trust also an issue? Trust in governments.

I think so. Well, governments take advice from scientists, so I think people presume if a government are putting out something, if if there are not enough doctors and scientists being vocal to oppose it, then people will presume that this has been approved by the medical profession. The medical profession themselves, I think almost 99% of them, most of them actually have good intentions. The problem is they don't realize that the information they're using has been corrupted. So I think they are well intentioned, but I think over time there has been such a collusion, if you like, for financial gain between academic institutions, medical journals, some doctors that they have the line between good science, transparent honest science and corrupted, you know, totally corrupted, information for the purposes of making money.

I think that line has unfortunately disappeared and and a lot of them don't even realize what they're doing. So, for me I want to trust my government. I want to trust the medical establishment because we can't be experts in everything, right, and we have to go with what we what we are told quite often from so called experts, but the the the the this is a systemic failure, you know, where we have allowed these big powerful corporations Yeah. To get so much power that they are more powerful than governments, you know. This is not really so much a government issue.

I think the government are just puppets, and I speak to politicians myself, very senior people, former members of cabinets, right, health secretaries. I've had 1 on 1 conversations. They come to me for medical advice, Cross party. I don't I don't affiliate with any particular party. And they are good people that think they're doing the right thing, but they're using information that has been come from lobbyists that they think is complete and then backed up by organizations where the doctors themselves who are in power are embedded with industry, to put it in no better way.

Yeah. And the profession itself is hierarchical and obedient. Yeah. But that's a risk factor for abuse of power. So this is why we are where we are.

A lot of people took the vaccine because of their father, because of their mother, because they could go to the shops, they could go out. A lot of people didn't take it because of their own health. Doesn't that in itself has a major effect on the trust in governments a few years later It does. When people have to decide for themselves, do I take this vaccine and make for others? Absolutely.

Absolutely, 100%. And that's why it's so important for them to be candid and say, listen, there's something's gone very wrong here. Let's pause. Let's stop Yeah. With the use of this technology.

Yeah. Let's investigate it, and let's come out with meaningful solutions to understand what's happened and stop it happening again and reduce the harm. That's it. But the longer they go on without acknowledging that, the longer it's gonna take to regain trust. Doctors make mistakes.

Alright? We are taught in medical school. We have to be honest and open straight away. Patients are very forgiving if they think your intentions were pure. They will not be forgiving if they think that not just you may not only did you make a mistake, but you then covered it up.

Finally, when I did the research to you, I ended up in a video from the Charley Foundation in 2020. You are saying a lot of interesting things in my opinion. Okay. Let's look at that. As a good scientist, you've got to be able to even question your own theories.

And that cultural mindset still amongst public and a lot of doctors is they think it's an exact science and that, you know, these medicines that we prescribe to people are, you know, very effective, and they're actually not, you know, and they come with side effects, and then the lifestyle gets neglected. So then we have to kind of shift the balance back, you know, to to focusing on the, you know, lifestyle prescription at the forefront of managing every you know, most most conditions. And medicines is backup. The law is stacked also on the side of the corporates. Yeah.

So we have to change the law as well, you know, because actually speaking out, you put yourself you make yourself very vulnerable because they've got so much legal power to keep that information sequestered. You know? So I would just say this is a whole I you know, I'm gonna say it to me tomorrow. I mean, I'll share this with you privately, but I'm gonna say that basically big food and big pharma are actually enemies of democracy because we cannot live in true democracy unless people are fully informed about the decisions they're making, and they're not being fully informed. And there is an epidemic of misinformed doctors and then misinformed and unwittingly harmed patients.

And that is at the root of our health care system failure. Big food and big pharma are the enemies of democracy. Quite a quote. Factual. If they are curating information for you that affects what you put into your body or what you eat purely for the purpose of profit and harming you in the process and covering that up and you don't know about it, There's no democracy.

I believe in a real democracy, fully informed population making decisions about what's good for themselves and for society, and we don't have that right now. Democracy is dying, and those are the biggest 2 of the biggest enemies of democracy. So people have to take a look at the interests behind big fruit. Absolutely. Looking back, on the COVID crisis, was this a healthcare crisis or a COVID crisis?

It was both. We had a fast pandemic that exploited a slow pandemic of chronic disease. So even before the, COVID, our health care systems had no slack in the system, and then we just made it worse, I think in part by, you know, lockdowns, I think, I'm much more of the, opinion that supports the Great Barrington Declaration, which is put together by Professor Jay Bhattacharya, Suneetra Gupta, Martin Kaldorf from Stanford, Oxford, and Harvard who basically said we should have man had focused protection for the elderly. We missed out on opportunities to optimize people's immune systems either from dietary changes or even supplements like optimizing vitamin d levels, vitamin c, maybe some other modalities. I think there's the the jury's out, but it seems like there was potentially, you know, a solution with the use of Ivermectin early on, but that would not have allowed the drug companies to make money.

So so what we've got actually at the root of all of this, I'm gonna, is that what western medicine in many ways has is an extension or rooted in colonialism. Right? And what does that mean? Well, a lot of the solutions to our health problems come from non pharmacological interventions. Right?

Lifestyle for example. Social issues that need to be resolved. But that model, to survive, the current Western Medical model which over medicates the population, in part survives by deliberately suppressing alternative, safer, more equitable, cheaper solutions like ancient healing arts of the eastern lifestyle, you know. Think about during the pandemic. Suddenly natural immunity didn't mean anything anymore.

But that's interesting. Natural immunity didn't mean anything anymore. Think about that. Aren't we asking ourselves or the government the the wrong question? Like, the question was how can we combat this virus with medication?

Should the question not be like, how can a relatively harmless virus have such disruptive effects on society? Isn't that the main question? Absolutely, yes. Certainly relatively harmless for people who are non elderly. Absolutely, yes.

So how can you say this was a COVID crisis also? Basically, it all ends up in a health care crisis, right? Oh, of course. Absolutely. That's the fundamental 1.

100%. 100%. It's a health care crisis and it's a population health crisis. You know, health care applies in many ways to what doctors do, what happens in hospitals, what happens in general practice, surgeries, but most of what you determines your health is are not determined by your doctor. It happens outside the hospital grounds.

But what goes on outside the hospital grounds in effect will then put pressure on on acute problems that develop from from stuff that builds up over time linked to lifestyle. So yeah, absolutely. But even if the vaccine would work and wouldn't be harmful, you can ask yourself the question, was this vaccine program good for society when it comes to health care? Because what the government basically is saying is, okay, we have this crisis, stay in your lane, get on the couch, Get the chips and cola Yeah. From the big What they're doing big food.

Yeah. No governments, as far as I'm concerned, around the world, certainly not the western world, have done anything to really address properly the root cause of the population health crisis. I agree 100%. So they're not by doing this, they're only fueling that problem. Yeah.

You know? Again, sit at home, eat junk food, watch TV Yeah. From from a from a virus that was relatively harmless for that So that's where big food overwhelming majority. It's just how big food and big pharma came together, basically. Yeah.

I don't think they problem I don't think they actually colluded, but No. No. The system but the system means that they are in a way they are colluding. They're helping each other 100%. You mentioned already earlier in the interview your father died in 21, September 21.

And in the interview with BBC you said I'm, personally holding the government directly responsible for the death of my father, and I'm already considering taking legal actions against the government for this. This was about the ambulance that was not on time, right? Yeah. Is anything you do right now, in terms of your goal around vaccine damage, Has this something to do with with with that moment in time, the death of your father? I can't completely dissociate it because obviously I lost the last surviving member of my immediate family, to what seems to me clearly the the the primary driver of the cause of the COVID vaccine.

But, I think I would have been on this anyway, irrespective. It gave me insight into 1 particular mechanism of harm which I could relate to because that's my area of expertise of the heart. Yeah. Right? That was my expertise.

So 1 particular mechanism upon which I can be, considered probably, you know, an expert, a very specific expert on in the way that he died. But it you know, I think, you know, that definitely informed me a lot. But, no, I think, you know, given my track record over the last almost 15 years of being a very outspoken public health advocate and taking on vested interests, I probably would have been involved in some way. And in fact, to be honest, I already had been getting, you know, attacks from, you know, some stuff in 2020 when I was trying to talk about population health and lifestyle and everything else. I, you know, that was before my dad died.

I was I was talking about this and taking some hits and even questioning lockdowns and writing articles about face masks. So I would have been involved in this in some way, shape, or form, anyway, irrespective. But, yeah, of course, it's had an influence. Yeah. If we would look at you, at your journey that you're on right now, what would he think?

What would he say? Well, I think, he was always very proud of what I did. Very proud. You know? Every media interview I did, I would never tell him about everything because I was like, you know but he would insist on wanting to watch it or finding out and and give me feedback.

So, no, I think he'd be, I think he'd be proud. Thank you, Doctor Nassim Walhajrad. Thanks for your time. And, what should we do in terms of your journey? Where can we Yeah.

Get some more information? Yeah. What are you doing in media? And do you have your own channel? Yeah.

No. I'm I'm very active on Twitter. So, I'm on as doctoraseemalhatra on Twitter. On Instagram, I'm lifestyle medicine doctor. I have a website which is doctoraseem.com.

But I think the most important bit of work right now to help disseminate the truth, which is something I put a lot of time and effort into, including, you know, the the people we've interviewed and some very eminent experts in their fields that are gonna be accepted that are accepted by mainstream, very difficult to attack them, who are gonna talk of unravel the issue of big pharma and, to some degree, big food and also solutions, is a documentary that I'm currently finishing, which will be out in September probably, called First Do No Farm, PHARM. So, if people wanna look at what it's about and the trailer and contribute because we're crowd funding for it, to finish it off, they can go to the website, no farm film dot com. So let's do that. Thank you for your time and, we keep in touch. Thank you, mate.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

transcript to 11min podcast Why Men Are Alone. The Ugly Truth Women Don't Want to Hear.

Hi there, and welcome to my local area. It's the middle of the night. I think it's about 4 o'clock in the morning now. The birds are awake. And this is what it looks like.

It's, the end of June and we are in Norway. So, beautiful. Right? So I was out here sailing yesterday. Just passed here.

And this is a beautiful wonderful time of the year. And hopefully, you will enjoy the scenery while I talk about this rather difficult topic. Now to the women watching, please remember that you're going to get a man's perspective. I shouldn't have to say it but that's what you're going to get there because as a man, I'm giving you a man's perspective. And the first inconvenient piece of fact, the first inconvenient truth here is that less and less women are seen as attractive.

This has to do with things like obesity. It has to do with things like a very extreme trend when it comes to looks. Several women are now typing things like, I'm sorry you're not getting any. I'm sorry you're such a horrible person and that you have such a horrible view of women and all of that. Just keep writing that.

That's that's okay. So that's the most sensitive part of the whole thing done done with. Even more important, I think, is the attitude that we are seeing. Women these days, especially, I will say young women, they have a certain attitude. And I think this comes from social media.

A woman will post some pictures on Instagram or something like that, and they will have a 100 men. I'm using that term in the widest sense possible. Men who will write, oh you're so beautiful. Oh you're so, you know, just throwing compliments at some woman. It kind of props up that woman's self image in an unhealthy way.

What this does is that, and many other people have tried to explain how this works, but you you get an unhealthy, self image based on your looks. That that's not a good thing, you know. And it also makes these women believe that since they are being complimented on constantly on social media, they should go for the high value men. But the thing with these high value men is that, they have options. So, yeah, they will pick and choose.

And chances are that they will choose a woman who is feminine, healthy, mentally and physically healthy. So if you come there, I mean with your face covered in piercings and blue hair and, and all of that, and I, you know, I'm a strong independent woman attitude, That high value man, he will probably not be attracted by that. And to those who are provoked by me saying that, I'm, you know, I am I'm just telling you the truth here. Okay? And you may not like that, but it is what it is.

And, anyone with an IQ higher than their shoe number will be able to understand that. I am not saying here that I think we should go back to a time where the woman, you know, she was in the kitchen and she was a servant to the man and she was obedient and all that. No. I I'm obviously not saying that. But in this time and age where people get offended on purpose and they misunderstand on purpose, just let me make that very clear.

And I want to add that I do believe that a lot of women, they have sort of given up on trying to find a good man, you know, because they, on their side, they will probably see a lot of men as immature, you know, that they're not masculine, that they they they they're still boys. And I think that's a product of modern society as well. A result of, you know, things that men are hearing all the time, that masculine qualities are bad and so on. So when that's all you're hearing, then why why would you bother? Why would you bother being that masculine, guy?

Why why would you bother? Why would you want that? If you believe in the lies, because those are lies that, mainstream media are serving you. And there is also, of course, the legal system, which kind of gives men a bad deal if a relationship, especially marriage, breaks up. As a man, you're in a difficult position if that happens.

And statistically, that happens quite often. You know, I I kind of decided that I wasn't going to try, even try to get everything right in this video. Because I, you know, there are as many angles and perspectives on this as there are people. But I I just wanted to add something to the discussion. And I wanted to say that, yes, I understand that there are people, there are men and women, who have decided to kind of opt out of the whole thing.

And and I think I think that's very sad, and it shouldn't be like that. And I think that we need to get back to how it's supposed to be, you know. We need men to be, you know, to to get back to that healthy masculinity. And we need women to get back to that healthy femininity. And I think social media, mainstream media has made so much damage.

It's it's it really is unforgivable. When you're watching this video, I will probably be back from a trip to Hungary and Romania. And I was part of my my job as a novelist. I have to travel sometimes. And and when you travel to, you know, especially Eastern Europe, you can clearly see the difference between Western Europe and, you know, North America and and Eastern Europe.

It's it's a quite a big difference. And there are pros and cons with everything, I guess, but it seems like in Eastern Europe, women have managed to preserve their natural femininity in a much better way. I feel that we're at a place now here in the West where beauty must be mocked. Everything that's beautiful must be ridiculed, and I I see it all the time, you know, and I see it in art. I see it in, you know, in people.

I see it in, the attitudes of the politically correct. And I see how, especially women are influenced by those attitudes. I always say this, you know, we need to connect with nature. Nature is beautiful and brutal, but mostly beautiful. And, everything here is as it should be, as it has always been.

I like that. You know? And with those words, I will be ending this video. If you're still watching, thank you. Subscribe if you can.

It really helps my channel if you do that. If you're already a subscriber, thank you so much. And do check out 1 of the other videos that should pop up here on the end screen. Thank you.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Yesterday, Neil Oliver  – a Scottish broadcaster who hosts the podcast Neil Oliver’s Love Letter to the World and The Neil Oliver Show on GB News  – joined Tucker Carlson to discuss how banks took over empires, and the truth about World War II, Brexit and covid.

“They have exposed themselves,” Oliver said. “They’ve gone galloping towards the finishing line too early, in the wrong way, and too many people have seen it.”

Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…

TYPE YOUR EMAIL…

Type your email…

SUBSCRIBE

The following is the article ‘The Great Reset Has Backfired’ originally published by the Vigilant News Network.

Whoopsie. The Powers That Be wanted to enslave humanity. Instead, they caused a Great Awakening. It seems that they “fumbled the ball” when they pushed too hard and gave the people nothing in return.

Neil Oliver, a prominent Scottish broadcaster, explained this to Tucker Carlson brilliantly. Now, the overreach of the covid era has sparked widespread scepticism about various subjects, including:

Central bank digital currencies (“CBDCs”)

Digital IDs

15-minute cities

The prevailing climate change narrative

Anti-meat messaging

Conventional medicine

All vaccines

The integrity of the electoral process itself

“I think that in the final moves towards this kind of neo-feudalism, they have exposed themselves. They’ve gone galloping towards the finishing line too early, in the wrong way, and too many people have seen it,” Oliver said.

transcript to podcast Tucker Carlson: Neil Oliver | How Banks Took Over Empires, and the Truth About WWII, Brexit, & Covid, 20 June 2024 (123 mins)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awZ7PYrofEQ&t=4275s 

I find it really strange that people aren't able to make the distinction between regimes and populations. Well, I don't think it's insane. Why if you're angry with the with the Putin regime, okay. But why would that automatically make you, like, say that you hate Russians? But also compared to There's a 140,000,000 of them.

You can dislike Macron and like French people. Why can't people make the why do you have to be at war with an entire population just because you don't like the region? It's insane. But moreover, I can like or dislike anyone I want because I'm an adult man and I'm not a slave. So I can have any opinion I want.

We discriminate by nature. It's in our nature to discriminate. But also, it's my birthright. Like, I I you can't tell me who I have to like and dislike. No.

And I just I'm not gonna submit to that. Last night, we were talking at dinner and you expressed some views and I thought to myself, I'm meeting with a conspiracy theorist. Well, I think if you're not a conspiracy theorist by now, you're not paying attention. You are often described that way. Does it rattle you?

Well, there was probably a time when it would have done but I I've gone through this, process in the last 4 years of realising that I spent the first 50 some years of my life believing and trusting a certain worldview Yes. That with COVID and everything thereafter all of that fell apart. It's like picking a thread on a on a tapestry. The whole thing just fell away into and once once you lose all of the things that you had taken for granted and trusted then I suppose almost by definition you're in territory that the others who aren't on the same path as you would would call conspiracy theorists. But it's really just you think well if if I think now that they were lying to me about that and that and that, were they telling me the truth about anything at all?

Yes. And you're you're aware that some of it must be true but it's it's early yet. I've only been in this revelatory process. You know, the the scales have only fallen from my eyes. My naive trust that I placed in the establishment and in the institutions that I had placed in them without thinking about it terribly much.

Well you were part of the establishment. You worked for BBC. Well I worked for BBC in as much as I was doing contract work a production company, would pitch a project, I would be the presenter that was associated with that project and I would be paid by the day for the duration of the project and then I wouldn't be working for the BBC. I'm just saying that people watched you on BBC. Yeah I'm sure they did.

I wrote a column for the Sunday Times in Scotland. I was the I had been for a while the President of the National Trust for Scotland. I was I was at one stage I was a fellow of the of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. So I was certainly associated with and part of the infrastructure of the establishment, that's absolutely the case. But I did all of it.

I quite I hold my hands up and say I did it with in a naive way without really interrogating the integrity of those institutions. It was just Oh, I'm not judging you. I've been there. I just trusted I just trusted that I've never been I've always been a political atheist struggling to vote in general elections but often usually trying to vote for someone to make plain that I was taking part in the democratic process. But I never had a I've never been affiliated to any political party any ideology.

But I I I think I thought that the the powers that be had mine and my family's interests at heart whether they were red or blue Of course. Or whatever I thought basically they're gonna keep the lights on They're gonna make sure there's food in the supermarkets. They'll maintain the roads. There'll be schools open. There'll be a hospital if my family needs it regardless.

But now I just don't feel like well I now know that the establishment doesn't have mine or my family's interests at heart and that's hard. It's like a grieving process I think. Yes. The analogy I would make with that, you know, the 5 stages of grief that we're supposed to go through, the shock, the denial, the you know the bargaining, you know the the various stages that you're supposed to go through. I'm still I'm probably 4 years in just coming to that point where I'm making peace with the fact that I, it's my responsibility that I didn't see the reality.

Yes. That's me. So for a while I was angry with them and I still am angry with them. But baddies are just baddies. You know, baddies do what baddies do.

My problem is that I feel, oh, it's my fault. I should have seen that. I should have I'm with you. I'm with you. I'm with you.

I should have understood. How could I have been so stupid? So I just think it's really interesting that, you know, an overwhelming amount of evidence to support what you just said, that the people in charge do not have your or your family's interest at heart at all. In fact, they're working against those interests day and night for whatever reason. I don't think any honest person can deny that at this point, 4 years in.

Why well, compound question. What percentage of your friends in 2020 arrived at the same conclusions you have arrived at? And what's the difference between you and those who didn't admit what was happening? I would say I've lost touch with everyone from before. Really everyone.

Well, you know, I'm still obviously, I'm still my family, that's the family into which I was born and also my married family, my in laws. We've all remained as close as we ever were although you know there were differences of opinion about whatever what COVID was about the about the products, the jabs and so on. So there were differences of opinion but it didn't cause any ill feeling or any any schisms there. So those people are still fully we're still it's all very loving and close. Yes.

But but, work colleagues, friends, you know people that I'd known in some instances from university days, people that I had worked beside. Broadly broadly I've lost touch with all of them. There's there's a handful of people. There's literally you know count on the fingers of one hand the people that as it turns out ended up with all of the same suspicions and have ended up every bit as conspiracist as me. But as I'm sure you would testify well I don't know I'm not gonna you know prejudge your experience but those people that that that I parted company with that void has been filled.

That vacuum drew into a whole other cast of people. In many cases very unlikely and unexpected. It was very it was Trudy and I, my wife and I, we would laugh about, you know, who are you on the phone, who have you just come off the phone from now? And I would say and it would seem so bizarre and so unlikely. People that a few years ago I'd never have imagined I would ever have a conversation with not for any particular reason but I just didn't expect to be pulled into their orbit or them into mine.

So I've been through this process of shedding one carapace feeling very exposed I suppose like something that has cast like a crab without its shell until the shell hardens again. You know it's a very raw nerves dangling but now it's forming again and I would say I suppose to torture that analogy a little bit I feel a little bit bigger you know I feel as if I have grown because I wouldn't go back if I could press a button and make the COVID debacle not have happened. I wouldn't because the what I've learned and what I feel I now understand or or at least that which I think I now have enough, wit to ask the relevant questions to better understand. I wouldn't exchange where I was for where I am now. Back to a shallow dishonest life.

Yeah, and I did. I lost all those affiliations that I had, you know, because of the kind of television persona that I had when I was making soft history and archaeology documentaries you get invited to be patron of this representative of that, you know. Just people want affiliation with you. So you know I was connected to Combat Stress which was a veterans charity and I was connected to, you know, the Association of Lighthouse Keepers and Is that a big one in Scotland? No.

It's a very fringe little group that people that look after the lighthouse group. Yeah. The lighthouse keepers. And, and as I say you know I had an agent and I had a column in the Sunday Times. I had been the president of the National Trust.

I was a fellow of the Royal Society and all of that I'm not anymore. I'm not any of those things anymore. They all distance themselves from me 1 by 1 like Domino's Domino's Toppling. And it it hurts at the time or the first one does like the first punch in the face, you know, you never get, you know, every punch you get thereafter is sore but it doesn't have the shock value of the of the first one. And so once I parted company with the one oh yeah, yeah, oh yeah I can see that coming.

And it's just a process that I'm glad to be on. For me, for us, my family. I've been this is I think of this as the great sorting. I mean, under this immense downward pressure exerted on the West over the last 4 years, people sort of wound up on one side or the other, and it's not a clean political divide. It's not even a political divide as you've pointed out.

It's not left, right, you know, laboratory, whatever. But I've never figured out, and I've thought about it a lot. What is it in people that compelled them to move to one side or the other, particularly to the side you're on? You said it's unlikely people that you never thought you'd be talking to. Like, what do they all have in common?

It's a question that, you know, Trudy and I and others in a small group of like minded people, that is the $64,000 price. Okay. So you've thought about this. As they used to say. What is the what's the common denominator?

What's the unifying feature? I don't really know. I think it's I think in in there has been a great sorting. I think this what happened in 2020, 2021, the choices that we were invited to make, you know, pick a side. Are you gonna be with us or not?

And a large number of people decided to be with the part to remain part of the main. The liars. And other people pulled back from it. This was the great sorting of our generation. Yes.

The first big sorting like that has been for decades and I think in some of it I think was simply down to people's natural you know amygdala fight or flight response to threat. I think some people, you know, people you don't know until whatever the gunfire starts. That's exactly right. Whether you, you can't predict until You think you're brave. Yeah.

You know, and, you know, people like, you know, people at Jordan Peterson, you know, have articulated it very well that the culture of movies that we were all invited to watch growing up, you're invited to think in World War 2 you'd have been with the French resistance. Of course. You would have hidden your neighbours because the black van was outside going to take them away. That's how people are invited to think that they would be the maverick. You would be the one that stands in the face of the tide.

And then it happened. Before people realised what had happened they had been sorted in that way. And I think the the really part of what's really difficult now is that there's no going back and yet we're all still living together. We're all still all the people are broadly still there. Those that jumped one way and those that that jumped the other.

And we have to find this way to go on because we were we were invited to see what some what a lot of people were prepared to do. I one of the most difficult parts of it, it sounds silly now because it's just really a detail but quite early on when the mask mandate was still very much everyone had to wear a face mask and I was I was having to go up and down to London for work. I was flying home every Sunday morning and it would be I don't know British Airways flight or whoever. And I wasn't wearing a face mask and under any circumstances and I would go through the airport which was difficult enough. Wait, if I can just ask you to pause, why why weren't you wearing a face mask?

Wouldn't it just be easier to do what everyone else does and be obedient? Why are you so disobedient? I was Well, again, I was always a rule keeper, a law abider. I've always had, you know, I've never been a protester, I've never been an activist, anything. I'm very much a, you know, I just was always I wasn't really paying attention.

That's the truth of it. I just wasn't really watching what was going on. Well you were making archaeology documentaries. Yeah well exactly. I had my I had my own things going on but to get back to the plane so it would be awkward enough, people watching you in the airport but then I would go up the steps of the plane the crew, the cabin crew would be masked and they would say you're not wearing a face mask' and I would say, no, I'm not wearing a face mask.' 'Are you exempt?' some of them would say and I would just say, yep I'm exempt.

Because in my head I was because I thought I'm, as a human being I am definitely exempt from this nonsense so I wasn't even lying in my own head. I thought no I am exempt because there's no point in this. I agree. I'm not a slave. Yeah I'm exempt.

You turn right down into the body of the plane and be 299 people with face masks on glaring, glaring at me. And I would think it's this close, you know, if someone gave the signal to you know let's pin this guy down in the aisle. Let's meet him. Yeah you could see suddenly you could see I am actually at risk here. Not from the establishment necessarily, not from the government in this moment.

I'm just I'm just at the because I have made myself conspicuous. Yes. I have stood out from the norm and anything could happen in the next 5 minutes. And I'd have to do the long walk down to my seat, 27e or something some middle seat and I have to get into it and sometimes people either side of me would ring the service bell, put the light on, ask to be moved to get away from me and of course they couldn't because it was a full flight and then I would have to sit for the hour and 15 minutes or whatever of the flight back up to Edinburgh as pariah and then get off the way. And I'd and then rinse and repeat.

Do it next week, do it next week, do it next week. Didn't And that's just that, like I said, that's a silly anecdote. It's not silly at all. It's totally real. Never Suddenly I saw people and you think gosh it's you could suddenly see how things happened, questioned you.

I thought I wonder how they got that to happen in Germany in the thirties. I wonder how they got that to happen in the terror in France in the, you know Of course, the 19 and 9. Yeah. At the 18th century. I wonder how they got that to happen in Russia.

Well, I don't ask myself that anymore. Because you're like, how? You may have come to the obvious conclusion that the real debate is not between Republican and Democrat or socialist and capitalists, right, left. The real battle is between people who are lying on purpose and people who are trying to tell you the truth. It's between good and evil.

It's between honesty and falsehood, and we hope we are on the former side. That's why we created this network, the Tucker Carlson Network, and we invite you to subscribe to it. Go to tuckercarleston.com/podcast. Our entire archive is there, a lot of behind the scenes footage of what actually happens in this barn, when only an iPhone is running. Tucker carlson.com/podcast.

You will not regret it. So you said that in public. You said famously something close to what you just said, which is, oh, now I understand how totalitarian movements, you know, sort of move downward into the population, and the population, by and large, supports some genocidal agenda that normal people wouldn't support, but they do support it. And you said that, and you were attacked as a bigot for saying that. Oh, yeah.

But but you must have you must have been on the same you surely, you were getting the, you know, you what was your experience? Don't pay any attention at all. So I'm sure I've been called every name. I don't care, you know, at all. But, I had checked out mentally, for sure.

But what is it about why, you know, you've clearly been more, sort of, I suppose, bullheaded, stubborn about things and been prepared to stand in the face of things for longer than me. So what's, you know, what's in When you were asking me what did I think was the common what was the common denominator? What was uniting all of the people that were refusing to go along with it? What's in what do you think? Well, I just grew up in a different way.

So I just knew that, you know, the majority opinion was not always right. I always felt that. And I knew that I didn't care what people thought of me except the people I love just because the way I grew up. And so it was it was not hard for me at all to take a position that is different from everyone else's. I only care about, you know, the people directly around me.

So that's just my temperament. What about then the plight of, you know, a concept like, you know, democracy? We talk a lot. We're brought up in the West to talk about democracy and liberty and freedom and rights. What do you, what's your take on the reality of what democracy even means now?

Because for me I have been forced through a process of thinking about what democracy even is and wondering what it is that we had that we called democracy and certainly wondering what it is that we have now, if anything, of that which we used to call democracy. Well, democracy, at least in my view, I mean, it's been redefined to mean democracy is a system of government in which the people in charge, whether the elected officials, the agency heads, the people who run well funded NGOs, when their views are represented, even though they may constitute 2% of the population's views, when those views are represented, when they're fully in charge, can do whatever they want, that's democracy. That's not my view of democracy. My view of democracy is much more primitive, kind of the peasant view of democracy, which is it's a species of private property, it's ownership. I am a citizen of this country.

I was born here. So are my parents. And I, therefore, have a share in this I'm a shareholder in the com in the country. Like, I own part of this mine, actually. No.

I own 1 350,000,000th of it, but it's still ownership. It's still a share. And you can't, treat me like a slave or even your servant because I this is my place. And that's where I think democracy is. It's it's almost like a temperamental, it's it's a description of a of the certain worldview that you have about your government and your relationship to that government.

So, that's how I feel about it. It doesn't mean that if 51% of the population wants something, it gets it every time. We have a representative democracy, a constitutional republic as I'm often reminded. But but, basically, if you have a system where the people in charge don't care at all about what the population thinks, we know for sure that's not democracy. I mean, what did you think it was?

Well, as you just said I, you know, in a state of semi slumber just imagined that I was represented in the places of power by, you know, by the fact that I was able to vote. And I now and I now realise that voting once every 4 or 5 years is nothing at all. It's a that's a completely meaningless transaction to me now. It always was. I mean, I see now why I was, oh god, it's a general election.

I better vote for somebody. I was always very disconnected from it. Right. But now I partly think that that may have been some kind of semi instinctive realization that it was meaningless anyway. But I worry now about quite a lot of people that you know around me talk about direct democracy as a solution to our problems.

And it's always this Swiss model that's quoted referenda about this, that and everything. Sort out everything by having a referendum about it. And now that having gone through the last 4 years, that worries me because if there had been a referendum about face masks or lockdown or God forbid mandatory jabs we'd have got all of them. The majority vote would have enacted all of those things: mandated jabs, longer tighter lockdowns, you know, face masks and all of the rest of it would have been enacted by direct democracy. So now I think what that the problem you've got there is the majority you better hope they come to your conclusion.

Well because otherwise you've just, if we take the step of thinking that direct democracy is the way to get us out of these problems, well, well, in short I live in fear of direct democracy. Well, so why do you think they're saying that? I mean what people leave out I'm very familiar with Switzerland. I'm an ancestor from Switzerland. Spent a lot with the school in Switzerland.

I'm a lot of been there was there twice this year. I'm not an expert on Switzerland, but I know it well enough to say conclusively their political system works because they have a Swiss population with certain attitudes that have evolved over a 1000 years. And, and it works for them, and they vote, you know, twice a year and all this stuff. And the Cantons have a lot of independent power, very weak central government, etcetera, etcetera. But that works with Swiss people.

They're changing the population of the West and particularly of Europe so fast that you sort of wonder, like, what is that? I mean, the idea that, you know, there is a thing called a Britain or a Spaniard or a Frenchman or Portuguese people or Belgians or people from Liechtenstein or whatever, that there are sort of populations, indigenous populations in these countries that have a certain national character and language and shared history, all of that is being obliterated through mass by mass immigration. It's it's on purpose. It's against the will of the populations, existing populations of those countries, and it's clearly tied to political power. Am I missing something?

I mean, that's look. This is my view from 3000 miles away. No. Oh, without a shadow of a doubt, I think the same thing is well, you know, it's happening right here. It's obliterating the United States, but it's harder for the for Americans to fight back against it because there's no I mean, our indigenous population, you know, or the American Indians, who aren't even really the indigenous population, but whatever.

They were here before the Europeans arrived. They replaced another population who was here before them, but whatever. The point is we don't have kind of the we don't feel we have the moral standing that, say, the Scots would have. Scotland was never or has not been in a very long time an a colonial tower. Like, what why are they doing this to Scotland?

Identity is a sense of identity, personal identity, you know, the sovereign individual and then that coming together to be, you know, maybe a sense of community in your town then and it broadens out to national identity is problematic. I'm utterly convinced that there's just a huge centralisation of power going on. Right. You know, that there's a, you know, there's an anonymous faceless cabal of people whose names we don't know, whose faces we wouldn't recognise, who are centralising power. And for the first time the technology is enabling that to be global.

People have tried it in the past you know whatever. People have tried to be, have been totalitarian in the past but it's the technology and the reach has never enabled a tyrant to control the whole world. But that is there now and I think that's what we are hurtling towards. And, you know people like Eric Hoffer and The True Believer and so on, you know, he wrote so effectively about how every mass movement has sought to take away people's national identity and their personal identity. So they want you to they want you to they want each individual to turn their back on their parents and on their family as being you know you can do better than these people, their ideas are outmoded, you know they've messed you up and you'd be better off without that influence.

And likewise they want to cut people away from their national roots, their sense of belonging in a place and their sense that they are British or that they are French because once you get people deracinated in that way cut away from their roots and the process is also about making people ashamed of their history be it their own family history or their national history. I've noticed. So that there's nothing in the past but things to be ashamed of. So you get people to disavow the past, to disavow their parents, to disavow the family, to disavow the nation as it's been understood and then those people are just dots on a spreadsheet. They're just they're just flickering dots on a screen that can be put anywhere and you have and now you have a global population that don't belong or feel connected to anywhere.

And so you can put them anywhere because they have no roots. And that's been tried over and over again. All the great faiths have done something, attempted something similar. All the great ideologies, all the -isms, fascism, communism whatever you they all seek to do that to as Hoffer explains in True Believer they all apply the same tools to get people disconnected until you're just a a lone individual that's ready to don a uniform and do something new in the face of utopia you know, the nowhere place that is the ideal future that's easy to sell people because it doesn't actually exist. But it what it means is total destruction.

I mean I see mass immigration in Europe as a form of warfare against the indigenous population. They're being destroyed and degraded. Very obvious to me as a serial visitor to that continent over 50 years, and it gets worse every time I I go there. Yeah. But I noticed that the people who are from there, whose parents were born there, whose ancestors are a 1000 years ago, in your case, wearing, like, face paint and skirts with spears or whatever.

It was scary, Highland tribes. Like, none of those people feel free to stand up and say, what are you doing? Like, no. You can't flood my country with people from another place because they're not Scottish, and I am, and you're wrecking my country. Like, why can't that's not racist.

That's just obvious. Yeah. And it's also I mean, it's also important to remember all the time that these people are being uprooted and moved in in their turn as well. Oh, I agree. All all everyone.

And so, you know, so what what happens is yes, indigenous populations are being flooded by people from elsewhere but those people have been uprooted yeah by this you know by the same you know, by the same forces of chaos and disruption. You know, the the West has done god awful things to one country of the Middle East and elsewhere one after another, African countries and those people have been cut away from their roots and they're on the move as well. So everyone's victim in this. Everyone and where people turn up in large numbers where they you know from an ethnic and cultural heritage point of you don't belong but that's also not their fault. You know they're pawns on the board as well and of course what happens is that the the people, you know the resident, the incumbent population feel threatened by the arrival of the new and they get angry with the incomers when really we should all link arms, everyone should link arms and say who did this?

Let's calm down everyone just for let's let's sort out exactly I agree. How this has happened. Are we being manipulated? Why are you why are you who's moved you here? You know, so it's important because that you fall you fall so readily into that.

Well, I agree. But do you have that conversation in Scotland specifically? No. It's very difficult because of course everything, any kind of descent, any kind of of raising a voice in that way, brings out the same predictable tools from the toolbox so you just get caught. You know I've long ago I've been described as anti Semitic for one reason and another.

I've been described as white supremacist for one reason and another. You know I've had all the labels and and you know you said right at the beginning you're a you're now known as a conspiracy theorist. They're almost badges of honour. Why, girl. Why?

If you're not being tarred with those brushes then you're not you're not doing your bet. Because if you you can immediately that old line about you know that you're over the target when you're taking flak. If you're being if they've got to go if they've got nothing better than to call you antisemitic, white supremacist, whatever then you think oh I must be I must be doing something right because that's just the same old box of clumsy blunt tools that get brought out to shout down anyone who's actually asking important pertinent questions. But we're not gonna answer them because we're not gonna give them the answer because the answer will expose us, the baddies, even further. So let's just, let's just dismiss them as racist or whatever.

Does it still work in Scotland, in the UK? Well I think as I see because many people are now finding that it's a badge of honour to be you know, I've been I've been a Putin apologist. I've had that one flung at me. I've been all sorts of things just because I've I've said, you know, we're jumping into all of these stories at the moment. In the 3rd act was actually the expression that Jimmy Doar used to me when I had him on my show the other week.

And he said, you know everyone was invited to join the Ukraine story in the 3rd act. But you know there's pages and pages of this of this play before you get to the Russian tanks trundling across the Ukrainian border. You're coming in late. You've you've joined the cinema in the last in the last Well, there had been a war in progress for 8 years. And and and now it's, you know, now it's Israel Gaza and everyone's invited to, like, that all started on October 7th and you go, oh, it didn't?

No. No. No. No. So it's all obvious.

It's all obvious stuff and because those turn spotlights onto places and stories and backstories that the the troublemakers the original troublemakers do not want to be confronted with then hence shutting everything down, censorship, labelling, you know, dismissing people as, you know, well whatever bad name they can think of. How long did they take for you to get, to decide you didn't care what they called you? Again it's that thing about, you know, the first time you get punched it hurts but worse than the pain it's the shock, but then the next time you get punched you're like, oh, yeah, that's that's that again. And I suppose around the time because I came into all of this I suppose or I was seen to come into all of this around COVID and lockdowns and vaccines for children and all of the rest of it. But then as I say once I picked that thread and then everything started to then the big tapestry all started to fray and unfurl, then the next thing that came up then was Ukraine.

And suddenly people who had there was this loose coalition I suppose this fragile thing of people coming together around the COVID debacle and asking the right questions and being militant enough and saying no. There was a cohesion there but the Ukraine it was as though the powers that beat the right we've been rumbled on we've been rumbled on COVID. Let's get a war going. Wars are great. And then and so Ukraine started and a lot of the people that had been that had brief it was like it was like an Awakenings you know the Oliver Sacks Robert De Niro movie.

People had briefly come awake just when the Ukraine war started they all just went back to where they had been before listening to the propaganda, Just taking the the official line, accepting the official narrative. And so I suppose it was when I started being accused of being an apologist for Putin I thought I've already been an aluminium tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorist anti vaxxer you know granny killer. Now I'm a Putin apologist. Well fair enough I've I've seen the way this works and now that I've collected that badge like a scout I can put that one on my sleeve as well now I put an apologies and I definitely don't I really don't care now because if if you're not being if you're not being accused of being a whatever label, then you're not in the debate. I just reject the whole premise, which is that some group of people who really kind of hate you or have contempt for you at the very least can decide who your enemies are and then require you to agree with them.

I've never had really strong feelings about Russia. I certainly wasn't mad at Russia. Why would I be? They never did anything to me. But, like, Toria Nuland in our state department decides, well, they're our main enemy for whatever weird reason she has for deciding that.

And now I have to sign on to that? Like, I'm I'm an adult man. I can decide who I like and who I don't like. I don't the whole idea of it. Well, get on board.

Woah. I don't know. Maybe I don't want to. Like, what? Who would go along with that?

How could any adult allow some faraway office holder, agency head, or NGO director to decide what their opinion should be? Well, your opinions as a father of 3, a married man with a job, like, what you have to believe. Does that seem weird to you? It does seem well, it it does seem weird to me. I think people are frightened.

Of what? Of well, you know, I've as I as I, you know, was talking about that experience on the plane with my bare faced literally, you know, defiance of that diktat, it's extremely uncomfortable to stick out, to put your head up, to be noticed. I suppose you know, actually in answer to your earlier question about what would be a unifying characteristic of people that said no. I suppose I had already had a long time of being recognisable to some people because of the kind of tele yeah low level familiarity celebrity whatever. Some people would recognize me from television documentaries that I had made.

And so I had grown a kind of a harder shell about being looked at and you know whispered about noticed. So sticking out in that way I was already slightly familiar with. Whereas I think for people who had had who had enjoyed complete anonymity and then it came to say the COVID thing and not wearing a face mask or asking questions about what was what the what the children should or shouldn't put in their bodies. It's very uncomfortable to stand up and be noticed, to be visible. And so because I had a little bit of a little bit of, I'd grown a little bit of a callous a little bit of hard skin about being noticed because I had I was a face from television I suppose made it that little bit less uncomfortable for me to then be spotlit about for the first time in my life controversial issues.

I'd never been controversial in my life but at least I was slightly, you know, slightly familiar with being a Buddhist. When you started to get attacked as a bigot, a crazy person, white supremacist, whatever that is, How did the people you love Like, how did your wife react? Well, you know, Trudy's here. And Trudy's in this room. And we've been a 100% together on all of it.

She's never blinked, you know, from all from all began. And so I've always had that absolute for so many people where a split happened between partners over some of this I can't imagine how awful that must be because it's hard enough. I can't imagine. I can't imagine it but we've always been 100% together on it. And even where in our wider families, you know, where people, you know, took the took the jabs and whatever, there's never been any, never been any trouble.

Differences of opinion and people thinking what was the right thing to do, what was the wrong thing to do. But no rancour. No, you know, no shouting, no nothing like that. And so I've always, I've mercifully, thankfully I've never been more grateful in my life for, you know, for Trudy because of the way that she responded to the police force. I mean, if you're, you know, if you're married to someone who's on television and who's famous for, I don't know, his views on the Vikings and everyone kind of likes you for that, and all of a sudden he's being called, you know, a white supremacist, that's a big change.

Yes, it is. But as I say, she just never blinked. You know, she didn't blink. Well, you were blessed. In the game of chicken she just didn't blink.

She knew she knows me. She's known me since I was 19. And, you know, when it comes to being called things like antisemitic or racist or misogynist or whatever, whatever, repute an apologist. She knows me so she doesn't have to wonder. Is he?

You know, because she just she just she's smiling so I, you know, don't you? No. You're just really, really, so fortunate to have that. Well, well, yes. Yes.

Fortunate. But we also, I suppose, you know, you have to kind of think, well, we probably, you know, chose one another and stayed for reasons. And then you think, no, as it turns out, you know, this being, you know, this being a testing situation, this would be part of why I chose this person because Yes. One way or another I think I probably knew that she'd be like this in a situation like this, you know. And me for her, you know, we would just back each other up which does make you very invulnerable because this whole process has absolutely, in a way that's cliched, you do get confronted with what matters.

You know, and we've, you know, when it I mean we're just, we're very, we've been thrust into this from really a very recognisable and ordinary lifestyle, you know, we've got a mortgage and we've got, you know, and we depend on a regular income to keep the wheels on the wagon like everybody else you know that's the vast majority of people and so we identify and have that commonality with you know that's why I think a lot of people you know write letters to me from all over the world and they stop me in the street to talk to me because you know I think the instinctive we realise that I'm not a you know a credentialed academic and I'm not an expert on this that or the other. I'm very much just a regular person with the same with all of the same concerns that they've got kids at school all of it that people were you know were able to were able to identify with. But when I say that I've been confronted with what really matters, you think all that stuff about, you know, whether you have could afford a whatever, I don't know, you know, a second home or luxury cars or all of that, all that cliched stuff that that people are encouraged to think about and you think God no what really what really matters is spending 24 hours a day with somebody that backs you up.

And my kids are the same, you know. The kids were, they came through the hole, they were under pressure at the time to take jobs you know you won't be able to go to the gym or you won't be able to go to you know you won't be able to just socialise, you won't be able to travel and they were rattled by that. They were you know younger then. You know they were teenagers when all of that happened. Very you know impressionable and vulnerable but we got them through that.

But they didn't, you know, they didn't, they didn't, they ended up choosing not to take the, you know, take the jabs either. And I cannot put into words how much that means to me that they didn't get polluted with that product. That's it. That's everything to me. Never mind the fact that Trudy and I didn't.

The fact that it didn't go into them. That there's no there's no there's no salary you could give me. There's no you know there's no there's no bonus you could bang me that would that would make any difference. So it's it's all it's all of that. And so it's been it's hard to talk about it in many ways without, you know, without sounding almost like you're patronising people but you know the the extent to which I've been reminded about what's important in life is worth is worth all of it.

You call me any name you want because I know who I am and you know my family know who I am and I can look at my kids and my wife in the eye and she in mine and think no matter what literally no matter what happens we we made the right calls. It does seem like, obviously you're from a different slightly different culture than we're from here in the United States. You it's a much smaller country. It's an island in the middle of a freezing sea, and there does seem to be a greater level of conformity in the UK than there is in the United States. And Do you think so?

Is that how it strikes you? It does. It does. I mean, it's a more obedient culture. You know, you never had a wild west.

You didn't have gunfights, or you haven't, you know, since Christianity showed up, etcetera. But it it does seem I and I'm judging this from your media landscape. It seems like you and Russell Brand, maybe there's somebody else, George Galloway. There don't seem to be many dissenters. Describe the media Oh.

In the UK right now. Oh, my goodness. I I I have to be careful with my flowy language. Go crazy. Well, I'm appalled, I'm just simply appalled, that we don't have anything that passes.

In the same way that we don't have any representation in parliament we don't have any representation in the mainstream media. That was Like at all right? That was another aspect of what was so unbelievable and so discombobulating and stressful about all of this because in the early weeks months of what was going on from 20 1920 20 onwards there was that period of waiting for the the people, the silverbacks of the media world to stand up and do what was required to be done which was ask some questions. Don't don't propagandize. Don't just give us the the the government line and the and the pharmaceutical line on all of this.

You stop lying. Challenge it. Who's so that incredible period of wait and every single one of them failed the test. All the mainstream channels, all the big titles, you know the Telegraph, The Times, the Daily Mail, The Works, they all they all swallowed it and pumped it back out again. So the the media is we don't have them well we don't have a media worth its name and journalism in Scotland for example had a proud proud proud history of journalism.

Dundee what Trudy studied to be a journalist. DC Thomson you know an iconic publishing name in in Scottish journalism. Duke Jam and Journalism was the cry from Dundee. And a proud, proud history of being ready to hold to the fire the feet of those in authority. And overnight either it had either it had slipped away and we hadn't noticed it was only exposed by COVID or or it or it slipped away as soon as the Covid debacle started.

And then and then realising you're part of that process of casting around looking for the god we can't be the only people that think this is bonkers and bollocks there must be other people like this. And then that process of going online and as you say Russell Brand god bless him. He you know he was already an he was an established podcaster. You know he already was he was already there doing other things and when all this started he was suddenly to the fore, you know, asking Other things is an understatement. I mean, he was from a completely different Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. No incentive and we were watching George Galloway on the mother of all talk shows and you know these funny things these constellations you know all the other stars went out in the night sky and and a few of suddenly all these new constellations appeared and you're looking at you're looking thank God right we can listen who who can we listen to today that who may have many points of view that in other subjects and other concerns I might not agree with but they're they're certainly asking some of the right questions about this.

And you know so the new media stepped into the fray and if anyone and they are, people were surprised to see me, a guy that used to make documentaries about Stonehenge and the White Cliffs of Dover and you know and waterfalls and Purple Mountain Majesty and all of that. If they were surprised to see me suddenly you know spotlit on live television asking questions about and refusing to comply with this that and the next thing if people were surprised to see me cast in that role well not half as surprised as I was or Trudy was you know looking at me going how did this happen to you? How have you ended up doing this? I said well that's a very good question I really don't know but it's like the bit in the it's like the bit in the airplane you know where the pilot's dead with food poisoning and the co pilot's dead and all the aircraft and some some you know schmuck has to come from the back of the plane and sit because nobody else is going to do it you know see a lot of people were suddenly cast into that unlikely into that unlikely role and have taken the dog's abuse for having done so.

And their only crime has been to say hang on I've got I've got a question. Before we all leap into the abyss of all of this totalitarian regime I'd quite like to ask a couple of questions just before we all go and, you know, and and some of the hardest criticism has come from people that you would have thought ostensibly would have been on your side. I mean, you live in a place where there are I I really don't think the American might we often complain about our media, which is Stalinist, completely Stalinist. They serve the people in power. They'll tell any lie.

It doesn't matter to them at all. But I think it's much worse in the UK. That's just my observation. I mean, I did watch some of your guys, you know, eating hamburgers and saying you get a free one of these if you get your jab and, Oh, it was totalitarian. And dancing alongside, you know, people dressed up as hypodermic needles.

And and, I mean, I remember all of that. But so so, yes, it's it's But it doesn't seem like any dissent is allowed in your country. For example, tell us about the Scottish hate speech law. Oh, well, that I would say that's part and parcel of something that seems to be happening around the world in a certain kind of Western country which is to say either small countries with small populations or quite large landmasses but small populations so, you know, Canada, Australia, but, you know, places like New Zealand The Anglosphere. The English speaking world.

But then but then something equally sinister also happened in Israel, you know, where where Netanyahu said make my people the petri dish of the world. Experiment on these here lab rats. Yeah. So again a small population with an authoritarian leader that just offhand just decided to do what he wanted. But that was true of all of them.

So and yes but Britain but then Scotland obviously has a devolved administration based in Edinburgh empowered empowered to to take a certain amount of decisions separate from Westminster in London. And we've been under the the thrall of an administration in Edinburgh led by the Scottish National Party for what seems like a 1000 years. It's been like an SNP Reich. It doesn't seem very Scottish to me at all. Well, the I go I first got into I first put my head above the parapet and got into trouble as a as a contrarian all the way back in 2014 actually because that was the time of the referendum on whether or not Scotland would remain part of the United Kingdom or would strike out as a as a separate entity.

And God forgive me I had kind of been keeping out of it. I was just I had my opinions but I was keeping out of it relatively late in the day coming up to the vote. I think it was the Telegraph but one of the big broadsheet newspapers asked me for what do you think? Would you write as you know a 1,000 words about what you think? And I wrote that well to cut a long story short that I would prefer to stay part of the United Kingdom.

Cue the opprobrium from the nationalists those who and because of it I had made television like the History of Scotland and I had been seen as a certain kind of Scottish TV presenter I think a lot of people made the broad assumption that I was probably nationalist in my politics which I never have been and and, you know, never will be. But but but none so I got I got into I got into trouble then and so I've been on the I've been under attack in in from the SNP and its Little Wizards ever since then. So I have it. It's important probably in the context of this conversation to make plain that it actually wasn't COVID that I first got into trouble. It was it was the independence referendum.

And so Scotland is run by low calibre people. Low calibre cakistocracy. You know, government by the worst of people. And you know the SNP started you know started out famously well not it didn't start out but at the time of the referendum it was led by Alex Salmond who at least was a you know he was an able sure footed politician and a good orator. You know so he had some game but subsequently it's been Nicola Sturgeon and it was Nicola and then more recently Hamza Yousef and now he's fallen on his fallen over his own feet and he's been replaced by another one another you know another non entity but it was Nicola Sturgeon through the through the COVID debacle.

And they just seemed to they they revelled in she revelled in the power and she revelled in you know appearing every day to count death tolls and insist on the continuation of lockdown and cutting the 6 inches off the bottoms of doors in school classrooms to let air circulate and Insane. Is she a pretty smart, happy, well balanced person? I would say no, no, and no. No tolling but anyway anyway she's gone. But so you have in the SNP in Scotland people who are drunk with the idea of power.

You know they really I mean the very idea that a majority would have put that bunch actually in control of an independent country makes my blood run cold because it was a closed run thing for a while but it's gone now. The threat's gone for a generation if not forever. But so they're inept, they're cakistocratic and when it came to the hate crime legislation well they just seemed to go for one offensive irritating policy after another. They attempted a named persons bill in recent history where they were trying to insinuate between every child and their parents a named person. And that could be a teacher it could be any figure that that that person would have been encouraged and the child would have been encouraged to establish a relationship named person and your parents would never need to know that those conversations had taken place.

This was the named persons bill. It was eventually knocked back at the Supreme Court. This is an attempt to destroy the family? Yeah, well that's would certainly be, that was my interpretation. Well what is the other interpretation?

Well it was supposed to be The government has more authority in their homes than the old people. It's the same reason for, you know, clamping down on the internet. It's it's for the safety of children. That's what they always say this. It's about protecting children from this that and the other and of course we know it's got nothing to do with that.

It's just about taking control of the internet. So the Named Persons Act was yes but in in line with that idea of if you want to lead a popular movement you have to separate the children from their parents. You've got to you've got to put pressure on the family until the family fractures. None. It it took the supreme court the highest court in the land to finally turn back and stop the named persons bill but it'll be it'll be in someone's drawer somewhere.

You know you know still under consideration. The hate crime legislation which is it's important you know not to come in on the SNP in the 3rd act so to speak. They've got a long history of this kind of behaviour and when it came to the you know the hate crime legislation you know that was a pet project of Hamza Yousef who was the sometime justice minister. He always failed in every post but fell upwards, you know, so he was, you know, he was justice and failed and got promoted up to health and failed and was promoted up to whatever, you know, one inappropriate appointment after another. And the hate crime legislation was his, was very much something that that he championed.

And what was it? It was it was well you see this a manifestation of it. In Canada Trudeau has brought in similar, is bringing in has brought in similar legislation. I don't know if it's called the hate crime. It's almost the same name but you see it all over.

The same thing is happening in Australia. The attempt by these would be these tin pot tutorial politicians to have control of the what people say and what people think. Hamza Yousef wanted to criminalise what people were saying in the privacy of their own homes. So the idea was that if mum and dad were having a conversation in front of the television one evening and dad said something If the child inadvertently repeated it in school the next day let's say my dad said so and so the police could come to the house hypothetically and say to the the father what was that you were saying in this house last night? We've got, you know, your child's You know, that was the level of it.

You're going to So is Ham's I mean that's totally North Korean. I don't even think that happens in North Korea actually. He's gone now. But is he considered, I mean, he should be expelled from your country for doing that, in my opinion. But is he considered a villain?

I mean, how can he That's so evil. Yes. Yes. You would think that any rational person would respond to that kind of notion in the same way but look at the way it's happening all over. It's not just happening in Scotland, it's happening all over.

It's part of a pattern of behaviour of a certain kind of controlled leader in one Western country after another who are demonstrably working from the same script. You know it's no coincidence that all of these Western regimes in these countries are taking similar steps at the same time. You know, they're not they're not acting independently of one another. They're not all having these dreadful ideas independently at the same time. Yeah.

You know this stuff is being it's part of the same pattern that we saw during lockdown where suddenly it was everyone was saying build back better, everyone was saying narrow window of opportunity, you know, everyone was saying safe and effective, clearly centralized stress. This was a pandemic of the unvaccinated I think we can agree. Yes absolutely that was that was a favourite. So, but what is that? What are we looking at?

Who's coming up with these ideas, these talking points? What's the point of it all? Like, I don't wanna be a conspiracy nut, but I but the level of coordination suggests that there is, you know, some sort of body atop all of this controlling everything. I mean, what else does this suggest? It feels as though I I think it's getting harder and harder to overlook what seems like the certainty that we're on the cusp of change.

Yeah. A paradigm change. I would say that we're being that we're being herded towards feudalism. Most people for most of 5000 years of human history most people pretty much lived in serfdom. In a feudal state you can describe it any way you like but it's a narrow very very small group at the top with everything with all the castles ownership of everything and everyone else is is been so far beneath them as to be insect level and treated accordingly.

You know that is what we're going back to. Really up until the 19th century? It was the way of it for everyone everywhere. The way, the kind of way of life that has been possible for some of us, a relative handful in the scheme of things, a blinking of an eye in the great story of human civilization, a tiny tiny lucky group for a couple of 100 years in the West were able to live lives of unbelievable liberty and opportunity and equality and aspiration and, you know, if you if you wanted to you could, you know, you know, get whatever you were capable of achieving for yourself. Yes.

And enough generations have taken that for granted that now it's it has fallen. And people think that you know food in the supermarkets lights on in the dark, you know police on the street that actually care about the people rather than being enforcers for the establishment. They think there's been a misconception that somehow it's just in the natural order of things. That society works like that and just the merest glance at the rest of the world at the moment nevertheless never mind 5000 years of history will show that the possibility of living the kind of lives that some of us have been able to live for a very brief period of time is vanishingly it's impossibly unlikely what we've had But but too many people have finally have been taking it for granted one after another. That now that now that now those who would return us to feudalism have seen saw the opportunity and have been and have been working towards it and populations all over the West taking it for granted, being tolerant, being nice, keeping their heads down in return for safety and convenience have laid themselves open.

They're not they're not in a fit state to defend themselves against a well organised, well motivated small group that wants to return the whole thing to some sort of neo feudalism. But I mean that's not to say it's too late. You know I don't want to be I don't want to be completely negative here that I do think it's still possible. I think enough people have realised, are realising all the time And I would say, I think Wait, may I ask one thing? So are you suggesting, it sounds like you are and you probably are right, but that some kind of feudalism is the natural state of man.

Radically hierarchical societies are just natural. Yes, yes, absolutely. People enslaved, you know, slavery is a natural state. Of course. It just is.

You know it's been a reality for so many, for such a large part of everyone who's ever lived or died Well, of course. Through history. But I think, you know, when when in 2016, you know, when we had Trump elected here and Britain voted Brexit, Subsequent to that we got COVID and goodness knows what all. Trudy said, perhaps she wasn't alone, but she was the person that I heard say it. She said those two things were not supposed to happen.

They were not in the script. Somebody took their eye off the ball and allowed a figure like Donald Trump to be elected in America. That's right. And for the population of Britain by a narrow margin but nonetheless by a majority to leave the European Union. And Tracey said everything we've had since has been a sustained punishment beating Yeah.

To put those populations back in their box. So everything that's happened including the evaporation of your southern border all of that all of that that's happened has been a panicky response by that, by a narrow group that saw 2 things happening off script that were of great significance because it was democratic. You know, those were popular votes and now populism is being stamped on all over the world. The tractors, the truckers' revolt, the farmers' protests are all across Europe. All of these things are being mischaracterised by the authorities as far right, as extremist, as you know, all of the same all of the same labels because they have got the book to look that.

They didn't get what they voted for. I mean, Trump was not able to govern No. Very effectively. He couldn't build the wall that he promised, was investigated and spied on from, you know, the very first day. And I don't think you guys got Brexit.

You voted for Brexit. Right? No. That that you're absolutely 52% I think it was. 52 yeah.

52 to 48% in favour of leaving the European Union. And from the moment the ink dried on that decision the all of the the powers that be in the establishment, in the civil service, all all of in across the political parties moved heaven and earth to thwart that decision. And so it's been Brexit in name only. Rhino they've called it because it's now worse. I would say that the situation for for those people that aspired to Brexit they've got less now than they had before the vote happened because they've been so comprehensively punished and Brexit has been so eviscerated the very concept of it has been so hollowed out that the people that wanted it have got less than nothing from it.

Because it was because it was it was populist. And notice also that in the last 4 or 5 years populist has become a pejorative. How can people use the word democracy to describe your country? Well, we don't. That's why I have these fundamental problems about we certainly don't have democracy.

I wonder when democracy went away. I wonder for how long it's been standing there. What was your guess? I really oh, gosh. I mean, in my most conspiratorial moments, I think something began to happen all across the west after the 2nd World War.

Clearly. Really. From the middle from the mid during the war and and after the war, I think the moves I don't know if it started then, but I think there was a gear shift. Have you been to Tokyo? Have you been to Japan?

I have. I have filmed in Tokyo. So then you sort of wonder when you go to Japan, if you go from London to Tokyo, there's no evidence that one side, that the side that won actually won and the side that lost actually lost. Like if you didn't know the history, you would think, well, obviously Japan won the war. Look at it.

Obviously England lost it, look at England. Yes. What is that? Oh yes, I mean there are all sorts of things that that are confusing. I'm not a historian.

I love history. I'm fascinated by history. My shelves are full of history books but so I How many books have you written? Well, written? Oh, 12 or 13?

Sorry. I think it's fair to call you a historian. Well, but I'm not an academic. I don't have and nor do I want to be. I never really have had that it's not in my nature.

I'm not really anyway but I'm so it means that I'm prepared, I'm perfectly happy to be at home to unorthodox ideas about history because I don't have any academic I don't have a professorship to defend. Maybe that's why you can see the world clearly. And I, well I sometimes wonder if my, if I have a unique a USP, you know, a unique selling point. I think it may be that the things I have said over the last few years, everyone knows they're true. Yeah.

It's just that for whatever reason I've said them and I've had the opportunity and the platform from which to see them. And because I am just a regular person saying what every other regular person knows is true that's my So okay. That's my But we've wandered off. I think that's a great that's you're qualified enough. You're not an Oxford don.

But when but when I was been right about a lot of things. So I've got basic questions about the 2nd World War. Okay. What are they? Like, clearly something important changed in the West in 1945.

What was that? What's very interesting to me is that, you know, that, Hitler and Stalin were together at the beginning of it. And when Poland was invaded, Britain said we will do whatever it takes to restore freedom and democracy to the people from whom it's been, denied, stolen. And then what happened? Neil Oliver?

And then you know you've only got to read any coverage of the Second World War to know that at the end of the Second World War Poland was left swallowed whole by Well they handed it to Stalin. So the stated objective What is that? The stated objective of Britain declaring war at the time was, well you didn't do it, You didn't you didn't do that. I didn't even try. And in our country, it's illegal to criticize Winston Churchill.

He's the greatest hero in world history. And when you look at the when you look at the murkiness that happened at Yalta, you know, between, you know, between, you know, Roosevelt and Stalin and Churchill. And and the fact that, you know, agreements were arrived at somehow where many people who wanted whatever you would call West, the West, they wanted to be the West, They were just allowed to be swallowed whole by the Communist bloc. Yeah. To the most violent totalitarian in history.

So they handed these countries they went to war to protect the sovereignty of these countries that they then handed. And people were being chased back across both across specified lines back into that arms. So what is that? Clearly, clearly there's lying here. So what's the truth?

Yeah. So you that we started we started there because we were speculating about when it all started to go wrong. When the when the slide towards, you know neo anything that ends in -ism is the same. Whether it's fascism or communism or any of these things end up with piles of corpses. You know you can't get a cigarette paper between these between any of these ideologies.

So it's important not to be distracted by by whether or not it's National Socialism or Communism or whatever. They're they're all the same. They're good for a handful of people and they're catastrophic for everybody else. And so clearly clearly something shifted up a gear in the west in the middle of the in the during the second world war and after. And has been moving faster and faster ever since.

And but I I I think there's there's been an extraordinary gamble taken now because even even people who are who are in a state of semi slumber like myself were aware of notions like a social contract. You know that I was that we as citizens would be representing, you know no taxation without representation, you know we would be we would have our views represented, we would have our liberty defended, we would be safe in peaceful countries and in return for that we would pay tax and we would submit to certain otherwise, you know, onerous restrictions on you can't do anything, you've got to agree to be policed by consent and so on and so on. And that's okay so there's now a social contract, there's a quid pro quo there for people. There's a reason for people to to to comply because there's something in it for them. Liberty, aspiration, hope All of that being protected by legislation and a constitution and all and all of that.

The gamble that's been taken now is that all of that is supposed to is being taken away. Everything that the people all of the all of the inducements to be law abiding peaceful citizens is being taken away. And what do I get in return? Nothing. You're going to get a digital ID, you're going to get central bank digital currencies, you're going to live in 15 minute cities, you know, you're going to have your we'll tell you what to eat, Your your currency will be programmable.

So we'll have complete moment to moment in real time control of everything you do, everything you want to do. Now that's a heck of a gamble for for a very narrow group of people to take with billions of people. Because there's nothing in it for the people. There's nothing in it for them. And I think I think they have fumbled the ball.

I think that's where there's hope because not 50%, not 51% of the people have realised that and would do anything about it but history shows that it never it never requires it only takes 5% or 10% of people to cotton on and do something about it and make the difference. And I think that on the in the final moves towards this kind of Neo Feudalism they have exposed themselves. They've gone galloping towards the finishing line too early in the wrong way and too many people have seen it And I think in there somewhere is hope and it's probably enough hope. I wonder though, I mean it does seem 2 things. It seems like they're pushing the population, not just of your country or mine, but really of most Western countries right to the point of revolution.

Like, how about we give you nothing, and you shut up and take it? Yeah. And erase all hope for a future for your children or grandchildren, even having children or grandchildren. Okay. It's quite a gamble to take.

But the gamble is that the technology is evolving so quickly that it'll allow them to harness, you know, the surveillance state and various tools of violence that are so overwhelming that there's nothing the population can do anything could do about it. You know, drones and AI are gonna be enough to sort of force people to accept this. That's how I read it. It's possible. Yes, of course, it's possible.

But I think it's incumbent upon us to be optimistic that that's not what happens. You know, I think there's an absolute, there's an absolute obligation. It's beyond the right. It's an absolute obligation to be positive. I struggle with it.

I mean I have to be I agree. I have to be yanked back onto the path of righteousness inclination, more positive than I am. But nonetheless, you know, I go to, I lean to the dark side all the time. Well Scots have dark souls don't they? Yes I we are there's it's never difficult to tell the difference between a Scotsman and a ray of sunshine as as as the saying goes.

But you you have to it's when we spoke earlier about being brought to terms with being made to confront what really matters, And it is difficult to talk about it in many ways. It almost makes a person blush because of the things that you find yourself having to say. But, you know, the Constitution of the United States, you know, the First Amendment, these it's at times like this that these things are suddenly a light comes on inside them and suddenly everyone sees them as though for the first time. It's only because they're being threatened that people see them. You know the and the very you know the the language you know the inalienable right is so important you know that you know this you get this at school but you know that inalienable is is to say that your freedom is not you're born with it.

It's there, it's from God. It certainly isn't given to you by any person and it can't be taken from you by any person. But the 3rd and most important bit about inalienable I only really began to contemplate in recent years is that even if you want to surrender your freedom you can't Because it's inalienable. You are lumbered with it. You're stuck with it.

It's like your leg. You can't. It's part of you your freedom. And it's when it's challenged in this way and it's under freedom and people talk about freedoms as though it's plural. There's only freedom.

It's a single thing and because it's inalienable it's at the moment when it's being threatened that people none of us has any we have an obligation to defend it. You don't get the choice. If someone offers you slavery will you be my slave? You can't. Because it's your inalienable right to be free.

You can't surrender to slavery. It's not your thing to give away. And that's why some of this I suppose had to happen. People need to see the freedom of speech being taken away by hate crime legislation, hate speech legislation or whatever. They need these things to happen before they before you look again at what freedom is, what democracy might be, what it is to have inalienable rights.

You know, and we don't have the option to give these things up, even even if we're broken and we want to. And these are I think these are profound verities. What's the tipping point? What's the point at which you won't have optimism? What's the point at which Never.

You can't. Good. Well, good. Well, you can't. Because that's what I mean.

I mean, as I said, because you're not it's not you're not allowed. You're not entitled to give up because it's in the nature of inalienable rights that you, even if unto death, you know, they can, you know, you may take our lives but you'll never take our freedom. You know the oft quoted line from Braveheart. I mean that is just it. So there's nothing to be pessimistic about essentially because the option to give up is not there.

You don't get to give it up. Do you think the totalitarians will win honestly? No. No they won't. Because because I believe I also think a lot nowadays about natural law.

You know, I read about common law which has become an obsession, and I read about natural law and whether you're religious or not if you let's say you just if you accept an intelligent universe and then natural law says that the intelligent universe does want the best for you unlike our regimes and our establishments and our powers that be. The universe is there for you to be the the the best expression of yourself and consciousness that it can be. And all of that can be subverted by evil. A bit like a if you can hold a ball under the surface of water for as long as you put the strength to do it but the ball wants to be somewhere else because that's in the natural order of things. And eventually the totalitarians will run out of the strength to subvert the way that things are supposed to be.

And you can't it's difficult to put a timeline on these things. You know I wouldn't say that we are going to see the end of it in our lifetimes, you and me, and it might be for our children to see the end of it but it will end and the because the natural law will reassert itself. I didn't I didn't another of the things I was sort of sleepy about in a state of slumber about I didn't really think about faith. I've always been a person of faith quietly. I don't go to church but I believe in a in a transcendent intelligent entity.

And, I think that was brought home to me and the light came on in it for me during this time as well because so many people wrote to me. Thousands of people wrote to me from all over the world. This game started where people 1 woman wrote a letter to me and addressed it to Neil Oliver near Stirling Castle, Stirling, Scotland and the letter came to me and I thought well that's impressive. The postman managed to get that to me and I put a picture of it on social media and without thinking and it opened floodgates. And now I've had thousands of letters like these and so people were writing to me without knowing my address And the vast majority of the letters were about this is a fight between good and evil.

This is a fight between right and wrong. This is about light and dark. It was that. It was as fundamental as that for most of those people that were writing to me. And perversely, you know, in an upside down way it was becoming aware of evil in the world around me that made me think there will be, what's the opposite of evil?

There must be good. There must be good because I see the evil and every you know every force has its equal and opposite. So there must be good. There must be God or there must be because I've seen the alternative, I've seen the adversary because it's it's it's stalking the land at the moment. The badness is visible and that was, you know, that's part of the the sort of found realignment that I've been going through.

Or it really is just an awakening. I mean that's a that's a hackneyed term now about being awakened. But it doesn't Do you see it happening to others around you? Yes. Yes.

Absolutely. More and more. More and more people are saying it and it doesn't you know differences are never made by the majority. Not really. That's not how it works you know that this the crucial thing is invariably done by the one or just a few people who are right.

You know when you know when you know how when you when you sometimes you'll be sitting at a dinner table with friends and family and whatever and you see something and the whole place just breaks up? A great perfect line. You just say something and everyone laughs and if you think often most often you didn't you didn't even think of the line, you didn't compose it. It's just there and you said it. And everyone laughs because what you said in it's not just funny it's also true.

Right. You people can instantly true runs through people, you know, like lightning through a lightning conductor it just oh it runs through you and you feel it. And that I think that's what's happened for a lot of people. A lot of people are able to identify very readily with with what's wrong here which is simply an inversion of natural law that evil has is trying to assert itself. Freedom is being taken from people from whom it cannot be taken but with but with the ending of those people themselves these fundamentals are happening and I do genuinely hand on heart think enough people think that, don't just think it.

They know it because it's true. It's true and people feel it. It's a, I think what you're saying is absolutely right. True things are, they resonate, there's like a tuning fork inside you that starts to when you hear something that you know to be true. It almost doesn't need to be explained.

It's like when you hear it, you know it. But I think there's a step from that experience to using the word God in public in the in the secular West. Are you hearing that more? Yeah. Definitely.

I am fine. And And I feel good about it. And I think part of why I feel good about it is because it's coming at me in various shades. You know, I'm being, you know people of Christian and Islamic faith are talking to me And inter alia they mention, they talk about everything but they talk about faith and good and evil. And I hear within the Christian community I hear from Catholic and Protestant and they're all saying the same thing because the only important bits of any of those messages are the same anyway.

And they're all again it's the truth. So it's striking, it's chiming with me, it's I can you know I can feel it because it's evidently true And so I don't I don't have any I don't have any qualm about invoking God because, you know, I'm pretty sure I've caught sight of the devil. It's so interesting. Like, everything not everything, but a lot of things that I thought 20 years ago were completely ridiculous now. I was utterly wrong.

And one of them, we were told for so long that Muslims are your enemy. And I wanna say I'm not a Muslim, and I'm completely opposed to mass migration, period. I don't care of anybody. I'm just against it. But it hasn't turned out that way.

And I have to say, you, Galloway, of course, Russell Brand, it feels like the people who hate you the most in the UK are educated white Liberals, and it feels like a lot of Muslim immigrants are open to what you're saying and agree with you. That's my impression as a foreigner. Do you feel that? Yes. They are because I, you know, I think it's often, it's much more important just to see a person first.

Right. Of course. Of course. I know you know that but that's the thing. And so I don't I don't always think about this information's coming at me from a Christian or from a Muslim.

Well, in our country, I mean, it's a different experience. But after 9:11, and I'm not again, I'm not Muslim. I'm not gonna become Muslim. I don't agree with Islam. But we were told again and again, and everybody in the world I lived in seemed to agree with it, that Muslims, Islam, that's our enemy.

I don't know if you had that experience in the UK, we definitely had that here. And it's just interesting. But again, that's all part of that, divide and conquer. Well, you're absolutely right. I just did not perceive that at the time.

Stupid. Well, you've made me think about it. You know, you spent years in Washington DC. Only 35, not a big deal. You've, so you, I'm, I hold my hand up and say I absolutely I grew up with absolute certainty that America were the good guys.

I watched the West Wing, almost all of it and I thought that you know as long as there's Democrats in the in the West Wing you know the the white hatted cowboys are out there making sure everything's gonna go 'Good God help me' you know that. I went oh Jed Bartlett woah fantastic' and now I think oh how why did I ever why did I ever think that? Now you were in the belly of the beast what is it What what is it with these people? You know these people that you know that I'm not gonna name any names. You know these people that have gone in skinny and come out fat with money with lobbying and goodness insider trading and all of the rest of it.

So they've got more money than Croesus and they're still there in their dotage, still at what drives it? What makes these Chinese people get out of their beds and all? I didn't grow up worrying about money and just being as honest as I can be. So I never really thought of money as a huge motivator in people's behavior because it never was for me. Motivating these people?

Clearly, money is part of it. I I was just late to that understanding. You know, we all have blind spots and failures, and that was definitely one of mine. I just didn't I didn't see how corrupt it was because I couldn't imagine like, I would never say something I I don't believe for money. I just would never do that.

It would never even occur to me to do that. So, I didn't grow up like that. So the idea that other people were saying things they knew to be untrue for money, that, like, I never I was shocked. It took me decades to figure out that that was going on. And you would hear people say, oh, it's all about the money, and I'd be like, that's bullshit.

It's not you know, we just have different views, different ideologies, different world views. No. A lot of it was just about the money, and I just did not perceive that. Much money can a can a multi multimillionaire have? Well, I agree.

I mean, I've never been that. Well, that is absolutely right. First of all, you know, getting out of debt, I do think, is a massive blessing. And if you can get out of debt, it just means you're not controlled. And there is a inherent freedom in that, and debt is slavery.

We love debt in the United States. We have a debt based society. You know, lending money and interest. That's, like, the main thing that we do in the United States. I think it's disgusting.

I've always thought that. So if you can get out of that, it's clearly liberation. But beyond that, like, is it gonna make you happy? No. I mean, I've just lived around rich people my whole life so I know that that does not make you happy.

So if we accept but if we accept that money's part but it must be more than that. So what is the what is the what is the because, you know you one does end up with fewer and fewer options when it comes to explaining what's going on and it just feels like it, you know, it does begin to feel as if it's in the service of some kind of darkness. That's what it feels like. I mean, it is it is in this in the service of darkness. There's no kind of rational explanation for transgenderism.

You know? That's just you're sterilizing kids. There's no upside that could ever justify that. You're doing it for killing people as, you know, the US government has. I hate to say it as a patriotic American, but it's been a force for for killing for a long time.

What is that? And again, there's only a spiritual answer, I think, to that question. I don't see a rational one, for sure. But I also think it's recognizable in a temporal, framework as hubris. It's the belief that you are god, that you have greater powers than any man actually possesses, greater foresight, greater wisdom, greater power.

And that is, like, the oldest trap there is. Like, that is the story of history is people, you know, convincing themselves that they're more than human. And, and that's that's how you destroy yourself in the society that you lead for sure. And so what happens to us is has the has the American Republic fallen? And is it Well, just something is long gone.

I mean, the second you allow an intel agency to murder your democratically elected president as we did 62 years ago and then sort of ignore that it happened, be be like, I don't think that's really what happened. Shut up. I mean, look. No. It's not a rep if you allow bureaucrats to murder the guy that the majority elected, like, just by definition, the system is not what they say it is, obviously.

So but I do think I agree with you a 100%, and I agree with our, you know, long departed president, Dwight Eisenhower, that it really was the the second world war in ways that I don't understand, but it's demonstrable, changed the nature of the country, changed the relationship, between the population and its government. Can I ask you a question that I always think about, but UK specific question? So 1914, the UK, England, Britain, whatever we're calling it, you know, is running the world. You know? And and doing, I would say, a pretty good job, not perfect job.

Pretty good job putting in railways and spreading Christianity and being kinda pompous, but basically being a fairly benign colonial power as colonial powers go. There's a war 4 years. The smartest people in the country are all killed for no obvious reason. The country's really weakened by that war. The United States becomes a preeminent power in the world by 1919.

So it's a huge loss for Great Britain, I would say, the first real war, again, for no real reason. 20 years later, your leaders tell you gotta do it again for reasons that are clearly fake. Liberate Poland and then hand it to Stalin. That's not the reason, obviously. Democracy is not the reason.

And then the country is really, like, wrecked, and the empire collapses, and it becomes sad. Is there bitterness about that? Like, why wouldn't that be the the bitterest thing that ever happened in the history of your country? Are people still do they talk about that? They brought us into 2 wars that just destroyed us.

All these cool things that we had, this great society that we had, we made the I think there's a I think there is a I think there is a a a a lingering sadness. But what about anger? Like, your leaders said that there was no reason to join either war. Well, the peep the the people, obviously, in my lifetime, your lifetime, the veterans of the First World War, they're all gone. Oh, of course.

And the, you know, and the and the and the veterans of the Second World War, you know, are the endangered species that they are. There's, you know, they are almost all on on the way out. And so And so the and once the people to whom it happened are gone then that takes something with them. You know, we we we don't we're only angry with what happened at one remove in a sense because the people who really suffered it are gone. But I hear what you're saying about So I was born 25 years after the war?

I mean it's so obvious. You could say I mean you could say that Britain only became a second rate power after Suez, you know, which wasn't until 50 56. 56. So so you could say that we were for for whatever had happened to us courtesy of the First World War and then the Second World War, it was it was that it was that shit show in in Suez and that humiliation, you know, by America that Britain became a, only then. So it's Yeah but it was dead.

It was dead after, you know. I would say it's much, I think you do make me think about something that's not unconnected. I do think that what's happening at the moment we will not understand what has actually happened here. Maybe in 50 years time people look back, maybe in a 100 years time in the same way that I would say you know someone who went through the First World War even if they were experiencing it even if they were in the western front or whatever with the bullets flying and seeing all of the horror of it you couldn't possibly conceptualise the impact and the consequences and the significance Oh of course. And the way in which you don't live you don't live through a period and know that you might suspect that the world might be changed forever as a result of the period that you're living through but to actually predict what will be the the real consequences in 10 in 50 years time is beyond all of us.

I think I think it's impossible. I think part of why people won't waken up to this at the moment and won't confront it is because it's it's so big what's happening. I think it is going to be like a First World War. Of course. You know through what you know someone said that the First World War was a set of iron railings between the past and everything else because you could see the past but you could never reach it again.

And I think but that that wouldn't have been a pardon right at the time. You know? That wouldn't have been a pardon even as the men were dying. It was not. The it was my wife's great grandfather, whose picture is right over there, wrote a book about it, his service in France.

And I've read it. Pretty great book. And it's the most cheerful book ever written. You know, sort of like he was a, you know, successful guy in the United States, went over there to fight for something, he didn't understand what he was fighting for and he was in good mood the whole time. He had no idea.

I think at some point at some point again in the same time frame that we're talking about, 2nd World War thereafter, I think the world fell finally into the grip of the banks. It it fell finally into the grip of those unelected, unaccountable, for profit groups for whom everything was only about money, money and power. And and for them they became anywheres at that point. They didn't care about they didn't care about Britain, didn't care about America, they just cared about money, you know, and I think that has been has been a I think we lost in that slow motion consequence of the 20th century or the first half of the 20th century. That all of what had been before, that kind of love of country, that kind of patriotism, that kind of identity, I think that was un unmoored, unhitched at that point and something very large and slow moving just began to drift like a great liner that you know was no longer on its safe anchorage and it's just and it's only now that with our kind of 20 20 vision of hindsight that we're able to look back and see that that happened.

When was the last time Britain had a leader who believed the country was more important than the banks? Well you probably have to go back to pre-sixteen ninety four and the establishment of the Bank of England. I mean that's when the Bank of England was set up and that's and that became the model for the Fed in 1913 and, you know, the creature of Jacob Island and I think but then where do you start? You know the city of London was established by, you know, at the time of William the Conquer. Of course.

And there's a state within a state that's like the Vatican. It's a separate entity. People don't you know fully appreciate the extent to which the city of London is not Britain. It's a separate it's a separate you seem to have some police force. The monarch has to seek permission to enter the City of London.

There's a nominated person in parliament the City Remembrancer who most people don't notice who's there all the time to make sure that the unique rights of the City of London are maintained and not compromised by any subsequent legislation. You know so there's been a long period of that. So to get back to a time before the banks would thrall you'd you'd have to be before the the banks were given the Bank of England was given that magical power to create fiat money. That's when all the you know that that's when the trouble started. Do you know about the Bradbury pound?

That's like No. The great story. Well you know about you know the what do you call it? The, Abe Lincoln had constitutional script, the greenbacks Yes. During the civil war obviously, you know, to get himself out of a financial hole.

Well, the Bradbury pound came about in 1914 because there was a run on the banks. War had war war was declared and people panic. And they and people are going to the banks with their bits of paper, their big bank notes, I promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of £5, £10, whatever. And in those days you could actually get that transformed into gold. You could get the commensurate, the, you know, the relevant gold.

Yeah it was transferable, had value. And so the banks had a run on. Now they closed the banks but there was an extended bank holiday. The bank went scuttling to the Treasury. David Lloyd George was the person they sought out.

The Treasury the government must have had an inkling that it was happening because within within 3 days legislation was rushed through parliament. So they must have had something kind of ready to go and they created Treasury notes and the 1st Lord of the Treasury was a man called I think it's John Bradbury. Bradbury anyway. And he put his signature was on these notes and they became their nickname was the Bradbury Pounds. And so the banks reopened.

The people were still queuing up wanting to transfer their bank bank notes into gold. They were persuaded to take these treasury notes instead. And people said well what's the value of these? And they were they were debt free and interest free and they were underwritten by the the notional value of Britain. The everything that Britain was or is.

Its creativity, its people, its labor force, its industry everything. That's what underwrote the Bradbury pound and for whatever reason people accepted it. Okay I'll take these Bradbury pounds. I'll take these treasury note not bank notes treasury notes interest free debt free. And that got that that that saved the day.

The run on the bank was averted. Now almost at once the banks said or realised we can't have this. This is debt free interest free mode of exchange. What's in it for us? And so very quickly they went back to the government said withdraw these Bradbury Pounds.

Let's go back to the old days. We'll buy government bonds, we'll give you banknotes, we'll call it 3%. 3% interest sound fair? The Bradbury Pounds were I think the last one actually didn't come out of circulation until maybe in the late like many years later I can't remember exactly when the last one came out of circulation. Britain's national debt in 1914 before the war was about £650,000,000.

By 1918, it was 7,500,000,000 because the bankers had regained control. But but for a moment for a moment with the with the advent of this debt free, interest free treasury note underwritten by the notional or real value of Britain there was a there was a there was a currency went out into general circulation that could have changed everything. Imagine if people, imagine if the banks had been disempowered because they didn't have the power of debt, they didn't have the power of usury, interest, whatever you want to call it. But they've realised we're not having this. So having been got out of the hole of the run on the gold the the the Bradbury Pounds were taken away.

Nobody noticed. There's a war on and the the national debt that began its began its cycling upwards. Could crypto be a Bradbury pound? Well, I get I I host I seek to host conversations about brat about about bitcoin and and and crypto from from time to time. I'll I'll make no bones about it.

I'm not I'm not really sure that I properly I'm an expert in a position to say whether I think it's the freedom of humanity or not. I hear very strong voices on either side. People say it's a Ponzi scheme and a con and don't go near it. Other people say no this is the foundation upon which we will rebuild society and and somewhere between those two polar extremes must lie the must lie the truth. I think on I think on I think there are elements about it distributed ledger blockchain.

I think somewhere within there that there are profound solutions because I I have asked and and had a a vague yes whether or not you could use the blockchain protocol to have say a news channel that couldn't be shut down because it's peer to pea you know the currency exchange with Bitcoin is peer to peer person to person without the intercedence of a bank. And hypothetically they say yes you could you could you could distribute information. You could you could transact. Bitcoin essentially is a transaction of information. So therefore you could hypothetically you could exchange news.

You could in that way and the people couldn't, the the baddies couldn't get at it hypothetically. So the the the cryptocurrency or bitcoin and blockchain interests me for that reason. And although I listen to very strong voices saying don't go anywhere near Bitcoin, it's been hacked The banks have got control of it and so on and so on. I think somewhere within that thinking there might be some of the answer. How long till you get pulled off the air?

Oh, oh, I don't know. I mean, I do genuinely When I mean, if you're living in a country that is trying to criminalise conversations at your dinner table between you and your kids, send you to prison for 7 years for having the wrong opinions. I think I think, it's a bold not me. I mean, I'm a I'm a small fry in these things but, you know, I'm a minnow swimming in these waters. But nonetheless these are bold moves because I think the people that are seeking the control with everything, with digital currency, with with digital IDs, with all of it, are cowardly frightened people.

I think we're dealing with I think we have created an ecosystem that has enabled to thrive the most frightened psychopathic parasiticcacastocratic leadership the world has yet seen. We have created the conditions for them and it's we've got to take responsibility for the fact that they are our fault. You know you get the government you deserve. That's true. So we can't wash our hands of it.

Nonetheless I think they're scared. Very, very, very frightened people and what they're most frightened of is everyone else. They're probably frightened of each other and I think there's a line that do they want to do they have the will they cross it and do the wet work that would be required? They're operating at one remove from really hurting people physically. Really going the lengths of throwing people into, you know, gulags and concentration camps.

They're not there yet. And, you know, are they are they ready? Do they have the backbone to actually start, not so many people like me but, you know, but bigger fish? Are they really going to do that? I don't know if they've really got it in them.

If as long as people keep trying proposing jail time for people who criticise them, that suggests they do have it in them. Let's see what actually happens. I think some of it is I think some of it is is brinkmanship and and I'm not I'm not persuaded that they've got the the cojones to to be the authoritarians that they fantasize about being. Well, I mean, it depends on circumstance. Right?

I mean, they once the virus, intentionally or not, got out of the lab in Wuhan, the COVID virus, then, you know, they moved immediately to institute totalitarian rule. That will happen again. They're still doing gain of function research, as you well know. But don't you think And there'll be a real virus that escapes. But I don't think they I don't think so.

I'm not sure there ever was anything. So does it strike you that what you the way that you think about people, is influenced by Freud and by people who think about human behavior in non chemical terms, in moral spiritual terms, that whole way of thinking has kind of disappeared. I mean, that was a feature of our childhoods where people would say, well, you have unresolved issues, guilt, whatever. You didn't live up to your own standards. You take that with you.

Now it's like you've got a chemical imbalance. Like, we can't even I don't think young people can even analyze human behavior in those terms. I think it's part and parcel of an anti human agenda. Yes. That what has been done fundamentally is anti human.

And it's being done to people who see no inherent, they don't know what it means to be human and alive and therefore they can be casual and contemptuous of people in account of 1,000,000,000 because we have because they have got away from the sovereign human being. That's right. And what it means. You know we don't we don't have we've barely barely floated a dugout canoe onto the Pacific Ocean of the unknown as the human consciousness and then but we've already got the the transhumanists, not the transgender, the transhumanists who are already preaching that the human being mark 1 is sub optimal and needs an upgrade via, you know, technology. You know, they want to they want to blame humans with tech, digitised, you know, Ersatz human beings because the time of the biological human is partly over.

But that is a that's a product of of the wrong kind of people not even asking what it means to be human and alive. Right. Well, it's a rebellion against God too. I mean, if, you know, as Christians certainly, but I I think Muslims and Jews also, certainly Jews do, believe that human beings were created in God's image, you know, to deface that image is to attack God. Right?

And to change to declare people inherently inadequate, it, you know, that's a theological concept, I think. It's all it's bound up with many, as I say, it's gonna be a 100 years or more. But, you know, obviously, you're like in in, in 1968, Paul Ehrlich wrote The Population. Yeah. Problem.

And at the same time actually, Garrett Hardin wrote The Tragedy of the Commons. Yes. And they both speculated about the basic crappness and rubbishness of people in large numbers. You know they'll just make a mess of everything. And it was that return of that neo Malthusian approach to people.

There's too many of them and they're not worth having anyway so this is going to be the ending of us. And the predictions of Ehrlich and and so on were wrong. You got it completely wrong. And we I I I talk to people, I interview people all the time who are saying, and you'll be across this, that birth rates are plummeting across the West. It's not just in the West.

Japan is poised to disappear in a 100 years. There won't be any Japanese people. That's right. So it's not even a Western phenomenon. Swathes of of populations are not producing enough people to keep themselves going.

It's true in Britain, in France, all across Europe. It's true in America. It's really bad in America. People are having like 1.4, 1.5 children on average which is not enough to sustain. Yep.

And so and people are not appreciating that they are sitting in the in the cheap seats on a plane that is a tailspin that may not may not be possible even if you could get to the controls to pull the plane back into level flight. It may have it may have gone beyond that point. And so you and you've got that information out there at the same time as people like Bill Gates and others are saying we've got to check the human population. We've got too many people and in a 100 years time there's not going to be anybody here. Well I'm being I'm using hyperbole but populations are in steep decline and it's the explanations for it are existential.

You know it has to do with maybe possibly falling fertility and god knows what we've done to fertility with these products that we've jammed into several 1000000000 people. We'll see we'll see what the the fertility consequences of all that are in due course. I think we know. I think we know. But but in any event there's also people delaying having children and then when you know, so many women when they when they do reach a point where they do want to have children they're now in their maybe their mid thirties, their late thirties, their the relevant partner is not there at the right time and so they they they miss that.

There's all there are all sorts of existential reasons, societal reasons for the for the plummeting. But they got to work at a consulting firm in the ensuing years. That's not enough. But what I'm saying is that we know this and yet the Malthusians are still out there banging the drum for fewer people. They can't get rid of people fast enough.

They can't quickly enough deter people from having more people. Isn't that genocide? Like, isn't that what that is? Yeah. It's anti species.

And and again again, it's it's coming down to people I think who who don't who are not properly invested in the future and they're certainly not invested in the future of humankind. They're not giving their last measure of devotion to make sure that we keep going. Hate. So we had there's a football player, you probably haven't followed this, but in the United States, States, the kicker, who gave us a college commencement speech the other day. And in it, he said I did.

Trudy and I watched it this morning. By chance. We watched it online. Deeply steeped in the politics of the United States, but then you saw how moderate it was. He's like, you know, as you grow older, you might wanna, like, have kids because that's a source of enduring joy.

And all these politicians and cultural figures and I can't remember that chick's name, but Taylor Swift, some sort of fake entertainer, like, gets out there and, you know, denounces the guy as as a Neanderthal and as evil because he suggests that having children may be more rewarding than your stupid career. Like, what is that impol like, why would you be mad at someone for encouraging young people to have children? Like, that's very weird to me. I was listening to I was listening to Jordan Peterson years ago. I mean I'll not claim that as in badge of honour, just a fact.

I was listening way before everything was happening at the moment. I came came across him years years ago. I think it was courtesy of, you know, the the the Joe Rogan experience. He was part of that the intellectual dark web. Remember the the Sam Harris, Brett and Heather Brett Weinstein, Heather Heing and and Jordan Peterson and and so on.

And I remember being really very profoundly struck by a lot of the things that Peterson had to say about children and parenthood. And for example I really remember him saying that you know so many people say they don't want to have a baby because it's gonna interfere with their lifestyle and he said I really have to ask what kind of lifestyle is it that you can't take a baby with you? And I thought because we, Trudy and I went from we had our first and then we've got 3, they always came with us. Just we just they just were there. They were just then there were 2 of them and there were 3 of them and they just went everywhere.

We just it didn't impinge on anything and obviously it goes without saying that it made our lives by by by inexpressible orders of magnitude richer. And and yet, you know, the but the abiding message out there is that, oh, no. There's better things to do than be families. That's anti human at the at the basal level. Well, so then I wanna ask you just finally about one of the one of the great trends in the west, and it is only in the west, is the climate hysteria.

How do you assess that? That seems part of this larger whole. It's a hoax. It's a hoax in what sense? In the well, there's it's multi it's multifaceted.

I'd the the climate is changing because that's what the climate does. Yep. Like weather. You know, the climate changes. We did have glaciers at one point.

Yeah. We we When they started measuring temperature we were just coming out of the Little Ice Age Yes. Which had lasted for 100 of years and temperatures were as low on planet Earth as they'd been for 1000 of years at that point. So when it comes to measuring temperatures there was only really one way for unless we were going to go extinct or go straight into another full ice age there was only one way for the temperatures to go which was up. And so the fact that there has been sustained increase in temperature, well, it would be because it was coming from the bottom of the well.

The only way was up. Also, it it it's it used to be accepted his accepted fact that increasing carbon dioxide follows a rise in temperature. It doesn't cause it. Right. As the world gets warmer there is there's a kind of a several 100 year lag and then there's more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as a consequence of that warming.

And so to to to tell people that carbon dioxide is causing the increase in temperature would be like seeing a horse and cart on a road from space and imagining that the cart was pushing the horse because you could see it moving. That would be how wrong you are. It's the horse pulling the cart. And likewise CO2 there's more of it once the planet's warmer but I think it's 800 years is the lag. So there are all sorts of reasons for being aware that this way in which people are being frightened into thinking that there's a catastrophic apocalypse coming because they've got gas central heating and they drive fossil fuel cars is a hoax.

There's a big complicated picture to do with the climate changing. It used to be called, in the 70s I remember the documentary with Leonard Nimoy talking about, you know, we were going into an ice age. That was just the 70s and then it became global warming. But then because that isn't holding up it's become climate change, well yeah, of course climate changes. And then in any event what's what's being done in in response to it is is not green and it's anti human.

You know as advocates of fossil fuels say if we are if we are let's say we are going into a time of of climate uncertainty and instability That would be the very time you wouldn't want to do away with the ability to cheaply and readily heat homes or air condition them. That would be true. As appropriate. I mean, if something's going to happen this would be the, you know, you do not throw away your matches, you know, at the time when you might need to light a fire. And also the you know the the wind turbines that now are at the end of their life cycle and they're just being landfilled.

These vast unrecyclable plastic things are just being buried in the ground. They are being made in any event using fossil fuels. They can't be recycled. Electric cars that's just a means to to get people out of their cars and and back onto I don't know horses or or Shanksy's pony or whoever. So it's it's not it's not green what is being done.

The the planet we're we're making a mess you know look what happens in the extraction of the the lithiums and other rare earth metals are required for electric batteries. Look at the the child slavery that that entails. Look at the look at the scarification of the planet that's involved in the extraction of those things. The destruction of ecosystems and habitats in pursuit of green energy. Really?

Seriously? And the one you know the one clean green energy that is available, which is nuclear, is strictly verboten because, well, because we've been told that you can't have nuclear energy. So in Europe you've seen a spate of climate cultists destroying medieval art. You know, it's never modern art. It's always Christian art, but I've noticed.

But but they've gone into museums and spray painted or slash paintings. I don't think you've seen any vandalism of private planes at all. So if you believe in the kind of schematic, if you believe in the story of climate change as an existential threat, you know, the first thing you would do is get rid of private air travel, but that doesn't occur to anybody. I don't under like, what is that? What are we watching?

Well, you've got that you've got that bizarre situation where the the rich at the World Economic Forum in Davos and other places are are openly saying that because of carbon credits, us rich people will buy the carbon credits of poor people that can't afford to go on holiday anyway and that will offset our private jets and private yachts. You're not using your carbon credits anyway because you can barely afford to feed yourself or your family so you're definitely not going on holiday this year. So I'll I'll I'll take I'll take your credit, your carbon credits off your hand and I'll I'll use that to legitimise my the perpetuation of my luxurious lifestyle. You know the hypocrisy of it, the rubbing of people's noses in it is off the scale and again it's anti human. If for want of the kind of farming techniques and the fertilisers that we have there's very good reason for thinking that half half the world's population will starve to death for want of the kind of fertilisers that are made from oil.

You know? So they just stop oil. So you're gonna see famines, I don't think there's any doubt about that, soon. And when that happens, you know, will people blame each other as they've been instructed to do or will they finally figure out that this is all manufactured? Well I think again being absolutely, being an inalienable responsibility to be positive I would have to answer yes to that question.

More people do well I can say for 1 I see it now and I didn't used to so I've added to the count by 1 and Trudy sees it and she didn't used to so that's 2 and her kids do so that's 5. You know so just in my immediate circle I'm seeing people waking up on a very personal level. So so yes I do I do think that that enough people are seeing the the way in which we are being played, we are being an attempt, a galactic scale attempt to pull the wool over our eyes is going on and more and more people are seeing it. And they're seeing that people are being uprooted from their their homelands and have been for generations. And they are turning up where they, you know, maybe ought to be and instead of people in in, you know, pausing for a moment to think why is this disruption happening, they just get angry with the victims of it.

And I'm not saying I'm not I'm not I mean I'm sure there are I'm sure there are bad lads and and and criminals and and absolutely the whatever creed and color that you wouldn't want in your communities. I do I see I get that absolutely. But they wouldn't be here if governments and NGOs hadn't brought them here. But the bigger picture is. I mean, look at the you know they're building a bridge in the Darien gap to make it easier for the NGOs and the WHO and the UN and the rest of them to to to drive people into the United States from the South.

If you can, if as I say, I'm I'm seeing it and and more and more people are seeing and all it all it really takes is for people to realize that the trouble is not beside you. It's above you. And there's not it's not a big it's not a big group. And actually their techniques are old, worn out and transparent from overuse. And you know there's nothing to fear but the fear they sow I would say.

I can't believe that I am more pessimistic than a Scot. Well you've probably got Scottish genes. I do. But there's no but there's that's a zero sum game Tucker. You can't.

You've got to be. You've got to you've got to it's like it's like taking your castor oil. It's like taking your you've got to you've got to you've got to you've got to be optimistic because it's your it's your obligation. It's nothing less than your obligation to force yourself to be optimistic. You can't, you cannot go to the to the dark side until it's all over.

In which case it won't matter anyway. But I don't think I don't think so. Neil Oliver, thank you on that. Appreciate it. Thank you, Tucker Carlson.

Thanks for watching our YouTube channel.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

read transcript to 17min podcast 5 Foods to Stockpile That Never Expire | Essential Long-Term Food Storage

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZZIiHAuZ44 

Imagine never having to throw away food again. That's every prepper's dream. Guess what? It is possible. And in this video, I'll discuss 15 foods that never expire.

That doesn't mean that they'll last a millennia, but many of these foods may outlive you. It's a fact that during uncertain times and emergencies, having a stockpile of survival food can provide peace of mind knowing that you and your loved one's nutrition needs are prepared for and taken care of. While some foods such as dehydrated fruit and boxes of processed foods have long shelf lives, there are some foods that are the rock stars of survival and outlast many others by decades. These foods are crucial for any preparedness minded person who wants to ensure their survival food pantry is ready for the long haul. And in this video, I will discuss 15 foods that when stored properly will last indefinitely.

That means you can store them away without worrying that they will expire within a year or 2, or go bad because checking on them slipped your mind. Number 1 on the list is canned meat, and canned meat has excellent longevity. While fresh meat requires refrigeration and quickly spoils, canned meat can remain edible for years. This is because the canning process cooks the meat thoroughly and seals it away from air preventing the growth of bacteria and spoilage. Typical meats like beef, chicken, and pork are available in canned form.

When canned, they retain most of their nutrients and caloric value making them an excellent source of energy and protein in times of need. That's important because protein is crucial for survival and is often overlooked in favor of the carbohydrate based foods like rice, beans, and pasta. Protein is vital for maintaining muscle mass, repairing tissues, and supporting immune function. Therefore, adequate protein intake is essential to maintaining strength and resilience during times of stress and physical challenge. Canned meat is precooked, which means you can eat it straight from the can, a benefit when your time and ability to cook might be limited during a disaster.

While canned meats are generally safe, it's important to know how to identify signs of spoilage. Always inspect the can before use and give the meat a smell test after opening. It should smell fresh and meaty, not sour and nasty. Never consume can meat if the can is bulging, leaking, or rusting as these are signs of bacterial contamination. When selecting canned meat for your emergency supplies, be sure to consider variety.

Beyond the usual chicken and beef, options like turkey and exotic meats can provide different flavors and nutritional profiles. This variety can help prevent food fatigue and ensure you get a wide range of nutrients. Next, number 2, canned vegetables. Among the many long term food choices available, canned vegetables stand out as a stellar option for several reasons. Most notably, they are one of the food items that can practically last forever under the right conditions.

Canned vegetables are an excellent food pantry choice because the canning process seals in the freshness and nutrients of the vegetables at their peak. This means you're not just storing food, but preserving its nutritional value. Whether it's green beans, carrots, corn, or peas, canned vegetables can remain safe to eat far beyond their best buy dates, provided they are correctly stored and remained unopened in a cool dry place. Another reason to include canned vegetables in your survival pantry is their versatility. They can be used in various dishes from stews and soups to mixed in a bowl of rice, enhancing your meal's flavors and nutritional content when fresh produce may not be an option.

Like canned meat, canned vegetables can be eaten without cooking. So, if you're eating on the run or don't want to start a fire, all you need to do is open a can and dig in. Even though canned vegetables can last a long time, rotating your supply and using them regularly ensures that you maintain a fresh stockpile and don't end up with expired goods. This practice also helps you stay familiar with the taste and uses of your stored food, which is crucial in ensuring that you maximize the benefit of your preparedness pantry during an emergency. Number 3 on the list is canned fruits.

Canned fruit is a regularly overlooked food staple when people plan their long term food storage. Canned fruit is tasty, enduring, and surprisingly versatile, And it maintains its taste, vitamins, and nutritional values for years. Having canned fruit stocked away is not all about survival or nutrition. In a disaster situation where food is in short supply, popping open a can of fruit can add a well anticipated reward at the end of a difficult day. Beyond being a rewarding snack, canned fruit can be used to make pies, be mixed into salads, or serve as a sweet option alongside your other long term food storage meals.

The fact that they require no refrigeration adds to the appeal especially in scenarios where power is a luxury, and the ability to acquire fresh fruit may be non existent. Next, number 4, white rice. White rice is well known for its ease of cooking and extended shelf life. When adequately sealed in airtight containers and stashed in cool dry places, white rice retains its quality for up to 30 years. In contrast, while brown rice may have a healthier profile because of its oils, those very oils shorten its shelf life, making white rice the more reliable choice for those preparing their long term food storage pantry.

A go to staple for centuries, white rice is a versatile base for many dishes. With just a few added ingredients, white rice can turn a simple meal into a feast. For example, add some canned meat and veggies to a bowl of fluffy white rice, and you've created a nourishing meal that could quickly become a welcomed go to during a time of need. When it comes to long term food storage, where longevity and reliability are paramount, white rice should be considered a foundational ingredient in many people's long term food pantry. However, if you or a loved one struggles with diabetes, white rice may not be your best food option.

In this case, consider leaning more towards dried beans and vegetables for your carbohydrate needs. Next on the list, number 5, dried beans. When you think about long term food storage, dried beans might be the superheroes of the preparedness pantry. Cheap, versatile, and packed with nutrients, they offer an impressive shelf life that makes them a staple in any preparedness minded person's stockpile. Dried beans are rich in protein offering about 15 grams per cup of cooked beans, making them a superb plant based protein source.

Additionally, beans are high in dietary fiber, crucial for digestion and blood sugar regulation with around 40 grams of carbohydrates per cup. They also provide significant amounts of vital minerals such as iron, magnesium, and potassium, which support heart health and muscle function. Beans can last for decades when stored correctly in a cool dry place. Their low moisture content prevents spoilage and barring any external moisture or pests, they can be a reliable food source for decades. Making beans even better is their ease of preparation.

A simple soak and a boil can turn beans into a satisfying and nutritious meal. Their adaptability allows dried beans to mix with many of your other long term storage foods, making them an excellent base for many emergency meals. While dried beans may not have a lot of flavor, their resilience and nutritional profile make them ideal candidates for long term survival food. Number 6, powdered milk. In the absence of fresh milk, powdered milk is a nutritious and long lasting dairy alternative.

While not as tasty as fresh milk, it is a great resource when fresh milk is too costly or unavailable. Adequately stored in cool dry conditions such as mylar bags, powdered milk will stay safe and nutritious well past its best buy date and upwards of 20 years. Its extended usability makes it an excellent disaster food option. A A single serving of 1 third cup of dry powdered milk yields roughly 1 cup of reconstituted milk. Providing about 8 grams of protein, 80 calories, and nearly 30% of the recommended daily calcium intake.

Preparing powdered milk is quick and easy. Mix 1 cup of water with 1 third cup of powdered milk, and it'll be ready to use just like fresh milk. This ease of preparation makes an ideal choice when resources and time are scarce. Besides being a nutritious drink, powdered milk's versatility makes it an excellent addition to your long term food storage supplies. In addition to drinking and adding it to the breakfast meal, you can use it in baking, cooking, and even making dairy products at home.

For example, you cook rice and water and add powdered milk at the end to make creamy rice porridge. You can also sweeten it with honey and sugar and add fruit. Likewise, cooking rice with milk and sugar can make a tasty dessert such as rice pudding. Alright. Moving on to number 7, pasta.

Pasta is another excellent addition to your long term survival food supply. Due to its low moisture content, dry pasta offers an extended shelf life when stored properly. Pasta will typically last about 2 years in the store's packaging. However, when stored correctly in a cool, dry, and dark place in airtight containers such as mylar bags with oxygen absorbers, pasta can last 30 years or more if the conditions are ideal. The edible lifespan of pasta does not mean it doesn't have potential problems though.

Pests and improper storage conditions can turn this would be infinite shelf life food into an inedible disaster. Therefore, check it regularly and rotate your stock to ensure your pasta remains edible and ready to go. Pastas versatility and ease of preparations make it an excellent choice for your emergency food pantry. That's because pasta comes in various forms, spaghetti, macaroni, and others, and offers different meal options. Cook up some pasta, add some chopped meat and vegetables, and you'll have a warm and comforting meal.

While pasta is excellent on many food fronts, it does have a drawback for some. That drawback is that pasta is typically made of durum wheat, which has a high gluten content. Therefore, if you or a loved one is sensitive to gluten, consider other long term food storage options when creating your stockpile. Number 8, rolled oats. Rolled oats, more commonly referred to as good old fashioned oatmeal, not only make a great breakfast, but they are also an exceptional survival food known for their impressive shelf life and robust nutritional profile.

When stored properly in cool dry conditions with airtight containers such as mylar bags, the shelf life of rolled oats can be significantly extended beyond their best by date. Stored correctly, they can last up to 25 to 30 years. While rolled oats are versatile, rice and pasta are more versatile because they can be combined with most long term storage foods. However, rolled oats mild flavor makes them an excellent base for simple oatmeal, granola, and other baked goods. Likewise, their mild nature reduces the likelihood of dietary discomfort making rolled oats suitable for those with sensitive digestive systems or specific food intolerances.

Next, number 9, salt. Salt is beneficial for long term survival situations due to its indefinite shelf life and essential role in nutrition and food preservation. Number 10, honey. As natural sweetener, honey is well known for its longevity due to its natural preservatives and lack of water. Produced by bees from the nectar of flowers, honey is virtually imperishable when stored in a sealed container.

Next number 11, sugar. The benefits of sugar make it an excellent choice for inclusion in a long term food storage stockpile. Unlike many food items that degrade over time, sugar simplicity and chemical structure ensures it can remain stable indefinitely if stored properly. This stability is because sugar does not support microbial growth, primarily due to its low moisture content depriving bacteria and fungi of the water they need to survive. Sugar's versatility extends its usefulness beyond just a sweetener that will help maintain a sense of normalcy during a disaster.

It not only serves as a calorie dense food that provides quick energy, but also as a preservative for fruits and jams. This makes sugar a multifunctional resource in survival scenarios, offering more than just sweetness to your survival pantry. Number 12. Instant coffee. While I prefer a good cup of freshly ground and brewed coffee, instant coffee has its place in a long term food storage plan.

Instant coffee stands out for its incredibly long shelf life, ensuring you'll have a comforting and energizing Cup of Joe for years to come. Unlike many perishable items, instant coffee is freeze dried, which removes its moisture and retains its flavor and potency for decades when appropriately stored in a cool dark area away from sun and moisture. In addition to its comforting smell and taste, instant coffee provides a boost of caffeine which can be vital during emergencies for maintaining alertness and reducing the physical effects of stress and fatigue. Instant coffee is manufactured by brewing coffee in bulk, and then freeze drying or spray drying the liquid, so that it turns into granules we dump into cups. The instant coffee granules are then ready to reconstitute quickly with the addition of hot water, providing a welcome comforting and stimulating drink with minimal preparation.

Number 13. White Vinegar. White vinegar with its practically infinite shelf life is a kitchen staple and essential part of your emergency supplies. Comprised mainly of acetic acid and water, it retains its potency over time, thanks in part to its acidic nature that hampers the growth of bacteria and other pathogens that typically spoil food products. White vinegar is highly versatile.

It is helpful for food preservation and cooking and is an effective cleaner and disinfectant as well. Its acetic acid content breaks down dirt and grease, making it great for cleaning surfaces. It also has antibacterial properties that help disinfect areas, reducing the spread of disease. Additionally, white vinegar has antiseptic properties making it useful for medical purposes. For example, it can be diluted to treat minor cuts and skin irritations and promote healing.

Next, number 14, baking soda. Baking soda, also known as sodium bicarbonate, is an excellent addition to long term food storage. Its chemical stability makes it resistant to spoilage, offering hard to match longevity. The white powder is commonly known for its role in baking. It acts as a leavening agent helping dough rise by releasing carbon dioxide.

Beyond its baking uses though, baking soda is practical in survival situations because of its versatility. It can be used as a makeshift toothpaste or deodorant providing basic hygiene solutions when traditional products are unavailable. Additionally, it offers medicinal properties such as soothing upset stomachs and treating insect bites, making it a valuable addition to any emergency health kit. Its gentle abrasive quality also makes it suitable for cleaning tasks from scrubbing utensils to freshening up living spaces. Moreover, baking soda's ability to neutralize acidic substances can help with minor chemical spill emergencies.

And last, number 15, alcohol. Alcohol is often overlooked or scoffed at as a survival staple, yet its properties make it a valuable addition to any preparedness strategy. Alcohol, such as vodka, known for its high ethanol content, has an indefinite shelf life, especially when kept in its original container, which prevents spoilage. Besides filling a need for those who like to drink it, alcohol serves multiple roles in survival situations. It's an effective antiseptic for treating wounds when medical supplies are scarce.

Additionally, alcohol can be used as a fuel source powering certain stoves and lamps, while providing necessary heat and light. Furthermore, in the context of bartering, alcohol's value cannot be overstated. In times of crisis, supplies that offer comfort or medical benefits such as alcohol can become highly sought after. This makes it a potentially powerful trade item, helping procure other essential supplies that you may need. So the bottom line on long term food storage is that when you're creating your emergency food stockpile, it's crucial to stock up on some of these long lasting food options.

If you're a preparedness minded person who wants to be ready for the next emergency, having a supply of durable nutritious food will give you peace of mind. Knowing that you and your loved ones will be ready when the worst happens. The wide range of food options discussed here, from various canned meat to dried beans and instant coffee, shows that eating during a disaster doesn't have to be dull and miserable. By incorporating these easy to acquire, budget friendly food items into your pantry, you'll be ready to successfully overcome any situation that comes your way. Lastly, if you have something I missed on this list or a good way of increasing your storage that can benefit others, please leave a comment below.

And while you're at it, don't forget to hit the subscribe button and click on the bell so that way you never miss any of my future videos.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Prominent Pro-Vaccine Doctor Blows Whistle: ‘Biggest Crime in History of Medicine’

Send to Kindle

One-time or recurring donations can be made through Ko-Fi:

By Frank Bergman June 1, 2024

In a major U-turn, a prominent pro-vaccine doctor has blown the whistle and raised the alarm about the deadly consequences of being injected with Covid mRNA shots.

Annette Bosworth, also known as “Dr. Boz,” has released an explosive video statement to warn the public about “the biggest crime in the history of medicine.”

In the bombshell live-streamed video, the pro-vaccine doctor expresses deep regret that she “had all of the people I love vaccinated.”

Dr. Boz highlights a study exposing the harm caused by Covid mRNA injections.

She continues by warning that health officials, scientists, and doctors who claim the mRNA vaccines are “safe” should not be trusted.

The doctor also warns that information highlighting the dangers of the injections is being covered up and censored.

“How long is it going to take before the world would trust, that I will trust what they’re telling me,” she said.

“Then what was my part in it, how could I have been a little more…again I had all of my kids vaccinated, I had all the people I love vaccinated.

“And when you look back and say ‘dang, look at what it did,’ especially the kids…

“Anyway…I say that to you to say, this information is out there.

“I don’t know how long this report will be there.”

WATCH:

Elsewhere in the video, Bosworth admits that she faced constant pushback from the public when she told them the vaccines were “safe.”

She revealed that her viewers would comment about how she was wrong to tell people the vaccine is safe because growing numbers were being injured or killed by the shots.

The doctor said she was forced to review her position due to the soaring cases of vaccine side effects.

FULL VIDEO:

The study referenced by Dr. Boz chronicles the massive harm from the Covid shots.

In the “Abstract” section of the study’s paper, the researchers wrote:

“Re-analysis of the Pfizer trial data identified statistically significant increases in serious adverse events (SAEs) in the vaccine group.

“Numerous SAEs were identified following the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), including death, cancer, cardiac events, and various autoimmune, hematological, reproductive, and neurological disorders.

“Furthermore, these products never underwent adequate safety and toxicological testing in accordance with previously established scientific standards.

“Among the other major topics addressed in this narrative review are the published analyses of serious harms to humans, quality control issues and process-related impurities, mechanisms underlying adverse events (AEs), the immunologic basis for vaccine inefficacy, and concerning mortality trends based on the registrational trial data.”

During a recent interview with Laura-Lynn Tyler Thompson, world-renowned cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough also raised the alarm about the injections.

McCullough explains that people around the world are now beginning to realize that they made a “giant personal health mistake” by being injected with the Covid mRNA shots.

“Understanding what’s happening is slow,” McCullough explains.

“It’s very very psychological.

“I think once people take the vaccines they just can’t psychologically handle the idea that it could’ve been a giant personal health mistake.

“And most people who took the vaccines, they’ll tell you…they’ll say, ‘I don’t want to talk about it.’

“That means psychologically they can’t handle it.”

WATCH:

Dr. Boz is not the only vaccine expert to do a complete reversal on the Covid mRNA injections, however.

As Slay News reported, renowned immunologist Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche, Bill Gates’s former vaccine advisor, is now raising the alarm about the long-term harm caused by the shots.

Dr. Bossche warns that a coming “wave of morbidity” and “mortality” among the Covid mRNA vaccinated will trigger a “completely unprecedented” plunge in the global population.

Bossche predicts that the death toll will be “up to 30-40% in highly vaccinated countries.”

“It is very very clear that when this starts, our hospitals will collapse,” he warns.

“And that means the chaos in all kinds of layers of society — financial, economic, social, you name it — will be complete.”

“This will be something that will be reported in history for many many generations to come,” he noted.

As Slay News reported earlier, Professor Dolores Cahill, a world-renowned immunology expert, has also issued a similar warning.

Cahill, who has over 25 years of expertise in high-throughput protein array, antibody array, proteomics technology development, and automation, issued an explosive warning to the public that everyone who has been vaccinated with Covid mRNA shots “will die within 3 to 5 years, even if they have had only one injection.”

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

transcript to 55min podcast The biggest crime in the history of medicine podcast by Dr. Boz [Annette Bosworth, 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3N-uFfvU5s&t=39s 

Well, hello everybody. It is Tuesday night. We are live here on the show and I'm actually using a couple of my apps to show you my numbers. So this is my Dexcom at 79. I have been fasting for a while, since Sunday and then I'm gonna show you because I think it might be one of the final times that my my I have a continuous ketone meter in that is showing you, a ketone, of 1.9.

So 1.9 ketones, glucose was 79 if somebody wants to do that doctor Bob's ratio for me. I am really excited about tonight's show that I I have been putting this off. I have been wrong and I have seen lots of you out there, and I have personal friends out there who've been telling me I was wrong and I would much rather avoid this conversation, not do this at all, but you were right. I mean, there there are some of you that I swear on every single one of the videos that I put out, you have put these comments about this topic we're gonna talk about. I mean, I can be talking about, you know, vegan versus, you know, why vegetables don't matter and you're still asking me questions in the comments for, like, 2 years.

Every single video you've done it. Yes. I've noticed. Yes. I've avoided it, but I cannot avoid this any longer.

I am, gonna talk about something that I don't know, is I'm very disheartened as I've done this. So we're gonna get right into the topic. We're gonna come back and show you some, some other exciting things that we are announcing this week, but but let's just do the part that's hard for me. Let's go to the let's go to the topic. Let me go to the no.

Not that one. Hold on. There you go. This is what I want. I wanna I wanna do this one.

Oh, that's what I want. Alright. Let me take this down a little bit and make sure you can read what this says. This is a paper that came out just a few short weeks ago that I heard folks chattering about while I was doing the 21 day, but there wasn't quite a spare moment in all of the 21 days, this this class that I do twice a year. And as I've looked at the report on what they were chirping about, I couldn't focus on it.

I couldn't believe that this was true or as true as it is. We've put the link of this in the show notes, so be sure to click on this because I don't know how long this is gonna be up. I want you to point out a couple things here that I, did not, ignore that this this article was, the review for this article, it is a peer reviewed article and it has it ties in to a few questions that came right front and center as we were having our class over the last 3 weeks, but I want you to take notice. This review began in November of 2023. It just finished, like, the week that I did my, that I started this course.

So I again, I hadn't looked at it until just recently, but I I wanna I wanna point out a couple of things that you may not appreciate, but I do. That there are lots of crazy things that are said out there in medicine that physicians specifically ignore and I have ignored them. That is really easy to do when we look for some stamps of approval from our advanced peers who help us to sort what's real, what's not real, what's fake news and what's not fake news. And when somebody says that a an article is peer reviewed and, yeah, I'm sure there's shenanigans that are played in every part of medicine, but what peer review is supposed to mean is that an author puts together, in this case, a review of the data, submits his review of the data, and these really smart physicians PhDs, statisticians, advanced scientists are there they're the cross check they're the fact checkers of medical articles. So in a peer reviewed article, this one has several authors, of which I'd like to point out that Nathan Mead is one of them, Peter McCullough is one of them, and you have several others over here that are the authors.

That is not who peer peer reviews them. You have about a dozen other peer reviewed peers who review the article and that alone is shocking for this article. I'm saying this at the beginning of the article because what if you're like me, what I'm about to tell you, you're gonna not wanna I don't wanna believe this. I I I'm so irritated by this article and what it is showing me that that I had to put it on the live. I I mean, I I think this is a difficult thing for me to talk about.

This is a very heavy article. There's no chance you're all gonna read this. I'm gonna point out a few things that took my attention and made me sleepless. But I want you to see that this isn't just a random person's opinion. This is a peer reviewed article where in a peer reviewed article, the authors or the peers will comment on the text, which means one of the authors have to respond to the concerns and either document why that is true or not true or or they have to alter the text.

And you can't publish it. That's why the review started in November. It did not end for two and a half months because these these peers, and there was, like, a dozen of them for this, this article, cross checked the information that we're about to go through here. Alright. So we are not gonna go through all 40 pages of this, but we are gonna talk about some of them so that you can see what happened to my heart and what led to the reason.

I will focus on this. So let's start by saying this peer reviewed article is showing that that the COVID nineteen vaccinations, well they were a big deal over the last 4 years and we did some, incredible, partnerships with the policymakers of our community and the scientists of our community to break some of the rules in order to serve the public in a time of crisis. So one of those, rules that we broke was this right here, the Emergency Use Act. So the EUA included, hey. We need to do this right now because of what's going on in our community, but that that that comes with a risk that I knew about, but it it probably isn't until this paper that I really appreciated that there were a whole bunch of things called, significant adverse effects, that's SEAs, that included things like death and cancer and cardiovascular and autoimmune problems and neurologic disorders, that were happening at a rate that we thought was acceptable because of the situation.

Alright. So I'm gonna go through this and point out the things that bothered the heck out of me. So for the most part, you all know that when we look at this this process, most of the time when you look for rapid authorization of a vaccine, the the fastest we can do this is 4 years. And I can remember thinking at the beginning of the pandemic that there's no way. There's no way they're gonna get this done in 6 months.

And you had all kinds of leadership people trying to say, yes. We can. And you're like, I don't know if you can make a flu shot. I mean, just make a flu shot, in 6 months, let alone, you know, get one that's for a virus that we had no idea about. That the the trial period takes an average of 10 years to say, well, how dangerous is it is what we've been doing?

So those are some of the basics to compare to, that, the first part of the article goes through a few things that give some examples. I like this one. Some examples include in 1955, a contamination of a poliovirus. You had an it had instances of Guillain Barre syndrome, observed in the flu vaccination in 1976 and there was a connection between narcolepsy, with some of the flu vaccinations in 1999. We know there are adverse effects that come from vaccinations and so we're not saying this never happens.

We're saying that we thought this was an appropriate risk for the pandemic that we were living through. And I I think if you're like me, when you get to the end of this article, it makes you think, what did we say yes to? What really did we say yes to? And I am not a conspiracy theorist. I really do believe in the hearts of people that are doing their job as scientists and doing their best to make the best policies and, and rules for a community, But the one thing that I think should have been pointed out, first is I wanted to where do they talk about that they they started using the word vaccination when they probably shouldn't have been doing that?

Yeah. That goes through a few rules here. It also says that there were some bias oh, yeah. Here we go. There were some some results that were strongly biased in order for it to work out, and never have I seen bias play out like this at this degree.

Alright. So this was the other part that bothered me. It bothered me from the beginning, but it really makes me nervous once you see what this, I'd heard whisperings about this, but I didn't believe it. I did not believe it. So this bothered me from the beginning though that they kept using the word vaccine when it was not like a normal vaccine.

This is a messenger RNA. This is a strand of single DNA or RNA that you make DNA from so that you're teaching the body about how to respond to this by by impacting your DNA. So it shouldn't have been called vaccines. It should have been called, let me put a blue in here. It should have been called gene therapy product because it wasn't really changing the gene therapy.

Let me just show you, this slide here where this is DNA on the top, which is double stranded. Your body will make a messenger RNA from that, at which point you can make a protein. So maybe a spike protein? We'll get to that in a second. Alright.

We're gonna come back to this in a minute. That other picture don't look at that. Don't look at that. There we go. Look at this.

Alright. So that the the first of all, terminology that that they go into here says, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Why are you using those terms?

There's another really interesting thing that you should be aware of and that is they put this synthetic messenger RNA into a protective lipid nanoparticle. What that means is that lipid based nanoparticle is going to be able to immerse into cell membranes much differently than anything we've ever used before. Alright. So there's that whole thing. And now the this big circle here where I said, don't forget to say this.

The problem with what they were playing with is there is no off switch for this. In in in a vaccination, your immunity rises and then it falls and your your body is done. With what they were playing with, there's no mechanism built into our bodies that has the ability to turn it off. Like, if you take that messenger that DNA, you have a messenger RNA, now you're making a protein. Well, how do you stop making a protein once this turns it on?

And that wasn't I know. Somebody just said, uh-oh. You're gonna get canceled. I I actually I am a I don't I don't think so. I think I'm reviewing this scientific article, and I I know I haven't done a lot of this, but there is this this needs disgust.

This is a really important part of what happens as physicians when you you trust that the scientific process is being used and when they need to make exceptions to it, well, it shouldn't be that the exceptions mean break every stinking rule out there. Alright. Let me go through. So they this section and again, download this article. Take a look at this.

It's not it's written yeah. It's a little scientific, but it's not that scientific. So when s proteins enter the bloodstream and disseminates systemically, it may be contributing to factors that cause these adverse effects. And when we look at what the narrative is for what the research team was looking for, they they they really kind of well, they they did some things that you shouldn't do in scientific reviews or scientific processes. Alright.

So let's just back up. So registration for the trials, a couple things that I think were kinda weird, they, so I'm gonna I'm gonna read this part right here because it the study designed for the pivotal trials led to these, the Emergency Use Act were never intended to determine whether or not a messenger RNA inoculation, could prevent severe disease or premature death. It was mainly due to insufficient statistical power for assessing these outcomes. The power calculations was based solely on the reduction of COVID 19 symptoms which was the primary outcome and this limitation, stemmed from recruiting these young healthy people in in what they were studying and then extrapolating that to the data for elder people. Alright.

So, let's see. Yeah. So yeah. I'll just yeah. For instance, Pfizer's trial recorded 1 instance one instance of severe COVID nineteen death, whereas the Moderna's trial, reported none leading to a company to proclaim a 100% efficacy for preventing severe illness and I point all that out to say, yep.

They took this healthy population of people, the ones that aren't gonna have severe problems. They gave them vaccinations. 1 had a death, one didn't, but they said, hey. We prevented severe, severe symptoms of COVID 19 with this process. Alright.

So this is where I start to get really ticked off. You can see my writing gets a little bit bigger. I start putting exclamation points everywhere because this is where you start to see they played some really naughty games with the numbers here. So I wanna I want you to point out the or I wanna point out that that they are looking at looking for the efficacy of mRNA product out of a 162, from the 22,000 placebo recipients contracting COVID 19 and compared it to only 8 of the 22,000 vaccinated recipients. None of the 162 placebo recipients who contracted COVID nineteen died.

These numbers are too small to draw meaningful, pragmatic, and broad sweeping conclusions. Moreover, this is the part that's shocking. A 170 PCR confirmed cases divert the attention from the other finding that a much larger number of cases identified during the self during the study fell under the category of suspected COVID nineteen. So they put them there and said, yeah. These people we think had suspected disease.

170 of them were confirmed. I mean, for heaven's sakes, confirm that they have the dang disease before we start making rules for the whole population on what was happening. They had 34 100 of them who they said, yeah. We think they had COVID. This acts like COVID.

Well, run the dang test. Run the PCR. Why would you skip that step? Because what happens next is where these, okay. So suspected individuals were I'll just take this erase rate so you can see where I'm at, and I'll re reunderline it.

Where the individuals exhibits symptomatic COVID 19, but they lacked a positive PCR. These tests were used in the trials where they were widely accepted. These were the standard of care for saying, do they actually have COVID 19 for some of the conclusions that we made? A total of 34 100 cases of suspected but unconfirmed COVID 19 were identified. This is a 20 fold increase between the suspected and the confirmed cases.

And then if you oopsie. Look that I'm trying to see this actually. Where there were 1500 cases for the vaccinated and 1800 for the placebo, but when factoring in both confirmed that the suspected case confirmed and suspected cases, the vaccine efficacy against developing symptoms drops to only 19% when you start to say, hey. How well did we do at understanding did this did this vaccination reduce the symptoms? I remember reading this stuff not knowing that this, this part in the background was based on not confirmed, vaccinations.

Not con not I mean, they suspected that it was COVID. They didn't confirm that that's what what they were talking about. Okay. So it might be minor to you guys, but, again, that's the first place where my trust got a little sideways. Okay.

So the trial concludes that the trial conclusion was predicted on a mere 100 of such of these such COVID 19 cases recording go on here. Go here. Recorded with the in the placebo group. Okay. Let me go down to the next part.

The lack of the ability to evaluate the severe illness in the trials reflected the real world context, namely that the likelihood of severe COVID 19 hospitalization and dying from the infection has always been very low, but stratifying by age and infection fatality rate, the I f r, in 2021 showed an age related gradient in approximately 3 to 4 time increase in each decade. Okay. So and and as that went on, we did continue to confirm that, but, what they didn't tell us was this next part. So we have overall all cause mortality and what did the pivotal trials reveal about the all cause mortality? After carefully analyzing this, they found that 31 in the vaccinated and 30 in the placebo had a mortality relative risk of 1.03 compared to the comparing the vaccinated to the placebo.

Oops. See, I put that in the wrong spot. Comparing the vaccinated to the placebo. These findings became interpreted as no significant difference or no gold standard evidence showing that these mRNA vaccinations reduced mortality. The lack of significant difference in the deaths between the study arm is noteworthy.

The true mortality impact remains unknown in this context and this fact alone is relevant that a good trial evidence of reducing mortality, then to take a vaccine where the trial evidence does not show convincing evidence to improve the survival. And then we get into so this keeps going on where where what's really being talked about here is that not only were they looking at when the death rates what you know, were the symptoms of the COVID nineteen measured fairly to impact is it worth the risk of a vaccination that isn't being, that that isn't new that is new to us? Not only is it an the first mRNA vaccination that I'm aware of, it is massively delivered to all our children, pregnant women, and elders. This this whole section in here goes through that they're playing funny games with the math. You know, one of the best parts about, statistics is when people start to play with the math, you might not be able to see the exact place that they played with the math, but it doesn't plot out in the expected way that the statistics say it should.

And, here's the part that I I wanted to say. Both deaths are counted in each arm of the trial. This is really important. I know that this might there's 2 more points that I need to make, this one and the next one, which really shocked me. Okay.

Every 6 month, let's see. Where did it begin? Okay. So they extended the portion of the trial, included 4 months of an unblinded period where most placebo participants crossed over to the vaccination group. Okay.

So here's another thing that they did. When when you look at a trial, of of people, you have a placebo arm and you have a treatment arm. So what they did and what I'm about to point out here which was totally naughty is they put them in the trial arm, they put them in the treated arm, and then they let them continue for I think it was a short period of time. I wanna say it was, like, you know, 4 weeks, not even 4 weeks, where if you got the placebo version of it, and you got so far out, you could say, yep. We we they told them you had placebo and then they could change their mind and go over to the vaccinated side.

And now what they were doing is they were using some of the people who started in the placebo line, but ended up with the vaccination in the data for the placebo. So they they got the vaccination. They had a significant adverse effect, but they're being counted in the people who didn't get the vaccination because that's where they started. They didn't fix that. I mean, first of all, they should have never offered that to them that early in the process, and I know that all rules were off when we look at the the way this turned out, but let me just read this because it's heartbreaking.

Oh, I wanna do the other one. I think it reads a little easier. But not that one. Dang. It did it again.

This one. Yeah. Alright. So okay. So they extended the portion of the trial.

Okay. It was 4 months, not for 4 weeks in the unblinded period in which most placebo patients crossed over to the vaccination group. So they went from being placebo and now they're in the vaccination group. During this phase, there were 5 additional deaths including 3 in the original vaccination group and 2 among, the placebo participants who chose to get vaccinated after 4 months had gone by. When these 5 deaths are included in the vaccination deaths, the total comes to 20 deaths in the vaccination group and only 14 in the placebo group, which would represent a 43% increase in deaths when you got vaccinated, which is not significant statistically significant due to the small count, but in the FDA documents, the total a total of 38 deaths were reported with 21 in the vaccination group and 17 in the placebo group representing a 23% increase in all cause deaths among those who received two doses of the primary series.

This suggests that the 2 placebo participants who died after getting a messenger RNA vaccination were counted twice. They were counted in the vaccination group and they were counted in the placebo group. Yeah, and then they talk about how they would they would run those numbers. So you don't have to be a statistician to understand what I'm trying to say which is they play games to have this bias towards the favorability of this of the vaccination. Now just wait hang in there.

I know you might not like numbers, but this is really an important process. And if they take this paper down, I wanna be part of the people who said there was more to this than they ever told us. Okay. So this this is important to me. Number needed to vaccinate.

So when I look at, the there's, you know, lots of shortcomings in this. This is an emergency process, but let's get to the brass tacks and say, well, how many people was I gonna need to give this vaccination to in order to get a saved life? Somebody who didn't die. So let me see where it goes in. It talks about this.

It tells you about that. Okay. Okay. Here we go. So the approximately 50 I'm gonna use a different color because I'm running out of scribbles.

52,000 vaccinations would be needed in order to prevent 1 COVID nineteen death. Now, they go through talking about all this how this number needed to vaccinate, they are taking a conservative approach to this. So as you do the math, they're rounding in the in the way to be conservative, you know, giving the benefit of the doubt, And it's saying this exact, injection. It is estimated that about 2 lives could be saved for every 100,000 injections. And then they go to say, but now, we see that we have 27 deaths per 100,000 in the same batch of injections that were happening because of adverse events.

So you're gonna save 2 lives, but you are going to have 27 deaths as a result of the significant adverse effects, And yet, this was not reported. There were nearly 14 times more deaths caused by the modified mRNA injections that that and it shows you that in appendix 2. Okay. So one last thing and then I'm gonna go to a picture and then we can take your questions because I think this is worthy of talking about. It's something that I have made fun of my good friend colonel Alk who kept telling me there's more to this than you know.

There's more to this do you know, and he, is he worked for the military for 50 years. He's also a physician and he kept saying don't do it. Don't do it. I'm like don't tell me this, colonel. Come on.

They'll never be that evil. They would never be that evil. So I I highly recommend reading through some of the stuff that I'm scrolling through right now, but I want to get to the final one, the one that, yeah, this is where they played funny games about when they stopped counting and they held off reporting the death dates until after they stopped counting, so you see in here a place where they said yeah. Okay. I'll tell you this and then I'll read it because you'll think it's not true.

They didn't report the date that the person died. If there was an adverse effect, there's just there's a death date. That's not a difficult thing to follow, but they reported what date was the death reported to us and so it delayed the onset of the death in the vaccinated people, so that it didn't look like it was as deadly. Let me just show you this. Okay.

So, I'll I'll just underline as I do this here because it's easy for you to follow on. Okay. So let's go to here and say Pfizer used the dates of the death was recorded in subject's subject's case forms, which they they maintain, including the death or hospitalization within 24 hour window, a guideline likely followed by the trial staff. I I still didn't get it. Let's try it one more time.

Okay. The researchers were able to access the narrative reports on a few critical subjects that provided explicit notification that the subject's date of death was prior to November 14th, which was this cutoff date for the data for death rates associated with the vaccination. They they required immediate reporting of significant adverse effects including death, blah blah blah blah blah. Nevertheless, Pfizer used the dates that the death was recorded in the subject's case report form, like, it wasn't the actual death date. It was delayed.

These delays delayed were greatest in the vaccination subjects prior to that November 14th reporting time. Pfizer had had Pfizer use the actual death dates, 2 additional vaccinated subjects would have been included in this, emergency use act application emergency use application or act application. This discrepancy was crucial. It changed how the outcomes were especially when you realize that 2 of these deaths deaths were cardiac based. Yeah.

Twice as many cardiac deaths occurred, Yeah. They played some funny games is what they're saying in this stuff here. They played plenty of funny games with the math. Okay. Now the last thing I'm gonna show you, which I I really still can't believe, yeah.

This is one of those places where they say, yeah. They recommended it in pregnancy when they knew that absolutely not one single subject in the trial was pregnant. I think that's just egregious. But let me go to this final part where then I'll quit chirping, and I'll take your questions. It's not there.

It's a little bit further down. Oh, yes. Okay. Quality control issues. Okay.

So first of all, it's a trial. This should not be an issue. So given the novelty of this mRNA technology, it was prudent to establish the regulation and the quality of the long term safety for this monitoring. So they go to a key issue that we could that could help explain why individuals succumb or die while others do not is the vaccination type and batch variability. I'm like, well, why would the batches vary so much?

Isn't it just an m r? I mean, you mean, there's the standards to produce these. Okay. Due to the inherent instability of mRNA technology, some batches may contain extremely low levels of the messenger RNA. Some batches were contaminated with double stranded RNA as documented by, the I can't remember what EMA stood stood for.

For both the Madera and, or Pfizer and Moderna products. The double stranded DNA was has a high potential to trigger immune inflammatory actions such as myocarditis. So here here it gets a little bit this is where it really bothers me. So you say, well, I don't know much about these vaccinations. Is that like a normal thing to find in your vaccination with an mRNA?

Is you're gonna have some double stranded things? They say each batch variability further complicated in recent findings of DNA contamination. Again, DNA contamination. First of all, what the hell is somebody's what is DNA doing in a vaccination that is supposed to be for the protein production to fight off this virus, but it in the analysis of multiple vials, high levels of DNA contamination in both the monovalent and bivalent vaccines, in orders of magnitude higher in the than the limitations oh, I know. This is I think this is the regulatory board for Europe and FDA is what we call it.

So it was magnitudes higher. I mean, 10 nanograms per dose is what's allowed in our FDA, whatever. It's 3 330 nanograms, per milliliter there, but they said, it is worth noting that, it just says somewhere right in here where oh, yeah. Here we go. The FDA was the f oh, yeah.

It's in it's in yellow. I put down here. How did such so what they what they found was an an enormous amount of DNA particles in the RNA that I injected into me, into my kids, into my patients. So how does such dangerous large scale contamination escape the scrutiny of the public health officials and were the manufacturers aware of all of this excess DNA that was found inside, inside these vaccinations? Oh, yeah.

This is the part that I want to say. So when you have foreign DNA in your human genome, it disrupt it it disrupts the existing natural genetic sequence. It also carries a further risk of disease including cancer. I mean, DNA in your body, very dangerous. That's like CRISPR except it's random chance of what the heck's in there because it's a contaminant.

It's not intended to be in there. What's it doing in there? So so they said, well, did they know? It is important to know that the process related impurities were absent from COVID nineteen products when they applied to the government to get all these exemptions. So when they went to the registration trials, there were no impurities.

It was strictly the mRNA. What I have in my mind that I imagined I was giving to people that I was receiving. Virtually all doses used in those trials originated from clinical batches producing, produced using what was known to be process 1, but as they went to say, well, now we need to use a different process to mass produce this mRNA which is called process 2 and that seems to have utilizing bacterial plasmid DNA. The process 2 alterations included modifications to the DNA template employed by the RNA transcription and changes in the purification phase and adjustments in the manufacturing process for these lipophilic processes. They go on to talk about how much was in them and how this was not, yeah, Huge potential to be harmful.

There is an 803 increase in autoimmune disorders when people had these vaccinations and it goes on to say we not only know that, we know that as you look at some of the the images from people who have, autopsies from death due to myocarditis. I wonder if this is yeah. Here we go. These spike proteins are found in the cells of all human heart cells with spike proteins inside the muscles of these of these patients. Again, spike proteins are not supposed to be inside us at all.

The people who had who had COVID didn't have spike proteins found in their cardiac tissues. The people who had the vaccinations, the ones who had this messenger RNA that made a protein and then they made the protein and didn't have the off button, well, they're now found at autopsy in the cells of cardiac tissues and here are the I mean, that sounds ridiculous. It sounds like something I wouldn't even believe until you start looking at the autopsies and wondering, hey. What part in this did I play? And how do you first of all, how do you say I'm sorry to all of you that have been putting comments in my videos for, like, a year.

Take a look at this. Take a look at this. And I said, okay. They're just chirping again. And my good friend colonel Alk who told me from the very beginning, Be careful.

Be careful. Look what's happening. This is sneaky. Why are they holding this back? And he questioned everything.

Now he questions everything, so it's like the boy who cries wolf that I should have been paying attention when he cried wolf this time, but shame on me when there were places that this information was more readily available. And let me just close with this story that when I was in, when we were in the 21 day, there was somebody who asked, should I take the vaccination for and then they filled in the blank. I think it was, I mean, they were talking about the flu vaccination or and they were also talking about, oh, shingles vaccination And the paranoia, the lack of trust of so many people in that class that said, I don't know. I don't trust, like I I don't think we should have any vaccinations anymore. And I got irritated saying, why again, I had not read this report, but but in fairness, this report talks about a distrust that happens when when your your people who are supposed to be dedicated to a scientific process, to standard, rules for studying people and and subjects that say, I volunteer to be in front of the line for the shot and I will take the risk.

And when you when you disobey when you dishonor that trust, when you betray that trust, now they're saying, well, can I trust these other vaccinations? And I'm like, well, of course, you can. And, I mean, it's it's hard for me to say that without just saying, oh, no. Look at how long is it gonna take before the world would trust that I will trust what they're telling me. And And then what was my part in it?

How could have I been a little more I mean, again, I had all of my kids vaccinated. I had all of the people I loved vaccinated. And when you look back and say, dang. Look at what it did to especially the the kids. Anyway, I say that to you to say this information is out there.

I don't know how long this report will be there. I wanna do my part in at least spreading the information that's in this report because holy mackerel, did a lot of work go into that report? And if you're trying to find confidence that there are good people out there trying to find the truth to to live in a time of scientific transparency, And I think the ketogenic diet is part of that where as I've walked through saying here's what I'm seeing clinically, here's what the research is telling me, and I'm trying to pair those up as quickly as I can with reserving the right to say, oh, no. I was wrong about that. And when it comes to a place where I was wrong, I don't know that I get much worse than telling all the patients that I said, get the vaccination, get the vaccination, get the vaccination.

Alright. So let me let me go on to something much easier to talk about, which is not my, continued failures in life, but to say there's a couple of things I wanted to point out. Several of you have asked where to get the continuous glucose monitor. You do need a prescription for that. We have made a pretty easy process for a continued glucose monitor prescription.

If you click on that link, it leads you to the Meaningful Medicine, partnership that we use to to help with that. I'm gonna scroll down to the bottom here and say that Levels is another place that you can get a prescription for that. They have a subscription so you pay for their continued support and education. They also offer you both types of continuous glucose monitor where I just offer the, the Dexcom, version. I also have put out a an ask and was really pleased to see some of you click on this that when I look back at some of my dreams, one of them is to help people, who are out there taking care of mental health issues, better assess brains at the beginning of a story.

So I've partnered with some jails. I've partnered with some therapists and some therapy teams on what is it that I do when I'm assessing, somebody's brain, and that assessment is something that's asynchronous that we we I do this for anybody who takes the brains course, but I'm looking for other people who could help me find a place where assessments need to be done on a higher level or at least on a more thorough without as many like inside a jail, the problem is getting the assessments done inside a jail is difficult. Let the iPad go into the jail. Let the let my counselors be on the outside of the jail. Anyway, so I I still want folks to be aware that that is a huge dream of mine, and I'm I've been a little I've been a little shy at sharing that with people, but it's yeah.

If I could put one thing on my Epitap, I hope I hope that assessment is in the use before I die. I mean, massively in the use. Alright. There are several other things people wanted to know about. Somebody asked me, what is the deal with your favorites page?

This is like the commercial for my, for my the work that I do, the service work that I do. These links links and these promo codes, do give us a little commission. I don't put anything on here that I don't use or somebody in my family doesn't use and, we have some pretty fun things we're gonna teach about over the next few months that are on this page as well. So I encourage you to go there. It's just one way you can support us.

I also wanted to let you know that we do have that, product on sale that I talked about last week, but right now, it's stuck between our warehouse and Amazon. So tune in next week, on that sale. Hopefully, we can find there's still there's still a few 100 of them for sale, but you can't find them anywhere, so don't go clicking yet. Instead, I guess, I you can click on any of the other stuff that's for sale in there. Alright.

So I'm gonna go over to the questions, and let's go back to here and say, I do look at your questions. There are, several of you on tonight that are a major part of helping me put on that, that, course that we just got done with. And I was just starting today to read some of the reviews that, oh my gosh, they make me smile. They really make me smile. Let's go here.

So let me take that down just a little bit. Didn't fit as well as I thought it would. Okay. So Karen writes in and said, I'm concerned that leaving a ketone drink out of the fridge could be a problem. Can you tell me if they go bad?

No. They don't. In fact, one of the things I have to do is, check shelf stability and the one that's the well, the newest one that I had to just get approval from on the shelf was the pucker up and it sat out, on the counter for four and a half years at room temperature and was still good. The salts are even more stable. So when you put the salts into water, which is what the powders are, they're actually a salt.

They don't go bad. They are a ketone as is a ketone, a ketone, so they're not gonna go bad. It's a very good question. I've never had that question before. Neil writes in and said, how will being in keto affect those who had the 1st and second round?

You know, it's a really tough question. That's why I went into this, Neil. Thank you for asking that. You know, he's asking how did those of us that had those first rounds of vaccinations, how will it affect us? And, you know, what led me down the rabbit hole of even, you know, getting close to this paper was what happens with that chronic inflammatory state of cytokine storms and what can you do to still have or their inflammatory response that heals a body, but that does not constantly just, you know, simmer or brew an inflammatory response that kills off tissue that hurts you.

So how do you have enough response to help your body, to protect your body without the flood that happens in many of the patients with chronic, diseases like high insulin and diabetes? So, I I had this question also this morning at my support group that when people go into a ketogenic state, and, there was a gal who's been doing consistently keto for a few years. She's doing great, but she says, you know, I did that 72 hour fast and the scale dropped. And I said, well, what were your ketones at the beginning of the fast? And she says, oh, they were like, you know, 1.

They were good. What were they at the end? And they were like like 4 3 or 4. They were pretty good. So she had a good surge of ketones during the time of her fast.

And I said, well, what you can guarantee when you have a high state of ketones is that you are pushing the anti inflammatory. You are ringing out the inflammation the best that it can be. The other thing that you're doing is that there is a signaling agent that when your body sees the signal of ketones and circulation, it protects it from breaking down muscle, so that the the weight she lost during a surge of her ketones was very likely to be mostly water and fat and not muscle. Well, how does that answer the questions for who had the shot? When you look at the inflammatory response that people have for a messenger RNA, for, you know, proteins being made in their body that they shouldn't be, that, that the the autoimmune response that is erroneous, that's attacking, well, whatever we injected in it, but also attacking ourselves, the the way that that gets reined in.

Again, something I did not learn in medical school. I mean, we knew that if they slept better, their autoimmune problems were better. We knew that if they, were under less stress that their autoimmune problems were better, but never did I read that you could reverse an autoimmune problem by by, you know, really reining in the extra, abundance of an immune system going in the wrong direction, which to me is what a cytokine storm, what a, chronic inflammatory response is happening after those infection or after those injections. So the effect of an advanced ketogenic state is you get a high signaling agent to say, remove inflammation. Remove inflammation, and you get to protect that you're not breaking down muscle for energy.

But, Neil or maybe it's actually Nell. Sorry. Nell, I I'm right with you. I'm I have no idea what that really means, and it bothers me profoundly. Alright.

Brenda writes in and says, so do the same people make Paxlovid, and does it have the same problems? I don't know actually. You know, honestly, one of the parts, Brenda, that I would take I'm gonna take a little piece in and may maybe it'll help you is that when you look at why the government was able to do the things they were doing, it was because they were under that Emergency Use act. I don't think PAXLOVID is under the emergency use act anymore. I think those are all like, we're out of the crisis.

People go back to normal. And in the normal process, it it really does protect you. There are checks and balances, and there are really, you know, not just good people, but healthy attention being paid to, you know, did did you make a mistake? And I mean, I think that's the beauty of a peer reviewed article that there's a bunch of articles out there that I don't waste my time looking at. I spent a lot of time looking at this article, diving into the extra articles behind the article and the process check because, well, I didn't wanna believe it, but it should be believed.

There is there are lots of checks and balances. And, normally, in places where you're having, the Paxlovid, which I I assume is an autoimmune disorder one. It's It's got it's got the crosses, checks, and balance in it. Alright. So jfr says can fasting help change, help change the change in our DNA that was made?

Yeah. Our fasting can get rid of proteins we are now making. So that's part of what I'm hanging my hat on. I don't have any evidence for that, but when you look at what is, what is the the strongest signal when people are at that advanced ketogenic state, like the gal was talking about in the the meeting this morning, and that is that our cleanest DNA is being replicated. The the one that is making an error has inflammation in it and that inflammatory process promotes the mistake in an autoimmune disorder.

At least that's one of the theories that seems really to to really match up lock and step with what I see clinically. Why does this autoimmune disorder reverse when they stay in a ketogenic state, you know, weeks after weeks after weeks? And now 2 years later, they they say I don't have that problem anymore. I mean, I have a couple of young people that are in high school, with an autoimmune disorder that's starting, and I just wanna grab their parents and say, turn off the inflammation. What does that mean?

That means do not feed them the processed foods that are everywhere in their life and that are really hard to get rid of, but for your behavior, he'll they'll be copying you. So put you in a ketogenic state and watch what happens to your, the choices of your your children. So, JFR, I wanna believe that it can it can do that. I don't know if I'm right or not though. Bill said we are 78 in good health should we continue to get COVID shots.

Boy, now that might get me canceled. Well, I'll tell you, if I was 78, I wouldn't get it. I would say, no. It's not I mean, what they're telling you it's doing and what it's doing, dang, it doesn't match. I mean, that's what that whole report is saying is that they they they broke some rules.

They they made some assumptions, and then the assumptions turn out not to be true, and there's a whole bunch of funny business in the numbers. You know, I see, Margaret Henry writes in, is that report available to the public? Yes. It's in the show notes. Please click it.

Please download it before I mean, I don't know. I'm not paranoid, but I just I cannot believe the evidence that's in that report. So Sumon Roll from Iowa. Nice to hear from you. I have had all 4 vaccinations and COVID three times.

I was diagnosed with a heart condition last year, enlarged aorta and root. Is it related to this? I don't know. I mean, I I let me just show you this this. So these biopsies are in people who have and that is a spike protein in each one of them.

That cardiac tissue is not supposed to have a spike protein anywhere near. That red is a spike proteins. And, again, when they had the just the vaccination, they did they don't have this incredible production of a protein that doesn't belong in our cells, let alone inside the tissue of a cardiac cell. And so do I think they're related? I don't know.

I don't know, Sue. I'm sorry. I wish yeah. I'm I'm I'm sharing this with you in a place that's very vulnerable because I I can't believe that it it is it is as true as it is. Ellen writes in and says, so what is the source of the external DNA?

Yeah. It's not a horse. The the if you go into the report, I wanna say I looked this up because I thought I think it was what what's the word for monkey that begins with an s, like Sabian? I had to look it up because I'm like, why is why do they mention this here? So the external DNA, I mean, I think it was in the mass production of it, but it's well, it sure said it's it's supposed to have 0 in there.

It's got billions of particles. Again, what got approved by the FDA by the committee was something that had no DNA particles in it, but you go take a vaccination now, they look at it, and it's got the snippets of double strands DNA, not messenger RNA, double strands DNA. Anyway, it's very it's very frustrating. It's very shocking. Yeah.

Anyway, last question and then I will say I would love oh, Sapien. Thank you very, Marvin. That's exactly the word I was looking. It was Sapien. It has Sapien DNA.

Well, the word Sapien is, is Latin for, like, ape or monkey. That that yeah. Homo sapien versus sapien. Yeah. That's the word I was looking for.

Anyway, reading it is a little disheartening. You might want to be drinking ketones when you do it. Last question, Debbie writes in how long does it take for your LDL to go down? I've always had high LDL and low lipids. They always want me to take statins because my LDL makes, my HDL makes it higher than because my HDL makes it higher than 200.

So when I tell people what to do on the ketogenic diet, I tell them you wanna be stable in a plan for 6 months. That when you're looking at LDL, numbers, what you're really trying to assess is you're moving you're moving energy around a human body. How well you're doing that, how consistently you're doing that is something that stabilizes once you get your head around how to be on a ketogenic diet for real. Not just a flash, I'm gonna lose weight for a wedding. Not just, I'm gonna hurry up and, you know, you know, reduce the problem that is happening that you wanna want to go away, but something that you're in a in a zone heading in the right direction, and you're not gonna turn left at Albuquerque next week.

You're actually gonna stay the course. So I would say 6 months of stable ketogenic lifestyle before you look at your cholesterol. That's what I do. Alright, folks. I am going to sign off improving your health one ketone at a time.

We will see you next weekend. I promise not to chirp about medical literature next week, but I would love feedback on did you learn something and are you gonna share

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

transcript to 1hr YT Video October 7 | Al Jazeera Investigations

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0atzea-mPY 

October 7, 2023. 1200 Hamas gunmen pour through the barrier separating the Gaza Strip from Israel. They overrun army bases and killed more than 1,000 Israelis and foreign nationals. They took dozens of children, bound them up, burned them, and executed them. A family of 4 around the breakfast table.

The father has eye gouged out. The mother's breast cut off. The girl's foot amputated. The boy's fingers cut off before they were executed. These accounts were used to justify an assault on Gaza that has killed at least 31,000 Palestinians, 13,000 of them children.

Finish them. Finish them. Don't ever forget what happened. Al Jazeera's investigative unit has carried out a forensic analysis of the events The eye unit examined 7 hours of footage, much of it taken from the headcams of dead Hamas fighters. It reviewed the testimonies of hundreds of survivors and compiled a comprehensive list of victims.

It found widespread war crimes but discovered that many of the most horrific stories were untrue. Misinformation has been used and sometimes deliberate disinformation has been used by official spokespersons. I'm sorry to be graphic here, but I I can't see a baby here. If you can activate people's sense of disgust, they're more likely to support dire retribution against Palestinians. It reveals some of the victims were killed by Israeli forces.

This footage, I find very disturbing. We don't know who those individuals are, gunmen, civilians, or hostages. And it finds that October 7 may have changed the politics of the region forever. I regret to say that I think it was a phenomenal success from their point of view. October 7th has sent a very strong and clear message.

No one can bypass the Palestinians. In Palestine, there exist many thriving communities built by refugees who have already found a home there. The Israeli settlements known as kibbutzim that surround the Gaza Strip, were built around the time of the creation of the state of Israel in 1948. The immediate area around Gaza is mostly small, villages. Kibbutzim, in the early years at least, Kibbutzim and other villages had a defense role.

And the idea was wherever you established a kibbutz like this, I mean, that would determine Israel's border. That would hold the border. Today, the kibbutzim are prosperous farming communities. The Kibbutzim are just a few kilometers away from Gaza, where 2,300,000 people live crammed in a thin strip of land 41 kilometers long. Most are from families that once owned land on the other side of the fence.

70% of the population in Gaza are refugees. And every day they go to the fence, and they would see their lands, their homes, and lands beyond this fence. And these lands belong to the Palestinians. It belonged to the Palestinians. They have lived there for millennia.

Hamas is an Arabic acronym for the Islamic Resistance Movement. It controls Gaza after winning elections that took place throughout Palestine in 2,006. Hamas advocates armed resistance to Israel's occupation. Its policies and actions have resulted in its being designated a terrorist organization by many Western countries. Gaza has been under blockade since 2007.

You could never imagine life in Gaza except if you have lived in Gaza and if you have experienced life in Gaza, especially when you are a child. All of the vivid memories I have of my time back then is funerals of martyrs. Bombs, f sixteens, tanks invading our homes, tanks invading our city, these are my memories. When you are in Gaza, you would always feel a sense that you are imprisoned. It's really a prison.

In 2018 and 2019, Gazan staged mass demonstrations demanding the right to return to the lands they once owned across the fence. The Palestinians felt let down. They felt deserted, and they needed to remind the world that they were still there. They were still hoping to return to their homelands. The Israelis responded with force.

Their snipers targeted many young men, including journalists and medics. Hundreds of Palestinians were assassinated or were murdered in this way. I was a journalist back in Gaza, and I was there covering the March of Return. And I have seen the horrors. I saw a kid hitting a bullet in his head.

He was still carrying his school bag. Israel says the killings are justified because the demonstrators pose a security threat to the south of the country. During the great march of return, we went peacefully in 1,000. But what was the response of the international community? Nothing.

Keeping the ears and eyes always closed. Within this context, we have discussed in many times, in many sessions, what can we do? Generally, there was a consensus in the political bureau. We have to move. We have to take action.

If we don't do it, Palestine will be forgotten totally and deleted from the international map. We have said it many times. The situation in Gaza is nearly to explode. And if it will happen, we will never allow it to explode inside the cities. We will direct to the eastern borders of Gaza Strip to those who are oppressing and besieging and jailing our people.

For months, Hamas trained openly for the incursion, placing videos online The Israelis even obtain a detailed copy of the invasion plan. Like all great strategic surprises, it was misread. This is never the lack of intelligence information that leads to an intelligence failure. It's usually the broken intelligence cycle. There was a woman in the primary intelligence collection agency who was responsible for intelligence regarding, Hamas, who raised the flag repeatedly.

And she got as high up as one could get, the chief of military intelligence. And he listened to her very carefully and said, yeah. I don't buy it. They don't have the capability. They have cheated themselves by the perception Gaza is deterred.

Gaza and Hamas is thinking how to solve their own internal problems, how to get some more money, how to get more jobs, how to open the borders, how to deal with the siege. Hamas has no time and no ability and no capability to do anything against Hamas fighters receive instructions to gather at assembly points. No one of the fighters have an idea about this operation. Up to minutes before the operation, it was so close and very few members of the many of the military leadership and maybe 1 or 2 from the political bureau who were aware about the operation. By now, reports of unusual movements on the Gazan side of the fence reach military intelligence and Shin Bet, Israel's internal security service.

In the early hours of the morning, there's already pretty good information that something is happening to the point that the head of the Shin Bet and I think shortly after the chief of staff all arrive in their offices. And then, 2, 3 in the morning. And it is again, it's written off probably as being just another exercise. And the decision is to come back in the morning and take a look at it again. Of course, between those hours and and the attack at 6:30 AM was too late.

Hamas fighters storm the main crossing point at Erez. It's one of at least 10 breaches in the fence. Thousands of rockets are fired into Israel. Paragliders cross the fence. Hamas uses boats to attack targets north of the Gaza Strip.

What is impressive about it is that there were a lot of synchronized things that needed to happen for it it to succeed. Some very low tech features up against, you know, probably the most high-tech sort of military machine anywhere out there. Simple drones, not even particularly sophisticated ones, took out a lot of the radar, the sensors that were placed on top of all sorts of towers, took out communications nodes that were placed along the border, so that, in effect, they blinded the southern command from the get go. Line of defense is overwhelmed. Hamas move on to attack military bases throughout the region.

Among them is a base at Paga, a few 100 meters from the fence. Chris Cobb Smith is a human rights investigator who served 20 years in the British military. He analyzed video of the assault on Paga. This is clearly a significant sized Israeli Defense Force base, and how they've actually managed to get through the perimeter and to take by supplies this number of Israeli Defense Force soldiers is just staggering. I just failed to see how this can be allowed to have happened.

I mean, you can see here from the the number of armored vehicles that are around, which don't seem to have been started up. It's just incredible how the situation ever occurred. Military briefing documents are found on dead Hamas fighters. They are giving written advice on what type of anti tank rockets and missiles to use against the Nokava tank. This one is about, armored personnel carriers, APCs.

So what type of IEDs you can use against armored personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles, and armored fighting vehicles. So very sophisticated and very slick. As reports of the attack begin to come through, Hamas leaders outside of Gaza gather to pray. But the leadership was as surprised as anyone by the swift collapse of the Israeli military. Anyone who have watched this were surprised.

I myself, I was totally surprised. How could this happen? Hamas people and expected that maybe 80, 90 percent of those who set out on the 7th October would actually die as martyrs before they returned back with hostages into Gaza City. The opposite actually happened. Exactly diametrically opposed nearly, in terms of only 10 to 50% of those fighters were killed before they made it into Israeli settlements.

The resistance was so underwhelming from a Hamas point of view that they had absolute freedom to maneuver. Hamas find themselves with the towns and kibbutzim at their mercy. Just 5 kilometers from the fence, thousands of young people are gathered for a music festival. Based on my information, they were not aware that there is a musical festival in the area. There was a surprise.

They were finding 100 of youngsters celebrating through the whole night, in the early morning, still being up out in a music festival. 100 of unarmed partygoers are killed. Some take refuge in the small bomb shelters that dot the main highway. They are trapped. Gunmen quickly penetrate civilian communities, But their unexpected success exposes the limitations of Hamas as a military force.

Once the gunmen get access to the kibbutz, they really don't seem to know exactly what they're doing, where they're going, or what they want to achieve. They're wandering aimlessly. Effective enemy fire, and they're not doing anything about it. Yeah. This is complete chaos.

Their first priority seems to be taking the ammunition and the weapons off their own wounded. There's no attempt of any sort of first aid. There's certainly not anything like one would term command and control. There's no leaders there. Hundreds of unarmed Kibbutz residents are killed.

Hamas seizes large numbers of hostages. As word spreads of gaps in the fence, hundreds of Gazans pour through. Many people were able to leave the Gaza Strip, including those people who weren't even part of the operation. Man. The civilians, the smugglers, criminals, who had thought they could make a quick buck themselves, people would go through and just do their own thing.

There is a wave of looting. A lot of people, simple, ordinary people came from Gaza into the kibbutzes and into the area. 1,000 entered this area. And therefore, a lot of what happened, it was not any if right or wrong, I mean. It was not happened, only by the fighters.

Many of those abducted appear to have been taken by Gazan civilians rather than Hamas fighters. At kibbutz near Oz, a group of Thai laborers is caught up in the chaos. Wetun is dragged past the room where his Thai colleagues have been murdered. He is placed on a motorbike and joins a trail of people heading back towards the Gaza Strip, carrying loot and hostages. The Israelis mobilize helicopter gunships.

Hamas fighters try unsuccessfully to shoot them down. The Israelis later release footage of dozens of strikes. On Israeli television, pilots admitted it was difficult to The idea that pilots have to get information from WhatsApp groups is truly remarkable. It's a sign of the initiative that people are looking for any way that they can get the information. At the same time, this is an outrage.

I mean, what kind of a way is that to fight a modern war? The Israeli newspaper Yidiyot Aranat says that at midday, the army issues a version of what is known as the Hannibal Directive. The Hannibal directive is the result of previous humiliations where Israel handed over 100 of Palestinian prisoners in return for the release of 1 Israeli soldier. On October 7, it seems the Hannibal directive may have been revived and applied even to civilian hostages. The air force operated during those hours under an instruction to prevent movement from Gaza into Israel and return from Israel into Gaza.

70 vehicles were hit, At least in some of the cases, everyone in the vehicle was killed. The Israeli military does not deny the report. Israeli first responders released footage of civilians burned in a car. The car was struck from above. Well, to me, it's inexcusable for a helicopter or any weapon system to be engaging any target if you don't know what that target is.

The footage we're looking at here, which I find very disturbing, we have a lot of people here making their way back through the breach in the wire back into Gaza. Now my concern is with this footage, we cannot tell whether they're Hamas gunmen or civilians or possibly hostages. And I don't believe the helicopter pilot or the machine gun operator would be able to tell either. Israel's channel 12 later interviews a kibbutz resident who was abducted. She describes coming under fire from a helicopter.

This footage shows the aftermath of what appears to be a similar helicopter strike. There were 9 hostages in the vehicle described in the Israeli TV report. One was killed. The other 8, including 3 children, survived. The hostages are Even if you just use the belt fed gun on the Apache, these big rounds have a certain area of fact and obviously come at a certain rate.

That if you shoot at a group of people, you're most likely going to kill everyone. We're coming. We're done. You are knowingly putting your own civilians at risk. I find it very disturbing using these sort of weapons in an environment where you can't distinguish and differentiate enough between who is friend and who is foe, who is a civilian, who is a combat.

Analysis of the Aynet's list of the dead reveals 27 hostages who died somewhere between their home and the Gaza fence in circumstances that have not been explained. Israeli security forces arrive at the site of the music festival. Police and army units storm kibbutzim. It seems that they too may have applied a version of the Hannibal directive and killed civilians. Bedi is the largest kibbutz in the region.

Israeli media reveals that 12 died there when police and army open fire on a house that contains hostages. Israel's channel 12 speaks to 2 survivors. This story has been ignored by Western media. Many other buildings show similar damage to the house at Bere. All the footage I've seen of the Hamas assault across the border, across the fence into the kibbutzis, they're pretty much only armed with light weapons.

This is RPGs. So rocket propelled grenades and personal sidearms. This is taken from the inside of a house. Two holes in the wall here. I would say probably by some sort of heavy weapon fired against the house, most probably a tank.

There's no way an RPG in a rug would would make that sort of damage. In this image here, catastrophic structural damage to the building, clearly not caused by structural collapse from a fire. This was caused by some sort of heavy weapon system during combat. There's catastrophic structural damage to many of these buildings. This can only have happened by heavy weapon systems being used against the kibbutz itself.

The eye unit calculates that 1,154 Israelis and foreign nationals are killed on October 7, and in the days immediately afterwards. Of these, 256 are soldiers, 53 belong to the police and other security forces, and 63 are civilian security guards. The remaining 782 victims are unarmed. The I Unit's list of the dead reveals that at least 18 are killed by Israeli ground troops. A number of other bodies are recovered from beneath Rehbel who died in circumstances that are unclear.

In the days following October 7, journalists are shown around the kibbutzim by the Israeli army. This is something that monsters do, not humans. Hamas fighters and others committed crimes on October 7. The Israeli media, however, focuses not on the crimes they committed, but on crimes they did not. I'm talking to some of the soldiers, and they say what they've witnessed as they've been walking through these different houses, these different communities, babies, their heads cut off.

That's what they said. No one could expect that it would be like this. The horrors that I'm hearing from these these soldiers, As I as I mentioned earlier, about 40 babies at least were were taken out on gurneys. The eye unit's list of the dead shows no babies were killed in Khafar Azhar, the kibbuts this report came from. The story was nevertheless picked up by international media and repeated by president Biden.

I've been doing this a long time. I never really thought that I would see and have confirmed pictures of terrorists beheading children. The White House later clarifies that actually, the president had not seen pictures of beheaded children. A senior Israeli military officer later speaks to journalists in front of a burnt out house in Kibbutz Beri. It's the house where 12 hostages appear to have been killed during the assault by the Israeli police and army.

Inside this this, this house were another 15 burned people. Among them, 8 babies in this corner. They were concentrated then, and they, killed them, and they burned them. Well, did you see? I evacuated.

The list of the dead shows that there were no babies in the house, and colonel Vach does not tell journalists that the casualties are almost certainly caused by Israeli forces. 2 days later, the regional head of Zaka, a voluntary organization charged with collecting bodies, gives a different account to Sky News of what happened at the same house. And you're talking children, 2 piles of 10 children each were tied to the back, burned to death. This is something behind. This is next level.

And, I mean, it's actually indescribable, really. It's indescribable. It's indescribable, and I won't describe everything that I saw. This account is repeated by Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu in and executed them. The list of the dead shows 2 12 year old twins are killed when police and army stormed the house in Bary, But there are no other children.

It was a an interview you did with Sky Television from Britain. Two piles, we found them in Bury. Two piles of 10 children each were tied back to back and burned to death. Now, again, I mean, if we if we look at the the death figures at Beddie, there are there are only 10 children that died at Beddie. Not children.

It's about 18 year old. So we're all together. When you look at them and they're burned, you don't know exactly the ages. So you're talking about 18 year old, 20 years old, and, you can't, you you can't you just don't look on the spot, identification to see the ages or something like that. It is not the only questionable story that Josse Landau tells about Kibbutz Berri.

We go further, then we see a woman. She was lying on the floor, a puddle of blood, big puddle of blood. She was a pregnant woman. Her stomach was butchered open. The baby that was connected to the cord was stabbed, and she was shot in the back.

Kibbutz Berri has denied this account. The story of the pregnant woman reported by Zacher is not relevant to Berri. Josse Landau insists he witnessed this scene at Berri. If you wanna see the picture, I have the picture of it. Are you able to share the photographic evidence with us?

To show you. Yes. Where's my phone? Oh, I'm sorry. I will I will not put it in front of the camera.

No. No. That's fine. I'll I'll come and look. This is the knife they used.

Shot and killed, but Over here was the one. But that's the imagery after the bodies had been cleared away. Yes. This is the baby. This is it.

I'm sorry to be graphic here, but I I can't see a baby here. You can't see the baby because but this is the picture of the of the mother. For sure, you know, we didn't think when we over there, we didn't think to to camera everything. We didn't have that this wasn't in our Okay. The photo shows an unidentifiable piece of charred flesh.

The list of the dead contains no victim that fits Yossi Landau's description. On October 7th, 2 babies die. 1 is killed when a bullet is fired through a door. The other dies following an emergency cesarean after the mother is shot. Neither is burned or beheaded.

You being someone who with your own hands, with your own eyes, with your nose, you smelled this, What would you say to to that person who was downplaying what took place here? I wouldn't say anything. I would ask, please give me I should he should be together with the Hamas terrorist, and he should be killed because he's a part of it. Terrorists. Visiting celebrities continue to be shown babies' cribs, and the world continues to be told stories about murdered babies.

When you're taking babies, cutting them, and tying them together, and burning them to death, You're treating them less than an animal. 1300 people dead, murdered babies. These bastards put these babies in an oven and put on their oven. We found the kid a few hours later. US Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, describes the fate of 2 small children.

Family of 4, a young boy and girl, 6 8 years old, and their parents around the breakfast table. The father has eye gouged out in front of his kids. The mother's breast cut off. The girl's foot amputated. The boy's fingers cut off before they were executed, and then their executioners sat down and had a meal.

That's what this society is dealing with. This story also comes from Yossi Landau and Zacker. An analysis of the evidence suggests that it is also untrue. Of the 782 unarmed victims of October 7, 36 are children. 13 under the age of 12.

None died in the circumstances described by Antony Blinken. Media analyst Mark Owen Jones tracks the spread of such stories on the Internet. He believes they serve a purpose. So how as Israel do you create that balance in in sort of saying, well, what we're doing is morally right even though we're killing way more people? Well, you have to emphasize the brutality, because you can't say, well, they we've we've killed less than Hamas.

So how do you do it? Well, you try to make the significance of those individual deaths even more disgusting and objectionable. If you can activate people's sense of disgust, I think they're more likely to support, for example, dire retribution against Palestinians. In December, Benjamin Netanyahu meets with Zakar volunteers and thanks him for speaking to the world's press. It's not just stories of murdered babies and children that are open to question.

People are working here. Israel's head of forensics describes to Sky News the state of adult corpses he's examined. So many bodies were shot, but before they were shot, they were cuffed. So it's execution style. You can see stab wounds here, at the back and on the head.

And if you do CT, you can see that the pelvis is shattered. These are bullets inside. So he was shot, he was stabbed, he was burned, and then he was run over. The Israelis say they recovered numerous bodies mutilated by Hamas fighters and others. But the evidence suggests some, at least, may not be Israelis.

In the aftermath of October 7, large numbers of videos of the abuse and mutilation of Palestinian corpses are posted online. The Israeli government later admits that 200 of the bodies initially identified as Israelis were in fact Palestinians. We originally said in the atrocious, Hamas attack on our people, on October 7th, we had the number at 1,400 casualties. And now we've revised that down to 1,200 because we understood that we had overestimated. We we made a mistake.

There were actually bodies that were so badly burnt, We thought they were ours. In the end, apparently, they were, Hamas terrorists. There's a lot of evidence out there that's been produced by the Israelis, which is either contradictory or potentially self harming. If people were saying, oh, actually, we we went through the different bodies, and we realized some of the burned bodies were actually Palestinians, and they weren't, they weren't our civilians. That begs the question, why were they burned and who burned them?

How were they mutilated and who mutilated them? A proper forensic investigation would have to have to clarify who killed them and and how they were killed. Israel also alleges that Hamas is guilty of widespread and systematic rape. The Israeli government has published a video attacking the UN and other global institutions for what it claims is in action and indifference to the plight of Israeli women. I'd like to report a crime.

Yes. I was raped. So sorry. We are here to help. Tell us what happened.

I was at a music festival. We heard gunfire and everyone was running. I started running and then he grabbed me. He yelled something in Arabic and then he replied. Jada, Yes.

So Madeline Reese is head of an international women's rights organization. Don't take it personally. Management decided that all violence against Israelis is Yeah. Legitimate resistance. Go sorry.

It's a very cheap shot. Immediately upon, the the horrific attacks on October 7th, there was a response from the UN, from the Commission of Inquiry, which already exists, to look into atrocities in the region, to say, we want to come and investigate. We are ready. We're willing. We're able to come and investigate.

And that was blocked. That was blocked. And that's been blocked by Israel. Hamas denies that rapes occurred on October 7. In no case, there was a proof that there was a rape.

In no one case. But I am sure based on our culture, based on our beliefs, that this cannot have impossible to happen. But there are those who say they witnessed women being raped. One is a survivor from the music festival who says he saw a group of Palestinian civilians surrounding a woman. The Israeli police presents an anonymous witness who described a separate rape also at the music festival.

In another interview, this witness says she saw a total of 5 women raped and gunmen walking around with the severed heads of 3 women, but no forensic evidence of sexual violence has been produced. A website created by the Israeli government to document atrocities on October 7 contains just one video indicative of rape. It features the body of a young woman lying by a roadside 14 kilometers north of the site of the music festival. She is wearing no underwear. In December, this story formed the centerpiece of a New York Times investigation, but the report was undermined when the woman's sister posted on Instagram that it was untrue.

Yes. They raped, But in the case of my sister, no. The family denied that she'd been raped. They said it would have been really difficult for her to have been raped because she was in contact with them during Hamas' attack. And that her last correspondence with them was probably about 4 minutes before she was reportedly killed.

Right? And so they sort of say, how could she have been, you know, shot, burnt, and raped within the space of 4 minutes? It didn't make sense. One of the three authors of the report, Anak Schwartz, is a former Israeli intelligence official with little journalistic experience. She has previously liked genocidal social media posts calling for Gaza to be turned into a slaughterhouse.

I believe that there was rape. In every conflict, whenever there are men with guns intent on perpetrating violence, it is highly unlikely there will not be sexual violence. But nothing that I've seen put forward so far suggests that it was widespread and systematic. It's a very high bar to actually reach. To show that it was widespread and systematic, there would have a lot more evidence than has come to light to date, and a lot more corroborative evidence than what has been put out there.

5 months after October 7, a report by the UN Special Representative on sexual violence in conflict concluded there were reasonable grounds to believe that conflict related sexual violence occurred. The author stressed her report was not investigative. She urged the Israelis to permit a fully fledged investigative process and to grant, without further delay, access to the International Commission of Inquiry, which is mandated to investigate human rights abuses in Israel and the occupied territories. Israel still refuses to do so. The UN report relied largely on Israeli officials and first responders.

It stated the visual evidence provided no tangible indications of rape, a conclusion supported by the eye unit's own analysis of footage and photographs. In January, the Israeli police said they were struggling to match witness accounts with known victims. The police woman leading the inquiry told the Israeli newspaper, Haaretz. At this stage, I have no specific bodies. Without any credible investigation, an independent credible investigation, I don't think we can possibly say that it was widespread and systematic.

Essentially, what we've got is a state has instrumentalized the horrific attacks on women in order, we believe, to justify an attack on Gaza, of which the majority suffering are other women. In response to the events of October 7, Israel launches a bombardment of the Gaza Strip. Man killed, they're gonna kill a 100 or 200 Palestinians. So when I heard that the number of Israeli killed is over a 1000 people, I knew that Israel will respond in a barbaric way 1154 people were killed on October 7. After 5 months of bombardment, around 31,000 are confirmed killed in Gaza.

27% are adult men, 29% adult women, and 44% children. There are many hundreds of babies among the dead. The destruction of health services in Gaza means many of the dead are uncounted, accounts of rape and the murder of babies by Hamas have been used to justify Israel's actions. I hear the calls for a ceasefire. Tell me, what is a proportionate response for killing of babies, for rape women and burn them, for beheading of a child?

The proportional response to October 7 massacre is a total distraction. A total distraction to the last one of the Hamas. Killing, slaughtering women, children, babies, rapes, beheading. Flat out torture. I don't think there's any way Israel can be expected to coexist or find some diplomatic off ramp, with these savages.

First thing I said to Netanyahu when this happened was finish them. Finish them. Don't ever forget what happened. Sexual violence and other forms of violence are being weaponized to dehumanize an enemy, And dehumanization is important in conflict. Why?

Because dehumanization lowers the threshold by which you will willingly agree to attack or harm another group of people. And how do you do that? Well, you see them as subhuman. More than 70% of those who've died have been women and children. 70%.

We know more than a 160 women a day have to give birth without adequate medical protection at all, cesareans without any sort of anesthetic. It's absolutely barbarous. It was October 22nd, and, my family were sleeping in their home. There was my father, my older brother, his wife, and his 3 children. There was also my younger brother, and there were my older sister, Wala, and 4 of her children.

And there was, my sister, Alla, and her children. And there was my sister, Aya, and her 3 children. And they were sleeping at, 5 AM in the morning when Israel bombed my home. And it and they were killed. 21 of them were killed.

For the Hamas leadership, the consequences of October 7 for the Palestinian people appear to be a price worth paying for ending Israel's occupation. October 7th has sent a very strong and clear message, well defined message. No one can bypass the Palestinians. No one can enjoy stability or security as long as the I regret to say that I think it was a phenomenal success from their point of view. They put the Palestinian issue back on the, regional and global agenda.

But the wars will end sooner or later. Already, people are coming out of their homes, and they're gonna see what Gaza looks like today, and it's not a pretty picture. And part of this was necessary for operational reasons, and part of this was because I think Israel's been trying to make the point that this can never happen again. And beware that this is the price you will pay. The price paid by the Palestinians is terrible.

That is true. It's hefty. But pinpoint to me one struggle for liberation in which there was no costly price. Vietnam, how many millions perished in Vietnam in order for Vietnam to become free? So you see, there's no easy way.

There is no small price for freedom and for independence. And the Palestinians do understand that. They are revenging. The only thing that they do is revenge and revenge against who? Against the Palestinian people, the civilians, the women, the children.

There's gonna be a trauma that the Palestinians will never heal from.