General Assembly Meeting | November 22, 2021

Rewatch the full November 22, 2021 World Council for Health General Assembly Meeting video with guest speakers Dr. Alexandra Henrion Caude, Dr. David Wiseman, and Attorney Luthuli Bongani as well as our Affiliate, C19 Transparency Group.

Attorney Bongani Luthuli: Gambling With Our Children

Bongani Luthuli is Attorney and Director at Bongani Khanyile ka Luthuli Attorneys Ince, pan-Africanist, ACDP NEC. Earlier this year, he won the the battle for Ivermectin in South Africa.

A clip of his presentation can be found here.

Dr. Alexandra Henrion Caude: Spikopathy: The Pathology of the Spike Protein

Dr. Alexandra Henrion Caude is a geneticist and Director of Research at the French National Institute of Health.

A clip of her presentation can be found here.

Dr. David Wiseman: What point did we go from recklessness to vandalism?

Dr. David Wiseman has a PhD in experimental pathology. He is a UK pharmacist pharmacology and previously headed a research program as a top scientist at Johnson and Johnson.

A clip of his presentation can be found here.

C19 Transparency Group

Cathal Healy Singh introduces an affiliate organization to the World Council for Health, C19 Transparency Group.

C19 Transparency Group is an advocacy group in Trinidad & Tobago. They strongly advocate the sovereignty of the human being and the right to choose what we put into our bodies.

A clip of his presentation can be found here.

This is an edited segment from the weekly live General Assembly on November 22, 2021.


[00:00:00] [00:00:56] Dr. Mark Trozzi, MD: Well, Everybody you’re you’re going to be stuck with me as the host this evening. Wish me luck. I think we’ll have a great meeting. We got some great speakers and affiliates and great energy and obviously a beautiful group of people here. So it’s our general assembly meeting, our weekly meeting. [00:01:10] And today is Monday the 22nd of November. We want to ask a little help: we’re introducing translators. We want our meetings and our material to be available to all of our affiliates and our big human family around the world. We ‘re more than 30, 30 countries and are more than 80 organizations. [00:01:27] We want to branch out linguistically. So we appreciate feedback and help. People reach out to Zoe. If you recognize the language that we need to tap into first, or if you can help with the process, definitely needing translators. It’s a tricky skill to go at that speed. [00:01:43] So we just the World Council For Health, we believe in totally open conversation. This is not a rehearsed profit driven agenda organization, we’re an organization in search of truth and working together and sharing our perspectives. So keep in mind that any perspective that we may express here that affiliates or speakers express, this is not necessarily the official adopted policy of the World Council for Health, but it’s very important that we really get to look robustly at everything. [00:02:09] The meetings live, it’s not rehearsed, so this is just us all being real. And we’re glad to be here with you. [00:02:15] We’re going to go to the next slide. There we go. So just a little reminders before we get too much more interesting speakers in myself. If you could keep yourself on you mute, what often happens, if the toilet flushing in the background or whatever. So if you’re not speaking at the time, please use your mute. [00:02:31] Please let’s just stay with our respectful conversation. Openness, let’s hear each other. We can have differences of opinion and even old rough necks like myself will try to use as good and clean language throughout the entire meeting. And if for any reason you do not want to appear this live meeting is shown live. [00:02:47] We often have thousands of people live streaming this, and we’re grateful that you’re all there with us as well. So if you do not wish to, to appear on that, please turn off your camera. Oh, so this is the beautiful thing. The World Council for Health has grown so much. There’s just such a need and a demand for us all to come together like this. [00:03:05] And so we’ve all risen up into the, out of the little trenches where we all began our battle a year and a half ago, and now there’s 30 nations represented here and growing every week. And we we are more than 80 affiliate organizations and growing every day. So it’s, it’s beautiful. There’s strengthened our numbers. [00:03:24] These are the new institutions that are building a new world. World council for health is just a great place for us all to come together. So thanks for being here and here, you can see the icons for many of us here. So I hope you all see your symbol up there. If you just joined yesterday, it might not be yet, but we’re proud to all be here together. [00:03:42] This is the steering committee. I’m so grateful to have this group of people as my friends and allies, and to work with them, there’s lots going on. Great that you see at the front our treatment protocols, advice. There’s lots going on in the background, our legal teams, our investigators and and that brings us to an agenda. [00:03:59] Here’s our agenda for today. We have attorney Bongani Luthuli from South Africa. He’s going to be talking to us about a legal case on child vaccination. And we’re also blessed to have Dr. Alexandra Henrion Caude in France who’s going to talk to us about ‘spikopathy’, the pathology of the spike protein being produced under genetic manipulation, within many of our beloved people. [00:04:24] And we also are lucky to have Dr. David Wiseman. Who’s going to give us a perspective of their situation from the point of view of drug development and regulation. And then we have some of our affiliates who are going to introduce and tell us a bit about the great work they’re doing. [00:04:39] They have Cathal Healy Singh of the Caribbeanwith the C19 Transparency Group, Dr. Robert J. Brennan of Australia with the COVID Medical Network. And then we’re going to get to hear a little update from our committees. Dr. Naseeba Kathrada will be updating us from science and medical committee and Shabnam Palesa Mohamed, and the team will be updating us from the legal committee. Then we’ll have a chance to talk about other matters arising. [00:05:05] So with no further ado, I would love to introduce attorney Bongani Luthuli to speak with us regarding child vaccination. [00:05:15] Bongani Luthuli: Good morning. Good evening. Good evening. [00:05:18] My name is Bongani. Literally, it is a singular honor for me to be here tonight. I particularly am comforted that I can see so many familiar faces that I know, and that’s very comforting. I am a practicing attorney, a little bit about me: personal attorney, running my own firm. And I’ve been in practice since 2014. [00:05:41] Now it feels like one is writing first draft of history. Given the epoch that we’re in, specifically with regards to the litigation that we’re facing in this country. And one almost thinks of the phrase, the Chinese curse: “May you live in interesting times,” and since the advent of COVID we have been in interesting times. And I’ve been, maybe I should say blessed to be in the thick of things as a lawyer. [00:06:06] Even though the cases that we’ve taken to court have been quite sensitive and indeed life-changing, as far as, my express concern. Just two disclaimers, Mark, I’m not as creative as you. So I haven’t created any presentation. I think my voice is a bit more interesting than a presentation that I would give you. [00:06:25] So I’m a reluctant 21st century practitioner. I’d rather speak extempore and I will come in exchange around that. The second disclaimer is I’ll be discussing the legal nuances on the case as opposed to the medical and scientific issues involved there too. That’s best left to you better than I do, but I can certainly discuss the legal framework of my assignment here tonight. [00:06:50] And I think the best place to start is painting. A timeline of events and that’s how I can sketch where we are. So on the 29th of October the African Christian democratic party since the ride was called part in terms of its ideology, instead of launched an application to the high court in Pretoria joined Free the children save the nation foundation, the caring health workers coalition and COVID care Alliance, NPC. And there was a illegal action instituted against the minister of health as the first respondent, that’s doctor Paula, the acting director of health Dr. N Crisp, SAPRA, which is the regulatory authority when it comes to medicines in South Africa. Seeking the following relief. [00:07:32] And that’s quite pertinent from a substantive point of view. The first issue that the ACDP and all the applicants sought or seek in this application is pending the finalization of the free the children save the nation appeal, including any review that may arise there too. We need a stay of the rollout of the vaccination of children and mass and nationwide, which is a decision that was taken by vaccine known as comirnaty, and/or Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, for use and administration of an aged 12 to 17 to be restated specifically in the following two legs relieve that we seek. From implementing the children’s rollout in the country, as well as from administering the vaccine to the child identified as being 12 to 17 years. [00:08:28] But we actually do say in our papers that the relief we seek doesn’t seek to extend to the medic, to the emergency vaccination that a practitioner may actually prescribe, but that’s on a limited case by case basis. So you can already see that a lot of thought was put into this, not an irrational application by some bunch of fundamentalists. [00:08:48] But actually it is quite an important matter that we’ll bring on behalf of the concerned parents in the constituency of the ACDP and all the parties concerned. Now we seek also the following. That must be explained by SAPRA in calling out for the interdict. One, that they need to address us on the adverse effects that include blood clotting, myocarditus, pericarditis and neurological complications that you know, better than I do. [00:09:19] And two we seek understanding on the rationale around the fact that children generally are effectively no risk. As we know, there seems to be some medical consensus that they’re not at risk of SARS-CoV-2 virus. And that’s been the scholarship around in terms of our research. So why are we rolling out the vaccination to children that when we submit the children do not require vaccination for their own protective flowing from the first point that I’ve mentioned. [00:09:49] Fortunately, that the society at large does not require children to be vaccinated, to spread, to prevent the spread of transmission of COVID-19. So I act in the medical, we have the African Christian democratic party and free the children foundation. Let’s get to the factual metrics. And again, that will be best explained in terms of timelines. [00:10:09] So on the 12th of September SAPRA using its provision in terms of section 21 of the medicines and the latest substances act authorized Comirnaty to be used as an experiment against I think it’s, COVID 19 to the children aged 12, as I’ve explained, to 19, and this is used in, I must unpack section 21, that the rationale around Section 21 is that authorization is used for emergency use. And it’s a product only that should be used on a trial or experimental stage. So it begs the question as to why in an emergency treatment must you use the entire population to run a trial. Why are you not sampling as it were, it’s normal medicine or scientific ethics is that when you do any experimental study, you sample a population. [00:10:56] Why must we roll out in mass when we don’t have critical information around the adverse effects of the children? And that’s the first issue that the court must grapple with. And I think it’s quite a compelling argument that we make out to counter that justification around the massive roll out. [00:11:13] And on the 21st and 22nd September using what we call a Pyre application, that’s the promotion of access to information act. We wrote to the department of health and SAPRA requesting information around the scientific data that was used to bring about this rollout until the section 21. In fact, I must add that in our understanding of the definition for vaccine, this particular community doesn’t actually meet the definition of vaccines more of an experimental vaccine as far as we concerned. [00:11:46] [Inaudible] So to [inaudible] the SAPRA and the minister has litigated in similar perspective. So on the 8th of October, in terms of section 24, capital eight, and that’s critical to the application that we’re making. Because when they lost an appeal, section 24 capital ACEs, if you launch an appeal that appeal needs to be entertained 30 days from the date of noting. [00:12:11] And also you need to have been aware of the decision of in 30 days, you need to react to it. So that was filed on time. On the 8th of October now SAPRA ignored the particular appeal. And that is crucial in terms of why we went to court on an urgent basis because subtract didn’t actually allow the internal limit is to be exhausted as in visage in terms of section 24, capital a and as a result of that, on the base of that appeal, maybe if I can unpack it quite quickly, was that the scientific and medical evidence did not support the administration of vaccines. [00:12:46] I’ll talk a bit later about the kind of evidence and scientific research we rely upon on, on our papers. Be that as it may, and in light of the section 24 capital appeal that was launched on the 15th of October, suppler announced a decision [inaudible] the vaccination appeal, not withstanding. No response even given. [00:13:09] So [inaudible] whether they’re interested really in having a proper discourse around the decision that it wanted to take, when it completely silences and ignores correspondence and processes that are envisaged in terms of the act that regulates it. 8th of October, again, the free the children, the foundation sends out correspondence demanding that the rollout be suspended pending the appeal that is yet to be detained. [00:13:33] Already you can see that we’re building the case to high court for urgency. Again, no response from SAPRA. What we then have is on the 19th of October SAPRA making an announcement that the rollout will commence the next day, which is the 20th of October. [00:13:51] And perhaps for reflection here. One is to go back to the provisions of the constitution around the children’s. Section 28 says that the best interest the children of paramount importance. [00:14:03] Now, with the lack of science around this experiment, the question which I would ask rhetorically perhaps in this forum is whether, is it in the best interest to gamble? This is what it is. It’s a gambling with our children. Isn’t the best interest to gamble with the lives of children. In the name of this experiment. [00:14:22] Now 26 October was a meeting SAPRA called the parties, free the children foundation to sit with them. When they said the following important concession was made by SAPRA. And we have it on record in our paper, SAPRA said it only relied on information received from pharmaceuticals and they haven’t done any critical studies, they haven’t done any analysis of their own to roll out now without getting political or even speculative you can already see the agenda. [00:14:55] If you only taking one side and that’s the pharmaceutical side to roll out. For me, that’s not an informed, scientific decision that justifies the rollout of the vaccine on the children. And secondly, the further problem we have with this decision is the issue of liability that the supplier has been mum about. [00:15:17] If in the event of effects, in the event of clinical trial, on, on children, but what is the constitutional framework? Because South Africa lives in a constitutional democracy with sacrosanct rights and some of these sacrosanct rights must be explained quickly that support our application. I’ve already explained section 28, to which we submit this whole exercise is not in the best interest of the children, but crucially is section 12 2C of the constitution that says you have a right, not to be subject to medical treatment without informed consent. [00:15:50] The question is the policy says children can be vaccinated without the parent’s consent. Already falls foul to section 12 2C and nevermind consent. The issue of informed consent. There’s secrecy around the content of this comirnaty vaccine. How is anybody going to decide whether this vaccine is in the best interest of the children, which medical practitioner can advise on the adverse effect on specific children without knowing the content of the vaccination. [00:16:19] And that’s critically what we complaining about. And we know SAPRA will come in terms of section one to nine of the children’s vax and several will say there is a schema for an exception around section 1 29, which says under certain circumstances, consent may be dispensed with, and we submit with respect that this is not one of those situations, because that particular provision is clear on when consent may not be needed. [00:16:43] So there are lines of one to nine should SAPRA be so inclined to, to use as a justification won’t cut it in our view as a as a rationale. And looking at the rationale itself in our observation, a feature of COVID and that’s a part that’s from the scholarship, as well as the research has been done from the experts evident that we have it’s quite global in its reach is that there’s a disproportional effect on the age and fatality rate. [00:17:11] And the consensus has been that young people are most likely not going to contract COVID-19. And also the level of hospitality amongst 15 to 19 is low and even lower is the infection rate amongst that age group. So why then roll out a policy of that nature? In fact, in terms of the world health organization’s own studies and research, the fatility rate amongst young children is 0.15%. [00:17:42] And again, that’s quite scathing. When one looks at the rationale for rolling this out on children. We have Dr. Craig as one of our experts witness, and he gave us evidence around a study he did in UK and in his studies, he says the mortality data strongly suggests that young males, young males who have been vaccinated with Pfizer product, that’s been approved by by SAPRA is very high. And that’s disturbing. [00:18:09] And that shows again, that even from the justification point of view, there’s not much rationale. There’s not much studies. And if they ask that, is there, we’re just tone deaf on, on some of the conclusive evidence like Dr. Craig’s studies that he’s given in the case of UK. And that would take exception. [00:18:27] On the long-term effects on the children hasn’t been determined. Now we know that according to research now the efficacy of the vaccines likey [inaudible] around 20, 23, once the damage has been done by then the adverse effects on our children when that happens. [00:18:52] So the matter came before a judge free on the 10th of November. And at that time, that’s the first date of hearing on an urgent basis. At that time, SAPRA true to its its nature and litigating technique only filed its papers the day before at four o’clock, of documents spanning some 1000 pages at 4:00 PM. Who’s going to sit overnight and respond. And when do we file our response there to, to us, that’s clear Stalingrad tactic as it were. [00:19:22] But crucially SAPRA, who’s the main feature in the proceedings didn’t even bother to file its papers. And so we were forced to then ask the court to postpone the matter because the court needs to balance two versions, which may be mutually destructive, which is the version that we bring in the version that SAPRA is supposed to bring. [00:19:41] But when they don’t file papers it becomes problematic, I need to add for measure, for completion, SAPRA only filed papers Friday evening. So when we filed the, when we asked for this postponement, we then requested the deputy judge Preston to do a case management on this matter. Parties must be held on strict timeline because this is a matter of national importance. [00:20:06] This matter has been widely covered by media and to the credit of the judge president, deputy president his office responded the very same day and today, as we speak, we set in the morning with the deputy judge president, who then gave us certain directives. Now there’s been a lot of Amicus curiae applications by certain number of institutions that want to contribute example section 27 NPC as well as the national regulator information regulators want to make input on this matter. [00:20:36] So the judge has said those that need to file those Amicus applications must be filed by next week, Monday. On Wednesday, the parties must file their opposition to those papers, but this is what’s important for the meeting today is that, which is quite an exception to the normal way we litigate in this country. [00:20:55] The deputy president has said that a full bench will hear this matter. Now that’s very important because you have in South Africa, a full bench of the high court hearing a matter when it sits usually as a court of appeal. Very rarely it has a mentor is a court of first instance, which means already if there’s enough, It goes to the Supreme court of appeal. But that that shows you that what SAPRA is attempting to do to attack this application on lack of agency, to say, there’s no substance notification, the court’s already off a different view. [00:21:29] They deemed this to be a matter of public interest and they’ve given sufficient importance into the matter and that’s essentially where we are. So we’ll file all our closing papers. And then we will we’ll submit to the court. And that’s that’s where things are. I don’t know if there are questions. [00:21:45] Thank you so much, Mark. [00:21:46] Dr. Mark Trozzi, MD: Oh, thank you attorney Luthuli I’m so grateful for that really the heroic work you’re doing and attorneys legal experts around the world. On this specific subject, we have authors among us Dr. Verkerk, I see here who has written some excellent material of late, looking at the safety and the efficacy and the, some of the math that, that you mentioned there, where we know that for children it’s an underestimate to say the risk of death from injection is a hundred times the risk of death from COVID. [00:22:16] And now we’re learning as well from our scientists like Geert Vandenbosch and Dr. Verkerk’s recent work that the actual long-term dangers to the immune systems that these children is, could be catastrophic. And I can, we can quote Dr. Verkerk who present to the council last week, really beseeching the people of Africa to stop this and to hope that we can maintain a pool of healthy immune systems and achieve herd immunity somewhere in the world, because this natural process it would appear is being blocked in along the world. [00:22:47] And we’re in grave danger. So I want to thank you so much for the work you’re doing. I hope you’re. I think you are integrated with the legal counsel with the World Council for Health. [00:22:57] Dr. Naseeba Kathrada: Sorry, Mark, we, Shabnam has a comment and a question for Bongani. We do have one question for Bongani. So I’ll just let her — Shabnam? [00:23:06] Shabnam Palesa Mohamed: Thanks Naseeba, but I think Michael also has a question. I can see the lawyers want to jump in on this one. [00:23:16] Exactly. Exactly. All right. So I just everyone’s benefit Amandla in our African language means power. And the response which Bongani gave now is a way to, which means is ours is very much believe in people power. So thank you Bongani for that concise, but comprehensive exposition of this matter which is of course, a very critical one for us in South Africa, the African continent, and naturally around the world. [00:23:42] The first point I want to make, which is interesting about South Africa is when we embark on litigation, we use multiple tactics to raise public awareness and win in the court of public opinion. So what we’ve been doing as part of hope for humanity is getting out outside court with demonstrations, with banners, with Teddy bears, with, parents speaking out that, we don’t leave our kids alone. [00:24:03] We don’t want them to take jabs and also being getting a lot of as Bongani mentioned, space within the media as well to raise awareness about why this cause is so important. So that’s just a tactic that I think, and I think Bongani would agree is very effective and we need to utilize around the world very important. [00:24:19] Secondly is the question and third is the proposal. So the question Bongani is around the issue of urgency. For any court to say that this matter is not urgent, it’s bizarre to say the least. We know that the best interests of the child at paramount, we know that the courts are the apple guardian of children. [00:24:37] That’s what the legislation tells us. And we also know that in any matter, considered concerning a child is by its nature considered urgent. So I’d likely to respond and what you think. Not to be speculative, but I think by now we understand the terrain and the forces, which we face as to why a judge would say this matter is not urgent. [00:24:57] And then postpone it and allow SAPRA the leeway. And the other parties, the respondents, the leeway to file as in, when they want to, in the context of how serious South Africa takes the rights of our children. So that’s on the urgency and the proposal then given SAPRA’s consistent behavior and pattern of behavior in terms of not responding to emails, not filing papers on time, not even coming to parliament, when they’re call to address parliament, then what we actually need to do is push with a commission of inquiry into SAPRA. [00:25:28] I’ll leave it there. Thank you. Bongani. [00:25:32] Bongani Luthuli: Africa. Thank you, Shabnam. Let’s start by public opinion. I must express our gratitude as, as lawyers involved in this matter. And as, as litigants, of the support that you getting in, I must say courts aren’t really immune to public opinion and public pressure. [00:25:47] The wide coverage on this matter has forced the court in my view, to take the posture it has. It could have easily kicked it out on the grounds of urgency, which I’ll deal with as your second point, but because the parents have come out media has come and shown that we are concerned about this particular decision. [00:26:04] And so the courts then got the message that this is a serious matter, and we need to apply ourselves in a way also by some time, remember courts aren’t necessarily the best arbiters in, in, in resolving issues, especially issues of this nature, where you have a judge who is well-versed in law, but doesn’t know the science that’s involved in this. [00:26:21] So they need to consult as well, certain scholarships and assistance that they need, but that comes in very handy in terms of the support that they’re grateful for. [00:26:30] In terms of urgency there was an attempt by, by by SAPRA attorneys and the minister’s attorney’s to push this on urgency. And the court refused after obviously we vigorously opposed such a move because this must stay on the urgent role because as you correctly say it, if it involves the children, it’s by its nature urgent, but also look at the reach of this directive. [00:26:52] It’s actually nationwide. So we need to know if we’re on the right trajectory or not. So there’s no way one can say we are, the matter is not urgent. I agree with you that to allow SAPRA to file on these libertarian timeframes is a cause for concern given where we are. But I don’t think we must look at it only that way, because the court has still maintained that this matter must stay on, on, on an urgent rule and it will stay on and stay. [00:27:22] We can deal with SAPRA in terms of its tardiness in dealing with this matter, in terms of the cost orders. The proposal, certainly I agree from a political point of view that SAPRA must account, and we can do this once we have an order against them that this shouldn’t have been done, the section 21 authorization. [00:27:41] And that’s that calls already for a commission of inquiry, you would realize that the politicization of SAPRA as well as its biasness in so far as the stakeholders that are funding that are not disclosed to the public will come into the fall. And that the whole issue of the agenda will start building itself. [00:27:57] I think this proposal you’re making is very pertinent. It must be considered in its length. Thank you, Shabnam. [00:28:03] Dr. Naseeba Kathrada: Thanks. Thanks for that, Bongani. I just want to make a point in what Shabnam said. Before I came into this meeting, I was in a live discussion with the deputy minister of health and, our group the caring healthcare workers is part of the application. [00:28:15] And he, I think that it’s just a tactic and wash up memories about the urgency issue. So he made no minutes. He, and he said, Gilly, oh, there is a court case going on with a 12 to 17 year old, but the court has decided it’s not an urgent matter. And they dismissed the case. I stopped him right there. And I said, no, minister under minister, you are incorrect. [00:28:33] The matter has been deemed not urgent. It has not been thrown out of court. So they using that thing to actually put it out in public to say that the matter was dismissed, but it wasn’t, and that’s probably just a tactic. Thank you for that Bongani. I’m going to take one question from Michael Alexander. [00:28:48] And if I can ask you and put your questions in the Q&A, and Bongani will get to them please because we do have a full discussion today. And I’m just going to go with Michael to give his comments and questions, please, guys. [00:28:58] Michael Alexander: Okay. Thank you. Bongani, excellent presentation. Very concise. I really enjoyed it. [00:29:04] A question I have for you is one that I think lawyers are facing everywhere. And it’s a discussion that we are having here on an ongoing basis in my firm. And that is what kind of evidence or how you’ve been present the scientific evidence in a way to convince the court. It’s partly a communications problem, but it’s partly an evidentiary problem. [00:29:24] And so I say that because it in part depends on what your ever evidentiary standard is that you have to meet. So I was wondering what your standard is there, but also how you’re like if one side presents 50 studies, do you present 51 studies? Do you go for one killer study? There’s so many different ways in which the evidence can be presented quantitatively and qualitatively and people are here are up in the air about which approach to take. [00:29:50] So do you dump a meta analysis in front of everybody or you go for the one or two experts that can really make the case for you? Have you given any thought to that in the course of your preparation. [00:30:01] Bongani Luthuli: Yep. Thanks for that question. I’ll try to be brief, Michael. These are motion proceedings, meaning that they are dealt with on paper. [00:30:08] So your application rises or falls with the strength of your papers and their evaluation mechanism that the judges will use. Different from being a trial, of course, where you then put the expert witness and you put the version and you test the expert witness. So here, because it’s motion proceeding, there will be nearly three sets of affidavit. [00:30:26] Your finding affidavit that sets the premise of your case, and the way your case predicted, predicated upon. You’ve got the answering the affidavit, where they’ve come in with bat your initial affidavit and use their experts to do that. And then you have a final say if the applicant was dominance liters, to have a reply in affidavit, that’s where you deal with the answer of the other side, based on that the court looks and sees whether, cause the onus is on you as the applicant, have you made a compelling case, that’s enough for us to consider your expert witnesses and what you are saying, as opposed to the other side. [00:31:02] And that’s the scales and the delicate balancing act that the court will then come up with. And it’s a legal forensic way of dealing with evidence and one can find an activist judge who can go and actually study the science and even come with their own understanding and bring it to the mix and say, I choose this over that. [00:31:20] So black, we didn’t have a metal case. It was a classical example. And we had an activist judge who went just beyond what was given there. In fact went so far as to say, come to court every three months. Tell me how many people have got the other medicine drug. The same as Naseeba is saying, it’s a strategy that we give misinformation to discredit what that’s been done, and also misinform the public. [00:31:44] The whole issue of ivermectin was completely misinformed. It was said that the court did not agree that people can use ivermectin. It’s allowed in South Africa under section 21. That’s the legal issue. So that’s the issue. That’s the whole thing about evidence then quality quantitative, as well as qualitative, Michael, I don’t think for me given the court as much research as you can helps it, it’s a matter of authority. [00:32:09] Who’s an expert witness and what are the credentials and look at the weight that they can give. And we’ve been very careful. And our two expert witnesses to ensure that the ones we gave have the necessary weight. And Dr. Craig is certainly one of those that have the necessary weight. And I think when we give those to expert witnesses who will give pertinent studies informed and who are vetted and peer reviewed by the experts in the field. It carries much more weight than merely throwing every study that one can find from Google or from whatever source people can get. [00:32:43] Thank you, Michael. [00:32:43] Dr. Naseeba Kathrada: Thank you so much for that, Bongani. I just want to say to you that there are some questions for you in the chats. We are in a webinar set up, so there’s a Q&A button. I don’t see any questions there. And there’s also, our old format was putting a Q in front of the question. [00:32:58] So if Anna and Fary can put their questions either way we are getting used to the new webinar system. So Q&A, or you can write “Q” and put it into the regular chat. And I’m sure you you’ll get to the questions. Thank you so much Bongani and strength to you. We hope to hear from them soon regarding our court date. [00:33:13] Cause you know, they’ll say Christmas and holidays and move us over to next year, but we’re praying for a court date this year. And with that, I hand you over back to our host Mark. [00:33:21] Dr. Mark Trozzi, MD: Thanks, Naseeba. Yeah, excellent presentation, Bongani. I want to mention, there were a few little moments where your data scrambled a bit. So if you might consider it because I know a lot more people are going to want to share this, a lot of our affiliates are gonna want to share this. If you might have time. I know you’re very busy to maybe at some point re-record what you’ve presented to us. [00:33:41] You could record some of the questions and then we could put it up on the world council site. So our team and legal experts and affiliates could have and share that great work and really we’re all sending our positive intentions and gratitude for what you’re doing. [00:33:54] Okay. Now we’re we’re also blessed to have Alexandra Henrion Caude to take us over to the science area and to teach us what she been studying and learning about the poisonous effects of the spike proteins that are being generated within the people who’ve had these interesting injections. [00:34:12] Dr. Alexandra Henrion Caude: Can you hear me all right. [00:34:14] Dr. Mark Trozzi, MD: Yes, we can. Thanks for being here. [00:34:16] Dr. Alexandra Henrion Caude: Thanks for inviting me. First of all I need to apologize before I even start my presentation because it was very short notice and I had actually two very short notices that I did grab. The one was way Reiner Feullmich a couple of days ago. [00:34:32] And now today, and given the fact that I had to hand over report to four lawyers in Canada, and I have to say that I’m just completely drown and overwhelmed. So please accept my apologies beforehand before I even start because it’s, it may be a bit messy, but it is I thought it was really important that I would share with you my thoughts at the moment because they might change a view whether in terms of science or in terms of our clinicians as to really get categories of what we are facing. [00:35:11] With that, I will share my screen if I’m entitled to. Which I probably can you see my presentation? [00:35:20] Dr. Naseeba Kathrada: Yes. Perfect. [00:35:21] Dr. Alexandra Henrion Caude: All right. Thank you. And so the, those are really it’s a very it’s a view on the pathogenicity of MRN vaccine. And in fact, I’m really taking the path towards coining a new category of disease. [00:35:38] I would say, which I coined the word of “spikopathy”, because I think that once you’ve coined names, you get to think things in an easier manner. So first of all, I go into some generalities because there have been so much false information as to the mRNA injection that I really need to take a couple of, [00:36:02] I, in the past are mRNA injection, some therapies, are we well advanced and, are they so well known that that we were to try them on everyone of us on this planet to let’s go back in to the past. The very first trial that was a very promising one came from 1992. [00:36:23] We’ve this injection into the brain of rats of this mRNA encoding vasopressin. And it was very impressive results that they got with a temporary reversal of the disease that had these rats, the diabetes insipidus, and and that could be observed within hours of injection. [00:36:46] And I really prompt you to go to that review. That’s a review from 2019 that was comparing a plasmid DNA and M RNA as vaccine technologies. And basically what you will learn from this review is that as much as we have been in great hope for gene therapy using DNA. We are a bit lag behind with mRNA and it is very disappointing because one would have hoped that we, the path would have been much more successful already. And it is not yet, maybe we don’t know for the future. So what were the regular R&D concerns for mRNA vaccines? And you can find this table in this very article that I pointed out to you, the family. [00:37:40] The one aspect was to stabilize and protect the messenger. How did we do that in our mRNA injection that people widely injected. They have been doing that. So the protection goes by an encapsulation into a lippy, the LMPs lippy nanoparticles, and the stablization basically roughly is based on the fact that there have been changes in the genetic code in a manner that has never been tested yet, because it was a systematic change before that we used to use that kind of modification, but not in a systematic way, which is called absudo you regulation. [00:38:26] Now we in the R&D you want to target the messenger to the desired cells. And in fact at this stage of our knowledge, I just wish to know if there is any, if there is any cells that cannot be reached out by the common technologies that we are using. It seems to me that any cell type we, we look at, we find that the possibility of the injection to, to go and to reach [inaudible]. [00:38:58] The other aspect is the increased escape of messengers messenger for and from endosome. I will not go into this detail because it will lead me to too much. The deliver and messenger RNA directly to the dendritic cells. This is important for me to bring because a lot of people and colleagues have said that the technology we were using were going to reach only the dendritic cells, which is not the case. Increased amount of protein translated. [00:39:29] Yes, it has been very well designed as to get a very strong efficiency for the messenger to get translated. Increased duration of protein production. So this is actually an issue that we have because to the best of my knowledge I cannot find any insight as to when we really get the messenger to be degraded. [00:39:54] So I’m looking for any sort of information related to this specific mRNA degradation and not a, another model. Optimize immune responses from, for the antigen. We know that it has been quite of a concern lately and this is this, again, I will not go into details because it has been discussed elsewhere. Decrease or select desired inflammatory effects of messengers and optimize the above for potentially safety, complexity of formulation, cost of manufacture, product stability. [00:40:30] And as you may know, all these aspects are actually troublesome to say the least. The issues that are to be addressed for efficacy and safety in this paper, again, in this review from 2019, where the following, the potency in terms of the impact of the messenger innate immune responses dependency in terms of the impact of other drugs. [00:40:56] And we all know that there have not been any sort of. At least to the best of my knowledge. Again, I do not know a lot of interaction between typically antibiotics maybe and mRNA injection. And how does it affect the extent of translation into proteins? So this is just to give you the number of questions that we have currently potential toxicity of messengers due to inheritance messenger, inflammatory activity the use of unnatural modified nucleoside, just as I told you, this, pseudo formulation and and yes, this almost last type with the anti self RNA antibodies that will be generated how they will play a role, any role in auto immune diseases. [00:41:49] Once again, this is I believe quite an open question and basically how we should be designing clinical trials to detect inflammation and toxicity due to the messenger. And fortunately the design of the clinical trials, as we, you may know was not well-designed and specifically as to show any aspect on cancer or genicity and, toxicity. If it’s so well known that we could, that we had everything enhanced that we could spread it to the planet. [00:42:22] This is an, updated list of the registered MRNs based clinical trials that you can find on clinical and overall I Vanessa could find 70 clinical trials 53 only targeting COVID-19 and 17 on other diseases. So this is just to give you again, an insight as to the fact that we were not so advanced into these kind of technologies. [00:42:54] And most of them were phase one, phase two, and hardly reaching phase. So as you see on the left, so this is not the COVID-19 one. I just selected the one on other diseases to give you a glance. Some were finished. But they were actually stopped when they are finished, on the left column, that on the right column, they were actually finished, but stopped in phase one or, and so not fulfilled to the end or they were under recruitment or ongoing. [00:43:27] The next slide is: did we have any other special warning with these vaccine idea of of injecting most of the people? We did have, and I really liked this article that was put by Cardos et Veazey who specifically asked that we would get an informed consent disclosure to the vaccine trials, subjects of risk for COVID-19 vaccines as to the possibility that they would worsen the clinical disease. [00:44:01] Why do they, what was their basis? Why did they say that? They were not anti-vax. They were just mentioning the fact that vaccines for south Merce and RSV had never, ever been approved and that the data generated in the development of such technology was actually leading to a serious mechanistic concern. [00:44:27] And typically the possibility that there was this issue with the spike protein to elicit neutralizing antibodies and have an impaired answer into in the antibodies with ADE, which is the antibody dependent enhancement. And so the conclusion as they stated, it was really light. [00:44:49] And, but I think very based and sound. It was the specific and significant COVID-19 risk of ADE should have been and should be prominently and independently disclosed to research subjects currently in vaccine trials, as well as those being recruited for the trials and future patients after vaccine approval, in order to meet the medical ethics standards of patient comprehension for informed consent. [00:45:20] Unfortunately in most of our countries that haven’t been so a special consent, the complexity of all this is extremely high. And I like to quote that sentence from this article on micro RNAs, in solving COVID-19 puzzle from infection to therapeutics that states that SARS-CoV-2 has the potential to dysregulate new murals cellular pathways, perhaps leading to an increase in anomalies in patients with comorbidities, such as cardiovascular diseases, renal failure, pulmonary complications, cancer, obesity, diabetes, and so on. [00:46:04] And with that drawing, this actually states the number of dysregulation of micro RNA in the different disorders that are linked to COVID-19 and their targets. And, obviously from our understanding, the thing is that a lot is being performed at the level of dysregulation of the target. [00:46:29] And unfortunately those target typically like ACE2 or Neuropilin-1 are the one that will bind, be bound, that are the receptors for spike protein. And so therefore, one really needs to ask how much of the diseases that we are currently facing at the moment can be spike related and spike related, meaning maybe despite that is being produced by the vaccines, because why not? [00:46:59] So at very first was playing the right target for vaccination. The thing is that we know that there is a very high load of RNA, of mutation in RNA viruses, and the thing is that we all knew that spike was actually a hotspot for mutation. So if one wanted to elaborate many sorts of products because you would have variants and you had changed tangents in the spike, it was probably a good idea. [00:47:30] Now, if you wanted it to be an efficient procedure, we all knew, again, that a spike would be a tedious choice to say the least not only because of the high load of mutation in to the spike protein, but also because due to the high load the high number of potential binding and entry receptors, such as ACE2, CD 1 4 7, CD 26, TLR and GP2b3a and Neuropilin-1 again. [00:48:04] This gives you once more, the sort of complexity that one can get just by being having its body to produce at a high level spike proteins. What do we have in terms of dated publication and knowledge, we have this insight that is really important, I believe, which is that on top of that you have the circulation of spike within the brain by the possibility that you even get the internalization through of spike through the recipe. [00:48:41] And that is a very recent papers that was shown that actually proved that the spike proteins would induce pathological changes in the delivery and the metabolic function in the brain. So it’s a very worrisome. Now let’s zoom in to the strategy a bit further. So they did encapsulate the MRNs into NLPs. [00:49:06] The thing is that they chose a different lippy nanoparticles and we’ve wrote a letter to the European medicinal agency, the EMA, and the EMA did answer as to the possibility that those injection would be leading to cancer or toxicity. [00:49:28] And so we were wondering what they were doing to circumvent or to trace any of these aspects. They did answer to us, and the answer was rather puzzling. The first part of the answer was basically that no, they didn’t do such studies because it would take time and money and human resource constraint as to do such studies. [00:49:53] So it is a very puzzling answer. When you just think that you’re injecting billions of doses. The other part of the answer was a bit puzzling as well. It was focusing on ALC 0 1 5 9, which is one of the lippy nanoparticles. And they were saying that one shouldn’t really worry as to the toxicity of this specific LNP, because we were using low doses of it. [00:50:21] And we were to only inject it twice. That was the answer we got at that time. Maybe they didn’t know that the idea was to, repeatedly use this injection and to have this booster thing. So it is a concern that the scientific community has, and I like to point out that people are actually looking for other alternative for delivery of the messengers and typically to be trying to use the exosome edited messenger delivery. [00:50:56] And in the abstract, they did say that they would like to have this alternative approach because it’s in contract to LNP, which elicited pronounced cellular toxicity. And that’s why they wished to have exosomes because they think they have no adverse effects, at least in vitro or in vivo at any dose tested. [00:51:18] So you just, have more and more insight into the fact that everyone in the scientific community knows that we do have this toxicity and specifically in the liver. And I prompted clinicians to look at any liver dysfunction with the LFTs the liver functional tests. So if we zoom further in the strategy it seems to me that on addition to having this toxicity or diseases or sicknesses through the mRNA injection strategy, you have to add to it, the fact that you are having your body to produce quite an amount of spike. At first for doing this presentation, [00:52:00] I wanted to throw all the publication that gave evidence that that spike was somewhat toxic for us or did lead to some pathogenicity. Then I was just so overloaded by the literature that there was no way that I could do that. So I will just go through quickly a number of concern that maybe in the event of this spikopathy, as I coined it, one is the activation of sleeping andogenous viral genome sequence, typically the H E R V – W envelope which this paper very nicely showed that. [00:52:44] Not only SARS cov two but also just spike stimulation did lead to an increase in the expression of this sleepy messenger in our cells. And this is all very much problematic when one understands the number of concerns that the production of an envelope of H E R V – W leads to. Another rant of concern [00:53:11] is this recent paper, which is an in-vitro prepare again mostly all the papers are in vitro that leads to the data that a spike impairs the DNA. So the DNA repair system, and on top of that inhibits VDJ recombination. So this is also a very big concern, especially when we are talking of throwing some COVID-19 drugs, such as Mo most of your per inovia, which I can never pronounce well that is mutagenic. [00:53:47] And so on the one hand you may be throwing mutagenic drugs. And on the other hand, you may have impaired your DNA repair capacity. Another aspects, which is not the least, the mitochondrial dynamics is again, it seems to be altered. And this has been shown repeatedly just by spike protein and the spike in the endothelial cells is also problematic. [00:54:13] There is more because not only, we have this spike as I said earlier, that can enter despite one, for instance, that can enter brain endothelial cells, but we also have circulating example zooms. So that is just really released November 20th as current as they, it was just it’s pre-published online October 15. [00:54:36] And in fact, what you see here is that the spike protein is you have, by the injection of Pfizer, you do have circulating exosomes with the spike protein. This is to me, a very important piece of data, because it means that you will essentially get the spike protein everywhere and very easy to disseminate because circulating exosomes are a fantastic mode of transport into the body and also into liquid external fluid. [00:55:18] So to wrap up for scientists and clinicians, my idea is that we should be looking at any sort of trouble, of the post VAX trouble, into basically three categories. One is really the impairment at the antibody level, like the antibody dependent enhancement and this enhanced respiratory disease that we were to expect, and that we are not so surprised to be facing. [00:55:50] The other part is the MRNA injection sickness as I call it. So those can be the LNPs as I showed you. But I think we should also take into account the fact that unless there has been a conspiracy against Japan, which I’m not aware of, there have been some metal contaminants in Pfizer, and Moderna in that they could show in Japan and therefore one should worry as to those [00:56:19] contaminants maybe that will lead to some sickness. So this is more typically the kind of the fact that you will get a very quick answer allergic answer. And so death that suddenly take place I believe the second class, and the last part, which will basically with mRNA strategy would take place not before [00:56:44] let’s say 15 days is the wide ranch of spikopathy. And so just, by having a look at these three categories, you get the dynamic as to understand when you get, when facing the trouble of post vaccination and the delay from which it takes place. One can probably have a glance at where to look, whether ADE or mRNA injection sickness or wide ranch spikopathy. [00:57:16] And the second part is one may actually propose some drugs and some way of treating those patients because obviously if one is facing sickness from LMPs, I would believe that you have a liver sickness and therefore you want to limit the disease, the inflammation. [00:57:37] And so one probably wants to use this modem or other kind of molecules or strategies. Now, if you are spacing your spikopathy, then you probably wish to at least diminish the quantity of spike that is bound to the receptor and therefore to use any sort of strategy that would alleviate the possibility of it to bind. [00:57:59] Thank you. [00:58:00] Dr. Naseeba Kathrada: Thank you so much for your excellent presentation, Doctor Dr. Caude I just want to say, with more and more research coming out, like what you’re showing us, in the beginning, we were just forced to believe things like MRNA, the technology is so great because they’ve been working on it for years and you’ve just exposed that they actually haven’t. [00:58:17] And with that, you’ve- [00:58:18] Dr. Alexandra Henrion Caude: No we have been working for years, but it is the path is difficult. [00:58:24] Dr. Naseeba Kathrada: Yes. Yes, I understood. And and it’s with people like you’re giving us the research and the clarity on that point, because whenever we debate with somebody saying that it takes years to develop a vaccine, they very quick to say that they’ve done so many, and you’ve actually enumerated the child. [00:58:37] And it actually isn’t that many. And like you said, some of them only phase one and phase two, we’ve got many questions for you. And if you can please go to the chat they start off with Q and I think the first question for you is somebody wanted to know, can they get this presentation in French? [00:58:53] And from that, there’s a lot of questions below that if you can, please answer the questions for us in the chat, so that, that everybody can get a fair share of your attention, because this is absolutely an excellent presentation. I’m definitely going to be using it because you now have shed a light on so many things. [00:59:08] Thank you. I thank you so much. And with that, I hand you over to to mark. [00:59:12] Dr. Mark Trozzi, MD: Thank you for this great presentation, Dr. Caude. I hope we’ll be seeing more of you and certainly would love to invite you to be involved in the medicine and science committee of the world council. So I hope we get to see more of you and have more contact with you. [00:59:25] When you look at this, it’s so shocking and I find myself wondering, at what point did we go from reckless to vandalism? In any event, [00:59:33] Our next speaker, we’re blessed to have is Dr. David Wiseman, who is going to be giving us a perspective of our situation with regard to drug development and regulatory mechanisms. [00:59:43] Yeah. It looks like he’s come in. Beautiful. Thanks David, for being here. [00:59:47] Zoe Strickland: David, you’re on mute. [00:59:49] David Wiseman: There we go. Some people prefer that way. [00:59:52] In the preparation someone said, can we have a song? If you don’t mind, I’m going to give you the song. Is that okay? And people to make their own verses afterwards. [01:00:05] I’ve got the COVID blues. Because this is what they say. Just take the bags, and it will go away. Take HCQ. And you’ll lose. That’s why I’ve got the COVID blues. [01:00:19] Okay. All right. That’s it and goodbye! [01:00:24] Dr. Jennifer Hibberd: No. [01:00:25] David Wiseman: We need a mental health treatment here because I, yeah, I recognize a lot of the names on the list and I know everyone’s working without pay in most cases, crazy hours. [01:00:38] And and I really appreciate this kind of opportunity to get a sanity check from everyone and the wonderful presentations. And also to acknowledge my direct collaborators, some of whom were on the call, Joss Getsgo and Hurley Seligman, and the wider circle of people that, that we interact with Tess Lauri and many other. [01:00:58] Thank you. And I’m honored to speak to you today. My background is, I have a PhD in experimental pathology. I’m a UK pharmacist pharmacology. I worked for a little company called Johnson and Johnson. I headed up a research program there. I was one of the top scientists there. I was a research fellow great level. [01:01:15] There was 66 of us at that time in the corporation. And I started my own business 25 years ago, doing R&D consulting, preclinical studies, FDA stuff for medical companies and dropped everything a year and a half ago because this is important and the, really the top five messages, I think that I want people to think about today. [01:01:36] I’m mainly going to focus on the children’s vaccines but it will spill into the other areas as well. First of all, the vaccine data that have been used to justify the children’s vaccination for Pfizer are un-verified by FDA. And that’s just outstanding. And Mark, just ask, what point did we go from recklessness to vandalism. [01:01:55] You might take that word even further than the word vandalism. Secondly, there is an un-changed untested formulation of the Pfizer vaccine, which has been authorized in the United States to everyone. And I’d be interested in, in, in people’s view on that in a moment. The floor, the risk benefit analysis that FDA presented for the children’s vaccination we believe conservatively is off by 26 times. [01:02:18] There is an unevaluated radiation like risk of cancer, and I use that term in order to make it something that so the average person can understand. And lastly, what’s going with boosters again, trying to capsulate it into simple, very complicated concepts, such as what we just saw a moment ago into very easy to understand language that this I believe is the immunological equivalent of heroin addiction. [01:02:43] Most people can understand what heroin addiction is. And I believe that, what we’re seeing with the boosters is the immunological equivalent of it. On top of that, and again, hearing from the south African legal department a moment ago and others, that there’s really a complete abandonment of regulatory standards and normal drug development strategies. [01:03:02] And there’s little, really no support for continued vaccination and certainly none for mandates. So those are the top line messages, and I’ve given you my background here. I also want to acknowledge the generous support, Steve Kirsh and Metta prep, education and trial site news. And I can supply these support slides later. [01:03:21] I’m going to go quickly. If anyone wants to jump on a call afterwards, I can go into more detail. This is the sort of stuff that we’re faced with. I’m sure everyone’s seen this type of thing in their own countries that the health departments and public officials are saying that things like that the Pfizer vaccine for five to 11 year olds has been carefully studied in children. [01:03:40] And I’m sure you’ll realize that statement is, there’s little resemblance to reality. You will know the scale of the information that we’re being bombarded with just on pub med. As of two days ago, there were nearly 200,000 papers published in pub med or listed in pub med. [01:03:56] That’s about 400 or so papers a day. And there’s about a 10th of that in med archive being probably the most prominent pre-print server. Part of my work has been looking at hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin co-authors Pierre Cory and others, where we’ve looked at key studies that we use to guide [01:04:14] public policy, the bull west study and in the new journal medicine and the Lopez Medina study in JAMA, where we’ve looked at raw data, the raw data and found significant flaws. And once we’ve corrected them, we see actual reductions to statistically significant reductions in COVID. In those and other studies. This is the risk benefit analysis that FDA presented and in their most extreme scenario, what they call number six, they have a 6.6 times benefit of vaccinations in children over risk. [01:04:45] And there are a number of places which are listed here. I’m not going to go through them in detail. But number of places where they’ve underestimate or they’ve miscalculated these various components so that if you recalculate it in our estimation, there are 26 times off. And in fact there is at least a 4 times [01:05:03] risk over benefit. And I’m going to show you just a couple of examples of that. And this is a very conservative estimate. We haven’t even dealt with whether, even if the vaccine is efficacious or not on this particular analysis. One of the things that FDA actually got right, or partially, was it admission finally that the VAERS data that the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System is under reported. [01:05:26] And that was a specific question and answer between an FDA and a CDC person to which the FDA person told the CDC person that the virus is under-reported and the FDA have another database that they use, which CDC didn’t seem to know about called Optum. Although Pfizer knew about it and on this slide, which is a Pfizer slide from an FDA meeting they show that if you compare the 1 0 6 number with the 22 number, you can see that at least with some myocarditis there’s under-reporting by 4.8 times. [01:05:56] And of course it could be larger than that, but this is outstanding that finally, we have an admission that VAERS is underreported, that the database is not very good. And we’ve got at least a beginning of what those under-reporting factors could look like. One of the areas that [01:06:08] completely ignored is seroprevalence and natural immunity. And this the background here is the CDC slide from showing in June 42% seroprevalence in children ages five to 11. The number could probably be higher. FDA did not account for any, they didn’t or not allow for any protection at all. [01:06:25] Not even 1% of the 42%, they didn’t account for that in their risk benefit. So it’s not like they’re saying the vaccine is 42 times better than evolution or better than God. They’re saying it’s infinitely better than evolution and infinitely better than God. I find that completely amazing. CDC, as you probably know responded to an FOI request regarding natural immunity saying they don’t collect any information regarding recovered patients and whether they can transmit disease after they recovered. Again, this is outstanding, that they, that their mission, which is to conduct critical research. [01:07:01] And this is certainly critical research that they’re not even doing that. So CDC on a number of levels have completely failed. And I just wrote a letter open letter to the chairperson of the advisory committee meeting that held a very hastily put together meeting last Friday. And the lawyer from South Africa mentioned, all the fun and games that they’re being faced with late term disclosures, et cetera, et cetera. [01:07:25] This is in the same category here, but this is, you can read this lecture on Trial Site News. An FDA senior FDA official ex FDA official, Dr. Goldberg wrote recently that the FDA failed in its duty to ensure vaccines are safe for children. And certainly I agree with that. [01:07:40] This and the next slide are probably two of the most important slides that anyone can have at this point. And I hope that you can see the very bottom of it. Can you see that it’s in the red box there Assay not validated? Is that visible on the screen? Only one. Yes. [01:07:55] Dr. Naseeba Kathrada: Yes. [01:07:56] David Wiseman: Okay. [01:07:57] This is a slide the FDA slide. Other than that, the comments that I’ve overlaid onto it, this is one of the slides that the FDA. Discussing Pfizer’s evidence or claim of efficacy in children. This is an immuno bridging study looking at the antibody production effective against Delta. [01:08:17] And first of all, you’ll note that it’s only with 34 patients. That’s one thing with four in the placebo. But astoundingly shockingly at the bottom, it says assay not validated, which means that the test method hasn’t been even invalidated. And secondly, that the analysis has not been verified by the FDA. [01:08:37] That’s their job. That is their job. That is a fundamental job of FDA to check that the numbers just add up simply that the numbers add up and that’s before they’re supposed to even go and do alternate analysis, but they haven’t even done that. They’ve got absent without leave. And if you think this was a, this was really a secondary study. [01:08:55] I’ll invite you to look at this slide, which is the efficacy data in children with 1300, five vaccinated children of whom three developed, COVID not serious COVID and 16 out of 663 developed not serious COVID and this number, these numbers were used to calculate a 90.7% efficacy of vaccine efficacy. [01:09:20] And at the bottom of the slide, this is an FDA slide. These are not my words. These are FDA words. Make sure you really understand that it says analysis, not verified by the FDA. How can we even begin to discuss anything until we know that the numbers are even good? We can’t discuss anything. Any lawsuits, if someone asked the question earlier, do I bring 51 Metro analyses or 50 analyses? [01:09:46] You just have to bring this one. You just have to show this slide. Okay. This one slide tells you everything. We don’t even know if the data is reliable. I don’t care if you bring me a million Metro analyses. Okay. If the data is, has not even been verified by the FDA, a public, supposedly the gold standard of regulation, how can we even begin the conversation that is beyond outstanding. [01:10:13] And I would just tell you that this is not the first time the FDA had done this in the October 15th meeting of the advisory committee where they discuss the Janssen second dose booster, dose, whatever you want to call it in a similar series of slides to this one, but probably 20-30 slides perhaps. [01:10:31] At the bottom of those slides were words similar to these that the analysis had not been verified by the FDA. 20 or 30 slides being used to support Janssen’s application. And one of the committee members, Dr. Chatterjee challenged, the FDA said, what do you mean you haven’t analyzed the data, verified the data, isn’t that your job and the answer that was given, and this is all in the public record. [01:10:54] I’ve got it all queued up on YouTube. I can send you the link. It’s very easy. Anyone can look at it for themselves. The answers, but from the FDA world, we thought these people were just going to show up with 200 patients for us to look up. Johnson and Johnson had the absolute sincerity to show up with real data with 200 with 20 or 30,000 patients. [01:11:13] How can you possibly expect us to analyze that data? And we, it would take us a month to do. Excuse me, FDA. That’s your job. That’s your job. You failed the American people. You failed the world because the world is looking at you as the gold standard. Okay. So this is not the first time incidentally, that same doctor who asked that question at the October the 15th meeting was not present at the October 26th meeting where these data that I’m showing you on this slide were presented. [01:11:42] I don’t know why, what the reason for her absence was. This is combined with the fact that they’ve changed the formulation. This is no different from a label on a car seat, which says, that the car seat is for a child is 91% effective at reducing children’s automobile accident injuries. [01:11:59] But the government have not checked our testing. The testing we did was with a different car seat from the one we’re selling and the government agree with us that the changes are minor, even though we did no crash dummy tests on the new car seats. If you wouldn’t put your children in this car seat, why would you give them a vaccine that essentially says the same thing? [01:12:19] This is another way that the Risk benefit analysis is flawed in other aspects and basically using Pfizer’s own numbers at the bottom, which you’ve seen in an earlier slide, the three in the 16 numbers, we can calculate how many cases would be prevented using the vaccine in the five to 11 year olds and using those numbers, anyone can do the math. [01:12:39] They’re not difficult, certainly for anyone on this call. I hope we calculate nearly 22,000 preventable cases, according to Pfizer’s own numbers, according to Pfizer’s own numbers. And when you look at FDA’s calculations in the left column, the blue ellipse, you can see other than scenario three, their estimate of the number of preventable COVID cases in the same population of children are between 45 and 58,000. [01:13:09] A difference of between 2.1 and 2.7 times. In other words, using Pfizer’s own numbers, FDA have inflated that estimate by nearly three times. In fact, that CDC has had a slight update on the numbers. So the number could be up to 2.9 times. This is this beyond any sense of sanity. [01:13:30] Now you’ve all heard the term, everyone on this call knows the term double blind randomized study. And you all know what it means, and you’ll know why. But it might shock you to learn, as it did me actually, because I missed this one until recently, that the administrator of the vaccine, the person giving the dose to the child, or in fact, even in the adult as well was not blinded. The person administering the dose, [01:13:52] in fact, the people preparing the dose, throwing it out, diluting it, whatever they had to do. And then administering a dose was not blinded. I’m sure everyone here who’s been done any type of experiments, okay, understands that you have to make decisions because things happen in experiments. And you have to make a decision as to whether to include a particular animal, a particular patient in a study because things happen. [01:14:15] And you have to do that as honestly as you can. Am I excluding, or including this person, because I’ve got some unknown bias that I don’t know about, and you have to build protections into the protocol to keep you honest, even if you’re not trying deliberately to manipulate the numbers. So this is an observant blinded study, and the three and the 60 number that I showed you [01:14:36] that was driving the 90.7% efficacy estimate doesn’t have to change by very much to change 90% efficacy down to zero. And here’s one place where that could happen. You notice in the red circles that 47 subjects were excluded due to protocol violations in the vaccine group, only four excluded in the placebo group. Anyone who’s doing any kind of clinical trials would immediately recognize this is a huge red flag, neon lights, sirens, blazing as to what the hell’s going on over there. [01:15:09] The sirens are deafening on this one. Okay. And if the person administering the dose was not blinded, okay. It could easily happen. Not even intentionally. Why there are more way more, by 10 or more times, way more exclusions in the control in the placebo, in the vaccine group than the placebo group. [01:15:30] You don’t have to have many that are wrong to change those 16. And the three numbers down to numbers that are approximately equal. So this is a humongous problem. We don’t even know if this is efficacious. Of course, since the FDA didn’t verify anything that’s even worse. Number one. Number two, why was there no ITT analysis and intention to treat analysis? [01:15:50] That’s a standard statistical procedure that is used in these types of instances. No intention to treat analysis. That’s another red flag. And so on this slide, we show that even though in the new England journal of medicine account of this study, you have to delve into the appended protocol to find the word observer blinded study. [01:16:11] Okay. It’s it is there, but FDA in their documents still think that it’s double blind. No wonder they’re not checking for any bias. And then in the adult study, the one that everyone’s being vaccinated on for the Pfizer, again this was a observer blinded study, even though FDA thinks various documents [01:16:31] it’s a double-blinded study. And again, here are the data. The red circles are the fundamental outcome events in the adult study. Eight COVID cases in the vaccine and 162 in the placebo that doesn’t have to change by very much, okay, to change the estimate from 95% efficacy to a lower number than that. [01:16:52] And if you think where’s the source of that again boxes there, there are 311 exclusions in the vaccine group and 60 in the control group. They don’t have to change by very much. You don’t have to be wrong by very many to change the estimate or the efficacy. And make it worse, [01:17:07] there are allegations published in the BMJ a couple of weeks ago of a serious errors in scientific misconduct, including unblinding related to the Pfizers of vaccine study adult vaccine study at one particular study center, we don’t know how widespread this is. So safety, that the study is small in children with small, with a short followup. [01:17:27] There are missing data. Pfizer said that they were going to be collecting a blood sample, serum samples, to look at troponin levels for subclinical myocarditis. Where are they? Where is that study? Where is it? Where are the results? A paper or an abstract just came just a few days ago. [01:17:44] Looking at this pulse a profile test, I guess you call it where they’re able to predict acute coronary syndrome, EEG, heart attack, and other things using these various markers. And they show in a group of people who are in a preventative cardiology program, that there was an increase from 11% in the sort of pulse positive people to 25% was showing an almost two and a half year risk. [01:18:06] This is in a validated measure, two and a half, two and a half times the risk of acute coronary syndrome in five years. So there are all sorts of indications that, that there’s stuff going on here. FDA knew about the Moderna concerns early in October. And yet that was never brought up at the FDA meeting on October the 26th. [01:18:25] And on the same day, the FDA authorized the children’s vaccine for Pfizer. They also told Moderna you’re on hold for your children’s program. And yet, sometimes they want to use Moderna together with Pfizer to bolster a particular point. But here they split the two. Why didn’t you bring this up FDA at the October the 26 meeting when you were supposed to be presenting what they call the totality of evidence. [01:18:48] You may have seen this quotation. It goes from worse to worse here. Dr. Eric Rubin, who was a voting member of the FDA panel, said at the FDA panel, we are never going to learn about how safe the vaccine is until we start giving it. And he is the editor of the new England journal. [01:19:05] So this statement was made on October the 26th. We’re never going to learn and we’ve got to point out the word never until we stop giving it. How about Dr. Rubin looking at your journal the next morning in your journal, he must’ve woken up in absolute shock. Wow. My journal has this paper on adverse effects, according to age and sex. [01:19:27] What a shame this wasn’t published two days ago and what a shame I could not have possibly known about it until I woke up and had my breakfast the day after the FDA meeting. Okay. And so when you go into that paper and you find what they’ve done here, again, this is off the station. Like you wouldn’t believe they’ve deemed granular the age bands for a risk difference for and other things. [01:19:50] Okay. And so two, which appears to obscure what’s really going on. So what we did was we went back and compared those numbers with CDC numbers, and we’re able to back calculate what that really means. And what that really means is that based on that analysis, I’m not going to go into the details. [01:20:08] It actually bolsters the number of points that we made in our challenge of FDA’s risk benefit analysis. So when Dr. Rubin says, we’re never going to learn you actually just learn something. If you just wake up the next morning, how disgusting is that? And to make it even more interesting the editors of the new England journal of medicine last October published this editorial called dying in a leadership vacuum. [01:20:28] And I would suggest rewriting that and calling it dying in a medical leadership vacuum. And these are some of the quotes that they had in the blue that the CDC has suffered dramatic testing and policy failures. This is what the new England journal medicine said last year. And FDA has been shamefully politicized. [01:20:45] The peers respond to pressure from the administration rather than scientific evidence. Wow. I don’t think things have changed very much. We see five causes of vaccine associated deaths based on various calculations. Herbie Seligman, and others have done these calculations based on the papers coming out of Israel and the ministry of health data. [01:21:04] And we’ve seen these patterns of increased all cause mortality as well associated with vaccination. If I have time, I’ll go into that. Everyone knows about the best system. I’m not going to go into that. I’m sure people are well aware of these kinds of ratios. This is the work done by with Josh and others showing when you compare rates are normalized for a number of doses and compare with a similar number of doses given for flu vaccines. [01:21:30] This is just for children now or adolescents, but the numbers are similar or even worse, actually. In some cases rates of between 20 and 60, 70 times more events of these kinds of categories than you do for flu vaccines. And again, drilling down on this slide when you go even to, into more granular types of events, in, in the hundreds of times, more than in flu vaccines the name that we’ve come up with is pCoVs, which is a post COVID vaccine syndrome. [01:21:57] We’ve got to call it something we’ve got to capture the minds of people to say, there was a general problem here. Okay. And we’re going to call it something. Pregnancy, you want to talk about disgusting. It even gets worse than that. And the issue of informed consent was raised in the earlier presentations and the package insert for commonality says that the data is unavailable is insufficient to inform vaccine associated risks in pregnancy. [01:22:19] And yet the CDC strongly recommends the vaccination during pregnancy. This is what they strongly recommend. So those two statements are in congruent, but here, this is even better. The CDC, a conducting study, I should say without the knowledge of participants, because, and this is the words of their protocols that are publicly available. [01:22:37] There is an urgent need to monitor the safety of these vaccines in pregnancy. If there is an urgent need to monitor the safety, why CDC are you recommending its use in pregnancy? Not only that, they’ve requested to waive the requirements to obtain informed consent for these studies or parental permission. [01:22:54] And so women who are in these studies don’t even know they’re in these studies and they are not only that because of mandates, they are being coerced in many cases to take the vaccine. Okay this is a medical experiment of the most disgusting type. [01:23:09] Svetlana: Can I jump in here? Can I jump in here for a second? [01:23:12] Hi, I’m I’m from Vancouver. I’m speaking to you from Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. We were at an awareness campaign rally yesterday at the lions gate hospital. We’re bringing awareness to the community. 13 stillborns in one day. 13 stillborns in one day at the Vancouver Lionsgate hospital. This, we usually have one a month. [01:23:37] We had 13 in one day we were bringing awareness. All pregnant mothers were vaccinated. So I want to just- [01:23:45] David Wiseman: I don’t know what to do. What can I tell you? [01:23:48] Svetlana: No, you can’t tell me. What I’m saying is I’m confirming what you just said that here in Canada, this is the result of vaccinated mothers. 13 stillborns in one day. So we had a family doctor of 50 years bringing awareness, and I was also the registered nurse bringing awareness. 13 stillborns in one day. The average historically is one a month. [01:24:09] David Wiseman: There you go. Wow. Menstrual disorders we’re getting reports as it reports from gynecologists menstrual disorders all of many different kinds. And that’s another, we know that the lipid nanoparticles distributed around the body, but particularly to the ovaries. So that’s probably not so surprising but only on August the 30th after this was the komanoff he was approved in the United States only then did it, did NIH announced funding to, to look at this issue cancer, the issue of cancer has been raised today and no cancer studies, no genotoxicity studies. [01:24:43] Why not? Why not? And they were done on, I think Moderna did them actually. Which is interesting. We were just finding that out today, but Pfizer have not, or at least, have not provided. Long-term safety and that’s something really stemming from the last presentation. [01:24:57] In the United States, this is Moderna’s statement at the top here. Moderna made this statement in their second quarter financial report last year. The mRNA technology, their mRNA technology is considered a gene therapy product by the FDA, a gene therapy product. And why is that important? [01:25:13] Because FDA has a guidance document as to what kind of studies need to be done for gene therapy products. And there is a, between a five and a 15 year guidance for long-term followup for auto immune diseases, cancers, the gene therapy products. That’s gone completely out of the window but no one’s mentioning this. [01:25:31] Okay. And so certainly again with, especially with the evidence presented a moment ago, we need to combine that with the regulatory situation. That again, once again, a regulatory guideline has been completely discarded, and the bottom are two quotations for a paper published by Moderna founders a couple of years ago, where they’re discussing their technology and the last bullet there they say the first clinical application will likely not be a prophylactic vaccine because the tolerance for side effects is very low for a drug that is injected into healthy individuals. [01:26:02] So this, these are Moderna’s own words, the scientists from Moderna’s own words in a publication in 2016. A number of studies coming out of Israel, because Israel is ahead of everyone else. Many countries in vaccination are being used to support different aspects of vaccines. [01:26:17] Most of these studies are being done by the same group of people from the ministry of health and which there are a significant statistic of issues, testing bias being one of them but a censoring bias, which I’m not going to go into any detail here, but a censoring bias that was picked up by a reader in this pre-print here which was partially accounted for in a sensitivity analysis in the first study from the Israeli group. [01:26:39] But he said, no, he didn’t go far enough in doing their sensitivity analysis. And so without the benefit of having the raw data to really do it again he made some calculations that suggested that when you account for this informational censoring you could reduce the efficacy of the vaccine down to zero, just on that alone. [01:26:57] And subsequent papers have used the same methodology, but they don’t reference the same limitation. So that’s a huge problem. Herve Seligmann, who I believe is on the call noticed in that early in February, he was probably the first person to notice these sorts of problems. And I’m honored to have him as a collaborator. [01:27:13] And he noticed in the Dugan paper, the blue line that there’s an imbalance to begin with of the number of death or cases, I think it was at the beginning but in the vaccinated group that shot up very quickly and pointing to some adverse consequence of perhaps of the vaccine and again, in another analysis, but which he did. [01:27:32] And then the two of us tweaked it a little bit made some, made it more wider. He really calculated that in United States terms, this is equivalent to about 30 something thousand deaths in among vaccinated people. You’re a subsequent to the cut to being vaccinated. [01:27:48] He tried to send this to new England journal of medicine. I’m sure. What happened to it. And then FDA authorized the booster doses on the same day they they put on hold the Moderna program. I don’t know why that slide is there, but this is going back to the Israeli study. [01:28:01] This is again Herve’s work showing that after the booster dosing in the red there in Israel, after the rollout of the booster dosing, the number of cases started to skyrocket. And then you’ve look at the blue line. Those are the that’s a similar period last year, where there was a slight uptick in cases some small wave, but you can see it subsided. [01:28:19] So the booster dosing was associated with a through the roof number of cases, and here is even more significant and we have dissect the Israeli data more detail here. This in the left side of severe cases, the right side of deaths. [01:28:31] And there’s a dotted line there, which shows the number of cases of the number of vaccinations, either new primary series or booster vaccinations, most of the booster vaccinations and then the normalized by population. The black line shows the uptick in the non-vaccinated groups, but look at the red line of the vaccinated, people who received the vaccine more than six months ago. [01:28:54] And if they had any sort of protection, then that line should have gone up later, and it should have gone up to a lower degree than the black line. And that you see that with both cases, severe cases and deaths. So clearly there that the old vaccination cases are, seem to be no better impact, probably even worse than the non-vaccinated people. [01:29:12] There does appear to be some interim benefit of the booster doses, as you can see in the green line. But but I’ve got another slide, which I’m going to have to jump this one here. This is Herve’s analysis, again, looking at 23 European countries looking at correlations between time from vaccination starting all different time points and showing that in the blue lines is a different age groups, et cetera, the top left group there’s a benefit overall benefit of all cause mortality appears to be an overall benefit all cause mortality from about four to 24 weeks post vaccination, but in the early four week up to four week period, and then 24 weeks onwards, there appears to be a detriment. [01:29:49] Meaning if the vaccine just waned to do nothing, that yellow area would be flat. It wouldn’t be there, but there’s a, there appears to be a detriment and this is an all cause mortality. Now, what is even more startling is on the left top left panel. This is children 14 years and below who were generally not vaccinated. [01:30:08] And you can see the associated with vaccination in the whole population. There is a detriment. There appears to be detriment in all-cause mortality. That’s very frightening. The booster dosing data only came out on Friday FDA dodged having their own meetings. So we don’t even have the FDA slide that says we didn’t analyze the data, but these are the numbers from the slides that were presented. [01:30:29] And when you compare the booster data, that Pfizer presented with their original data, this is in the adults now, even though, there’s obviously issues comparing across studies, but you see both in the boost, in the vaccinated, in the non-vaccinated group or boosted growth group, there is a three to three and a half times worsening of the outcome. [01:30:48] Overall, when you compare that, when you compare the two we don’t have the raw data. We need the raw data. Because of all the reasons that have been mentioned boosting, against a waning immunity, evermore vaccine resistant virus, variants de-selection of natural immunity and an increased and evaluated risk of cumulative dosing. [01:31:05] That’s why I’m calling this an immunological equivalent of heroin addiction. Lastly, I’m going to cover the new formula. And this, again, this was slipped under the rug under in the backdoor by Pfizer. And not just for children, but for adults. And all they got away with was showing analytical compatibility sort of bench, top basic tests of lipid nanoparticle and the mRNA characterization, which FDA accepted. [01:31:28] And again, as someone in the drug development field this would have been a huge red flag. Anyone who’s done any drug development will know that even the smallest of formulation changes could have major biological consequences and no animal studies, no transfection in vitro studies. And certainly no clinical studies were done to show any sort of biological compatibility between the old and the new formulation. [01:31:50] And that it was specifically stated by Pfizer that the, in the children’s vaccine, but the, all the studies were done using the old formulation, PBS buffer and not the TRIS buffer that they use, that they’ve now using, not just for children, but for adults. And so why is that important? The [01:32:06] claimed reason for doing this is stability. And you can see that the stability requirements to the old vaccine are quite stringent and quite difficult to manage. You need a very low temperature and anyone who knows about anything like this, we know this is difficult to manage this sort of cold chain problem. [01:32:21] And so what could have happened is that in some cases, people may have got actually a suboptimal dose and by improving the stability, you could either increase the amount of micrograms of mRNA that everyone would get, or people who might’ve got a lower dose because of stability problems. Now will get a higher dose. [01:32:39] So you’re effectively increasing the effective dose in different ways to people who are going to be receiving this vaccine, which of course could have efficacy and safety consequences on a sort of more chemistry level. And I’d be interested to for for the previous speakers comments on this is that you have these ionizable lipids on the lipid nanoparticles and they have tertiary aiming groups and you have the TRIS molecule on the top left side there. The [01:33:02] molecule and hydrogen bonding is well-known between, hydroxyl groups and tertiary aiming groups. And so you could change certainly if you can change pH characteristics at the injection site, you could change the ionization of the, even with hydrogen bonds, the electrical properties, chemical properties of the outer shell of the lipid nanoparticle, which could affect its uptake, its distribution, its entry into other parts of the body. [01:33:26] Again, could certainly change the efficacy and safety protocol. This is a basic question that FDA should have asked if I was sitting in Pfizer or Johnson and Johnson, I would expect to have this question asked to me, and I would be prepared to answer it with animal studies and in vitro studies at the very minimum, and that does not seem to have happen. [01:33:45] So that’s a huge red flag. Lastly, of course we want transparency. And this is a document that was given to me from trial site news from an FOI request from the European medical agency where a document was provided with an interim Pfizer report clinical report, and you can see page after page here of black tile tables, which which we speak to the disposition of adverse events and reactions and so on for 12 to 15 and 16 to 25 year olds. [01:34:13] So again, we want transparency in and I’m sure you’ve seen now the the response from FDA asking a federal judge to grant an until the year 2076 to fully release Pfizer’s COVID vaccine data. I’m happy to take the vaccine. I’ll just wait until all the data’s in and and take it so 55 years, I’ll see you. [01:34:32] There’s a day of prayer announced or something and there’s a verse from the book of Hosea that to kiss calves is like sacrificing humans. And you’ll know that the word vaccine comes through the word Vaca the Latin word cow related to the cowpox and the smallpox discovery by Dr. [01:34:47] Jenna, 200 and something years ago. And so we are literally worshiping the cow by worshiping the vaccine and those who kiss calves is like sacrificing humans. So thank you very much for your attention. I’m honored to ask answer any questions and to be in this audience. [01:35:01] Dr. Naseeba Kathrada: Thank you so much, Dr. Wiseman. It is absolutely interesting. You’ve got tons and tons of requests for your slides and hopefully we can get those. Perfect. Thank you. And also for the attendees who are on, they were able to ask questions in the Q&A, there is one excellent question there. If you can please reply to that in the Q&A section. [01:35:19] And then if you can please look at the questions that are coming through in the chat. [01:35:23] Your presentation was excellent. I’m going to definitely need it for our court case here in South Africa as well. Thank you. Thank you so much. [01:35:29] Dr. Mark Trozzi, MD: Thanks so much Naseeba. Dr. Wiseman, thank you for that exceptional work. The science and investigative work and really the shocking realities you’ve revealed. And in particularly when you talked about this being the equivalent of heroin, beyond the spike pathology, which explains a lot of what we’re seeing, these new concerns that we have about the destruction of the innate immune system, and really it’s a very concerning situation. [01:35:52] And I hope that we’ll be seeing lots more of you. I look forward to combing over your slides, watching your presentation, at least a few more times, sharing it with our audiences. And I would really invite you to hopefully maintain a connection with all of our affiliates, but certainly with the legal committee who is combing through evidence and trying to disseminate the knowledge of how to give this truth, some importance in how things are being guided around the world in the courts. [01:36:19] So thank you very much for your work, Dr. Wiseman Thank you. [01:36:22] We have had some great speakers and everybody just have a little shake and stretch because we’re going to get to hear from our affiliate, Cathal Healy Singh who’s from Trinidad and Tobago, and is with our affiliate organization C19 Transparency group. He’ll take the mic. [01:36:39] Cathal Healy Singh: Hi. Good evening, everyone. That was a real whirlwind of technical information. Can everybody hear me and see the screen? [01:36:46] Am I sharing it or are you doing it? [01:36:49] Zoe Strickland: You can share it if you can. [01:36:51] Cathal Healy Singh: Yeah, I’m doing that. Okay. So you should see the front end of it here with my name I was in. [01:36:57] Zoe Strickland: So you need to just press share screen at the bottom of the- [01:37:00] Cathal Healy Singh: One sec. [01:37:02] How is that now? [01:37:04] Dr. Naseeba Kathrada: Good. [01:37:05] Cathal Healy Singh: Okay. So I was in Guyana in what was once British Guyana when COVID arrived and there was a lock down and I was actually in the office of climate change as the advisor to the government. And that office was actually safely closed down because Exxon had drove first oil in Guyana in December of 2019. [01:37:28] And I had no way of getting back to Trinidad because the government had closed the borders. So I ended up here and London, which is where I’m speaking from. [01:37:38] I was worked around the Caribbean as an environmental engineer. I was largely based in Trinidad and Barbados some Guyana and so on, but in any event, just cutting straight to the chase, in Trinidad, we have about 1.4 million people. [01:37:52] So it’s a tiny little drop in everybody’s bucket. We had about 45.1% with a complete vaccination and slightly less percentage with one dose. And that hasn’t changed and that’s unlikely to change significantly, but I’m just showing you this picture here, because one of the things that the government has been hard pressed to do is to prevent us from having a clear picture of the vaccination status of the cases, the hospitalization, the recovery, and the deaths and how they’ve done that over time has varied and what they’re actually doing now, that we know that there a significant uptick in breakthrough cases with people who’ve been vaccinated, they are reporting what they’re calling at the bottom percentage of patients in the parallel healthcare system who are not fully vaccinated. [01:38:49] And you can see that the parallel healthcare system means the healthcare system set up to address COVID. And you can see that they’re using a number 91.7% saying they’re not fully vaccinated, but what they’re doing there of course is not allowing us to distinguish between the unvaccinated and the well, not fully vaccinated. [01:39:11] So that, that’s the latest example of how they’re avoiding the transparency. So what we did is, three of us met online, a doctor, an architect and myself sometime in May, and we formed this COVID-19 transparency advocacy group. And we wrote an extensive paper that was largely penned by the doctor in the group. [01:39:35] We have one doctor who is an extremely intelligent and compassionate man who has come forward. And that’s the only doctor that has come forward publicly in Trinidad to advocate for transparency. So we wrote an extensive letter, addressed it to the medical board of Trinidad and largely focusing on ethics, around informed consent, and never received a response. [01:39:58] And then we prepared quite an extensive paper on vaccination in children, claiming that it was both unjustifiable from, for medical reasons and unethical. And then the other significant thing that we did was to go to court with a pre-action protocol letter and request for information concerning the ministry policy on administering in particular, the Pfizer BioNTech vaccine to ages 12 to 15. [01:40:26] And, I was very impressed by Mr. Bongani Luthuli’s presentation and we have documents that we have submitted as well. And our ministry of health has ignored us and our lawyers since got cold feet and Trinidad is, it’s a very corrupt space in many regards, and there’s a lot of young lawyers who would be very afraid to take this on. [01:40:51] So we, a number of groups formed in Trinidad and Tobago. It may seem like a whole lot for such a small place. But we ha we don’t have collaborated with your colleague Lindon Mark, from the TMT human rights voice and with media and so on. [01:41:09] But one main thing is the government’s messaging is “vaccinate to operate”, and we turned it to “educate to operate”. So it’s a war of messaging, and we essentially have produced a number of flyers for public circulation handing out in markets, outside schools, outside vaccination centers. [01:41:30] We hand out messaging. I just want to say the Trinidad has been in a state of emergency for six, six months. And that has just been lifted a few days ago, but it’s been replaced by a public health ordinance that I will just share with you. [01:41:49] But yeah, we’ve had a coercive campaign of by the government with these vaccines. There is absolutely zero attempt to provide informed consent. And there’s a lot of anxiety that has built up in the society. And as you saw, with the people who refuse the vaccine, but we call it vaccine caution is what we call ourselves that we’re cautious and we’re advocating caution, [01:42:14] but in the people, who’ve had the vaccine where there are adverse effects, in a small place, the news gets around. And we have, when I say we, that our doctor, Dr. Rageves, I think he appeared on one of your four the Caribbean one sometime ago. He has visited a number of patients. [01:42:32] And what he’s found is that the government is in denial about their status as being adversely affected. And they’re essentially being pushed out into the margins and out of public sight. And for those people who haven’t taken the vaccine who chose not to, they, that have been at home in the schools have been closed in Trinidad. [01:42:55] Since right up through till September for the whole year, this is the second year of new school has been a lot of damage to children. Who’ve basically forgotten how to add and subtract, multiply and divide. And the government did a terrible thing by bringing out only the vaccinated students and then mounting a very aggressive campaign on everybody else to get vaccinated in secondary school with the 12 to 17 year olds. [01:43:23] And they managed to get 20% of the secondary school, sorry, 20% of the school population vaccinated, which is about 18,000 secondary school students out of a population of 90,000. And that was really tragic to see the children lining up for their vaccines and going to school. And then in school now they have everybody masked up and walking with sanitizers and, behaving in abnormal ways. [01:43:52] And there’ve been a number of incidents of aggression and fighting between the two groups, which is exactly what we didn’t want to happen. And we were advocating against. [01:44:01] I’m almost done, but there should be a picture of saying responsible parents, TT, which is a group that we formed specifically to confront the vaccination in children, because we realized that we couldn’t really influence what was happening in the adults. [01:44:18] The die was cast, but any children, the fight is on, which is why we went to court. [01:44:23] So the reason why I wanted to show it, because it was similar to the world council for health image imaging, and that we felt really, quite pleased with ourselves about that. [01:44:33] So that’s the reason why I’m just showing you. So going to the next slide, it should say deaths pre and post vaccination drive. So this is some data that we are currently updating, but we, our extensive research that we did early on, we showed that in our case, in Trinidad with quite consistent with the numbers of deaths around the world pre and post the vaccine rollout. [01:45:00] And that was certainly very much the case in Trinidad. As you can see that. [01:45:03] There were 150 over a year before the vaccine. And there were 893 deaths in about a third of that time after the vaccine drive. If you go to the next slide the data before ended in July, and we’re working on it this graph, which says T and T on top total deaths that’s the government figure under the uptake [01:45:26] now at the very end. Since the kids have gone out to school in September and, very worrisome out of control where it seems to us that, the vaccine is driving infections, it’s driving transmission, it’s waned already from it’s early on the four or five, six months has past. [01:45:45] And, there are these adverse events that are being hidden. Next slide. I’m showing this, are you seeing it’s like the new normal? [01:45:53] Yeah. Yeah. So what’s remarkable about this is the, this is government messaging and this is particularly alarming to me because when I arrived in England, I was promptly given Klaus Schwab’s COVID-19 the great reset, and coming out of climate change and the work that I have been involved in, it’s real. [01:46:13] But, this COVID climate crisis, the real nexus going on, and there’s a kind of a seamless continuity, but I’m just showing that slide to show you what our government has adopted very Orwellian new normal on its website. And the next slide, it says vaccine passes required. And this is the, what government has done is created what they call safe zones, where with the vaccine path, you can go and, eat and drink and participate in businesses that they’re calling safe zones. [01:46:47] And I just wanted to show you what our counter message to that was. If you go to the next slide, no segregation all are welcome. [01:46:56] So really it’s a battle for the minds and the imagination of the population that we’re engaged in, very aggressive on, on the one hand and ourselves trying to fight for caution, but this one is really directed at the businesses in Trinidad and Tobago. [01:47:12] And there’s been limited uptake. People are very much afraid of it, but yet still there are some people, some businesses, largely small businesses. That have posted it and adopted it. You can get it as a full-size poster. So that’s and the next slide I wanted to show you, it should say new health ordinance. [01:47:33] And what I’m showing you here is that after the state of emergency was lifted, in fact, what is replacing it is these, this new novel coronavirus regulations. And I just want to go to the next slide and show you something quite remarkable that the government has insisted on. So you should be seeing some text here and what’s remarkable is they talk about for the purposes of controlling and preventing the spread of COVID-19, it will be an offense during the periods specified, et cetera, to be found at or in any beach, sea, river, stream, pond, spring, or similar body of water. This is an extremely tyrannical ordinance to impose on island people who largely, you know, depend for health and recreation, I’m just pointing that out. [01:48:26] If we have a real problem on our hands in Trinidad and Tobago, for sure. So going to the next slide, it should say punitive fines. And I just wanted to show you. I was actually trying to find an update on how much they’ve collected so far, but you can see that there is remarkable penalties for, for owners of businesses for adults who fail to wear masks or fail to ensure that children are wearing masks. [01:48:54] And these are Trinidad and Tobago dollars, but if you divided by seven, it gives you an approximate, U S figure. And I just going to the next slide, which has the end on it. I’m just going to end to show you what our messaging looks like for this upcoming event on the 30th of of November, which is a Tuesday. [01:49:17] We’re hoping that a mass crowd will come here being supported by the radio station that is working with us. I just wanted to wrap up to say that, in small places, politics thing, and they really shaped the public interest response on the extent to which people will come out and stand up for, [01:49:37] but like I said, we have a small core of people who have done an extraordinary amount of work on chat groups and educating people, parents in particular and in general public, but I’m really grateful for the Africa conference. I think we learned an extraordinary amount. I’m most grateful for all of you. [01:49:56] And thank you very much. [01:49:58] Dr. Naseeba Kathrada: Thank you so much Cathal for always participating and for your input. That, that was great. Thank you. I’m going to hand back over to Mark Trozzi. [01:50:06] Dr. Mark Trozzi, MD: Thanks Naseeba. And thank you so much Cathal for your presentation. Forgive me. I had a little data trouble, so I’m going to be going back to catch the two minutes that I missed in the recording. Thanks for the important work you’re doing there. I understand that Dr. Brennan, COVID medical network, was unable to attend and so I believe we’re moving forward in our agenda. [01:50:27] And perhaps Zoe could help me, but I think that leaves us with our special event day. [01:50:33] Zoe Strickland: So we’re just going to do a quick, I think is there a quick update on the declaration? Is that happening or not? Just, sorry. Shabnam. Will you just confirm that? [01:50:42] Shabnam Palesa Mohamed: Hi! Thanks very much Zoe. So the declaration has been finalized and it’s been handed over to super Zoe and she’ll be attending to the rest in terms of including it in our next newsletter, as well as making it available on the website to download. And we have plans for our affiliates and the public to be able to sign onto this declaration. [01:51:08] It’s not a petition. We’re not asking for anything. It is a declaration and the cease and desist. So very happy to report on that. And to say a massive thank you to the legal community or to of course, includes Dr. Mark Trozzi. And I must, at that point say that, whether you’re a legal minded person or a doctor, you are welcome to join the legal committee meeting Thursdays 9:00 PM central African time. [01:51:31] And just to run to very quickly, a couple of other points you wanted to make. As in legal committee, we understand the importance of whistleblowers in this chapter that we faced in history. And so therefore, if you are someone with information that you need to share, that would be helpful in helping us navigate this time and discovering and creating a bit of weight is what the World Council for Health is all about. [01:51:54] Please feel free to reach out to the legal committee. I will put my telegram handle in the chat. Please feel free to reach out to us. It is of course a duty to act. And of course not acting when you have information does have legal implications. And so therefore we would like to support you if you have information that would be helpful to us. [01:52:13] And I’ll, again, I’ll put my handle into the chat. My colleague nearly, I think couldn’t make it this evening, but he wants to discuss a very important project that he’s working on in the Czech Republic. So we’ll hear from him next week. And there is a survey that we’re going to be speaking to the rest of the steering committee [01:52:30] that he would like to run regarding informed consent in your various countries. And what is the status of informed consent in terms of your various laws, your natural law, common law, constitutional law, criminal law, and civil laws. That’s going to be coming up very shortly as well. And then to quickly mention that, of course there are protests happening around the world to those of you that are on the ground and very proud to see that. [01:52:52] As an activist myself, before I describe myself as an legal professional, my journalism profession, it’s wonderful to see health professionals on the ground as well, because that’s what the people need to see. And of course, if you need any advice in that regard, you’re also welcome to reach out to the legal committee. [01:53:09] And very finally to mention that some of the work that our organization in transformative health justice did when people were being denied access to life-saving medications is to provide them with a informed consent and legal demand document which was very effective coupled with the strategy of applying public pressure. [01:53:26] So if it’s a hospital that’s denying access to serve that debt, but also go to their Facebook or Twitter or whatever, and apply that pressure as the public to say, we see what you’re doing. We object to it in the strongest terms, and we demand that the patient or the person get the treatment that the actually need. [01:53:41] If you need access to those kinds of documents, please feel free to reach out. And then very finely, just to mention the big, thank you to everyone from the world council for health who supported the trailblazer town hall hosted by Trial Site news in association with the world council for health. We hosted a science for humanity panel with Dr. [01:53:59] Tess Laurie, professor Paul Marik [01:54:01] and Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche and was a profoundly moving experience to be able to find that on Trial Site News’ Facebook as well as the website. The feedback has been absolutely incredible. If I can just share one before I close very quickly, if I can access to that one. And there it is. All right. So what was interesting about this one? It’s somebody from Sri Lanka. I think that reached out to us and basically describing themselves and congratulations for bringing everyone together and that paragraph saying, vaxxer but a conscientious objector for this experimental one more than that for the politics and corporate skulduggery behind it initiatives, like your Trailblazer town hall that will make the truth eventually prevail. [01:54:45] So I think that’s very significant because we’re not just speaking to the converted, so to speak, but we were reaching out to people that, and bridging that gap and that discrimination, one of the very powerful things Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche mentioned was that the wall in Germany came down and this wall of discrimination between the vaxxed and the unvaxxed will too. [01:55:04] So thank you everyone for your support. Please feel free to join the legal committee and reach out to us with any support that you need. And because of time, I’ll leave it there. Thank you very much. [01:55:12] Dr. Mark Trozzi, MD: Thank you so much, Shabnam. It’s actually been a really great pleasure to be the non-legal expert, getting to join and be some supportive part of the legal committee. [01:55:22] You guys are just doing great work and you’re one of the reasons that we have hope in the world. And so thank you very much. [01:55:28] Dr. Naseeba Kathrada: Hey Mark, before we hand over to Maria, can I just give you a quick medical and science update? Yes. Thanks, Mark. Yeah. So med and science, which is another committee that Mark Trozzi, is part of which is also a committee on the World Council for Health. [01:55:41] We bring to you the latest information up to date, information and scientific lots of things happening with with the world council for health med and science committee. [01:55:49] We’ve got an excellent article on Vitamin C, that’s out. If you go to the World Council for Health website or you join our world council for health forum, you will see all the latest articles that come up there. We want to reach the public. We want you to see things that you can do to boost your natural immunity. [01:56:04] So that’s up there. We’ve also got a great article on pandemic fatigue. We’ve got an article coming out on post jab detox. So lots of things coming with them, articles from the med and science committee. Also, we’ve just hosted an African health summit, like Cathal just mentioned, which is three days of absolutely amazing sharing, listening, caring, networking, and we showcased Africa, the forgotten continent, but it wasn’t just speakers from Africa. [01:56:31] We had speakers from all over the world and we highlighted what’s happening in Africa because Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche was one of our guests said Africa will save the world. And on that note I’m just going to just share this really quickly. If you can see my screen guys let me just go there. [01:56:49] This is what we did. There we go. [01:56:52] Okay. Can you guys see my screen? Yes. Yes, we can. Oh, gosh. Okay. I think I’m also having issues because we’ve got a storm here in South Africa. That was one of our messages that we had, which was a song in South Africa called “give me hope”. That was a what our theme was. And we ended off with, give me hope too. [01:57:10] I know which is a song from South Africa. Sorry, I couldn’t share that with you guys, but if you want to get the recording, it’s going to be up soon at the world council for health website, all three days, cut into bite-size chunks to access for you. In the meantime goal to go to our Africa health summit 21 YouTube channel, I will put links in the chat for you to view all three days. [01:57:29] And I will also be able to give you our telegram groups so that you can also follow that to see what is happening. And also coming up with the mitten science committee, we are actually working on the next summit, which is the Brazilian summit, and there’s also a Philippine summit coming up, which is so noted. [01:57:46] The 27th of November, there’s a Philippine summit, then there’s a Brazilian summit. And then we are looking to put together things that we’ve been requested, lots and lots of feedback from the African health summit. And we’re going to bring that to you because like we say at the world council for health, there is a better way and together we’re going to find it. [01:58:01] Thanks mark. [01:58:02] Dr. Mark Trozzi, MD: Thank you, Naseeba, that summit was exceptional. Thanks for the great work you’ve been doing. You’ve brought so many experts for us all to interact with. And for, people all around the world to get, to really have access to the, to a lot of the scientific truth and research. And it’s an honor to serve with you on the science committee. [01:58:23] I tend to focus a lot on liaisoning over to the legal committee, but you guys are just so thorough and I’ve learned so much as a member of all the different ways to support our health and to treat COVID. And it’s just an honor to serve with you. Thank you so much for everything that you do Naseeba and the other members of the committee. [01:58:39] And so I think we’re going to turn things over to Dr. Maria who is at the frontline of it all in Austria right now. Please catch us up to speed. [01:58:49] Zoe Strickland: Can I just quickly add before Maria comes on. So Dr. Brennan, who sadly had to leave because we overran a little bit today has asked that I just share a link to his website. [01:58:59] So I’m just going to screen share. Those watching from home and those in this webinar can watch. See a little bit of the COVID medical network. So this this organization is based in Australia. They do really fantastic work and I’m not really the person to talk about them, but I will say that they have a fantastic newsletter. [01:59:20] So I really recommend signing up to that, and checking out more of this website, if you have a chance. Okay, over to you Maria. [01:59:28] Dr. Maria Hubmer-Mogg: Hi good evening everybody or good morning or good afternoon. As Dell Pictory of the high wire always likes to say “wherever you are out there in the world, it’s time to step out onto the high wire”. And I think it is exactly like this. As you guys from all over the world know in Austria, things are going absolutely crazy. [01:59:49] Just a quick timeline. They announced the mandatory vaccines for medical personnel on the 12th of November. And then they said they will do a lockdown just for the unvaccinated from the 15th of November on. And at that time they also started to off-label use five year old kids in the capital Vienna. [02:00:10] Dr. Mark Trozzi, MD: And then on Friday the 19th, they said that there will mandatory vaccines for everybody. And to just round everything up, they said, now we are in a state, locked down for everybody vaccinated and unvaccinated. And our chancellor Schellenberg really likes to blame the unvaccinated for all this. [02:00:34] So we had, it was a worldwide demonstration day. And many of you were on the streets around the globe on the 20th of November, and we had the mega rally in Vienna in the capital of Austria. And there were, I was there myself, of course, there were, we think 250 thousands and maybe even more people out in the streets. Mainstream media said that we at 43,000 people out in the streets and there was so many people for medical professions and so many people that were vaccinated to unvaccinated and even two political parties who were organizing rallies and two other private persons that are organizing rallies and they all came together and they all said it is it doesn’t matter what political party you are in. [02:01:22] We stand here side by side and I really have to say it was such a great event of freedom and hope and going out in the streets for our health, freedom and democracy. And of course, mainstream media reported about some people, Antifa sheets, people that they probably even paid for to do, like the Penn guardian firework thing, and then to, throw beer bottles. [02:01:49] But all the people that were in our spirit, they didn’t do anything. And I think mainstream media, just yeah, they reported and even more reported about 10 people who had problems with the police. And so I can just tell you by being there or by attending that event, that it was just peaceful and beautiful. [02:02:10] And there is this arrange class, which is just a way around in the historical center of Vienna. And I would have loved to, walk the street for five other days. It was such a great feeling. And I really have to say thank you to all of you around the world, especially to Naseeba because I was able to speak at the African health summit. [02:02:29] And then I, ask you guys around the world, to go out into the streets and maybe to an Austrian embassy. And I saw people and from all around the world, in the front of embassies, Austrian embassies, like in London, or also, people in France were chanting, which was really lovely. [02:02:47] And we can feel this spirit coming from all over in the world. And as you guys know, there is just vaccines, mandatory vaccines in the Vatican and on new Caledonia or Micronesia or a Touchikistan and Austria. They want to really start this thing with the 1st of February, but now, the whole countries on the real strong [02:03:09] feeling of hope that we can still change things. If we sent a sign out into the world, so we will be in the streets for the next weeks, we will be in the streets of my hometown in Graz in Austria. And I think we will be tens of thousands in my hometown. It’s the second biggest city in Austria. [02:03:27] And I really invite people from, I don’t know, Czech Republic or from Slovenia, from Hungary from wherever you are out there in the world, please come to Graz in the south of Austria. It’s 200 kilometers south from Vienna, and we will do another big rally and I think there is hope and we can be the game-changer. [02:03:46] We will show the politician worldwide that you can’t do this with us. I’m sure we will probably have to use a strike to show what is going on, and since it’s especially in with the medical professions, if people just, stay home from work at one day, the nurses there are a lot of nurses in one part of Austria, I think 250 people from one Austrian hospital said, if you really do this to us, then 250 people will quit their job. [02:04:15] And then in this Southern state of Austria, the politicians already said, oh, whoa, yeah, maybe we have some more weeks, to talk about and so on. So I really have to think that now the power to the people and we have to do the pressure and put the pressure on them. And I really encourage you to go out into the streets as well. [02:04:35] Please bring Austrian flags. It is really a big sign for us and we really feel the spirit from you from all over the world. Thank you so much. And now I introduce you to my new baby. I have a lovely three year old son. But this is my new baby. So I was using it a lot. I was using it a lot that I really loved it, so I was even standing on the Goodter monument, which is in the book garden area of Vienna. [02:05:01] And this was the area where all the medical personnel with white caps, the all whites, met for the rally. And then I was speaking there in the beginning then before we went on this range class to go around and then in the end, again, it’s the Goodter monument. I was standing there with my megaphone and I think we really, we can really be the game changer. [02:05:24] And on the 4th of December, we will have another big rally in Vienna. And this is where I will also stand with my megaphone in front of the Australian embassy. So thank you so much everybody. And love from us from Austria to all of you guys. [02:05:38] Thanks, Maria. Thanks for everything you’re doing. You’re real super hero on the front line there. [02:05:43] We’re with you, please call on us and it’s really an honor to serve with you on the steering committee and throughout all the areas where somehow you also help on the world’s council while doing all this stuff on the front line. So thanks and blessings to you. It seems with all the challenges we have, it’s it, we have a kind of a, probably a good finish to our meeting this evening. [02:06:03] If then we could pull up a slide. Yes, today, as it turns out is a day for us to, in addition to doing all the physical and intellectual things we’re doing to tap into our spirituality a little bit to meditate or put intention out for freedom, because freedom is really what we want. Freedom of choice, freedom of access to your information, a free and fair society. [02:06:29] So a day for freedom from affiliates and there’s actually a website. You can go there and join a silent prayer with people from around the world. And I think as well as we all get on with our busy days, just keeping that, that part of you, that you connect on whatever level and however you do. [02:06:46] And let’s put some intention out there that we all find ourselves living in freer and fair society. And thanks for all the work that all of the affiliates everyone here is doing to help us get there. [02:06:57] Maybe we can take a moment of silence now and the theme of this per freedom. [02:07:04] If there are no other matters rising to extend our thanks and blessings with everyone. We look forward to seeing you again next week and interacting with a lot of you along the way. [02:07:17] Dr. Jennifer Hibberd: Thank you everybody for being here. And may the light stay with you all. This is important information we share today. It was a very heavy burden to take on because the information is so important and I’m glad we all had an opportunity to see it. I know we’re leaving the meeting with a heavy heart, but we know that this is part of the journey [02:07:37] we must go through to learn about this, to know how to share it with everybody around the world. So thank you so much for being here. [02:07:44] Shabnam Palesa Mohamed: Take care. Everyone. [02:07:45] Hold the line. Love and solidarity. [02:07:47]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *