Journey

Presentation: Twitter

The coronavirus as bioweapon project leading to Covid started 56 years ago in the UK when the Wellcome Trust decided to use coronavirus as the ‘preferred form of human manipulation’. Dr Martin bioweapons inspector:pic.twitter.com/UaAS294TIU

— Robin Monotti (@robinmonotti) December 5, 2023

Notes from Transcript:

Pretending that this is some sort of public health emergency. Pretending this is a justification for the inconceivable threat to liberties and the violation of human rights is actually nothing more than to give lip service to violence, and the fact of that is the evidence starts here in the UK in 1966.

Your own Wellcome Trust was the one who decided to fund the coronavirus as a preferred form of human manipulation in 1966.

It was one year later that the United States and the UK got into an agreement that said that we were going to modify and manipulate coronavirus to see what could be done to infect, quote “a healthy population”.

That was 1967, the year of my birth. So this slow looping train wreck that we call Operation Warp Speed only took 56 short years to come into being, and in 2011, in the document that is imaged on the left, which unfortunately given the size of the screen, is pretty much illegible but you can go find it:

An Anti-trust collusion, and I’m using that term quite literally, between the Wellcome trust, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Gates Foundation, NIAID, and the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, got together and established a mandate that said that by 2020, the world would accept, and I quote, “a universal vaccine“, end quote, by the end of 2020.

Now these folks apparently got a divining rod or some sort of mysterious bubble that they can look into to see the future with such absolute elegance that they actually identified back then that coronavirus might be the thing that would be just what nature needed to order for that to happen, and by 2015, we had the public statement that I need to read this into the record.

“To sustain the funding base beyond the crisis, we need to increase the public understanding of the need for medical countermeasures, such as the pan-influenza, or pan-coronavirus, vaccine.” ^{(13)Rapid Medical Countermeasure Response to Infectious Diseases: Enabling Sustainable Capabilities Through Ongoing Public- and Private-Sector Partnerships: Workshop Summary. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2016 Feb 12. 6, Developing … Click for full citation}

Let me pause for a moment. When this statement was made, the World Health Organization had officially declared coronavirus an eradicated disease. In what world do we need a vaccine for a disease, the World Health Organization and its own infinite wisdom declared eradicated? Question. Just sit on that for a moment. But let’s go on.

“A key driver is the media and the economics will follow the hype. We need to use that hype to our advantage to get to the real issue. Investors will respond if they see profit at the end of the process.“

Do that sound like a public health emergency to you?

Or does that sound like a statement of treason?

That is an act of domestic and international terrorism. That’s the admission of that act, and just in a few short days, we will have the author of that statement, one Peter Daszak, testifying in Congress that this thing probably still came out of the pandemic. That a random event that took place in Wuhan, China, where a bat and a pangolin got together and voila! in December.

That’s a quote from 2015 in the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. That’s the conspiracy level language I’m using, and by the way, I’m using the term conspiracy in the legal definition of the term: This is the admission of conspiracy to commit acts of terror.

And one year later, was the announcement, and I’m quoting, that the Wuhan Institute of Virology virus 1, was, and I quote, poised for human emergence, end quote, that was 2016. That’s the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. ^{(14)Menachery VD, Yount BL Jr, Sims AC, Debbink K, Agnihothram SS, Gralinski LE, Graham RL, Scobey T, Plante JA, Royal SR, Swanstrom J, Sheahan TP, Pickles RJ, Corti D, Randell SH, Lanzavecchia A, Marasco WA, Baric RS. SARS-like WIV1-CoV poised for … Click for full citation}

That’s the conspiracy that I’m apparently representing.

Next slide. Now, the evidence for all of you who doubt the merits of the argument that I made, is right in front of you. In 2002, the other left, you see the first patent in 2002, filed on the synthetic patent as coronavirus, which, as I’ve said in many instances, was actually patented to be infectious and what the nation did better. ^{(15) 2002 Methods for producing recombinant coronavirus, Baric, Chapel Hill US7279327B2 https://patents.google.com/patent/US7279327B2/en}

What that means is it’s actually weaponized. That’s not an allegation. That’s a statement of fact, because in 2005, you see the bottom of the curriculum vitae of one Ralph Baric:

Synthetic Coronaviruses. Biohacking: Biological Warfare Enabling Technologies, June 2005. Washington, DC. DARPA/MITRE sponsored event. Invited Speaker ^{(16) Curriculum Vitae Ralph S. Baric https://sph.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/112/2013/07/704220087_cv.pdf}

Does anyone actually want to just muse for a moment on what he could have potentially meant when he said, “biological warfare enabling technology?” Does that sound like a public health response? Does that sound like a P3 program when we’re trying to figure out how to treat this thing? Is that what it sounds like? Or is there an outside chance that the reason why he unleashed $10 million that year and every other year in non-competitive grants from all of the above reference agencies? Is there any chance of the reason why, because they were actually building, are you ready for this? Biological weapons.

Now, I haven’t had a credential in the United States since 2002, but being a biological weapons inspector, I know of what I speak, and the fact of that is I briefed this matter first in 2002. I consistently briefed this ever since, and when in 2019…

… September 18, 2019, we actually had the World Health Organization’s Global Preparedness Monitoring Board announce that there was going to be, in the time between September 19, 2019, and September of 2020, there was going to be an “an accidental or intentional release of a respiratory pathogen“. There’s an operative word in that statement that’s quite alarming, isn’t there? Release. That’s not a leak. That’s not an accidental mistake. They used the word release. They didn’t use “there might be an accident”. ^{(17) World at Risk, Sept 2019 https://www.gpmb.org/docs/librariesprovider17/default-document-library/annual-reports/gpmb-2019-annualreport-en.pdf?sfvrsn=d1c9143c_30 (18) World At Risk – my Post “[Tabletop] ‘A World At Risk’ W.H.O. “Prepare World For Lethal Respiratory Pandemic & Universal Vaccine” Sept 2019” https://pennybutler.com/tabletop-world-at-risk/}

The criminal conspiracy, which must be criminally prosecuted in this country is the racketeering that has been the World Health Organization’s collusion since the MRC in this country was founded by the Wellcome trust, and since in the United States, the Rockefeller Foundation functionally funded what we now call the CDC. ^{(19) Related interest: Wellcome is now in official relations with the World Health Organization https://wellcome.org/news/wellcome-now-official-relations-world-health-organization (20) Related: History of Wellcome > GlaxoSmithKline https://wellcome.org/who-we-are/history-wellcome (21)Related: “The Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute … is one of the world’s leading genomics centres, dedicated to analysing and understanding genomes. ” … Click for full citation (22)Related: 2021: Looking to the future: The Rockefeller Foundation and WHO identify priorities for global health collaboration The Rockefeller Foundation’s collaboration with WHO dates back to when the WHO constitution was first created. Over the … Click for full citation (23)The Rockefeller Foundation created an International Health Board, which was reorganised as the International Health Division (IHD) in 1927, mapped it’s own International Health framework/board, which The League of Nations Health Organisation, … Click for full citation (24)Related: Oh Good Lord… The Rockefeller Foundation and World Health Organization Announce Partnership to Expand Global Pandemic Preparedness in Era of Climate Change … Click for full citation}

In fact, then, was the Malaria Prevention Program, but we must actually deal with the fact that this antitrust collusion actually did not start in the last few years. It’s important because of the UN charter that established the World Health Organization. We cannot commit, we cannot even indict or investigate crimes committed by the World Health Organization, because there is no statute of limitations on these crimes. These are crimes that have no statutes of limitation, and we can actually predate the Gates Foundation with Wellcome Trust and the Rockefeller Foundation’s criminal collusion with prosecuting the crimes when they were actually committed. It right now resulting in the murder of civilization around the world.

Full Size

Almost last slide. I can’t help but sit in this chamber and point out that none other than Eliza Manningham-Buller, who was the head of the Wellcome Trust Board of Trustees, who happened at the same time to be the head of MI5, was the one who sat at the helm of COVID when the September 19th launch of this campaign again. ^{(25) Eliza Manningham-Buller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliza_Manningham-Buller}

You cannot escape the fact that MI5 was directly involved in the pre-meditation and distribution of this particular campaign of terror, and I know that as an American, it’s probably a bad idea for me to say that in this audience. I couldn’t care less. The fact of the matter is criminals exist in every strata of this government, and we need to actually be able to point that out, and I figured why not go ahead and put the poster right up there so everybody can see it.

This is the last slide. “The Motive — Profit with Impunity”. In the 1980s, we conveniently had the HIV pandemic. So that we could actually justify the national type of vaccine immunity shield that was granted to the injection manufacturers at the time. We tried to get that immunity long before, but once we had the HIV scare, we could get the public to say, yep, immunity for the manufacturers because we know we’re going to need it.

September of 2001, we all pretended that we know what happened with the towers, but we all forget the back of them on the 28th, which was when the Defense department from their Bioweapons program released Anthrax, and four short years later, we had the Prep Act. Why? Because in 1991, we were killing people with anthrax vaccines in the Gulf, and we needed the government to find a way to get the adult provisions protection into adult injections because the Childhood Act didn’t give them the cover that they needed, and so, four short years later, we had the Prep Act, which gives us medical damages, and it gives us corporate immunity. ^{(26) Project Bioshield and Prep Act https://pennybutler.com/project-bioshield-prep-act/}

So guess what, SARS is? Nothing more than the four year later, see it matters, preamble to the World Health Organizations’ IHR. ^{(27) Global Health: WHO IHR Amendments https://pennybutler.com/who-ihr-globalhealth-weapon/}

Don’t pretend like you don’t know. This was a set up from the beginning to the end. Never let a good crisis go to waste. This is all a marketing cover story to deprive you of liberty, and I’m here to make sure that as long as I draw breath, I’m fighting the impact. Thank you very much.

Dr. Robert Malone: 

There is an unmet need for a rapid response capability to allow a global capacity to mitigate the risks of emerging infectious disease and engineered pathogens. That is a valid concern. The technology has developed to the state where almost anyone with an undergraduate degree in biology can weaponize pathogens. We know, here in the United States, speaking as somebody with DoD security clearance in the bio-industrial complex area, that the binary weapons that were developed by US military for deployment, as a countermeasure against the threat of a USSR tank blitzkreig, can currently be readily reproduced by virtually any biologist in their garage.

So, there is a valid threat. There is an unmet need. Ostensibly, this technology was advanced – that is this mRNA, or modified messenger ribonucleic acid-based gene therapy vaccination technology, was advanced on short notice because there is an unmet need for a platform technology that would allow a rapid response capability. That’s the justification.

Furthermore, in this specific case the justification was based on the thesis that we had a pathogen (based on modeling here in the UK at Imperial College) that had a 3.4% case fatality rate, and we would potentially be seeing mass graves, people dying in the streets, vans full of bodies outside of hospitals, et cetera. That was all a lie.

We knew that was a lie very early on, but the people that spoke the truth that actually gathered the data, were censored, such as happened at Stanford (Dr. Jay Battacharia), people that demonstrated that we had a case fatality rate of about 0.02%.  Not 3.4%. Despite having that knowledge, having it available in the first quarter, in the first quarter of 2020, there was a concerted effort to justify the imposition of this technology in a rapid fashion on the basis of the thesis that there’s a 3.4% case fatality rate associated with this virus. What transpired in that rush was a fundamental breach of both ethics and regulatory norms that have been developed over decades.

We’re all familiar with this. We’re all familiar with the policies that have been put in place since World War II and Nuremberg, that human beings have the right to informed consent.  What was done in a haphazard way, under the justification ostensibly that we had to essentially reject, throw into the rubbish – norms that had been developed over decades, both for assuring vaccine safety and for assuring informed consent in patients, was to assert that all had to be jettisoned on short notice because of the threat of a 3.4% case fatality rate, and the need to move a potential countermeasure forward without the due process that normally would take place. That’s what transpired.

I can tell you I’m labeled as far right, and all the other pejoratives that we’re all so familiar with including being a conspiracy theorist, but all I am as a physician and scientist who happened to have had a role in the genesis of this technology when I was a young man back in 1987 to 1990. I’m very, very familiar with the technology, worked as an academic to try to advance it until I determined that I could not overcome the toxicity associated with it, and abandoned it for other technology platforms, which I’ve also developed. But in this case, what I have objected to is that, as a physician and scientist who is well-trained in clinical research and regulatory affairs, that we have decimated my discipline.

WHO (UN), mega-NGOs and the governments of the world, have rejected the knowledge that myself, my peers and colleagues over decades have contributed to; about how one should do this, how one should act, what steps one should take in order to ensure that we have safe and effective products for humans. It’s that simple. And furthermore, they have rejected the bioethical norms that have been developed since World War II; to respect human dignity, to ensure that human beings are treated as humans; that their autonomy, their sovereignty is respected, that they are provided with informed consent. Instead of informed consent about the truth of these products and their developmental state, their immature developmental state, we were given a series of lies.

Those lies included that these products were safe and effective, of course, without actually qualifying what safe and effective was. You’ll recall, safe and effective was repeated again and again and again without stating what that meant, okay? That’s neurolinguistic programming. That’s psychological operations. That’s propaganda. We also received the propaganda that these products would remain at the site of injection and the draining lymph nodes. That was known to be a falsehood before these products were ever deployed into humans, and that’s revealed by the nonclinical data packages from Japan and from Australia that have now been disclosed.

So we knew, and they knew, that these products deployed all throughout the body. We knew that they didn’t stay where they were injected.

We were also told the falsehood that these products had a molecule, this modified ribonucleic acid, which would only last in your body for a short period of time. We now know that these products remain in your body and remain biologically active for an undetermined period of time, of at least weeks and probably months; another lie. We were also told that for these products, it was necessary to recognize that none of us would be safe until we were all safe. This was part of the propaganda campaign to insist that we all accept these products.

That was done, by the way, in violation of well-established norms that involved coercion, compulsion, and enticement. Ice creams for children to take your jab, hamburgers, or whatever the enticement was; that is illegal. That is not something that has allowed under standard, well-established bioethics, okay?

This series of lies was used to justify deployment of these experimental products, truly with great profit margins no doubt, which were intended to demonstrate safety and effectiveness of a vaccine platform technology, that then, according to a hearing in the WHO in 2021, which as I recall, was headed up by Margaret Lou (formerly of Merck Vaccines), could be used for other purposes.

During this WHO meeting it was established that this would be become a platform technology, and all that would be necessary in the future would be to swap in a new RNA sequence to produce a new product for a new disease. Now we need to resolve the controversy regarding the toxicities associated with this technology and these products, because we now clearly know that these are neither safe nor effective. We also knew at the time of initial deployment. Pfizer knew at the time, that these products would not prevent infection. They would not prevent replication and spread of the virus. Now the data is suggesting they certainly don’t protect against death or prevent death and disease. We all know that, but that was what was asserted at the time that they were deployed.

What we need, in order to resolve all the controversy that swirls around these products, and whatever is the meaning of the latest data disclosure, is for governments to just be open and transparent. That’s my core message.

All I’m asking for is that we be allowed to access, in an open and transparent fashion, the data which NHS and the healthcare agencies of the world have acquired.  So that those data can be analyzed, so we no longer have to wrestle over whether this data is good or that data has this flaw, et cetera, et cetera. Let’s all disclose, in an open and transparent way, so that the world’s scientists can evaluate that data and put to rest this controversy about whether or not these products are safe and effective.

Now, I’m running out of time. The current data of somewhere between 700 and a thousand peer reviewed studies regarding the safety, or lack thereof of, of these products clearly demonstrates a series of adverse events. I’m just going to list them. Myocarditis, including tachycardia. Reproductive health damage. Women all over the world know about the damage to their menstrual cycles. These are all things that are widely acknowledged, peer reviewed, multiple hundreds of studies. Reproductive health. Coagulopathy, including stroke. That means blood clotting, abnormal blood clotting. Damage to peripheral ocular, and central nervous systems, including stroke. Immunologic and oncologic harms, which Dr. Cole is going to be speaking about. And the biggest adverse event of all, death.

So, in conclusion, what we’ve had here is a rushed product, a rushed technology, a failure to provide respect for humans in not allowing them to have informed consent, and furthermore, actively deploying the most massive propaganda campaign in the history of the modern world to suppress the ability of the public to gain access, merely to have the knowledge of what the adverse event risks are.

I come to you, (the UK government and governments of the world) with one request. Open the books. Let’s see the data, and let’s allow those data to be examined so we no longer have to have these little fights over these little details. So that we can actually get to the bottom of one of the most important questions the world is facing right now.

Were these products actually safe and effective?

Thank you for your time.

As his UK and Croatian addresses are “almost” identical, I’ve chosen the Croatian one to transcribe as it’s longer and contains more information.

See this post: Mike Yeadon’s (censored) democide & digital ID warning to Croatia [Dec 2023]

UK speech links:

• UK English Speech Rumble-Mirror
• Croatian subtitled version of the UK MPs address. Telegram | Rumble
• Mike’s Rumble Channel: Mike Drop
• Mike’s Telegram Channel: Dr Mike Yeadon solo channel

This is my censored speech for use in Andrew Bridgen’s event.
There must have been two technical errors, because they had my recording several days ago & the confirmed that playbook was working.
Peter McCullough was intending to present by video link, eg Zoom.
It’s not believable that both link & local playback failed.
I do not believe.

Why didn’t they want me to speak?

I’m the only one who says:

1. There’s been no pandemic, no medical emergency. Therefore rushing a novel technology “vaccine” at the public was malign. All the “countermeasures” also had malign intentions.
2. The alleged vaccines were toxic by design, not accidental. Intentionally harmful.
3. I outlined the obvious endgame.

That’s why I am unwelcome everywhere.

Best wishes
Mike

• Opposing view 1: HART Group “There are a couple of points made here that we feel are not verifiable.” ^{(28) 5 Dec 2023 The Mysterious Case of the Disappearing Remote Control}
• Opposing view 2: Malone-Tweet back in September “Show me the receipts or go home” ^{(29) 4 Sept 2023 Show me the receipts or go home. https://twitter.com/RWMaloneMD/status/1698388717243666710}

Notes shared on Twitter:

• Professor Dalgleish explained how Covid 19 injections can lead to Turbocancers.
  • The SV40 simian virus sequence in Covid19 injections disables the P53 gene, the body’s cancer surveillance and suppression gene.
  • Once that happens, cancer spreads very rapidly.
• Dr Ryan Cole showed microscopy images of spike protein expression in cancer tissue itself.
• Professor Dalgleish has been involved in studying the link between viruses and cancer all his career.
  • Said he explained to Chris Whitty and SAGE early on why a spike-protein-based vaccine was not going to work / would create problems, and presented an alternative strategy.
  • He was dismissed as a non-expert.