Testimony in UK Parliament: Show us the data!

Lies our governments told us.

The expert testimony at the invitation of MP Andrew Bridgen in the UK parliament yesterday was important.

The room was overflowing with people. Many members of Parliament and Lords showed up to listen. The testimony given by myself as well as other scientists and physicians was science based, truthful and accurate.

Members of Congress in the USA and in Parliaments all over the worlds are hearing one main topic from their constituents.

• What about the cover-up about the origins of the virus?

• What about the dangers of the vaccine?

• What about the cover-up of the effectiveness of early treatments?

• What about the censorship?

• When is the government going to come clean?

At this testimony, we had 12 members of Parliament and 4 members from the House of Lords in attendance. They listened. They were receptive. Some congratulated the Honorable Mr. Bridgen afterwards. As many of you know, this is a huge change from the empty chamber that Mr. Bridgen has been confronted with in the past.

In the end,

• It didn’t matter that that the Sargent of Arms downgraded the room request, to only fit a third of those that wanted in.

• It didn’t matter that the Sargent of Arms refused the application of various media outlets to film the testimony.

• It didn’t matter that “they” turned off all the cameras - that are meant to record every meeting in the building.

• It didn’t even matter that “they” had “AV issues”, so a muted video feed was all that was available.

• It didn’t matter that the TV in the room for presentations was muted- with no remote controls.

• It didn’t matter that “they” placed many uniformed guards outside the hearing room, something people in the room said had not witnessed before.

Many people used their cell phone to record and amplify this testimony on social media. So, the testimony will get out, no matter what their draconian methods.

The truth is the truth.

The Members of Parliament do care about their constituents. Elections are coming up. They know they are in trouble if they don’t change their tune about the origins of the virus, the crimes committed, the adverse events of the experimental gene therapy product and the commercial conflicts of interest regarding patented drugs versus generics. So many issues to address, so little time.

We are winning this war, but we need your help, your friend’s help, your family’s help.

“They”, “we”, “us” and “you” must keep registering all of our our displeasure with our elected and unelected officials. We must keep the pressure up. This is how we will win this war.

Now is not the time to give up. Now is the time to call, write, email - show up at town-halls, whatever it takes. Keep telling your stories, our stories. This is how we will win.

Elections are coming soon. What side of history will our representatives be on? Now is the time for them to decide.

---

Here is my testimony from yesterday. Transcript follows.

Transcript:

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.

This is a reader supported publication. Please consider a paid subscription to support our work here and all over the world.