Adelaide Meetups

Catherine Austin Fitts: Criminals are running the world governments & financial system.

2021/06/21st – The consequences of the vak scenes are worse than …

2021/06/21st – The consequences of the vak scenes are worse than …

No pussyfooting around anymore – No hiding in the pews listening to fairy floss sermons or being in a choir that sounds like the Frogs Chorus – The fulfilment of Matt 24.14 is now essential as well as 2nd Chron 7.14 (It does not say anyone and everyone – It says My People) – so, are you one or are you one of those He addressed in John 8.44 ??  

Pastors and leaders, start telling your people the facts of what is going on. If any of your sheeple have been jabbed, did you warn them of the consequences, and if not, why not ?  so best you start leading in the singing of – So long it’s been good to know ya   cos you can’t say … I told you so 

So see items 1 – 3 at least

1 – You should remember that the consequences of the vaccines are worse than any of the potential side effects

No link 

2 – All Govts preparing for massive injection deaths

Countries With The Highest Vaccination Rates Are Facing A Surge In Covid Deaths And Infections –Experts Say Complacency Is To Blame. Tenders called for body removal and to be frozen – why ? there will be No funeral notices.

3 – You have only 2 choices now

4 – Oil companies checking employee’s records, the vaxxed life expectancy up to 3 years (to replace them)

5 – You Should NEVER Sign ‘Refusal To Vaccinate’ Document

Just say that you are allergic to the serum, the ingredients etc

6 – No Domestic Vaccine Passport Bill 2021′ introduced into the Australian Parliament

yes we do have a few good people in Parliament

7 – Most sophisticated sting op in history

Yes – the arrests are happening all over. We will see the evidence soon enough but first, the big crime bosses, then the pedo’s and politicians

8 – Fashion Masks – can you believe this ? 

9 – Police State: Ireland’s New Garda Powers

10 – Dr. McCullough: COVID Vaccines Have Already Killed Up to 50,000 Americans, According to Whistleblowers

11 – The fakes

Fake 1  Hillary Clinton says Biden must clean up ‘disaster’ Trump created with Putin

She is supposed to be dead ?  A clone – a double  ???

Fake 2  Trump is in on it – says several and dummies broadcasting this crap 

a clever but very amateurish fake video – manipulations – photo insertions –

Fake 3 – Simulated Capitol “Insurrection

A Simulated Capitol “Insurrection:” FBI-DHS-Staged Paid Actors False Flag Fraud To Incite Civil War took place. You need to see this video. What’s next ? Maybe the DELTA VARIANT LIE that will be coming in the fall of 2021


12 – In Honour of the mothers who have died due to Fake Covid Vaccines  

13 – Weather Warfare is alive and active

14 – This will be of importance to ye who are aware of crop circles

From: Doris Parker USA

A 7-pointed star crop circle appeared in the UK.  16 June 2021. Some believe that the 7-7-7-7 light code in the crop circle points to the helical rising of the Star Sirius.    07/07/21 or 7-7-7-7   and lots more on the website



We have tested 1,500 supposed "covid-19 positive" samples and found none! Only influenza A or B.

Lin-Manuel Miranda Apologizes For Not Casting ‘Darker Skinned’ Black And Latino Actors In Latest Musical

Will anything ever be enough to satisfy the woke mob? One might think that a cast filled with non-white actors might win them over. Or, maybe a movie celebrating immigrants and Latino culture and identity could excite? But of course not, that would make far too much sense.

Movie-musical “In the Heights” is under fire for “insufficient representation” in the cast. Apparently, having a black and Latino cast is no longer sufficient, as intersectionality dictates that this one film is responsible for depicting the entire breadth of identities present in Washington Heights.

In an interview with director John Chu, The Root reporter Felice Leon questioned, “It would be remiss of me not to mention that most of your principal actors were light-skinned or white-passing Latinx people. So with that, what are your thoughts on the lack of black Latinx people represented in the film?” Chu responded that he believes that this is “a really good conversation to have.”

How is it more “progressive” to cast based on identity and skin tone, rather than merely judge who is the most talented?  The ensemble of “In the Heights” was made up of gifted actors, singers, and dancers, most of whom embodied their roles with depth and honesty, while singing the gorgeous score beautifully. Nowhere in this debate is it mentioned that the actors are undeserving of their roles or play the parts poorly. The only reasons some give as to why they ought not have been cast are race and precise skin color.

Moreover, why does one film have to capture the entire complexity of a group of people? No one film or musical is ever going to be able to encompass the entirety of a groups’ varied experiences, nor should that be expected. “In the Heights” is one movie about a group of characters and their experiences. While the broader community of Washington Heights is important to the musical, it never professes to be the definitive work.

Several cast members next weighed in on the concept, starting with Latin-pop singer Leslie Grace, who played coprotagonist Nina. Grace, who identifies as Afro-Latina, expressed agreement with the importance of representation. She spoke to Harper’s Bazaar on the subject, saying “[The film’s Afro-Latinx presence] was definitely something that I was super mindful of as I was embodying Nina.”

Melissa Barrera, who played the lead Vanessa, defended the casting choices, saying, “I think it’s important to note that it was a long audition process. There were a lot of Afro-Latinos there, a lot of darker-skinned people, and I think they were looking for just the right people for the roles, for the person who embodied the character to the fullest extent.”

Rather than stand up for his film or realize the patent absurdity of the criticisms, the musical’s writer and original star Lin-Manuel Miranda took to Twitter to post a lengthy apology, in which he expressed his “incredible pride” in the film and its perceived failures of representation and “colorism.”

Actress Rita Moreno, however, disagreed with the backlash against the movie, as she told Stephen Colbert. She brought up the subject while promoting her upcoming documentary, asking, “Can we talk for a second about that criticism about Lin-Manuel? That really upsets me.”

She pushed back on the criticism leveled against the film, exclaiming, “Can’t you just wait a while and leave it alone? There’s a lot of people who are ‘puertorriqueños,’ who are also from Guatemala, who are dark, and who are also fair. We are all colors in Puerto Rico. And this is how it is, and it would be so nice if they hadn’t come up with that and just left it alone.”

Moreno faced backlash for her comments from the same people angry about the movie. Unfortunately, she caved to the pressure and backtracked, claiming she is “incredibly disappointed” in herself, tweeting that her comments were “clearly dismissive of black lives that matter in our Latin community. It is so easy to forget how celebration for some is lament for others.”

This defense from Moreno would have made a major difference in the conversation. She is an icon of both Classic Hollywood and early Latina representation, and support from so prominent a voice may have helped others who covertly agreed to publicly take a stand. Her comments on Colbert made it clear that she understands how absurd the whole controversy is. It’s a shame that she instead backed down.

Even if the ridiculous criticism was made a valid point, which it doesn’t, it would still be factually inaccurate. Cory Hawkins, who plays secondary leading man Benny, is black, and aside from the aforementioned Grace, central supporting characters Graffiti Pete and Cuca are played by the Afro-Latino Noah Catala and Dasha Polanco.

The minutia of an actor’s genetic background should not matter, and ticking off identity boxes is offensive and insane. Sadly, this is what contemporary identity politics demands. If even an incredibly diverse film featuring woke politics and broad representation both in front of and behind the camera cannot satisfy the mob, nothing ever will.


We have tested 1,500 supposed "covid-19 positive" samples and found none! Only influenza A or B.

Bill Barr: Public Schools Are Becoming Unconstitutional ‘Secular-Progressive Madrassas’

“The greatest threat to religious liberty in America today,” said former U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr in a recent speech, is “the increasingly militant and extreme secular-progressive climate of our state-run education system.”

Barr, whose high-profile career has demonstrated a deep commitment to the U.S. Constitution as written and intended, spoke to the religious liberty legal defense organization Alliance Defending Freedom. The legal lion put together a strong argument that a half-century of Supreme Court decisions combined with the left’s long march through American institutions have pushed U.S. public schools so far from religious neutrality that many now comprise a government-established preference for the atheist religion. Government preferences for some religious views over others are unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

“The heavy-handed enforcement of secular-progressive orthodoxy through government-run schools is totally incompatible with traditional Christianity and other major religious traditions in our country. In light of this development, we must confront the reality that it may no longer be fair, practical, or even constitutional to provide publicly-funded education solely through the vehicle of state-operated schools,” he said.

Government Schools the No. 1 Anti-Religious Force

While many American adults believe U.S. public schools keep religion out of the classroom, that era ended with their childhoods, Barr says. Too many Americans are dangerously unaware that today’s public schools forcefully instruct children in specific religious and political beliefs that openly undermine Christianity and, therefore, the private self-government necessary to preserve the United States’ foundational natural rights regime.

The evidence for this is strong, both in data and personal testimony. “[Ex]pansions in government service provision and especially increasingly secularized government control of education… can account for virtually the entire increase in secularization around the developed world,” writes sociologist Lyman Stone in a 2020 review of research on this topic.

A few weeks ago, conservative pundit Dennis Prager cited constantly encountering some of the “millions — yes, millions — of Americans whose children have contempt for America, for free speech and for their parents as a result of attending an American college or even high school. I meet such people at every speech I give, and I speak to them regularly on my radio show. Ask these parents, if they could redo their lives, whether they would keep their child in school.”

I’ve seen and heard this myself countless times, both politically and religiously, usually when it is too late to do anything. One mother active in conservative politics recently described to me the trend of her friends’ young adult children losing their faith and conservatism in high school as “like an invasion of the body snatchers.”

Her fellow conservative parents are scared for their college-age kids, she told me, and with good reason. Much data and human experience back up parents’ worries that secular-progressive schooling converts conservative Americans’ kids away from their deepest religious and political beliefs.

How U.S. Government Schools Became Anti-Religion

Barr explains how U.S. public schooling, which used to be explicitly Christian, became the strongest antagonist to religion in American life. He detailed a brief history of American education to make his case, in three historical phases. In the first phase, “the advocates of public schools agreed that religion was integral to such an education. You could not separate moral education from religion,” he said. Thus, in America’s founding era, taxpayer-supported schools were explicitly religious.

In the second phase of American education’s history, Barr said, “the Left embarked on a relentless campaign of secularization intent on driving every vestige of traditional religion from the public square. Public schools quickly became the central battleground.” This was the era when the Supreme Court cooperated with the political left to eradicate Christianity from publicly supported education, for example by banning prayer in schools.

Since it is impossible to educate someone without passing on religious beliefs — Is there a God? Does he care about what we learn, or is he irrelevant to learning? What is right and wrong, and how do we know? — this myth of a religiously neutral education quietly cleared American education of Christianity. This prepared the way for complete secular progressive dominance of U.S. education institutions. That’s Barr’s “third phase” of American education history, occurring today.

“It is hard to teach that someone ought to behave in a certain way unless you can explain why,” Barr explained. “…[P]urging schools of any trace of religion created a vacuum by eliminating the explanatory belief system undergirding moral values. Now, we are seeing the attempt to push into the schools an alternative explanatory belief system that is inconsistent with, and subversive of, the religious worldview.”

The New Government-Sponsored Religion: Cultural Marxism

While many parents want to believe that secularist propaganda in their kids’ schooling is an infrequent occurrence, the truth is that anti-religious materialism saturates most government and many private schools, right down to content and teaching methods. For example, the neutral-seeming act of keeping Christianity off-limits in schooling teaches children that their faith is a private, side matter, instead of the most important thing in human existence and without which no one can learn anything. Barr gave other examples.

“What is taking shape is a full-blown—may I say ‘systemic’—subversion of the religious worldview,” Barr said. “While the secularist may view each lesson, such as transsexualism—as dealing with a discrete subject, those lessons embody broader ideas that are fundamentally incompatible with the religious viewpoint. Telling school children that they get to choose their gender—not just male or female, but anything else—and that no one else has anything to say about it—does not just contradict particular religious teachings on gender and the authority of parents; it is a broadside attack on the very idea of natural law, which is integral to the moral doctrines of a number of religious denominations.”

Barr noted that one-fifth of Americans live in states that require public schools to teach LGBT ideology, all the way down to kindergarten. Many more Americans live in localities that do the same, all often with no opt-out allowed and with LGBT ideology often marbled into all curricula, so that this anti-Christian ideology is as inseparable from public education as Christianity ought to be from a Christian education. This, he said, appears to be an unconstitutional infringement on the free exercise of religion.

“As the Supreme Court has recognized, nothing is more fundamental than the right of parents to pass religious faith to their children. It is monstrous for the state to interfere in that by indoctrinating children into alternative belief systems that are antithetical to those religious beliefs,” Barr said.

This dynamic doesn’t only involve violating Americans’ constitutional right to freely exercise their faith, but also appears to include unconstitutional government establishment of a preferred religion, Barr said.

“When we are no longer talking about simply stripping religion out of school curriculum, but now talking about indoctrination into an affirmative belief and value system—a new credo—resting on materialist metaphysics and taking the place of religion, then the question is whether this involves establishment of a religion. I am not the first to observe that the tenets of progressive orthodoxy have become a form of religion with all the trapping and hallmarks of a religion. It has its notion of original sin, salvation, penance, its clergy, its dogmas, its sensitivity to any whiff of heresy, even its burning at the stake,” he said.

No More Leftist Monopoly on Education Funds

Barr said the courts have subjected taxpayer funding for schools to a religious double standard, whereby “secularism has been afforded the protection of the Religion Clauses, [but] it has generally not been subject to the prohibitions of the Establishment Clause…If secular-progressivism indeed occupies the same space as a religion–as by all appearances it does—then how is it Constitutional to have a state-run school system fervently devoted to teaching little else? And how on earth can these same institutions be allowed to use the state to punish traditional religious doctrines as hate speech?”

The only way to resolve these major difficulties, he said, was for states to resort to full school choice so anti-religious government K-12 education does not maintain an unconstitutional monopoly on the religious formation of American children.

“If the state-operated schools are now waging war on the nation’s moral, historical, philosophical, and religious foundations,” Barr argued, “then they would seem to have forfeited their legitimacy as the proper vehicle to carry out the mission with which the American People have charged them.”


They Lied and people died

WashPost: Biden’s Transgender Push Stalled by GOP Senate Opposition

The Democrats’ congressional effort to establish the transgender ideology is being blocked in the Senate by near-unified GOP opposition, according to a report in the Washington Post.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) has withdrawn her prior support for the far-reaching legislation, and the 50th Democratic vote — Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) — won’t support the bill until “a critical mass of Republicans get on board,” says the report by journalist Mike DeBonis.

The Democrats have named their legislation the Equality Act, and it is being backed by nearly all Democratic legislators and President Joe Biden.

The core feature of the legislation is a rule that allows judges to punish Americans who do not submit to the transgender ideology’s claim that a man becomes a woman whenever he claims that he has the “gender identity” of a woman.

This rule would empower the less-than-one-percent of Americans who claim to be transgender to suppress any civic recognition of male-or-female biology-based preferences — even though biology has a fundamental impact on the priorities, needs, and preferences of heterosexual and homosexual children and adults.

The rule would also outlaw any legal recognition or civic support for single-sex activities. Those single-sex activities sports leagues, changing rooms, religious practice, shelters for abused people, plus the many single-sex cultural ideas and practices that adults need to help steer their children through the difficult stage of puberty.

Many establishment GOP leaders have ducked this fight — or even supported transgender activists. But many polls show deep opposition among the GOP’s activists and swing-voters who follow the debate. Their votes are vital to the most liberal GOP politicians, such as Sen. Collins.

“The Equality Act was a starting point for negotiations, and in its current form, it cannot pass,” Collins’ spokeswoman, Annie Clark, told the Washington Post. “That’s why there are ongoing discussions among senators and stakeholders about a path forward,”  she said. The article added:

Collins is seeking amendments that would protect the right of domestic violence shelters to serve men and women separately based on their birth gender as well as protections for faith-based service providers, such as Catholic Charities.

The Washington Post‘s article, however, inadvertently spotlights the extremism of the pro-transgender advocates as they dismiss widespread public opposition:

Alphonso David, president of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s most prominent LGBTQ rights organization, said the main thrust of the [pro-transgender] advocacy has been combating “misinformation” about the bill — including the notion that it would impinge on religious freedom.


The bill’s proponents have been reticent to discuss any changes that would address the GOP objections about transgender sports and other issues they have used as political cudgels. Instead, they have focused on convincing lawmakers that their fears are simply misplaced.

Women’s sports and other anti-trans issues are “not a primary conversation that anybody in the Senate seems to really want to have,” [transgender acitvist Mara] Keisling said. “Everybody who has looked at that issue understands it is entirely a red herring, red meat, disgraceful diversion.

The Republicans are relying on transgender debate “as a [election] wedge issue,” says the article, which ignores the right of heterosexual women and men to have the culture and laws that support their different, complementary, synergistic, and vital competition and cooperation.

So far, the bill’s progressive advocates do not want to compromise because their goals are far more revolutionary than the transgender legislation, said one GOP activist who opposes the transgender legislation. “There is no middle ground here,” he said, adding:

It’s all about tearing down the family, tearing down [legal and cultural] structures, tearing down [social] order and [civic] authority … They don’t like America — they think America was a mistake. They think it was founded on systemic racism, misogyny, and oppression.

For example, the bill’s supporters insist on binding the transgender language to other sections which award far-reaching legal rights to same-sex attracted women and men. The pro-transgenderism advocates also have continued to deny the fast-growing evidence of medical risks, the harm to the status of women, and the social harm to young people who try to suppress their natural biological development through puberty.

But the Post article suggests that the views of Fortune 500 companies and legal elites are an accurate representation of the conservatives’ and swing voters’ viewpoints on the transgender ideology:

The partisanship around the issue on Capitol Hill stands in contrast to the wide-ranging support for LGBTQ rights among the public at large, in corporate America, and even in the federal judiciary, which has delivered a string of rulings expanding those rights — including a landmark Supreme Court opinion last year written by conservative Justice Neil M. Gorsuch that effectively banned employment discrimination on the basis of [transgender] sexual identity.

On June 16, President Joe Biden’s Department of Education cited the Gorsuch ban as they declared they would expand the transgender ideology into the nation’s school system. The legality of that expansion is expected to be decided by the Supreme Court, partly because Democrats and Republicans are deadlocked in Congress.

Many GOP leaders “are not interested in understanding this issue, they’re not interested in the details of this issue … they’re out of touch,” said the GOP activist. But “the entire [base of] Republican Party is united in protecting our kids from all the transgender insanity, whether it’s sports, or transgender surgeries or hormones or ideology,” he said.

Broad and vague polls show public sympathy for the Democrats’ transgender legislation.

But detailed polls show deep and widespread rejection of transgender demands amid plenty of anecdotal evidence that many Democrats oppose the transgender ideology.

This public’s rejection reflects the public’s deep support for culture and laws that reflect the needs of heterosexual adults and children, who comprise roughly 19 of every 20 people in the United States. Although numerous polls show that the public wants to aid gay and lesbian people — the polls which detail the transgender demands show strong opposition and growing support for state legislation in many states that protects children from further damage.


All covid vaccines should be immediately halted and recalled. The vaccine is the weapon

Senior NHS Board Member Warns: Stop The Genocide Or Our Children Are Next

Senior NHS Board Member Warns: Stop The Genocide Or Our Children Are Next

The senior NHS Board member warns that the government is now controlling the NHS, and it is the government that is actually dictating what the NHS should do during Covid emergency measures. She states that the result of the government’s enforced Covid and vaccination policies can be described as genocide. Government messaging to her senior NHS colleagues is removing their capacity for rational thought, and they are effectively being mind controlled to implement policies which, in more rational moments, they would challenge as wrong.  Fear prevails, and she and her board colleagues are being expected to toe an unwritten policy line, set predominantly in conference calls with no written record. She warns that if her privately troubled colleagues do not speak out, “your children will be next”.

Brian Gerrish: I’ve been contacted by an NHS professional who would like to speak to me about things happening in the NHS. So, without any ado, let’s go over to our caller today.

Thank you very much for calling me. It’s really been wonderful that you’ve had the confidence to give us a call at the UK Column.

I’m going to ask the key question: why have you called me today?

Whistleblower: Yes, thank you. I was listening to — I think it was your Wednesday [14 April] broadcast, and the nurse testimony that you had on there, and it really resonated with me. My heart really hurt, and understood what she was going through. You know, she obviously had UK-wide knowledge of the NHS, and a lot of knowledge of what’s going on within her job.

So, as you said, I’m an NHS professional, and I actually sit on an NHS Board.

I guess the other reason for reaching out was that she talked a couple of times about “the next layer of management” being the Board. I think she reported in to one of the Board. You know, I just really wanted to share my personal story on what’s happened since last March.

Brian Gerrish: That, of course, is wonderful, because information coming directly from people who are professionals in the system is extremely valuable. I’m going to say to you straight away that I realise that doing this is an enormous pressure, so thank you, and we respect that.

So, you talk about what you feel comfortable to share with the audience.

Whistleblower: OK, thank you. So, I guess when all the Coronavirus started, and when it came into the UK — mainframing kind of March last year — obviously the conversations really were predominantly about measures to stop infection, forecasting, you know, “this is what we’re anticipating will happen”, you know, “how do we manage the services”. Kind of all that was going on, and then as we went through the summer, there started to be a little bit of talk about the vaccine development and potential treatments and things like that.

And then the treatments completely went, and the vaccine discussions ramped up, and in November it really started to be predominantly what we talked about. And, I mean, you can’t call it a vaccine, because it doesn’t meet the definition, so I’m going to refer to it as an injection, but I’m just making sure that everyone’s on the same page with me.

So, it became kind of clear to myself, and a few other colleagues that I know on other NHS Boards, in November that we were going to be asked to completely roll this out — and also that there really were some long-term safety issues, and stuff that we just didn’t know. And so it really took us by surprise, the scope and speed at which they were moving.

And at the time, we had a lot of discussions, as a Board, as to our concerns around this — and remember that when the NHS is in emergency measures, which it is and has been, then the Government is able to tightly control what the NHS does, and is able to dictate a lot more what the NHS does than it would be able to if it wasn’t in emergency measures.

So, our Chief Executive had discussions about our concerns, and I can say other Boards had the same discussions, and in a nutshell, what we were told in December was, “If you refuse to co-operate in rolling this out, then we’ll remove you.” And it wasn’t said explicitly, and it wasn’t put in e-mails, but it was certainly very indicated that that was the case.

Brian Gerrish: So that was essentially a veiled threat. I think you’d call that a veiled threat.

Whistleblower: Yes. And the second challenge we had, very much, and central to a lot of our discussions, is that even if we didn’t — if we said, “Look, we’re not doing this” — then the public that we serve would be very angry, or the majority of the public that we serve: certainly not all of them, but the majority of the public that we serve, would at that time have been very angry and actually probably would have tried to help with our removal, because they wanted this, and how dare we try and hold that back for them!

So at that time, I kind of thought this through, and I thought, “Well, I can either leave, because I don’t agree with it, or I can stay and put my energy into ensuring things like informed consent, ensuring that we were capturing any side effects correctly, that we were giving balanced information to the public so that they could make an informed decision.” And, you know, people were going to take this no matter what I did, but perhaps in being there and trying to focus on these areas, I could make a difference.

So that was my position at that time, and then, as the months have rolled by, the government pressure has mounted and mounted, and I have challenged repetitively, and most of the time it’s brushed aside; sometimes, people will be very flippant back; and sometimes, there will just be silence. But I keep trying to challenge, using the Government’s own data, using some of the policies, even looking at this huge problem of Covid takes over everything, so that all the other health services are not running as they should.

And what I’ve witnessed, really, as well, alongside this is just a massive increase in propaganda, in false statements about it, a complete lack of informed consent, side effects not being reported by patients and NHS staff, and this normalisation of “If you are in bed for two days, that’s OK”(!) And I don’t ever remember, when we had the flu jab — you know, people going for the flu jab a couple of years ago — if you were in bed for two days after having the flu jab, that wouldn’t have been considered OK! But for the Covid jab, that’s been normalised.

Brian Gerrish: That’s an extremely interesting point.

Whistleblower: Mmm. So, basically, after these discussions — I have been told on more than one occasion that I can leave if I don’t agree, and “The consensus has been there; we just need to get on with it now.” So it’s kind of moved from that concern at the beginning, and what I’ve witnessed over the months is people becoming more comfortable with this rollout, and “We just need to get on with it, and this is what we need to do.”

And I witnessed a lot of to-ing and fro-ing from people around me. Periods of concern and then they’ll get the documents down from the Government, and then it’s like, “Oh, it’s fine, it’s fine.” So almost like an internal battle happening with the colleagues around me, that is causing a lot of stress and illness for them.

Brian Gerrish: Do some of your Board colleagues have concerns about what’s going on?

Whistleblower: They did, and they do at times, but what seems to happen is, it’s like a rollercoaster ride. So there’ll be something I’ll say, or something will happen, or something will be on the news that will spring concern, but then once they’ve got the government line on it, it will smooth that down somewhat. And that’s what I’m challenged with. It’s like a cognitive dissonance where the concern rises and then somebody soothes them and says, “That’s OK, no, we’ve got this, and it’s fine.” And now we’re in this sort of pattern of just waiting for, “Well, what’s the government line on this?”

I think that’s really important, actually, for listeners to understand, because I think that a lot of people think that the NHS is in complete control of this, and actually don’t realise that under emergency measures, they are told what to do.

Brian Gerrish: That’s a very important point. And how do they get told what to do? Presumably, the policy comes in from the Government, and who does that go to? Does it go to the Chief Executives?

Whistleblower:  Yes, and the Director of Public Safety or equivalent.

Brian Gerrish: So those individuals in particular are the ones that, we’ll say, the government communications come straight in to them, and they then have to sell that policy on into the local NHS system itself.

Whistleblower: Yes.

Brian Gerrish: And how does the instruction come in from the Government? Is that done by e-mail and letters, or is this happening with direct phone calls, for example? Well, it would be conference calls now, I suppose.

Whistleblower: Yes, so a mixture, but a lot of the detail is usually on conference calls, and there’s not as much sent in e-mails, in written e-mails on policies.

Brian Gerrish: And just to focus things a little bit: can you just give us a summary of what your concerns are? You’re describing that things are not right, you’re talking about the vaccines, and you’re saying people are spending two days in bed and that would have been a problem for the normal flu vaccine but nobody’s taking any notice of that. Just package what your concerns are at the moment about what you’re seeing going on.

Whistleblower: Yes, there’s so many. I think the key ones are lack of true informed consent, lack of a balanced risk-versus-benefit ratio being given to people. I think people are told that their adverse events are “normal”. I know that the Yellow Card reporting system is not reflective of the amount of adverse events that are actually happening, and I’ll give you an example of that. I know of a patient who reported their extreme adverse-event side effect to a nurse, and that nurse did not report it to the Yellow Card reporting system. So that’s a concern, that we haven’t got an accurate reflection of what is actually happening after these injections.

And I think the long-term safety effects of these injections is still not known, yet we can see that the short-term impact is huge. And we’re now moving into a territory where we are going into healthy, younger, fertile individuals, and — God forbid — children. And that, quite frankly, terrifies me.

Brian Gerrish: Yes, and I think there are other people who feel this as well, because they could say, “Well, OK, we know there’s adverse effects at the moment.” Still, if we were to take the position that the number and the nature of the adverse effects to date is acceptable against the benefits (whatever we think those benefits are), they key bit that the public does not know is what any future adverse reactions will be.

Whistleblower: Yes, that’s exactly right. And I think that is used to say, “Well, look, we haven’t had that many adverse events versus the millions that we’ve vaccinated” — but it’s not a true representation, and so you can’t really draw those parallels.

Brian Gerrish: How do the working staff — you principally talked about the reaction from quite a senior level in the NHS — how is all this affecting the doctors and nurses on the ground, in the wards? The people who are having to deal with adverse reactions, but people who are also having to give the vaccinations: how is it affecting them?

Whistleblower: This is where I agreed with your caller on 14 April. Most people are just following what they’re asked to do, and — even at Board level — don’t know what’s in these injections. I’ve tested that theory and found it to be true. What we’re seeing at the moment is, from my perspective, a very exhausted workforce which is told different things constantly.

I’ll give you an example, too, that I was extremely concerned about recently. People with dry, cracking hands from the amount of hand-washing that they’re having to do; constant face mask wearing, causing huge skin problems; massive headaches; a lot of people off sick — and the pressure that is going into the system is huge.

Brian Gerrish: Effects that you’re describing, of people who are ending up with sore, cracked hands (and I’ve heard about this from many other people in the NHS): I know that the sanitising gels that they’re using can have different effects, but one of the key ones is they tend to dry people’s skin out, and if you’re using them all the time, you end up with cracked skin. Of course, if you’ve got cracked skin, that’s going to make you very vulnerable as an additional path to infection, with the people you’re dealing with as a healthcare professional.

What about who would deal with this? Health and Safety Executive, or who’s responsible in the NHS for responding to those sorts of concerns about the wearing of masks and what’s happening to people’s hands as a result of the sanitisation?

Whistleblower: Well, the department that will oversee that on the wards is Infection Control. And that will then go up into the Medical Board.

Brian Gerrish: And are they producing any reports? Are they doing their job and it’s then being squashed, or are they simply not doing their job?

Whistleblower: I couldn’t say precisely, but from what I’ve understood, a lot of people are complaining about it but it’s not being logged officially. So I look at my cracked hands, but it’s not being logged officially. And I think there is fear about logging these things, and there is a mind control, almost, about “Well, you’ve got to do it, because otherwise you could be responsible for this spread of this infection, or this person dying.” I feel that the pressure is huge.

Brian Gerrish: I don’t want to put any words in your mouth, because you are here to tell your experience, so I’ll phrase things very carefully. At the beginning, when the pandemic was declared, how did that affect people?

Whistleblower: I think there was a level of fear, but actually, I feel like the fear has increased, because the propaganda and the news outlets and the pressure from the Government has increased. It’s almost like you’re seeing the fear and pressure increase at the same time. So, if you said to me, “How did people react in April last year versus how are people now?”, they’re much worse now in terms of their overall health, their mental wellbeing, and their fear levels.

Brian Gerrish: That is a very sad and serious state of affairs. What comes into my mind immediately is the SPI-B 22 March 2020 paper that was put into the SAGE board meeting, whatever they call it, where it specifically said that the idea was that the fear factor was going to be ramped up in the population as a whole. It said, “People are not fearful enough; we need to make them more fearful in order to effectively get the policy into place.”

Now, most people that we’ve circulated and broadcast that document to, of course, read it as a member of the public, and they look at it that that was the government message as to how to deal with the public — but I think it’s not unreasonable to say that these psychological policies were also directly injected into the NHS, and indeed other parts of the Government and civil service. But if we just focus on the NHS, this applied psychology was brought directly into the NHS, and we have been given (and we’ve found for ourselves) quite a few documents within various NHS Trusts in England describing how they’re going to use applied behavioural psychology to progress the Covid and vaccination care programme within the hospitals.

So this deliberate applied psychology policy was not just for the general public; it’s come in through the NHS as well, it seems to me.

Whistleblower: Yes, and I think those types of things aren’t completely obvious, but I can certainly give you examples where I’ve had very rational conversations with my peers and then we can sit down a couple of days later and that rational conversation has gone. And I’m having an irrational one that doesn’t make sense; it’s based on fear or emotions or something that’s changed — from what they have been told in other meetings, or what’s gone on in briefings.

So I can’t comment on that directly that it’s so visible, but it certainly seems that there’s evidence that — I just feel like most people in the NHS seem very irrational in their choices and what they’re choosing to continue to do. And that’s not an excuse for them, by any manner of means, but, you know, even at a very senior level in the NHS, people are not thinking rationally, and they definitely are having an element of psychology that’s been driven behind this.

Brian Gerrish: If we take the case of people in the NHS who’ve already had the vaccine, when they had their vaccine, were they actually aware of the true detail of the adverse effects via the Yellow Card system? Do people inside the NHS know more about the vaccines, when they’re vaccinated, than, say, an ordinary member of the public would?

Whistleblower: This was the other thing that resonated with your Wednesday caller. No, they don’t. I have asked multiple people, from people actually injecting to people that sit on the Board, and they don’t know what’s in the vaccines, and they don’t really understand the risks. I’d also say that most people that I speak to in a senior management position in the NHS have said, “I was fifty-fifty about whether to take it or not.”

So, at some level, there is a subconscious belief that it might not be safe, in my opinion, because there’s a lot of fifty-fifty, but as time has worn on, they’ve taken it. So a lot of people have taken it later, rather than in the first wave, when it was being offered to healthcare professionals. And, of course, now they sit in that bucket of people that would potentially not want to know about adverse events for themselves, because they’ve taken that injection.

Brian Gerrish: One would have thought that inside the NHS system, particularly as you go up the management chain, people would absolutely know about the Yellow Card adverse reaction records. It’s on the Government website; the NHS does make an oblique reference through to the Yellow Card system through their own part of the public NHS website, but even when you get to the MHRA part, you’ve really got to look for the datasheets themselves. I still find it incredible, the idea that people in in the NHS have not actually seen those sheets themselves!

Whistleblower: Yes, exactly, and when I have brought up and presented on these things, and tried to get some movement, the thing that comes back a lot is, “Well, yes, you know, there’s only a few, there’s this, there’s that, but actually, we’re vaccinating millions of people.” Now, even if you take into account that the reporting isn’t accurate, when we think about any other drug in history that has gone through the NHS, it would not be acceptable for that many people to die, full stop. And yet, in this circumstance, for some reason, it is acceptable.

Brian Gerrish: Well, it’s put across as acceptable.

Whistleblower: Absolutely. I mean, it’s not, but yes.

Brian Gerrish: The other caller raised the issue that patients were not being fully informed, and the Patient Information Leaflets were not being given, so people didn’t really get anything when they got their vaccination. Possibly, they got something after they were vaccinated, but they weren’t being given information before which would enable them to make that all-important informed choice. Have you also been seeing, or are you aware of the fact, that the public are being vaccinated without being given the full information? I think you did mention that earlier in this conversation, so apologies if I’m getting you to repeat that, but I think it’s an important thing.

Whistleblower: Yes, that was one of the things that I felt that if I stayed, I could maybe have an influence on: ensuring that that is happening. And I think that, to a certain extent, my calls have been heard on that, but it’s still woefully inadequate. People are often given the leaflet twenty minutes, fifteen minutes, before they have the injection. They’re already in the vaccination centre. It’s a very slick operation. They’re told it’ll just be OK. You know, there’s no time for deep reflection or questions.

Brian Gerrish: Are you able to say anything about pregnant women? Pregnancy has been one of the hot topics, and of course pregnant women are particularly vulnerable, the child is vulnerable. Have you got anything you can tell us about that, or are pregnant women going through the system and being vaccinated along with everybody else?

Whistleblower: I don’t have any knowledge of that, no.

Brian Gerrish: Well, you’ve been very brave in speaking out, and it’s wonderful, because of course every time somebody speaks out, somebody’s listening, and says, “Oh, my goodness, I know about this,” and so they are prepared to also speak out. So, I very much hope that what you’ve done with us today will trigger that response in somebody else.

If you had a magic wand, what would you like to see happen at the moment to help resolve what’s going on?

Whistleblower: If I had a magic wand, it would just stop. It would stop now, before we hurt anybody else. That would be amazing. That would be the best day ever, because every day I wake up, I think about how I can find that golden nugget to try and wake up the people around me to the damage we are causing. We are causing — I mean, we heard the word ‘genocide’ from the lady on Wednesday. I don’t disagree with that statement. And it’s terrifying, and it saddens me, and the reason I’m staying where I am for now is to try and make a difference in whatever way I can, but — like she said, and I would absolutely agree with this — I want to see that judgment day. I will give evidence.

And also, I will take whatever comes to me for still staying and being part of that, but I will continue where I can to try and make any small gains that I can for the public that we’re serving, because to give up and walk away isn’t going to get the right outcome either. And so, if I can make little differences until I can stand it no more, then that’s what I will do.

Brian Gerrish: Thank you for sharing that with us. And — I’m going to put it in professional terms — if we could do the right things and get the whole process to stop at the moment, am I right in saying that would be the opportunity that we could — as a nation, as the NHS — have a pause, draw breath, and then actually look at what has been happening, analyse it properly, and really decide whether the policies that have been enacted were mistaken or whether they have been deliberately put into being; are they malicious? That we can have a full analysis of what’s happened.

Whistleblower: Yes, that’s right, that’s right. And I think the danger, as well, here is that for a segment of the population, they will bundle this in with, you know, “All vaccines are bad”, or “All this is bad” or “All that is bad”. And there are amazing things happening in the NHS each and every day that does save lives. People are committed and caring. And so, you could lose all of that with what’s going on, and we need that stop and to really, really re-evaluate.

And, you know, the other thing is, we need to find each other. The people that are desperately trying to make a difference and desperately trying to scream at the top of our voices, “Please, please stop!” We need to find each other, and it’s very difficult, because we’re quite spread out, we’re demonised, we’re told to shut up, in every job, and that makes the process a lot more challenging.

Brian Gerrish: Well, I can only thank you, but I really mean it, because it is difficult to speak out. You have given a really comprehensive run through what you’ve seen happening, and your summing-up at the end there, I think, is just wonderful, because, yes, we need to bring people together.

What advice would you give to somebody who is thinking about having the vaccination — that’s my first question — and the second question is, what advice would you have for somebody who’s already had the vaccination?

Whistleblower: I think the advice for the first question is, “Do your own research.” I think, as a nation, we’re over-reliant on our healthcare professionals. And that’s not a get-out clause, but, you know, you’re asking me how we empower somebody to really take control — because it’s their body, right, it’s their body — and absolutely, the NHS is there to support them, but do your own research, and do it wide. If you don’t know how to look at the clinical studies, find somebody that does, and ask for support.

Challenge the people that ring you up and offer you a vaccine. Challenge them, and ask them questions. We need to keep at critical thinking for ourselves. That would be the biggest thing. I’m not going to tell you what to do. People ask me, and I’m not going to tell them. I am going to say, “Look, this has no long-term safety data, and there may be some challenges with it. You’ve got to weigh up the risk-benefit ratio. Go and do your own research as well!” I think that’s a key point.

If people aren’t able to do that, then I often just give them a few areas they could go and look at, and I always try to be balanced in that, because I think that’s important. You know, people need to make their own minds up with this.

Brian Gerrish: So the second group is obviously people who’ve had vaccines. We know that there are a lot of people, a lot of people: they’ve had vaccines, if they’ve had an adverse reaction, they are really on the uptake of looking for the information and trying to find out why, so they’re very motivated people. But people who’ve had the vaccine maybe didn’t have any adverse effects at all. Should they go ahead and take a second vaccine?

Whistleblower: Again, I can’t tell them what to do, but what I would say is, I’m seeing more and more traffic that is questioning the safety after they’ve had the first dose, because of the things that are in the news, and I have experience of people who have had adverse events but haven’t spoken up. And what I would say, on both counts, is: if you have an adverse event, please report it, please speak up. Don’t take no for an answer. For you, and for others behind you. You know, you have the right, and you should stand up and say, “This isn’t good enough, and I need to report it, and you need to ensure that people are being held to account for this as well.”

I think, for the second piece of that, so if people haven’t got any effects and they’re worried, then I would advise them to talk to somebody. Don’t sit in silence. Talk to somebody, talk it through, do your research. That’s certainly what I would do, and I would encourage anybody else to do that as well.

Brian Gerrish: Well, that’s extremely helpful, because of course in bringing these issues to light, we don’t want to add to this overall stress and anxiety that people are suffering, and I can imagine that if you’ve had a vaccine and then you are hearing about adverse effects, that could really be weighing on your mind.

Whistleblower: Yes, of course.

Brian Gerrish: So I fully understand: what you’re saying there is, do your research so that you are happy in your own mind.

Whistleblower: Yes.

Brian Gerrish: Is there anything else you’d like to add? What you’ve given has been extremely interesting and informative.

Whistleblower: No, I think the only thing I’d like to add is: let’s get talking to each other and supporting each other more. You know, let’s move out of the fear place, and try and — I think a lot of people that have had the vaccines are sitting at home, they’re scared and they’re worried, they don’t know what to do, and they’re looking at the main news or they’re looking at their NHS leaflet. And actually talking to people and getting support and looking at a wide variety of information is just so important for people, and it’ll make them feel like they have more control about what happens to them, their body and their lives.

Brian Gerrish: And one thing that’s come into my mind while you were talking there, so just allow me one very last one: what advice, or what would you say to your NHS colleagues, to encourage them to think about what’s going on?

Whistleblower: Honestly, what comes to mind is, “Your children are next.” And that is terrifying, and it makes me well up when I think about it. So if you won’t speak up because you’ve had the vaccine, or you won’t speak up because you’re scared (I understand that), or you won’t speak up because you don’t want to lose your job (and I totally understand that), just know that this doesn’t stop until we all stand up and say, “Stop.” And we’re getting younger and younger here now, and our time’s running out.

Brian Gerrish: Thank you very much for joining me, and it’s been extremely helpful hearing the information that you’ve got to put across. I know it’s taken a lot of courage, so thank you very much.

Whistleblower: Thank you.



We have tested 1,500 supposed "covid-19 positive" samples and found none! Only influenza A or B.