PATRICK HENNINGSEN- AWAKENING CONFERENCE TOTNES 20.11.21-GREAT STUFF

Video Transcript:

So, you know, all of this has been, it's important to understand that also that all this has been crushed underfoot, all the economies, the industries, the careers, the communities, the societies, all of your rights has been crushed underfoot to make way for a ubiquitous corporate monoculture. Look at the big winners of the pandemic. All these companies are pharmaceutical companies, but you've got Amazon, you've got the online giants, the digital giants like Google and Facebook, they've never recorded either the profits, Netflix, etc., YouTube, they've never seen revenues like they've seen during this pandemic. All of this has been crushed underfoot for that. As ubiquitous corporate monoculture, that demands conformity. We're starting to see governments as well, demanding conformity, in compliance, etc., controlling markets. So the winners have gotten richer and more powerful. So this is the biggest reconsolidation of wealth and power in modern history, in the shortest space of time, much like you would see after a World War. Small businesses, medium-sized enterprises, many of them have been knocked out, much in the same way that they were knocked out after the 2008-2009 financial crisis, all the small banks, all of these smaller lenders, maybe that served some of those less profitable sectors. They were all destroyed. There was swallowed up in mergers and acquisitions, or they're forced out of business, and the main players consolidated the market. And that is by definition a cartel. And this fusion of government and corporate interests that we're seeing so much now, interpretivism, is by definition fascism, if you want to take the orthodox definition of Benito Mussolini. So all of these things issue individual rights at the end of the day, and I think this is one of the big concerns a lot of people have. And we're expected to forego our constitutional rights, our individual rights, for the common good. To do it for the collective. And this is quite an incredible feat, but I think this has been, unfortunately, has been achieved to some success. And in a way, this is kind of a perversion of human nature in a sense that we're all compassionate. Most people I know, they're willing to put their, they will give, they will put their life at risk to help somebody else, not just their family, even a stranger. We've all seen it in our life. This is essential human nature. But what has been achieved here through applied behavioral psychology, and very cynically, I would add, is that while you're able to put yourself at risk for the good of someone else, the one thing that's very difficult to do is to feel like you might be responsible for putting others at risk because you are a vector of germs or viruses. And that plays on the psychology on a much deeper level and is much more problematic. And when in fact, you're adopting a version of reality that might not even be true. And I think we found that out now with all the fear mongering about phonemites on cash, or business or abandoning cash because we were told it was a vector for COVID. A lot of the international organizations, including the WHO, walked that back months later. But the damage was already done. The trend had already gone into motion. And that was a big factor in ushering in what is becoming more and more a cashless society with a central bank, digital currency waiting in the wings. And there is a level of control there that nobody has ever seen before. We have no experience. This is uncharted waters. But for a technology, this is definitely by design and is probably the system favored by the major corporations and the governments that are colluding with them in terms of ultimately having a level of control and be able to fix markets and to control political dissent in many cases. It has never been imagined before in human history. That's what we're facing right now. This is a reality. Now from a political point of view, I would take a political line on this, but it's interesting how the left, the political left, would normally champion civil liberties, would champion human rights to protect the minority. What happened to the political left? This is interesting how this is flipped and trade union leaders and people like this are in fact some of the biggest advocates for lockdowns, for vaccine mandates, for mask mandates and so forth. And I'm not going to say the political right has been much better, certainly not in this country and not that great really in other countries like the United States either. This seems to be a unanimity in the establishment and the political establishment to back a lot of these policies that, well, doesn't matter what the price is, they're doing it. And attacking anti-vaxxers is all these pejorative terms that are used to vilify people and to marginalize people and put a population more into a corner. And we're seeing this certainly in the press of using this, but that term has lost its potency. While that was used to attack a relatively small group of people in previous years, the position of being skeptical about a compulsory pharmaceutical medical procedure is now much more than a marginal position. This is probably approaching 50% of the population before long. This is a growing constituency. And I think the establishment in the media are having a lot of problems with that. They don't know how to, they need to find a new label to attack people that might be asking sensible and real questions or who might be exerting their natural rights or their constitutional rights. It won't be able, not for very long, you're going to be able to use this term. It's really lost its edge as a pejorative. But I don't think there's a right and a left in this issue. The right and left paradigm is effectively redundant. And in the area of COVID, it's dead. The real paradigm now is top versus bottom. It's who has power on the top, pressing down on the bottom. That's the new paradigm. Right and left is effectively redundant. And we're approaching almost a near neofutilist epoch. And that is a top bottom paradigm. Look at how much effort is put into policing speech at a corporate level. Unbelievable. How they've honeypotted hundreds of millions of people onto a handful of social media platforms effectively. That's the global commons informed for discourse and discussion on all issues. But yet this is really a handful of people. If Facebook, Google or YouTube or Twitter are censoring or de-platforming or canceling people, they're not just doing that in the United States. That's global. So they're effectively policing speech globally. This is a very dangerous development, I think, in the human experience in history. Never before have we seen this level of control. And I will go a step further with that critique on the media. You know, the media or the most to blame. I'll start with the mainstream media because governments will do what governments do. Secondly, to be in politics, it's a dirty business. To get to the top of that greasy pole, you have to be really good at a lot of unsavory things. That is the life of politics. You have to make compromises all the time. You do a lot of back stabbing, you lie, you flip flop on issues, you're a hypocrite. This is not uncommon in the world of politics. Politicians will do what they do. Politicians and elites will do what they do. But if you have a democracy, a free press is meant to act as a check and a balance to power. So if you don't have a functioning fourth estate, if you don't have a functioning press, if the press is now mobilized to attack people who are asking questions and to publicly mob or gang stalk dissenters, if that's the function of the press, the corporate press, on behalf of the state or on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry, who are pouring millions of dollars into advertising on many of these media outlets. And the government is pouring hundreds and millions of pounds or dollars into advertising the mainstream press with pandemic and COVID ads. If that's what's happening, then the fourth estate is effectively dead and buried. So the real press, the real media, the real mock-reakers are in the alternative media or the independent media or individuals on social media. So the mainstream media is the most to blame on this because you cannot have a functioning democracy without a free press and the press is no longer free. It is captured. And I'll talk about the regulatory agencies in a second. But let me just give you a, we'll have a, I'll go through just a quick little synopsis of what I've been talking about. But we talk about propaganda. Look at this issue on screen here. This was an ad on a bus stop for the NHS, presumably from the government. You've all seen these types of ads. It is some of the most insidious, manipulative propaganda act like you've got it. So again, you're not wearing the mask for yourself. You're not taking the vaccine for yourself. You're not social distancing for yourself. You're doing it for others because you're supposed to believe that you are a potential vector. You're nothing more than a bag of germs. This is the result of this type of propaganda. This is on a level that nobody has ever seen before in history. And it is just incredible how many companies have made so much money by taking cash from government or from the pharmaceutical companies and how a lot of this is done with public money. So this is an incredible economic little echo chamber here and it's created a lot of billionaires. This crisis has created a lot of billionaires, not just in PPE or in testing, which we'll talk about in a second. But in advertising and media in the mainstream corporate media, it's created a lot of millionaires and billionaires as well. So, but let's look at just quickly. I'll just review something very briefly and then we'll wrap it up. But you know, the fundamental problem with the global pandemic narrative. Here's what we call the baker's dozen. Here are some facts. So firstly, there is no notable or statistically significant rise in all cause mortality. So there hasn't been the global Justinian plague that we've all been led to believe or told to believe has happened over the last two years. And unfortunately, that's a fact. Secondly, the coronavirus was never a threat to the general population only to a specific section of society, according to the government's own data in almost every country. It's identical. What are we talking about? We're talking about the average age of a so-called COVID-19 death is hovering around the UK. It's probably around 81 to 82 years old. I'm averaging male and female, roughly. But the average lifespan life expectancy years in the same country will probably be around 80 years old. So in fact, it's older than the average lifespan years. So what does that tell you that this if there's a pandemic or there's a virus on the loose here or a disease, it tracks perfectly with old age. So if it tracks perfectly old age, you wouldn't really notice it because it wouldn't be anything out of the ordinary. But say who is at most risk if you want to label them as COVID is elderly over the age of let's say 75 years old. And the rest of the population statistically it's nominal. And in the lower you get an age, it's insignificant. So why then must all of these policies and vaccine mandates be targeted towards younger and younger people where the risk goes down to zero statistically? Zero in terms of children, 0% of even getting seriously ill, let alone dying of COVID-19. Why would you enforce such incredible policies and force people out of work, force children out of school? Why would you do that? There's a lot more going on here than just a pandemic. And I think people have come to realize that. Next, the WHO, the World Health Organization, intentionally changed the definition of a pandemic, lowering the bar in order to justify a global crisis narrative. They have not done this just once. They have not done this twice. They've done this three times over the years. Okay. The WHO in public health agencies changed the prerequisite for recording a cause of death for COVID-19, lowering the bar to allow easy COVID labeling. This is not confined to any specific country. This is policy coming down from the WHO as recommendations or from the CDC in the US. And this is adopted by healthcare professionals all over the world. And so what do you get? You get data. You get two columns of data. One is cases, the other is COVID deaths. And policy is always based on this data. If the data is high, you have more stringent and forceful and fascistic policies. This is the way it's gone. The data is low. You won't be able to sell these policies to your population quite simply. So next, mass testing. Mass testing has been a failure. And it has really protected nobody. From any pandemic, it's caused untold damage to lives, has ruined and bankrupted communities, institutions, governments and society. This is beyond debate. Now, it should be anyway. This policy of mass testing is bankrupting society. It is unsustainable. And the longer we carry on with the charade that these are even diagnostic tests and they could tell you anything in terms of medical diagnosis is fueling the crisis and will continue to do so until it is abandoned. The PCR and the lateral flow tests are not medical diagnostic tests. They were not designed as such and they cannot test for the presence of a live virus. That's a fact. That's undeniable. Anything else that you might suppose about these tests is purely theoretical and is the opinion of whoever you are, whether you're in the medical professional or healthcare or public health official and so forth. They're not diagnostic tests, but they're being used as diagnostic tests. That is the fulcrum of all of the problems that society and the world is facing in the last two years. Next, mass testing is a failure. Yes, this is true. But what's more true here is that lockdowns have never worked. They have caused more damage and loss of life in society than any virus has. This is an undeniable fact. I'll show you an article about that in a second. Now this is important. The emergency use authorization of the vaccines has turned the population into one giant, unregulated clinical trial of an experimental pharmaceutical product deceptively sold as safe and effective and falsely citing relative risk reduction rather than absolute risk reduction. This is the pharmaceutical industry conducting their own clinical trials, handing it to the government to be rubber stamped. And the government is taking five minutes to rubber stamp it. In some cases, they wave it through in a kind of rolling approval process like we're seeing with companies like Pfizer. They can change the ingredients of their product, but it still gets waved through the regulatory process. Now I've got a short film just to show you it's three minutes long, but it is absolutely essential. And this is about informed consent. This is from Canada. We stand the difference between relative risk reduction and absolute risk reduction. The pharmaceutical companies would chastise for years for using the relative risk reduction statistic so they can say it's 95% effective or 98% effective rather than what the regulators used to tell them they need to use, which is the absolute risk reduction. Now understanding that small nuance can hold the key to this vaccine rollout and you can see on what flimsy grounds pharmaceutical companies have done this. If we have that film, let's roll that out. Informed consent, it's your right. In Canada, it's the law. The history of medicine is, unfortunately, the history of human experimentation without consent. It's also the history of well-intentioned human and government error. That's why the doctrine of informed consent exists as a safeguard against medical abuse and mistakes. Since you're the one who ultimately has to bear the consequences of any medical intervention, it's your right to make an informed free choice. So when it comes to the COVID-19 vaccines, what should informed consent look like? Well, you should be informed of the risks, benefits, and side effects as well as alternative treatments. You should be given information that's specific to you. As the risk from COVID-19 varies greatly with age and pre-existing conditions, and you have the right to know the potential benefit of any intervention. For example, Pfizer reported that its vaccine shows a 95% efficacy. That sounds like it protects you 95% of the time, right? But that's not actually what that number means. That 95% refers to the relative risk reduction, but it doesn't tell you how much your overall risk is reduced by vaccination. For that, we need absolute risk reduction. In the Pfizer trial, eight out of 18,198 people who were given the vaccine developed COVID-19. In the unvaccinated placebo group, 162 people got it, which means that even without the vaccine, the risk of contracting COVID-19 was extremely low at 0.88%, which the vaccine then reduced to 0.04%. So the net benefit or the absolute risk reduction that you're being offered with a Pfizer vaccine is 0.84%. That 95% number? That refers to the relative difference between 0.88 and 0.04%. That's what they call 95% relative risk reduction. And relative risk reduction is well known to be a misleading number, which is why the FDA recommends using absolute risk reduction instead, which begs the question, how many people would have chosen to take the COVID-19 vaccines? And they understood that they offered less than 1% benefit. Your entitleton of the risks and side effects in Canada, any potentially serious risk must be disclosed. Although many side effects are still unknown, the vaccine adverse event reporting systems are capturing unprecedented numbers of adverse events, including hospitalizations and deaths. You also have the right to know about alternative treatments. There's been great success using early treatment protocols, which include vitamin D and Ivermectin, both of which have long term safety data going back 40 years in over a billion people. Your consent needs to be voluntary. That means that you came to the decision freely and without your rest or undue influence. You should never feel coerced, bribed or threatened. The experimental nature of the COVID-19 vaccines needs to be clearly communicated. These vaccines are still officially in phase 3 trials as they lack long term safety data. And finally, consent is not transferable. If you consented to one particular vaccine with a protocol of two doses over a specific period tested and recommended by the manufacturer, then that's what you should get. So if you weren't provided with the information you've just learned, if your decision was made as a result of pressure, and if you didn't receive the vaccine protocol that you agreed to, then what you experienced was not informed consent. That's a powerful video presentation out of Canada. And you can see that absolutely pretty much destroys the case that the pharmaceutical companies and the media government agencies have been making about how effective this experimental pharmaceutical product actually is. And they've been warned in the past, but why they still use the relative risk reduction is because of the sheer amount of money and lobbying that they've done to governments and to regulators. And the fact that a lot of people sitting on drug regulator agencies are former pharmaceutical employees or those sitting on the regulators will end up on the board of the pharmaceutical companies like the FDA's Scott Gottlieb, who just a few weeks ago was promoted to the board of Pfizer. So straight from the top position in the FDA, right onto the board of Pfizer. Why is that allowed to happen in a democratic country that's meant to have checks in balances? That shows you the level of corruption. But we'll go back just quickly. I want to go back to the PowerPoint presentation. And if we can bring the PowerPoint back on screen, that would be great. So that's the emergency use authorization. So the next point on this is also fundamental. Drug regulatory agencies, government science committees have been completely captured by a corrupt pharmaceutical cartel and by billionaire funded foundations. This is beyond debate. This is a fact, a fact of life in the world of politics. So and again, this is another important point. COVID-19 vaccines do not prevent infection nor stop transmission of the alleged disease. Therefore, they provide no immunity. The definition of immunity requires that you're able to do those things. So effectively, this nullifies the claim that vaccine passports are needed to protect people from the unvaccinated. The policy is literally untenable. It collapses in the face of just the most basic application of logic. And that's an important point because this is what the governments are running with really, really aggressively right now. The media are acting like madadors in Spanish bullfighting. Now this is also important. Merriam Webster is dictionary just changed its definition of vaccine in order to accommodate the experimental mRNA gene therapy in the new range of COVID-19 injections. So they've already working on redefining what a vaccine is. That should really tell you all you need to know. And then to round out, the Baker's dozen is this. And this is perhaps the most important point of everything. Natural immunity is real. Despite denials from mainstream media, from public health officials, it is real. And naturally, it's more effective, it's stronger, it's longer lasting than any synthetic immunity claimed by pharmaceutical companies or their agents in government and then corporate media. That lays in general is a fact. This is a fact that we've all known for many, many years since time, Merriam. So and yet we're told that that's no longer the case. Certain people are trying to tell us that. And this is what they're inculcating into the minds of children as well, this generation. So that's the Baker's dozen. And I might add just for reference, this is Brownstone Institute, this is lockdowns do not work. They do not control the virus. There's 36 peer reviewed scientific papers on this article. So there is no debate as to whether lockdowns work or not. It's a medieval policy that was instituted on a on a whim with no backing whatsoever. Certainly not in science. Now we have two years of hindsight and it falls flat on his face. So really people need to take down the consideration rejected. Now vaccine injuries just quickly. There's in the US, Udra vigilance in the EU, UK yellow card. These are the numbers that we're looking at. This is MITRA UK yellow card, 1,700 plus deaths. This is data as of November 3rd, adverse events, 1,261,000 plus. Now obviously you need context. All these need to be investigated. But certainly by the sheer numbers, you see the compelling case to admit that there's a serious problem going on. The United States, this is the very system run by the CDC as of November 14th, 18,461 deaths, either linked to associated with or caused by the COVID-19 vaccine, adverse events, 970,409. Okay, that's in the US. And this is the EMA, European's medicines agency, Udra vigilance, October 19th data, 28,100 deaths linked to associated with or directly resulting from COVID-19 vaccines, adverse events, 2.6 million plus. Those numbers, that's just three major data bases. Okay, this is not worldwide. This is just a snapshot. Bear in mind that the swine flu vaccine was pulled from the market after a few dozen cases of Guillain-Barray syndrome and deaths in 1976. And look at these numbers. Is there not a problem here? Is this not a compelling case that there is a serious, not only a problem, but a major cover-up by media, by public health officials, by governments to gloss over and ignore this. Now I might add that the Harvard paper was published years ago. I don't have it to hand, but you can probably very easily look it up. The amount of various data recorded onto that system is a mere fraction of what it exists out in the population in terms of adverse reactions and possibly deaths. So what you're seeing there is highly underestimated. And I think that probably goes the same with the UK, with EU and other countries. So the problem, again, is much bigger than all this. And that's it for slides. Look, and in conclusion, I think it's really important. That we understand just from speaking from a personal point of view and a basic view as a citizen, as a person who exists in the world. And I'm talking to everybody who's watching as well. We have to stop begging for our civil liberties because you should know by now after what you witnessed after the last two years that government no longer cares about civil liberties. They should civil liberties and rights. You have to not only demand your rights, you have to take your rights back. You have to learn to say no. Noncompliance on a mass scale is the only thing that is going to stem the tide of what is clearly an incredible and historic wave of totalitarianism. This is a fascist movement that's international. And it includes some of the biggest corporations, the biggest investment banks, central banks, governments on the planet, the most powerful people on the planet. The wealthiest people on the planet, the richest man in the world, is dictating public health policy to each and every government. You think it's a plot out of a James Bond film, yet it's happening right before our eyes, and most people have no idea that this is actually the case. Or don't want to admit that it is bad as it is. And also, more than ever, we need to support people who are working in fields like medicine or health or nutrition or businesses and media outlets, alternative media outlets. And basically anybody who is sharing the same belief in freedom, in freedom of speech, in freedom of choice, in freedom to do with your body as you choose, your sovereign self, those people who believe in that, you need to support those people and those businesses. We need to come together, even if we disagree on the science, even if we disagree on the nuance of some of these arguments, we all share that in common. I think most people do. I think a lot of people who are silent on this issue politically, they do support those fundamental principles and those natural rights, those individual rights, those human and constitutional rights. They support them and perhaps they're just afraid to come forward and voice those opinions. So we need to support each other and create communities around those common issues and those common beliefs that we share, despite our differences politically. That's what I want to leave you with today. I want to thank Stephen for the tenacity of sticking with this event after being knocked back three times. And so I think it says a lot for the people involved in this, the dedication. And I support everybody who has presented so far. And I think it's important that you all do too. Thank you, Stephen. Very much. Patrick, just before you go, just a little bit of, thank you for coming. But what you've done is also introduced us to brand YouTube, basically. So we want to sort of big up a big thank you to brand YouTube who've opened up bandwits and done a tremendous job to get this out there, basically. And you know, with whom we're going to be working with, you know, into the future, really. So, yeah, please send your comments to brand YouTube, thanking them for this livestream. It wouldn't be happening without them. And I think they're fantastic platform. So we really need them right now because, you know, to get information up on the internet that isn't going to be taken down is increasingly tricky, as we know. So brand YouTube, you know, to amend this, to amend this big job. So thanks for that introduction to them. And, yeah, thanks to your presentation, presentation to David. Yes, and thanks to brand new tube and the team. You guys have been amazing helping us with the technical side, just facilitating this. In a time when free speech is under attack, brand new tube has done a great job. Got a great job, brand new tube. So yeah, thank you, Patrick.