Well, hello, Peter. Peter Taylor. I've got the joy of interviewing Peter Taylor today. Now, Peter, I've known for a very long time, actually over 10 years. And he is an environmental scientist and has worked for the United Nations at some point and has got 2 Oxford degrees. He's an amazing man, has worked for all sorts of people over the over the years. And he in I, I heard about Peter when he he wrote a book called Chill. What year was that, Peter?
It was published in 2009. 2000 that's, that's when I actually came to live here in Glastonbury and you live locally and I read read the book and it was about global cooling, which was really something in 2009. And of course you, you know, your, your colleagues didn't really take that book very well, did they? They they kind of you got ousted from from the whole, the whole thing with with with climate from establishments like the UN. So tell us about that.
What happened? Yeah, well, my colleagues in a sense were the environmental movement itself. Since the mid 70s, I'd been working on issues of ocean pollution, atmospheric pollution, trying to stop certain bad things happening, a lot to do with toxic industries, nuclear power and so forth. And I'd, I'd never looked at the climate science as such. So all the institutes worldwide were saying, you know, carbon dioxide is the main cause of what we're seeing in terms of global warming.
And at at that time, before I published Chill, I'd been involved in working with government, the Department of Trade and Industry and Countryside Agency on how to integrate renewable energy into the environment. The things I care about such as biodiversity, community, rural communities, especially upland mountain communities.
When I looked at what was being advocated in the year 2000 by the Royal Commission and that was only with like 50% reduction of emissions, it wasn't net 0. I looked at, I thought this is this is going to have incredible impact on the countryside, solar panels, wind turbines, more new. It was a godsend to the nuclear industry, biofuels, hydro schemes and we couldn't supply all our renewable energy from Britain. So we were bound to go and exploit other areas which I can
talk about. And so I was still thinking positively that the best thing to do is find a way of integrating it. So I designed a tool by which communities could decide for themselves. So it was a like a computer landscape very similar to the one that they would be in. We did a western, a Midlands and an eastern landscape. And you could choose what you would, how you would answer the integration of renewable energy so that people were using their energy locally, fundamentally
and sustainably. And that was a three year project. It was funded by the government. It was my design. I helped the help of some incredible computer engineers who could visualise and and work with, I'd seen with my own children how they were in fantasy landscapes. And I thought, wow, you know, you can fly into them. And if you've you've seen these computer games, couldn't we do the same for educating communities about their own landscape and what they could do
and so on? So it was quite a sophisticated project and and we were blessed by some very, very good minds on the job. And that took me to about 2003 and I was actually sitting on a government committee of community renewables. How do you empower communities? Where can they go for information? Can we give them any money? And so I think we had about
£1,000,000 on the table. So I, I was well on board and, and given my record on ocean pollution, particularly working with Greenpeace, I was their chief advocate at the UN for many years on ocean pollution issues. And eventually the UN realising that they got it wrong. And that's an important thing for what we, what we can talk about because all the institutions of science at that time thought you could dilute stuff, put it in the ocean and forget about it. Oh, not entirely.
You would monitor just in case you got it wrong and if anything went wrong, you could stop whatever you were doing. Well, yes and no, because you could also end up with stuff in the atmosphere or the oceans which you can't do anything about, such as CFCS and we nearly lost the ozone layer. So science makes a lot of errors and those errors are not publicised, they rather cover them up.
And CFCS in the atmosphere is a bit of an exception because they they regard that as one of their success stories. They quickly stopped the production of CFCS once they realised it was destroying the ozone layer. What's generally not known is that science itself nearly missed the whole thing. They dismissed the first bit of data from the Antarctic that the ozone hole was happening, and it was only pressure from a few scientists below who managed to
get it up on the agenda. But in the years before that, they were advertising chlorofluorocarbon as something you can clean your wash, you could do your washing up in it. It's totally non toxic. And of course, they didn't think far enough. So I'd been educated in the limitations of computer models, one of which had been you can dump nuclear waste to the bottom of the ocean and we'll track it and, and we know where it's going and monitoring and all of
that. Well, I examined all of that very carefully and realised that this was a, in a way an entree into the ocean for some very toxic stuff. They wanted to just drop at the bottom. And so we would analyse that. And I, I had a lot of support within government as well as within Greenpeace and we were able to penetrate the whole structure of the modelling and criticise it, bring it before the UN and then the UN eventually saying look, we realise that you're right, will
you come in and help us? So at one point I was consultant to the International Maritime Organisation coming in to rewrite their legislation such that these practises couldn't happen. And in parallel with that, I set up a team which was engaged in looking at technology and what's the clean production strategy so you don't produce toxic material that you have to get rid of or store or discharge or whatever. It's called clean production strategies.
There's a book on it. I have a chapter in it. Again, some incredible brains came in on that, you know, one of whom, Tim Jackson, is now professor of sustainability at Surrey University. So there's been a big shift in thinking, in scientific thinking, and actually there was quite a lot of opposition from the scientists. They say, oh, this is political, it's not scientific. No, no, it's scientific. It's about the limits of your scientific knowledge and how you deal with your errors.
So that was my background in schooling until I realised that trying to integrate renewable energy, trying to run an industrial country such as Britain, which is very small on renewable energy would just destroy so much of what I cared about. And that that landscapes, mountains. I'm a Mountaineer, you know, but also community and biodiversity. There are lots of implications.
I mean for example, we can't grow proper biofuels here to run our 10% EU mandated biofuel in your petrol or diesel tank. We went to Colombia and colluded with the clearing of 400,000 hectares, 800,000 acres, nearly 1,000,000 acres of land, clearing it of people and putting in palm oil plantations to get bio biodiesel. Same thing happening in Brazil
with ethanol, hydropower. Again, what happens with hydropower is the people with the resource, Southeast Asia, Iceland and so on, they desecrate their own wilderness by damming the rivers, generating carbon free electricity. Then they attract huge industries like aluminium smelting and so on. So all of that's going on and it's a big Malay. And so I highlighted all of that in my research.
I, I spent three years going deeply into climate change and the models and, and I was interested in how long have we got? I was quite shocked to find how uncertain the science was. There were key elements which you can spot when you know how computers are programmed and you go, well, why did you choose that parameter and not this one?
And so. Do you think it was, excuse me, I mean, do you think it was a lot, a lot of reliance on modelling and and this modelling was was flawed because it's actually it's, it's not, it's not, it's not really a, a stable model is. It to the the problem with the with the models is that they have a certain lifetime when they're generating some kind of conclusion. Then you have the policy people, governments in history and they come in and they say, no, we we need certainty.
You'll talk about maybe this, maybe that. So the model is then say, well, that's really difficult to give you ZT. We'll give you our best shot. And that's usually an average. You know, they've got very different projections. And then you have what I called in the old days of the ocean pollution issues, a prior commitment. You have a prior commitment to that model. And then when new data comes in which actually would invalidate the model, they criticised the
data. They don't go to look at their model. Now was was the IPCC then when, When did the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, were they involved in any of this?
At the very beginning, yes. The, the first meeting was probably around 9596 when the UN's Framework Convention on Climate Change was set up. And at the time I, I, I had moved on from ocean issues to forestry, wildlife, countryside issues and so on, which were more of a passion than trying to stop the bad guys doing stupid things.
And what I didn't realise is one of my colleagues in the US who'd worked with me very closely on the ocean issues, we used to do a tandem act at the UN because he he represented a tiny Pacific island at all. But he had one vote and the US had one vote. So he was not their favourite person. And the US was behind a lot of dumping operations and so on. So I kind of lost touch a little bit with him. And when the publishers asked, can we have a professor who will endorse your analysis?
So I said, well, yeah, contact Jackson Davis in in California. And what I didn't realise is he'd gone on to work on the climate issue and he'd helped to set up the framework convention and he'd Co wrote who was a leading author of something called the Kyoto Protocol. So he was right there on, you know, the whole, the whole narrative as as indeed I had been. So I took my analysis to him and I just said, look, Jackson, this is where I've come to.
He said, oh, you can't possibly be right Peter. You know, it's like the whole world. I said no, no, not not the whole world. There are a number of scientists who disagree. They're just being marginalised. They're not being listened to. The same story we had with the ocean issues.
So he's a little sub story to this is that when I published Chill and Jackson endorsed the book and said these questions have got to be answered now, the main issue was not actually global cooling, although that was a potential that was about to happen. It's taking a while, but there is the potential for a natural cycle, which peaks around now and declines around now. So it's we're at the peak and
it's going to decline. And on the on the back of that, everyone says I was prophesying global global cooling. But when when I was talking about that, I wasn't really prophesying global cooling, it was like, yeah, that's that's potentially going to happen unless we get an ocean cycle called El Nino super El Nino peaks at the end of a period when there's very little global warming.
And, and you can draw a line like that, which is completely false thing to do because this is a natural bump. So that's happened. But two bumps all in a row is, is almost unprecedented. So we've got very unpredictable, unnatural, but very warm conditions at the moment. So everyone was saying, Oh well, Peter Taylor, what's wrong? But what people don't realise is that when you're measuring temperature at the surface or in the atmosphere, you're actually measuring heat leaving the planet.
Heat is stored and the only place it's stored is in the ocean. So the ocean stores the heat and the only source of that heat is the sun. And it's the sunlight called shockwave radiation that can penetrate down to 102 hundred metres. It gives all its energy to the surface layer of the ocean. The Ocean's 4000 metres deep mostly, and it just stores this energy in the top 200 metres, but it shuffles it around. It shuffles the heat around in currents and releases it in
cycles. So most of my book is about those cycles and the release of heat from the oceans and which says this is what's happening now. But they cannot put that into the models. Models have their limitations and and that was my speciality, so I understood why they couldn't put it in. But on top of that they just ignored all the cycles with
search. Yeah. Could I ask you quickly, have you, you must know Valentina Zorkova because she has a similar, she's written some some peer reviewed papers and she's she's on the whole global cooling thing. What do you think about her work? Does it do you agree with it or
do you what do you feel? We have been in communication and generally there was a smaller group of, of solar scientists like Zarqova who think we're about to enter a Maunder minimum or they, they, they talk about a, a grand solar minimum, which at the moment isn't happening. There is a decline, but it's not dropping very severely. And most of the NASA scientists and, and a good few others don't
expect that. And actually, when we the the little sub story was after the publication of my book, ITN News have a documentary section and they phoned up and, and it was the science correspondent, I think it was Rob Wilson. And they said, oh, we'd like to do a feature on your work. I said, oh wow, you know, great. One man against the world kind of thing. And but it's television. So we had the first meeting and they said, can you make it
televisual? So I said, yeah, fly me to Greenland. I've always wanted to go to Greenland, but David Attenborough had just suddenly come off the fence and he's pointing to the glaciers falling into the sea. I'll stand where he stood, right? But instead of pointing to the glaciers, I'll point to the ground and which is just uncovering because of the thaw. Viking graves. 1000 years ago the Vikings were farming on Greenland. Then the cycle changed as it was peaking around 1000 years ago.
Cycle changes goes down. They had to leave. So it's like at the same time White Stalk who are just now colonising Kent after an absence since the little Ice Age. They were nesting on Edinburgh Cathedral in the year 1100 or 1200 or whatever. So as an ecologist I'm looking at, well, these cycles, you know, they're very real. So we were going to go, go and produce this programme, half an hour documentary. It would have done wonders for
the sale of my book. And I got a call after about 3 meetings saying, sorry Peter, you come in, we'll explain, we can't go ahead. We got pressure from above. We call them the Goreites. Al Gore had set up a media empire and they had power and influence. So and their science correspondent was so disgusted. He said, I'm resigning and this is a science journalist. And he said, Peter, what do you need for your work?
I said, well, I have no budget, but I really need to go to the United States and talk to my colleague Jackson Davis. He's got resources. Here's your effort, he said out of his own pocket. So I hightailed it to my friend who was living in Colorado and on the hill outside Boulder. The city he lived in is the US main laboratory for computer
simulation of the globe. It's called the National Centre for Atmospheric Research and there was also a university specialist there, Colorado University, who was a specialist to how the oceans release heat. So I wanted to talk to him and we had five hours, incredible talk, great conversation, well respected. And then we went up the hill to the National Centre government operation. It was a bit like something out of James Bond. And in comes the chief modeller puts his boot, his feet up on
the table. Cowboy boots dressed in denim from head to foot. 6 foot 6 tall, big hat. Jerry Meal, one of the top international modellers feeds into the IPCC that what can I do for you guys? So I lay out my data, which was also in chill said look, this data does not support your model. What the data actually shows is just at the time when the world is warming, the clouds are thinning and there's more energy coming into the surface or warming the ocean.
The oceans then release it, much more energy, about three times as much as your carbon dioxide model. So he's doesn't figure, you know, you've got to answer this, what's going on? And at the time NASA were going, well, the clouds could be a feedback, you know, carbon dioxide thins the clouds. Well, you know, there's not many people going to go. Yeah, right. You know, so this was still the question land and then I've I feel this pressure, the IGN story.
But more than that, up until then, I I I was like a hero of the environmental movement. My whole family had been involved. We'd we'd climbed chimney stacks some of the most mostly I brothers. We'd walked into desert nuclear testing sites, boarded dump ships. You know, it, it, it was, it was like a yeah, we, we, we, we were well regarded.
We all bought into it. I mean, I, I, I did transition town training once and I took the whole family to see Inconvenient Truth, you know, and to see, realise you've just come to this moment. But honestly, that's that respect evaporated overnight. And that was the biggest shock. I it's like, well, hang on a minute, I was vilified. Some people were very rude and I was portrayed as all kinds of things that I'm not, you know, like right wing.
I'm not right wing and in league with the oil industry. You know, I once turned down a contract with the oil industry and, and this was, this was a shock. I, I suddenly realised, wow, these people are not the kind of people I grew up with in the environmental movement. Even the Greenpeace people, it's all changed. They're professional, yes, but they're, they've all got another
agenda. And, and it's like, I mean, my good friend David Taylor, who lives not far away, he was a green during the time when we were creating the Ecology Party. It helped to create that. Then we were advising it not to become a party and not to become a green political thing because. The That's where it all went wrong, Wasn't it the green? Because. When it changed in the ecology to the green parties when I. Hand of of of of political parties. I'm a fundamental Democrat.
I believe in empowering parliament, parliamentary committees, the whole deal and there are some good examples of that globally. We are not one. We could have been. What we've seen is the gradual erosion of proper democracy. I mean, for me, the, the, the key moment was when Andrew Bridging, A Conservative MP, stood up in Parliament just to say something doesn't add up about all these vaccines, you know, and, and the COVID story. Just a question. And there were maybe a dozen MPs
present, 6 on either side. One of them walks over to the Labour benches that I think the Tories were in power and and whispers in their ear and they all walk out. They don't even listen to what he has to say, just the minister who has to respond. Wow I had no idea it was so bad. And since then I've got to know Andrew and and wow, I mean he was just completely shunted aside overall.
The Tory party disowned him and and So what I've learnt is that there's a media compliance with, in the words of Greater Thunberg, follow the science. But whose science are they following? They're following the institute's and the the the top level in the institute's. I'm quite convinced there's a little group of politically minded scientists and one can understand it, but that they've concluded that in order to save the environment you have to
control people's behaviour. It makes sense, of course, people on mass are doing some very, very stupid things, but what they don't realise is that to control people means you're moving into. It's called left wing, but it's not originally left. It's more Stalinist. It it's it's it's anti democratic. It's we know what we're doing and we're not going to tell you because absolutely I. Mean, this whole thing about left and right is really clouding it all at the moment.
You know, because there is no such thing right now. You know that it's it's disappeared. We need a new political language to describe. Some people call it techno fascism now. In the early stages of the nuclear movement, anti nuclear movement in Germany and France, which I was involved in. You could call them fascists. They would yield troops protecting their site. Protest was heavily, heavily dealt with in France. 1 protest that was killed.
We were much more gentlemanly in, in, in the UK, but there was a movement, there was an anti nuclear movement. Now the nuclear industry's dusting off its worst plans to use plutonium as a fuel, the nuclear weapons issue, the closeness that we are to to nuclear war by accident, which is more likely the way it will happen. And there's no anti nuclear movement. So I I because. You were really big in that, weren't you? You, you were a big anti nuclear. You were an activist.
Actually, I was both an activist and a scientist. I consulted with the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War on the effects of nuclear weapons. You cannot protect the public from a nuclear attack. This is absolute nonsense. First of all, it takes only about 200 explosions and each side at the moment's got about 3000 weapons and you create a dust cloud that shrouds the planet and you no crops will grow for three years.
So that's the extinction of a large proportion of humanity. So it's, it's like it's not even an issue, you know, today. So I, I'm, I'm in a very strange position. I've spent my whole life thinking you can reform things, you can improve democracy, you can talk to science. I am a scientist. I have total respect for the scientific method. I've got a forensic mind for spotting when it's not being applied properly and actually within the lower rungs of the scientific institutions.
I get loads of invitations to write papers, to go to conferences. You have to pay and I did a paper in 2019. I signed up to 1 conference. My colleague Jackson Davis of what I didn't mention is that when we had our experience with the National Centre for Atmospheric Research, he came out, he said Peter, they were worried. I said to darn right they're worried. You know, they get billions to support their morals and to give them their due.
That particular group did alter their models a little bit and and they did actually run a potential more under minimum and concluded that there would be cooling. Our own Met Office did the same study but with different parameters and concluded that even if you had a born dominion, it wouldn't alter the global warming trajectory. So that's science for you. But anyway, Jackson said, what can I do to help? Now he's a, what I would call a proper scientist. I'm more of a policy person,
forensic mind. He can number crunch, which I can't do. And so he said what can I do? I said analyse the the I score data. Let's show them that these cycles exist. We know they exist and you can see them in the I score data. But nobody's actually proven that scientifically. They, they say, oh, it's too noisy, the data's too noisy. And what it, what they really mean is nobody's going to pay us to study natural cycles, which is unfortunately true.
So nobody paid us either. But Jackson spent seven years doing that. And we then produced several joint papers, properly peer reviewed, properly published, they don't get cited. So if you've got some awkward data, they'll ignore it for as long as they can. But the younger scientists are going, that's a damn good paper. And that's due to my friend. He's, he's, he's the good, the good scientific paper writer. So will you, will you come and,
and talk to us? And I thought as soon as I do the abstract, they'll just invite me, right? No. And then they they said would you chair some sessions and be our keynote speaker? And I thought maybe they're all very young and they want a grey beard, you know. But no, there were full on professors present, including I think when the IPCC realised they were up against some proper opposition.
They sent their top modeller, a very nice guy called Venkat Venkatramalam Ramaswamy and and he's up there on the podium with his models and everything and I'm able to say Professor Ramaswamy, my work and Jackson David's work and yours are not compatible. Can you explain why there's no, there's no cycles in your models? He says, yes, we don't do cycles very well. Now, if I'd been in a, if I'd been in a more cantankerous mood, it was a very friendly meeting.
I'd have said, well, why do you not tell the public that, right. So he said, come and have lunch. And he's and he's director of the General Fluid Dynamics Research Laboratory in Princeton. He said, come, come, come have a talk with us, you know, And I thought, right, that's what happened before the UN was open on a scientific level. I go in there and most importantly, you've got to find a way for them to save face. Fundamentally, I think I could do that. And it's like if you trap them
in a corner, they'll fight you. So it's all right, I'll do that. But then COVID intervened, which something else that we can talk about. And, and so that never, that never happened. And with COVID, well, I did get involved because right at the beginning, I knew from the old days and old skills that I developed that it was a bioweapons laboratory source and that it was genetic manipulation
and the whole thing. You could get hold of the genetic codes right immediately, but they just appeared. Peking or Beijing covered up the whole, the whole trail. But for a few months it was available and I got most of what I needed, including access to a collaboration between the former head of MI 6 and a top virology team, the Norwegians actually.
And, And so I thought, oh, OK. I then asked all the leaders of the political parties and all the editors of the newspapers I copied in. I asked could you raise with the Prime Minister what advice he received from this, the Secret Service? They will know what's going on. Spire Weapons Territory didn't get any replies. Now, of course, we know very well that the World Health Organisation was compromised, the scientific journal Nature
was compromised. The head of the Welcome Foundation, which is the main pharmaceutical funding body in the world, compromised the pharmaceutical regulators. Fauci and his crew in the States were compromised and the virology professors on board, there were about six of them. We know this because the US Congress has a much better system of tracking and nailing these people. And they subpoenaed all the emails from a little group that met in the Centre for Disease Control.
And there you have it all in the emails where the biology professors are saying, yeah, we know it came from a lab, but we can't say that it would compromise science itself. It would affect our relationships with China. So we'll say it's highly improbable that it came from a lab. No. And that the editor of Nature, top journal, is there to publish that. Well, when I saw the paper, which was obviously before all of this was exposed by U.S. Congress, when I saw that paper, this is rubbish.
How did that ever get published? It's not evidence. So that's the kind of way I work. It's forensic. The lessons from COVID are exactly what's happening in climate science. It's exactly what was happening previously in ocean pollution issues that by the time you get to up to the top institutions, you're dealing with levels of complicity and collusion and and indeed the whole, the whole COVID thing, you're dealing with a conspiracy on the part of these people.
Yes. To cover everything up and, and actually mislead the public and mislead parliaments and the, and then the whole establishment closes ranks and the media are complicit. The BBC especially one of my housemates said the other day, oh, Glastonbury, you know, there's so many new age people and they don't trust the media. They've all, they're all on the Internet and it's all misinformation. And I said, you know, why is that? They know now they were lied to
by the BBC. The BBC said it, it was just a normal vaccine. It wasn't genetic manipulation. It couldn't have come from a lab. They now know all of that was lies. The BBC just parroted what they were fed. And that's the nature of the BBC and the lack of investigative journalism. No, I've, I can look back, you know, I can look back 40-50 years and go, wow, we used to have investigative journalism, We used to have an effective parliament, parliamentary select committees.
And now we've got an, a Labour government which is authoritarian. It's just sacked a whole bunch of good MPs because they were troublesome enough to vote against taking money from the disabled to fund you know what, net zero or weapons or nukes or whatever. You know, it's like they can find 22 billion for a new nuclear programme, but they can't find 4 billion to properly fund. Absolutely. I'd like to get onto your book because I, I think it's, you
know, it's important. We have you got a copy to Flash? I do this is Peter's book Climate COVID and Conspiracy, and I'm, I'm wading my way through it. And it is, I'm one of those really bad people that look at the end before beginning. But I have looked. I've I've looked because a lot of it is scientific, but you you describe it in a way that I even I can understand, which is brilliant. The the structure of the book.
I was asked by an activist group in Stroud, by the way, I'd given a talk if I could could write a follow up to chill. She's about 15 years old, so that's a big undertaking. I don't think I'm, I'm really capable of that now, but I have been writing lots of articles and they're not in standard scientific journals. They're in Caduceus, which is an environmental health magazine, and New View, which is from the Steiner stable. So it's quite esoteric.
But also for some reason they had reviewed Chill and they wanted to follow up. So again, I, I did an update for them as an article and the editors are very good. They said, no, no, no, no, lay people will not understand what you're saying, right. So could you find another way to
say it? So the book consists mostly of articles over the last 10 years, plus an introduction and a link between the COVID articles, which I did, and, and and the climate saying what lessons can we learn from the COVID saga, which are relevant? And you've even got Klaus Schwab of World Economic Forum fame as saying we should learn from
COVID, right? And he's talking about lockdown, controlling behaviour, influencing nudging people in the right way, producing fear because people who are in fear are more easily controlled, suppressing the media, all that kind of stuff. And, and they, there is a school of thought that thinks we will only solve the climate crisis by
world government. The kind of control and, and they're not secretive about it that you would experience in China, total surveillance, total control of behaviour, no spirituality, which from for me is a kind of key element in all of this that we're dealing with the cadre of bureaucrats who seem to have no heart. There's no wisdom when you're in a current situation where you've got bioweapons labs building the next dangerous virus, which will be bird flu.
At the moment bird flu only infects directly from mostly chickens in in sort of high intensity chicken production. They're always subject to viruses so they're always subject to vaccines. So it's a big industry and. The bio weapons people are always looking over the shoulder of these vaccine people. So have you got any dangerous
viruses that we can work on? So that's what happened at Wuhan. They had a dangerous bat virus, killed half the miners that had been exposed to it, but it didn't transfer from minor to minor. It was from bat to minor. It's the same with bird flu and doesn't translate from human to human. So what they do in the labs is say, well, how can we make it transfer from human to human? That's what happened at Wuhan and it was there in the science literature.
How do we do that? Here's how we do it. And and they insert codes for the transmission through human lungs I. Remember, I excuse me for interrupting you, I remember Richard Desak. Do you remember Richard Desak, the, the zoologist who was involved with Fauci and, and the lab in North Carolina in the university and, and he was bragging.
I've still got the clip bragging on YouTube about how they, they manipulate things in the lab and they, they, they, they splice humanised mouse cells with that viruses. And I just thought, Oh my God, this is, this was before COVID. And I just thought, my goodness, this is and went afterwards. I realised that is, that's exactly what it appears they did. I mean, I know there's some people that don't believe in viruses, but you know, you have got people being paid to do this stuff.
So do the viruses exist? They certainly did in the bats, didn't they? The corona they were. You get you get memes that go through what's called the truth movement, and one of them is first viruses don't exist, which is complete rubbish. And then there's, Oh yeah, they do exist, but they don't cause disease. Well, if you unless you've met somebody with a virus that's actually giving them a really hard time, you can probably conclude that terrain theory. And the The thing is, there is a
bit of truth here. Take meningitis, for example, viral meningitis. It's a real killer, but the bug is there all the time. What happens is that immunity rises and falls according to stress, according to diet, according to age. And so we live in a population that's getting older and older. The the diet leaves a lot to be desired. And so immunity is very low. So the first projections of what would happen when this bat virus was unleashed or escaped were huge.
You know, it'll go through the population like a wildfire because we have a low immunity group, about 13 million people whose immunity is compromised. So terrain theory's certainly got something in it. But coming back to this, you you don't get a huge lab working on perfecting the transmissibility of one virus so that it will infect a human if they don't exist, you know, So that's what happened in Wuhan. Because they did work on that for about 30 years, didn't they?
They were 30 years doing this. So it. Must more like more like 10 or 15 in the in the recent times there had been a number of outbreaks of bat virus disease and it was quite lethal, but it wasn't transmissible. One was in the Middle East and there was actually a SARS outbreak in China, which is when they first noticed this bat virus is lethal if minors cave, people breathe it in.
So what happens is that within the Wuhan lab, and this would be any lab really, you, the bio weapons people keep an eye on what's going on. And they are military, of course. And they go, oh, we're interested in that. And so they actually took the codes and I think they worked on it themselves. I don't think the famous batwoman of Wuhan, XI, Jiang Lee, I don't. She said it didn't come from my lab. It's not. Well, hang on a minute. What's she saying there?
Well, just down the road is the bio weapons lab. And they've given the codes. Those codes also went to North Carolina. And so when the Chinese say it could just as easily have come from the Americans right now, The thing is, the Secret Service know all this. I mean, either they're incompetent and don't know it, or they are. They're not, sorry to say. Didn't they throw out, didn't they throw them out of North Carolina because they found out they were they were doing gain
of function? Well, now you've got you've got President Trump coming in on it and, and appointing Robert Kennedy Junior. So they're on the case. I don't know how far they've got, but I think Fauci, who's the head honcho in the Disease Control, but it's also the bio weapons section. He's got immunity of prosecution as indeed all the pharmaceutical companies have.
So the, the, the, the rationale behind this and Peter Dadjek's job is to find those viruses that are dangerous and can be manipulated because the enemy might do the same. Now, the enemy's never specified, but it's kind of Osama bin Laden territory. And after 911, the bio weapons community received billions to protect us against bio warfare. So what they have to do is what's, how do you protect against bio warfare? First of all, you have to work out what the enemy's going to do.
And then you have to get a vaccine ready. So that's what was happening in Wuhan and CDC in in North Carolina. And they had a vaccine more or less ready. That's why it happened so quickly. And one of the most egregious things from my perspective, having worked on radiation when there was a big blind spot in the 50s and 60s about low level radiation, every single scientist in the institute said
it's not a problem. There's a threshold and you know, low level radiation can't cause any harm. One scientist stood against this. A A a female epidemiologist at Birmingham University. Her connection with doctors was telling her that more children were coming showing leukaemia than they should be. She investigated and there was a correlation between those children's whose mothers had been X rayed and the development of leukaemia in the foetus, in the children.
She was vilified, she was opposed. It took 10 or 15 years to change the establishment view. They even knighted the British. The main protagonist against her, Sir Edward Pochin. She received no honours at all. Of course, nobody now X rays, pregnant women, I mean, you know, your dentist will leave the room just for a little extra here. So it's like you've even got people within the the kind of anti environmental movement saying we should get more nuclear power and all this stuff
about radiation. It's over hyped and there's no, there's, you know, there's a threshold, a little bit of radiation. It's good for you kind of stuff. And they ignore all of her work and and this is a gender issue, You know, they were blind to pregnant women and what what happened in COVID. Within a very short time, they were saying, yeah, we we want to inoculate pregnant women and going, well, hang on a minute. You can't, you're not allowed to test the vaccine with pregnant women.
So it means it's not tested. And then the first data coming through from Japan showed that the spike protein, which one of the chief people to do with mRNA technology had said, what are we doing? We we thought the spike protein would stay in the arm. And I'm going, I'm a biologist. What on earth made you think that? Then the data comes from Japan saying it goes all over the body, concentrates in the uterus. And then that would be enough to go, all right, we're not going
to inoculate pregnant women. But then a year later, a Japanese team studying cancer rates in those people who'd been vaccinated and those who hadn't. And that they're not much accelerated, maybe about 2% overall, but in the uterine cancers, more like 10%. And so because my database is a bit of a shambles and I was writing about it, I thought, oh, I must go back to that paper, get the details. I remembered the authors I had. So I find it's on a Japanese
journal. It's been retracted, it's been withdrawn. So normally you have to have a process to do that where the people who wrote the paper agree with the criticisms and to have it retracted. Those people did not agree and they were opposed to the retraction, but it happened anyway. So that's another little way in which the establishment protects itself. Absolutely. And they will, they will try and get your paper retracted by putting pressure on the editorial board.
And I've witnessed that. So all of these things we're talking about a high level of complicity, collusion, corruption, conspiracy. And if you use those words, then, then they, they dismiss you. And they don't even the Greens don't even register my past history. You know, I'm not some lunatic going on about conspiracy. You know it, it's like, come on, let's get real here. But they don't want to. They don't want to because they have an ideological commitment.
And it's it's it's basically a China type society where you can control everything. And it's very well in their eyes, it's very green. But even then, you know. It's the opposite though, isn't it? Because you know, when you look at what they, what, what the greens are supporting is a, is a non biological technocratic society. And it's, it's the direct polar opposite of what they profess to be, to be. They're all about nature and conservation and all this sort
of thing. But actually what they, what they're supporting is entirely different in, in as much as they're covering our land with solar farms and wind farms and the farmland's disappearing and, and, and, and they won't have that conversation. And it drives me insane. And it must drive you insane too. They just go a blind. They're they're blind to any of
this technocratic stuff. And when you listen to someone like Noah Yuval Harari, who's Klaus Schwab's advisor, and he says our aim is to have nothing biological on this planet, get rid of everything but, and you just think there's a an element of something very evil there, sort of real. I I I I wouldn't use the word evil myself. I've I've called it the dim DIMMM dimwits, the dangerously
imbalanced modern male mind. Thank you and and what what you have is it's mostly a male thing, especially the science. Lots of women involved, but they've already agreed to be like a man, right? They'll do the methods just the same. There's no difference. In fact, often they're better. But what's missing the imbalance is, is the feminine power, the feminine polarity. And that that's, it's not so much about gender as such, it's
about wisdom. And if you go back to the ancients, they had a, a goddess sapphire wisdom and we have it in our language, Sophia, philosophy, the love of wisdom. And that wisdom was always embodied by the feminine for good reason. The wisdom is not in the mind, right? And there are all these mental men that they have no wisdom, they have no heart. The the whole corporate endeavour, which is, you know, 3 or 400 years old, which has raped the planet.
There's no dispute about that. This is the, the modern male mind gone completely AWOL. It's it's absent from its own heart. And that's, that's acknowledged. I mean, you can't talk about heart around a boardroom table. You can't talk about heart in the city. You, you can't talk about love should reign supreme in all of this. We live in a Christian hypocrisy where it's OK to stockpile nuclear weapons and call yourself the Archbishop of Canterbury or whatever.
You know, it's like, no, this is not a society that has any real connection to its heart and therefore it's it has no connection to wisdom. So what we have to do is somehow re immerse the male into its own feminine and that is a big undertaking because we're talking about a feminine approach to consciousness which we've hardly ever seen. We've been in 3 or 4000 years of patriarchal, control orientated
war defence enemies. So you I've been for my next book, I've been going back to where this all began and trying to find the thread that runs through that has subjugated the feminine mind, which here I'm, I'm, I'm talking about intuition, love and compassion and, and not seeing the world full of enemies. I mean, Jesus said all of this. I'm, I'm not a, a, a Christian as such. I'm, I'm closer to Buddhism or yoga or whatever, but we, we don't live in a Christian country.
Don't do you think though that that it's an imbalance? It's more of imbalance because I feel that we do need strong men. I feel that the, the, the male energy in our world that, you know, has, OK, we've got the awful corporate stuff going on, the, the patriarchy and the corporations. But in, in an, a normal sort of setting, I feel that men have
actually lost their masculinity. They're, they're the, the good side of masculinity, which is the protection of the female and the helping of the, and, and the, the guardianship and the, and the warrior that there's no male areas anymore. Where are they? Where, where were they during? I mean, I, I know I went on quite a few of the lockdown marches, but certainly in this movement, there's been far more women coming forward than men and that, that has to be wrong.
It's almost like they've, I feel they've lost the, the good side of masculinity. Masculinity is important. And if all the men become over feminised, then surely that's not right either. I. Don't think the men are becoming over feminised. I I think the the problem is that when men wake up to the depth of the error and they feel, Oh my God, we are responsible for this, we are toxic masculinity walking around. See, I don't go along. I'm sorry, I disagree with. I've seen enough of it to know
it exists. In my younger days, I was trained in the military and I used to hang out with some, some pretty special forces people, you know, and, and it's like you pick up on, on the mentality, you pick up on the, the, the attitudes to women and so on. I hope it's changed since then. But overall you get very decent, very decent men. I, I, I've, I've got a very positive view of our own
military. My father was in the military, so I've seen it at close quarters and you've got very, very decent men who, who have a warrior spirit, They have a protective, strong, protective nature. Unfortunately they're being used by a regime that puts them usually in a foreign place protecting so called national interest. Well man, I agree with all that. What's missing is that when the men wake up, they feel guilty. They suppress their masculine because they don't know how to
act. I can feel that many times. You know how to act around women without offending and well. Exactly, Yeah. And so there's this uncertainty
about masculinity. I think men are very confused in, in a lot of ways because you've had the feminist movement that, you know, in some ways women needed to, to, to, to, you know, to the whole 50s woman had to get break free from the kitchen and all that stuff and had to go out to work and financially had to. And men don't, men don't know where their place is because sometimes, you know, the women are more powerful. So they they're, they're not quite, Yeah, they're very confused.
For me, the feminist. Time as well, but we can carry on for a couple of minutes and then. The the feminist movement made a huge understandable error in pursuing power. Equality is power and that directly you are entering the male world and you're proving that women can do just as well in that world, whether it's a banker or top chief executive or a fighter pilot, an engineer, a chemist, you know, a bat virus specialist, you know, it's like they're just playing the male game.
And and like I say, they can be very good at it. I'm a huge fan of female football, female rugby, female athletics, you know, wow, these women are real warriors. It takes discipline and skill and all of that. So great admiration. But what's not happening is that the the deeper, darker feminine, what used to be called witchy, that is not. OK, That is not celebrated. The kind of woman who knows where you are, knows what you're thinking, can actually, in a way, travel a little bit in the
astral realms. What, You know, we don't want that kind of woman. And this is exactly what happened in, you know, England 1600. Yeah, You get the King of England who's regarded as the Solomon of his time, IE Wisdom in our way, attending witch trials in Scotland before became King of England, and writing a book on demonology outlining why you can't trust women. They're much closer to the devil you know they aren't they're. Connected. I can't go along with that.
They're they're connected to this unseen world and they can manipulate it like the witches. Well, I think women do do hold, you know, a lot of power. They are the in a way they, you know, they're a creatrix. You know, there's a lot of power within a woman and used the right way, it could like men, it can be used the wrong way. I think all of our power, masculine power, female power can all be used the wrong way. And I I think that that, yeah, I mean, this is this.
Is I might be idealising, I might be idealising women, but I feel that they're closer, they're closer, they're closer to their heart. Yeah, they are. That's and that's why, that's why, that's why the ancients said wisdom is feminine. Yeah. It's because real wisdom is a heart thing. Yeah. And that's what we're missing. And, and the women have to have to bring that back, but they have to bring it back with some power. The wisdom and the heart we're. Not going along with this
anymore. And, and we're going to stand up for the heart. We're going to stand up against all of this. So, you know, I, I think women should be the leading edge of the change, no? I think they are. I think they are, yeah. Somebody like the Dalai Lama said it's the Western woman that will save the world. Who knows? Yeah. Well, it certainly needs. It certainly needs. It needs saving. Let's. Just give this a bit more of a plug. Where can we get your book?
Is it you? Can get it from Amazon. Book shops don't necessarily stop it because it's regarded as too controversial and the Green Mafia might show up and and trash the shop. That was the excuse given in Glastonbury for why the only independent bookshop wouldn't stop it. I'm going to have a word with that man. Excellent, I tried. What, what's good is that we can, a whole load of us can go in there and say, look, we're trying to buy this book and it's not in your shop. What's going on?
You know, I've got, well, there's enough people that support your work to, to do that. We've got to get a whole thing going because he could make some money. And when he realises he's losing out on money, maybe he'll change his mind anyway. So what's, what was, what's your final thing that you'd like to say about maybe the whole world about, you know, what's going on? Because we did have, I know you're a very esoteric man. So what would you, what would
you say as the final thing? Well, esoteric means inner world. And recently after a talk I'd given about the dangers that we all face, someone said, don't you get depressed because the prospects are not good? And I said, no, no, I can't get depressed. He said, for me, there are two worlds this the outer world, which in in yoga is regarded as a bit of an illusion. You, you wouldn't want to stand in front of a bus, but you know, it's, it's still an illusion, right?
And then the inner world, and that's the reality. And the inner world is something that you have to get to know, You have to explore. For a man, that inner world is contains a woman inside you. Usually you've suppressed and my inner woman says you've been ignoring me all day. And why don't you let me make the decision sometime? And it's like that. That's the level of rebalancing that has has to happen. We have to, we have to
strengthen our hearts. And and that's heart is, is where the courage is. And, and you know, you take Andrew Bridgens standing up in Parliament and ruining his whole career. He didn't have to do that. And, and people will come up to me and say, why are you ruining your career over this? You know, that's courage.
So it's like we've got to get courageous and, and we've got to get the heart back and we've got to do the inner work so that when it really gets tough and here it hasn't got tough yet. But if you're in Syria or Palestine or South Sudan or a lot of other places on the planet, Armageddon is already with you. So it's like we have got to wake up our our whole country is planning for nuclear war. The whole country, our leaders so called, and then they've
learned the lessons from COVID. Those bioweapons labs are still producing, they're still working, they're still dusting off the plans through plutonium economy, hoping people like me fade away. You know, so it's like it's crucial. It's crucial that we we find our heart and our courage very quickly now and then from there we reform the system. So I don't know of any political
party that's dealing with this. I, I I'm not sure political parties are the answer, but I think sadly, we're going to have to wrap up now. Thank you for the opportunity. I think there's. Very wise words at the end. Absolutely. We need courage, we need we need you know you those are very wise words. You're a very wise and it. Takes it takes work. It's inner work. It's not easy. It can be scary. You, you're facing your own
shadow. One has to actually realise there's only one human being on this planet and, and we can really screw up now. And that's why science and this dangerously imbalanced modern male mind has LED us. So this is like wake up or die. And, and that's, that's, that's what we have, what we have to do. And it's, it's hard work. It's hard work to maintain that inner world. And in different times you would be burnt alive for doing that, you know so.
Yeah, right. Well, Peter, it's been absolutely marvellous speaking to you and I don't know where the time's gone. It's. Just gone. I was just looking. And it's because it's so engaging. Well, thank you very much for for this opportunity talk so widely, Sandy, and for being such a good host. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Goodbye.