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.