Part 2 transcript

PART 2:
The results of the analysis showed that in the material delivered by Baxter to those 16 laboratories, two live viruses coexisted. One was the bird flu virus that appeared in 2005, and that caused a high mortality rate but infected just a few people. The number of deaths worldwide, and I quote by heart, was around 250, but as far as we know, around 60% of those infected died. This means that if 250 died worldwide, just around 600 got infected, whichever the exact number is. Therefore the mortality rate of this virus is very high, but its infection rate is minimal. The virus was mixed with a seasonal flu virus, that, as we all know, has an extremely low mortality rate, it means lower than 0.01%, but with a high degree of transmission (i.e. highly contagious). If you mix these two viruses and then distribute it to thousands of people, what you're doing is you're maximizing the probabilities for these two viruses to merge, for them to recombine, and for a new virus to appear that is both very lethal and very infectious. This is a fact and has been officially admitted by Baxter, [TC: They have admitted that the contamination took place, but not that the material was destined for human use. Claiming protection behind the confidentiality rights, they haven't disclosed information about its destination]... that the total of 72kgs of the material contained mix of live bird flu and seasonal flu viruses. This is a fact.
Could this have happened by chance? It is extremely unlikely. And I say this because in Science the word "impossible" is something we never say. What does it mean, "extremely unlikely"? It means that laboratories handling these kinds of viruses have bio-security levels in place. Bio-security Level 3 is the highest, and the one that must be applied in this laboratory. It means that if we talk in a Science context about probability, based on known facts, the probability that this may have happened by chance is extremely low. Not only this: how can we explain the mixing of two different live viruses? But also because the flu vaccine, as we all know, is a vaccine made with attenuated viruses. "Attenuated" means that the virus must go through a radiation procedure. These viruses found in the Czech Republic and in the whole Baxter material hadn't been attenuated. It is important to be clear about how unlikely it is for an accident to occur under these circumstances. In any case, this has happened and it's under investigation.
This journalist, Burgermeister, has pressed charges, not only against Baxter, but also against the WHO (World Health Organization), she has also pressed charges against governments of important countries, because it seems that, with the information at hand, it's more probable to think in terms of malicious intent, rather than think that there have been a series of chance events almost impossible to conceive.
But, and I insist, it's very important to separate objective facts from those which haven't been proven yet. I think that the good thing about this video, about this information we are facilitating, is that it may reach the wider public, the more people the better, about the existence of plans from a World Elite that wants part of the population to disappear, or even much of the population... that when hearing all this they say, "but... where's all this coming from? This is Science fiction. I've never heard about this..." I know that there are people who have been studying this for a while. But I wish that my message reached someone who says..."Look I don't know anything about that stuff, but I've just heard that there was a laboratory that delivered a contaminated vaccine, and that, interestingly, (I haven't mentioned this but it's a fact), it's one of the laboratories in charge of making flu vaccines this year." Well, this fact alone makes it justifiable to myself to think that until such time as an explanation is given about why this contamination took place, I won't wish it on me, on my child, nor on anyone close to me. I don't know if I've been clear enough about this point. Because I think it's important to make it clear.
I'd like to get to the second irregularity because there's a second one even more scandalous than this first one. The second irregularity happened as follows:
What I said about Baxter happened in February. I've also said that on April 17th we had the first diagnosis of the new flu. Well, on April 29th, twelve days after those two first cases were discovered, WHO's Director-General, Dr. Margaret Chan, (the World Health Organization depends on the United Nations), made a public appearance and announced a Level 5 Worldwide state of alert for the prevention of a pandemic. What does this mean? Level 5 is quite a high level, after 5 there is only Level 6 left. Level 6 means the pandemic is already happening. One month and a half later, on June 11 2009, Dr. Margaret Chan announces Level 6, the maximum level of health alert.
We then have a global pandemic of the A-H1N1 flu virus. How could Dr. Chan and the whole World Health Organization already declare a pandemic, taking into account that this virus has a mortality rate lower than the yearly virus? Then, how come there isn't a pandemic every year, if the yearly virus is worse than this new virus? Well, the answer is quite simple. The answer is that this year, in the month of May, the WHO changed the definition of "pandemic" from its then current definition of an infection by an infectious agent simultaneously present in different countries at the same time and with a significant mortality ratio to the proportion of the infected population. They removed from the definition, this mortality characteristic. Therefore the new definition went to describe the pandemic as a simultaneous infection present in various countries and carrying an infectious agent showing any novelty characteristic, thus leaving us unable to know the type of immunity present within the population. This is a definition I'm quoting from the British Medical Journal.
So I insist that all this information I'm giving doesn't come from the alternative press, for whom I have great respect, but I think it's important to know that all this information comes from the most prestigious magazines, and absolutely "mainstream" as they say in English. So this amended definition is from May 2009. If the mortality requirement disappears from the definition of pandemic, as I said, then we should ask ourselves, what prevents the annual common flu from being declared a pandemic? The answer is, with this definition, nothing prevents it. With this definition, what we are seeing now, with this investment... and I'll get now into the political consequences, which is in fact where I wanted to get to... all that is happening now that seems to be justifiable because of its exceptional nature, under the new definition, it wouldn't present anything exceptional about it. So this would be the situation year after year, and this is just with the flu, not to mention other diseases with the same characteristics. One may say, "wait a minute, isn't it true that this virus is less lethal, that it presents a lower mortality rate than the annual flu virus, and this fact can be read everywhere, everybody says so, even our health minister here, they admit this is the case. Well, if this is the case, how can it be that a pandemic has been declared, bearing in mind the serious political consequences which we'll talk about now. So this is simply what I'm putting together. Perhaps the new piece of information that I'm giving is this (and I insist it's from the British Medical Journal): that the definition of a pandemic has changed, but this can be seen by anyone, by asking WHO to send you the pandemic definitions for 2008 and 2009, and there you can see that this change exists. It can also be read on their website, etc. In the document that I'm disseminating, I also quote an article from an American journal, where they explain that after visiting the WHO website they commented, "listen, here it says that high mortality is a pre-requisite for a pandemic, and here nobody dies." They told them, wait a minute, and they changed the definition on the web. This article has been quoted and it's from CNN, which is not a source under suspicion in this sense. Tweet