ER Editor: As ever, thanks to The Exposé site for their transcriptions of the Grand Jury testimony. We can wholeheartedly recommend Brian Gerrish’s and Mike Robinsons’ UK Column site and its thrice-weekly video broadcasts. Gerrish is an eminently logical, evidence-based man who never pulls any punches.
You can also find Matthew Ehret’s Day 2 testimony for the Grand Jury here:
Below, the global accounting firm of Deloitte gets an (dis)honourable mention a couple of times. We remind readers that the recently ‘resigned’ Ottawa police chief, Peter Sloly, was a notable employee of theirs. See
Brian Gerrish: A British System of Psychological Manipulation Which Has Been Sold Worldwide
RHODA WILSON for THE EXPOSE
“There’s a group of gangsters that are operating. They’ve got huge power and wealth. What are those gangsters trying to do?
“I think the aim for those gangsters is world dominance. They want to control everything: society; raw materials; methods of production; people; politics. Everything must come under their control. And ultimately, we then say, what are their crimes?
“Well, the crime … we’re looking at oppression, we’re looking at slavery, we’re looking at poverty, hunger, we’re looking at human trafficking, and ultimately, we’re looking at death,” Gerrish testified.
Below is the video of Gerrish and Evans’ testimonies and the transcript.
Click on the image below to watch the video on Bitchute
Watch the full Grand Jury Day 2 – Historical and Geopolitical Background, 12 February 2022 (5 hrs 47 mins), HERE.
More information about the proceedings can be found on the Grand Jury’s website: www.grand-jury.net
Transcript Brian Gerrish and Debbie Evans
(links contained within the text below are our own)
Transcript Brian Gerrish
Thank you very much for inviting me to do this. You asked for a little bit of an introduction, so I’m going to say that my first career was as a British Royal Navy officer. I was specialised in anti-submarine warfare. So, I spent a lot of my time finding, tracking Russian nuclear submarines. That was at the height of the Cold War. And of course, I’m going to say that as time has moved on and as I’ve got older and wiser, I realised that much of what I believed at that time is incorrect. But just to give part of my experience was very much within the military system during the Cold War time.
And when I left the Navy in 1993, I was to discover that all was not, as it seemed within society in UK. And as a result of tracking mainly fraud and corruption in my own city and getting in contact with people who were seeing fraud and corruption in other major UK cities, I then started to look at organisations which I could see were controlling events. But those organisations were not well known to the public. And where did that take me? It took me ultimately meeting up with a great group of people. And now we are running the UK Column, producing news three times a week. Previously, we produced a written newspaper, but we are constantly analysing what’s happening. So, it’s on the basis of my previous military experience, my experience in the civilian world, including analysis through the UK Column, that I can give my testimony to you this evening.
I’m also delighted to be joined by a lady called Debbie Evans, who’s been doing some very deep research with us. And I felt it was only appropriate that she should be able to give first-hand some indication of what she’s found.
Now, I’ve only got 30 minutes, so I’m going to try and move very quickly and the first thing I’d like to do is try and bridge the scope of what our initial speakers had to say in their evidence. And I believe an analogy would be: they have described the founding, the start-up and the growth of an organisation of gangsters. And we’ve heard about the history. We’ve learnt something of the people, their networks, their mode of operation. We’ve had some evidence of world events that show us that these groups are operating.
But then I’m going to say that if we look back on how gangsters were dealt with and successfully brought down in the past. If we look at Al Capone or other gangsters, probably America is a good place to go for that sort of image. They were brought down by looking at the crimes they carried out and ultimately collecting the real evidence of the crimes, whether those were murders or it was drug running or prostitution. There had to be the real evidence of the crime. There had to be intent, there had to be the named persons who were involved in those crimes. And it was only when the evidence was brought forward, they could be brought into court and subsequently found guilty, or at least brought before the law and then ultimately serve their time.
So, I’m going to say that for our jury, which is a world audience, the first two speakers have done a great job of saying that there’s a conspiracy, there’s a group of gangsters that are operating. They’ve got huge power and wealth. What are those gangsters trying to do?
I think the aim for those gangsters is world dominance. They want to control everything: society; raw materials; methods of production; people; politics. Everything must come under their control. And ultimately, we then say, what are their crimes?
Well, the crime – I was jotting them down while I was listening to the speakers – we’re looking at oppression, we’re looking at slavery, we’re looking at poverty, hunger, we’re looking at human trafficking, and ultimately, we’re looking at death.
And at that point, I believe that we now have a very important major world event happening, and that is the so called Covid-19 pandemic followed by a vaccination program because in my mind, the overwhelming evidence is showing that these gangsters are killing people. So, we are here as a court of law to talk about the crime. What is the crime?
In my view, the crime is death. In previous years, we’ve seen people dying as a result of their created wars, but in more recent times we’re seeing people dying as a result of the introduction of a pandemic and how that pandemic was handled and how it is being “treated” (in inverted commas) with a vaccination program.
Now, both speakers mentioned something which I think is very important. Alex talked about: they want to control our minds, said they want (quote) “civilised control over politically backward people.” And that latter quote absolutely shows the arrogance of these individuals, these gangsters, because they believe that any opinion they hold is the correct opinion, the correct value, and anybody who challenges them is a [lesser] being who, I would jest, ultimately, they want to remove from their field of operations. And what does that mean? Ultimately, they would like these people to go away and die.
So, let’s just remind ourselves and bridge across to the fact that, Alex said, this is a battle for our minds. And this is very true at the moment. Right, now, when I gave you my initial thoughts on what was happening, I said we need to be aware that alongside the Covid-19 pandemic and the subsequent vaccination program, we need to be aware that there is a battle for our minds by an applied political psychological attack.
So, if I bridge the gap, I happen to have a couple of papers with me. The first one is entitled Mental Health. The subtitle is Strategic Planning for Mental Health. It was by a certain J R Reese. And interestingly enough, the date on this paper that I hold is October 1940. So, in the middle of the Second World War, or at the start of the Second World War I should say, we had a group of people who were later to become very powerful within the World Health and World Health Organisation system, discussing how they were going to implement what they called mental hygiene in the new society.
And they didn’t mess around because they said that in doing it, they were going to infiltrate social organisations, they were going to attack the professions, they were going to infiltrate social activities and professional societies, and that they were going to unleash a long-term plan of propaganda.
And I’m going to reinforce that 1940 paper by saying very quickly, I have another one in my hands, which I’m, of course, happy to share as evidence. It’s entitled Psycho atric. It’s part of the Journal of the Biology and Pathology of Interpersonal Relations. It’s dated February 1946 and it’s talking about the re-establishment of the peacetime society. And the author is a certain GB Chisholm. And if people research that name, they’ll find another figure who’s deeply connected with the sort of societies that Matt (ER: Matthew Ehret) has very concisely put in front of us.
Why should we pay attention to this [ ]? Because it’s talking about the use of the psychiatric system in order to implement, yes, this program of mental hygiene. And if our jury wishes to know what mental hygiene means – it essentially means that you’re not fit to be a human being unless you adopt the views and values and opinions of the gangsters that we’ve already determined have a plan for domination.
So, I’m going to say that when I began to research what was happening in the UK – from a point of view of crime and fraud, threats and bullying at local level – I quickly established, to my astonishment, that there was a charity, it was called Common Purpose, that was acting in a very political way in creating future leaders. And I was fascinated that these people were installing themselves in UK cities and effectively manipulating taking control, you could say, of politics within those cities. So here was a group of people, recruiting people they considered to be future leaders, starting to take over the control of cities within UK.
Well, if I broaden that out, within a few years, that organisation was operating overseas in countries like Germany, Holland, India, Australia, where they were recruiting people in those countries in order to bring them within an agenda of change agents, to change the way we think and conduct our business in society.
And if we say, where did this organisation come from? Well, it was started in about 1985 as a result of one particular lady, the chief executive at the time, Julia Middleton, coming back from, I believe, Chicago, but certainly America, saying she’d learned some amazing things about how to change society.
And the interesting point was that a large sum of money was collected from a number of banks. And remember, the monetary power has been central to the first two speakers’ dialogue. But Common Purpose was able to get going with funding from major banks that were never disclosed. However, I can say with great confidence that Deutsche Bank was one of the key banks working with that organisation.
Now why have I brought in Common Purpose? Well, Common Purpose was a key example of an organisation you couldn’t track. You couldn’t see the documents, you couldn’t see the people, and you could see that it was unleashing a plan to change our society without the average member of the public understanding this.
So, where do we need to come to now? I think really, we need to just do a little recap on what Alex mentioned, because I’d like to bring you back to the MINDSPACE document, which is my slide number one. If we can bring this up on screen?
And this document produced by the British Cabinet Office, was a document where they had been working with psychologists for a long time to learn how to change the way that people thought and behaved without people understanding this was happening. That’s not an opinion by me, because if we go to the second slide, hopefully it’s coming up on screen, if you read the text on screen:
It says that the government, the British government would be able [to change] their behaviour and people would not necessarily recognise that this had happened. It would be subconscious. Their behaviour, their thoughts would have changed, but they would not know. But the document further qualifies it by saying that if people did realise how their behaviour had changed, they would not necessarily know how it had been done.
Now let me connect that more or less right up to date with the Covid-19 pandemic, because if we bring slide three onto your screen:
These are the minutes of the SPI-B, as it’s called. It’s part of the British government’s wise scientists group, SAGE, who were commenting on how we should be (quote) “fighting Covid.” But SPI-B was a team of specialists, including behavioural specialists, who were going to use applied psychology to get people to adhere to the British government’s policy on Covid-19. And what I draw people’s attention to are really two paragraphs: one is at the bottom of the left-hand page where it says, “the perceived level of personal threat needs to be increased amongst complacent using the hard-hitting emotional messaging.”
So here was a government team advocating the use of applied psychology in order to make people fearful. And I would say that it’s no wonder that we now have trained psychologists and psychiatrists pointing out the danger of making people fearful. Particularly if you use techniques which mean they have no way of grounding where that fear has come from. This is not my opinion. I’m quoting directly from the British government’s own.
And what is equally concerning is a later paragraph, paragraph 7, talks about coercion in which it says, “consideration should be given to the use of social disapproval, but with a strong caveat around unwanted negative consequences.”
What they’re talking about is using people to police each other. People to say, “I’m wearing a mask, you’re not wearing a mask, you’re a bad person. Get out of my way.” But the caveats that they introduced to this was because they recognized that this psychological technology could unleash violence in communities.
Now, I have taken in one quick step, discussion about how you can dominate people into an area where we are seeing the British government in 2010, which was the original document, but also through to the present day, boasting that it could use applied psychology to change the way people thought and the way people behave.
What did they do with that psychology? That psychology was actually was sold initially to America and Australia. Look at what is happening in Australia in relation to Covid lockdown at the moment. But ultimately, the technologies, as Debbie will indicate in a few moments, was actually sold off worldwide. So now we have world governments able to use this applied behavioural psychology to change people’s views, values, behaviour, and they simply do not know this has been unleashed on them. And just to reinforce this point, if I can bring up on screen slide four.
This is a document which I’ve only found very recently, but it’s entitled Behavioural Insights Applied to Policy: Germany, Country Overview. This is an EU document which is effectively boasting of exactly the same thing, how applied behavioural psychology can be used to change community public political opinion. And it’s giving a whole list of German organisations, which I’m sure will be much more significant to the panel than to me. But a lot of them are universities and research organisations. This document is effectively simple proof that these political psychology techniques have certainly been spread throughout Europe.
So, I’m going to suggest it’s very clear that we have a team of gangsters in power, whether we’re talking UK or the European Union or the US. And in the hands of these gangsters, we have got a very dangerous way of applied behavioural psychology.
Let me now jump to the subject of Covid-19 and in particular, vaccine effects. In the United Kingdom, we have the Medicine and Health product Regulatory organisation, the MHRA. That organization supposedly is tasked with keeping the public safe with regards to pharmaceutical products and vaccines. And as part of the vaccination program in UK, they’ve been collecting data on vaccine adverse reactions, which they call the Yellow Card system.
And to date, if I can just find the figures because I noted them down to date, their own statistics say that there have been nearly one and a half million adverse effects from vaccines, and there have been close to 2,000 deaths. With a caveat, they have made themselves, to say that they believe it’s likely that only 10% of the vaccine adverse effects that have actually occurred have indeed been logged. So, of course, that takes the number of deaths from 2,000 to 20,000. What is interesting when you do this is we’re now starting to see vaccine deaths outstrip the dangers of Covid-19.
But we have to remember that the MHRA, as a Government Department, is perfectly prepared to use the same skills in applied psychology that the British government has boasted they can use to mislead the public and change their behaviour. So, when we approach the MHRA and say to them, we ask them a simple question, where is your quantitative risk assessment to show that the vaccine adverse reactions are not resolved (ER: ‘related’?) to the vaccinations themselves? The MHRA stalls, fails to answer, produces very confusing replies. But the number of it is that this key organisation, the MHRA, has not conducted a quantitative risk assessment into the adverse effects of vaccinations.
And I’m going to put it to the panel, we’re effectively in a court, that the MHRA, who holds the duty of protecting the public from dangerous pharmaceutical products, knows that people are dying as a result of the vaccination campaign.
And I’m going to add that the British government certainly knows that. But are prepared to use psychology in every single verbal, written and media response around the dangers of the Covid and the vaccine policy.
Now, just before I hand over to Debbie to get into some of the way that the system works, I just wanted to point out that, of course, the whole of the control of Covid-19 policy and the so-called health care policy around Covid-19 and vaccinations has been carried out by the British Cabinet Office, who have an embedded applied behavioural psychology team with them. So, we know what they’re capable of. They’re boasting of it in their own document. And ultimately, we’re seeing the real evidence of people suffering and dying.
But I’d like to just hand over to Debbie, because if we follow this trail on, we come to how the system works in the UK, at least, where we’re seeing a form of medical fascism between government and the global pharmaceutical industry, working alongside universities and charities within what has been named the golden triangle in UK.
So, if I could just hand over to Debbie just to take the last 15 minutes.
Transcript Debbie Evans
Thank you, Brian. Good evening, everyone. My name is Debbie Evans. I’m a retired state registered nurse. I trained at the Royal Free Hospital in London, where, coincidentally, they’re now nursing Lassa fever, as of today in the UK. And I did postgraduate training at St Bartholomew’s Hospital in the City of London. And I was a government advisor at the Department of Health for the UK government for five years. And I’m a medical researcher.
And Brian led us very nicely there into what we call in the UK Loxbridge Triangle, or the Golden University, the Golden University Triangle. And there is a screenshot of a map of the UK, if you can put it up, just to show the locations of Oxford, Cambridge and London in the triangle. I don’t know if you’re able to see it or not. You can see it? Fabulous.
Cambridge is the highest digital tech center in the UK. It’s ranked twelfth in the European Digital Index, and it’s actually known as Silicon Fen. It’s got a huge biomedical campus on site. There is a screenshot of the biomedical campus, which will tell you what is on the biomedical campus.
And what’s on it, amongst other things, is Papworth Hospital, which has been moved to the biomedical campus, which specialises in heart and lungs. We’ve also got Addenbrooke’s Hospital, which specialises in donated organs and transplants. We’ve also been told by Boris Johnson, our Prime Minister, that there will be a cancer research hospital being erected there as well, at a huge cost, despite the fact that cancer rates in the UK have been falling. We’re to have a cancer research hospital?
Also on that campus is the Medical Research Council Cancer Research UK, which I’ll come back to in a minute. The Anne McClaren Ridge Generative Laboratory and the NHS Blood Transfusion Center, amongst other things – that’s at Cambridge, and AstraZeneca headquarters with GlaxoSmithKline too.
What’s interesting about Cambridge is that Cancer Research UK, which is meant to be a charity but would appear not to be a charity at all. Professor Robert West is a consultant for Cancer Research UK and he’s also on the SPI-B team, the behaviour team that Brian was just talking about with regards to SAGE.
Professor Robert West’s wife, Professor Susan Michie, is the head of the behavioural insights team at the Cabinet Office. She’s a lifelong Communist and it has designed the behaviour change wheel and has rolled that out into many countries. The behavioural insights team appear to be global, now.
With regards to going back to the Golden Triangle. In Oxford, we’ve got one of the most dynamic digital tech economies in the UK, with a big campus there, with Oxford nanopore, very high-tech bio medical campus.
We’ve also got Milton Keynes is mentioned in this Golden Triangle because it’s the UK’s first smart city. Using sensors, which I’ll come on to, and big tech innovation.
So going down into London, there is another slide Med City, if you can see that, which is a knowledge economy.
It’s meant to be the digital capital of Europe and it’s been named by Tech Nation attracting 2,1 billion worth of investments.
The Golden Triangle within the UK is where all the attention seems to be focused on. And the UK government has actually just announced it is investing 5.5 billion into infrastructure around the Golden Triangle, which is sometimes known as the Loxbridge Triangle, and the brain curve, I think it’s known as well.
So, when we look at the Golden Triangle and the universities that are involved, we can see that the Golden Universities, Oxford and Cambridge, I’ve also got attached to them, the Russell Group, which are 24 universities within the Russell Group that work very closely alongside the Golden Triangle Universities and receive a lot of funding.
What I’m seeing really, is two things coming up ahead. One is that the MHRA in the UK would like to become the global regulator. On their board sits Raj Long, who is the deputy director for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. She specialises in safety and pharmacovigilance and also the chief scientist for Microsoft. So, we see huge conflicts of interest there.
We also see some conflicts of interest with regards to the British government, to ministers. And some of the Minister’s interests are into the Big Four audit companies, KPMG and Microsoft also, Deloitte, AstraZeneca, Goldman Sachs and the European Investment Bank. So, a lot of our ministers have conflicts of interest within those areas.
What we can see coming up, is that Deloitte in particular, I just focus in on Deloitte for a minute, because Deloitte, Ernst Young, KPMG and PricewaterhouseCoopers take up 67% of global accounting. All four are based in London. Deloitte have been central to the test and trace.
Lord Bethell, who has now resigned, had a company that was purely for lobbying on behalf of Deloitte for bids. And it’s very concerning to see that when you see all of these people intertwined with one another, what could be coming up in the future.
And I just want to go back very quickly to how charities seem to be involved in this, as well as government organisations and what I would call, in fact, a quango Cancer UK. (Just find my notes, I’m so sorry, I’ve got a book of notes to try and be very quick because I realised, we haven’t got very much time.)
Cancer UK is funded by many pharmaceutical companies. In fact, I would say it’s the research and development center actually for pharmaceutical companies: AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Bill and Melinda Gates. But also advising cancer research is Professor Robert West, who’s Professor Susan Michie’s husband, a behavioural insights team funded by Pfizer and funded by Cancer Research UK, who are also right in the middle of the Cambridge bio medical campus.
As well as that with regards to the UK government, they published a vaccine hesitancy guidance with interventions on the 27 September 2019, way before Wuhan was even mentioned. They are also looking at, and I’m very concerned with regards to antimicrobial resistance. The UK government has its own UK envoy Dame Sally Davies, who used to be our chief medical officer, who is the chief envoy, the UK envoy for antimicrobial resistance. And what I’m seeing coming down the line is we appear to see people being tested for HIV, but according to Forbes, the next pandemic would be expected to be tuberculosis.
I know that Professor Montagnier – I’d like to send my sincere condolences to his family and all those that know him, by the way, extremely, extremely sad that he passed recently – but Professor Montagnier was mentioning to one of his colleagues with regards to the BCG vaccine, and it would appear that Professor Chris Whitty, our chief medical officer, was giving a presentation at Gresham House three nights ago and was linking also tuberculosis and HIV.
And the World Health Organisation is very keen on eradicating antimicrobial resistance and TB. We’ve had BCG for TB for a long, long time, and it’s thought that the TB levels are rising exponentially, including here in the UK. And we’re now seeing new vaccines being developed for TB and new testing facilities for TB.
So, I’m looking down the pipeline and seeing a reference to tuberculosis. I’m also looking at cancer and dementia, because that would appear to be on the rise as well.
In particular with regards to cancer. Obviously, we don’t know the long-term side effects of the vaccine or whether it could be carcinogenic, but certainly one of the antivirals that they’re using here in the UK and the UK alone, molnupiravir, would appear to be carcinogenic, teratogenic and mutagenic. We’re using it here as on a clinical trial with panoramic. So, patients that are receiving it are immediately hooked up onto the trial.
I’m also seeing all of these things that we are now seeing unwrap, now, in I don’t know if you’re aware of SPARS Pandemic 2025 – 2028, which was a futuristic scenario. (I think Brian could probably show up a copy of it. I think he’s got one handy. There it is.)
SPARS Pandemic 2025 – 2028, which was a futuristic scenario from the John Hopkins Center on what would happen if a coronavirus infected the world, basically. And it takes you on a month-to-month basis. So, what you could expect from the media, what you can expect from pharmaceutical companies, what you can expect from governments with regards to lockdowns, with regards to testing, with regards to antibiotics and also antibiotic resistance. So antimicrobial resistance is a really big subject, one that pretty much everybody’s looking at: the World Bank; the World Economic Forum; the UK government; pretty much every government in the world is looking at antimicrobial resistance. So, I’m looking at thinking, well, maybe, possibly we could be looking at superbugs in the future.
With regards to going back, sorry to go back to the Big Four again, but it would seem that we also have conflicts of interests with regards to those. The CEO of Deloitte has now left Deloitte, retired, but is now on the board of Pfizer.
We also had the UK government, Hansard, I think I’ve actually got the Hansard numbers. In May 2014, there was to be a merger between Pfizer and AstraZeneca, but the UK government was very undecided about it. So, there is a reference in Hansard (Volume 753). It was debated on the 6 May 2014 and again in Column 161 on the 7 May 2014 with the past Secretary of State Matt Hancock talking.
So, our British government are in it up to their neck, I believe with regards to pharmaceuticals. We seem to be heading for global life science superpower since we’ve left Brexit. Most of the agenda is with regards to life sciences and how we can be the global life science partner.
Cancer Research UK and the Frances Crick [Institute] organisation work together and they purely are funded pretty much by public donations, but also by Big Pharma.
There’re also mainstream media adverts going out for a company called Omaze, O-m-a-z-e, and it’s a competition line where you can win a £3 million house. But donations and proceeds go to Cancer Research UK.
Some of the funders of Cancer Research UK, which are based on the Cambridge biomedical campus, are the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Google, World Economic Forum, Imperial College, Cambridge, UKRI, Bank of England, AstraZeneca, the Crick Institute, CQC and the BBC. So, they are very heavily funded. And I don’t think the public know this when they’re jumping out of airplanes trying to raise money for cancer research.
Professor Whitty and all of our experts tell us that cancer rates are falling. However, we appear to be testing healthy people in the UK for cancer using Bill Gates’ company, Grail, which was a joint venture with Jeff Bezos. It’s now been contracted to work within the National Health Service in order to genome sequence, using it by genome sequencing, for cancer. We’re testing healthy people and I would ask why we’re testing healthy people. The reason that the government is giving, is that the cost of the burden and the cost of cancer and aging and dementia is so high that we need rapid acceleration of diagnosis, rapid acceleration of treatment. So basically, safety goes pretty much through the window, as in the vaccine development, which is now going to be under Bill and Melinda Gates and Patrick Vallance’s 100-day mission. So, any other pandemic that could be called – you can guarantee that you’ll have a vaccine within 100 days, according to the 100-day mission.
I don’t know if anybody wants to ask any questions. I’m very aware of time and that you’re running over, so I don’t want to take up too much of the floor.
Ana Garner: I would like to ask questions of each of you, please, pertaining to the psychological manipulation that’s been going on. I’m Anna Garner from New Mexico, the United States.
And Ms. Evans, you mentioned that you had been a government advisor to the Department of Health. And this is very pertinent here because I feel that this has been going on in the United States extensively. As an advisor to the Public Health Department, have you been aware that they use the behavioural psychological techniques that Mr Gerrish discussed as a way of enforcing their agenda of coercion and social isolation? Coercion of people undergoing experimental medical interventions? Have you noticed that that is part of their operating modus operandi, shall we say?
Evans: When I was an adviser at the Department of Health, what was becoming blatantly obvious was that any advisor was really there as a tokenistic approach and that we weren’t actually being listened to. Many of us were ignored. I wouldn’t say that we were coerced. I certainly don’t feel as though I was coerced into saying or doing anything. I’m pretty strong so I did challenge. In fact, probably my challenging people was causing more of an upset because I wasn’t compliant, but it was purely tokenistic.
But as coercion, yes, I could see huge problems within the civil service, many personal problems, many bullying. I was got very close to one of the senior civil servants on our particular board that was run by then Norman Lamb, who was the Secretary of State. And there was a huge amount of bullying. There was a huge amount of competition within the civil service. We did notice that, but as an advisor, I wasn’t part of the civil service, so it was just my observations.
Ana Garner: And not to interrupt you or anything, but what I was referring to was the psychological techniques of basically coercing “the people” as opposed to people who are involved in the advising, but rather the public.
Gerrish: Could I help here?
Ana Garner: Yes.
Gerrish: Can I respond? As part of research that the UK Column did, we did through the UK Column, one of the areas that we were very interested in was training within our National Health Service by this charity, selecting future leaders. So, this was common purpose. So, we saw manipulation of people and their values by this particular organisation and it morphed into a specific sector of the NHS called NHS Leaders. And these supposedly were fast tracked people who were going to lead the NHS into even better healthcare.
But what we see is that as these leaders, with their newly acquired values were unleashed, the management style in the NHS became increasingly domineering and bullying and the ideas became less and less about the care and treatment of people who were ill or injured, and it became much more about the importance of profits and money within the NHS.
And I’m going to say it was apparent that the psychology of people was being manipulated. We have upon the UK Column website an article which is entitled Towards a Million Change Agents. And that was not our title. That was the title of a paper written by an NHS Common Purpose trained individual who said that the NHS, in order to reach my words, a future utopia, was going to need a million change agents. And what do they mean by that people who are going to disrupt the performance of the NHS in order to get it to transition, to transform into what was supposedly to be a world class health provision.
So, I can give that to you as one specific example where we were looking at how the management and leadership inside the NHS changed.
But I’ll give you a very simple one about applied psychology in the NHS during the Covid crisis, because mantras were introduced. Instead of medical decisions, nurses and doctors started to follow mantras. And one of the ones that we were told out by a fully qualified, a highly qualified doctor, in the last few days and relatives of somebody who suffered was that the mantra was: “Covid unvaccinated death pathway, Covid unvaccinated death pathway.”
And that is simply if the person was deemed or labelled as having Covid, if it was determined they run vaccinated, the only result of their healthcare treatment was the death pathway.
And there is no question that these, particularly, three-word mantras that we’ve seen used by the government, in particular, have been driven through the NHS. To the extent that qualified doctors have said to us: they’ve been amazed when they cannot discuss genuine government figures on, for example, vaccine adverse reactions because the person simply turns away or refuses to talk to them or becomes very aggressive.
And the psychologist support that we’re able to call on at the moment is witnessing is cognitive dissonance in individuals the result of their mental values being rebranded.
I could talk for a long time on this, but I’m going to say yes, we are certainly seeing that there is the application of psychology in many areas in the NHS, and its overall effect is a degradation of health care treatment to the extent people are being killed when they could have survived quite happily had they been given the right treatment.
Ana Garner: Yes. Thank you for that, Clarification. And I had a follow up question for you as well, Mr. Gerrish. And that was this psychological operation, by definition, seems to be very subtle and below most people’s level of awareness that they are being manipulated. If that’s the case, do you have any opinion about how those people can be reached in a way that can wake them up? I hear about the psychological dissonance and that sort of thing, the cognitive dissonance. Is there a way in which these people can be encouraged to see what’s really happening, that they are being manipulated this way?
Gerrish: Right. That, of course, is the very important question. And the response, and I qualify myself here because I’m not professionally trained in psychology, but as the result of my work in investigation over years and advice I’ve received from fully qualified people, I’m going to give this as personal comment, but I believe it to be very accurate.
If you apply a form of hypnosis to people, the effect on a target audience generally forms a Bell Curve. You will find some people can be completely hypnotised. Stage hypnotists demonstrate this when people will go and do things they won’t normally do in front of an audience because they’re in a trance-like state, but we use more forms of manipulation, the effect on the target audience is a Bell Curve. So, some people are very consumed with the message that’s been put across but it drops off either side to some people who are unaffected.
And indications to us to date, and this is also supported by qualified psychologists, is that in the first instant we need concentrate on the people who are clearly not affected in order to spread the warning message to what’s happening. We clearly need to be targeting the professions of psychology and psychiatry to say this is the abuse of those particular professions, particularly clinical psychology and psychiatry which has got a health beneficiary result.
And also, to realise that people who have been subjected to this form of reframing or mind manipulation are victims and therefore they need to be treated in a very gentle and reassuring way. Because if we come at them in a very blunt way, black and white way, to try and make them see the truth, the result is that either they going to become very hostile – with cognitive dissonance – or possibly they’re going to become unwell, mentally, as a result of the immense assault on their value system.
Can I just say to you it is very significant that in all the documentation about the British government’s use of applied psychology, get its political agenda, enacted there is absolutely no assessment as to what the adverse effects of such psychology may be on people who perhaps have underlying mental health issues, anxiety or depression. And indeed, where people have got undiagnosed mental health conditions so they’re not even aware that they’ve got a problem, somebody is using this psychology on them you can do immense damage. And I believe it is no coincidence that the official statistics in UK now show that the lockdown policy has caused a huge surge in suicides and mental illness, particularly among people, tragically, amongst young people. But again, we can demonstrate that the UK government is hiding or manipulating the data sets that show this, or they’re using applied psychology in the way they present those data sets to the public in order to further mislead the public.
This is the nature of the beast once you understand that you have, what I’m going to call a criminal political system, that has the ability to use applied psychology to change the way the public thinks. We’ve got a very dangerous weapon in the hands of these elitists.
And this is easily evidenced. I’ve put up a key document where the SPI-B was boasting that we need to make people more fearful, more anxious and there are many other documents and I also demonstrated for the benefit of the Germans amongst the audience and on the team that applied behavioural psychology has now been let loose within Germany, certainly within France, because one of Sarkozy’s personal teams, a gentleman called Oliver Willier, had meetings in UK facilitated by the Franco-British Council in 2010 to discuss how French neurological and psychological experts are going to work with the British in order to develop these applied psychological techniques. The evidence trail is there. When you know what you’re looking for, it’s obvious.
But my goodness, this is the most dangerous thing I believe we have ever seen. If you have propaganda and political manipulation of a type within Nazi Germany, in many ways it could be seen: the parades, the banners, the lights, the rhetoric, the posters. But what we’ve got unleashed on us now is a subliminal attack on our minds. And until we bring the full light to this, it’s going to be very, very difficult for us to take the lid off what these people are doing through their Covid and vaccination attack on people.
Each of the pharmaceutical companies has access to this psychological weapon. Each of the legal companies, PricewaterhouseCoopers, the Big Four. Everywhere we see charities, industry, public bodies working with the British government we know that the use of the psychology is spread between them.
So, we’ve got to start talking about this in a very big way and we’ve got to be, first of all, dealing with the people who are unaffected. They’ve realised something’s wrong, but they don’t know what it is and [ ] of the public equally they could be very intelligent and highly qualified professionals.
And I just leave you to think about: a well-qualified psychologist said to me, that’s hearsay but I’m going to repeat it, said to me, “Brian, the thing to remember is that people who are intelligent and have highly questioning minds can be more susceptible to the use of hypnosis reframing applied psychology than somebody who is less intelligent and has less of an enquiring mind.” So, it is very wrong if anybody thinking, “Well, I’m a bright person, I’m intelligent, I’m highly qualified. This wouldn’t affect me.” On the contrary, you may be more vulnerable.
Evans: Can I add there that the cascade of information. The NHS professionals that I’m speaking to, and all of them that I’m speaking to, are completely confused. They’re having a cascade of information every single day. Things are changing. They don’t know. I mean, I am seeing NHS professionals doing things that would be completely alien to them. “I’m giving respiratorial depressants to respiratory patients.” It’s just alien to what we have been taught. So, people are frightened. And I would echo what Brian said. People when they are starting to wake up, they’re scared, they don’t know what’s happening. They need us to reassure them because at the moment, the agenda is confusion, chaos and crisis.
Going back to what Brian just said just now about Deloitte and about the Big Four. I mean, for anybody that doesn’t know Deloitte: they’ve written papers on the future of the City of London; the clinical trials; their past CEO is now a board member of Pfizer; they’re involved in the NHS; they’re involved in corporate intelligence, as are the other three. And clearly, when Brian was mentioning SPARS Pandemic that goes hand in hand with Operation Clade X and Crimson Contagion.
Now, Clade X was held by the John Hopkins University in 2018, I think, simulating 900 million deaths.
And Crimson Contagion, another exercise as well, that went on during the Trump reign for a response to another pandemic, an ongoing pandemic of flu.
So, all of this has been well documented and well documented in the patent for the Covid testing by the Rothschilds, which, again, everything that we can see within that patent in the main paper we’re seeing being rolled out now, including biosensors.
Many people have spoken about RFID chips, but not many people are speaking about the advent of biosensors and how biosensors don’t need the internet. You can have them in your clothes, on the sole of your shoes, they can be in your food. And biosensors seem to be the way things are going to the point that there is a biosensor institute here in the UK, in Bristol, and the MHRA have actually approved one of the biosensors because people will have biosensors in their cars, on their laptops and their biometric data will be fed back. So that all of your biometric – are you fit to drive the train, are you fit to drive a coach, are you fit to do anything? Your biometric data will be stored and it’s happening now.
Gerrish: So, if I put a little summary on that. What we are seeing is a political system integrated with global commercial companies, pharmaceutical companies unleashing an agenda which has been to test vaccines on a population without any care for the damage and the dying.
Where are they going? They’re going for manipulation of our genes. There’s no question of this. And Britain, all the data we’re seeing at the moment is that, it is UK that says it is going to take the world lead in putting this agenda together. The UK, and I’ll qualify that and say, I believe this would ultimately be driven by the City of London. But all of the UK documents say we will take the world lead. And this is the same UK that’s unleashed this malicious applied psychology to change the way our cognitive processes work. It’s a very dangerous combination.
Evans: Sorry. My final point, Alex, is that the unique selling point for the United Kingdom is the National Health Service. There is no way to opt out of it. So, from the moment that you’re conceived and the pregnant mums had a scan, there’s data on that particular human being until the day we die, there’s no way of opting out of the NHS. So, NHS data is very precious and it’s completely unique to the rest of the world.
Gerrish: If we could succeed with the database.
Alex Thomson: If we could succinctly illustrate that with the one slide I didn’t show. I think it aptly summarises what Brian and Debbie have just said. If Paul can find it within a few seconds, it’s a slide that UK Column has used quite a lot of an organogram of the British government ruling agency, the Cabinet Office, with a new group – new since in the decade that I left British intelligence – called the National Security Council. Like the American example from the FDR area, it’s not original and not constitutional. And all of the bodies that fall off away from the Cabinet Office under its control on that organogram are to do with controlling the agenda, and to answer the question that was asked here – to stop us from being able to show more people what the paradigm is, to stop them from being afraid by the applied psychology that is being brought to them.
The military is involved. There’s a 77th Regiment, a 13 Signals Brigade. There are entirely new British government security agencies, the so-called Health Security Agency, the Joint Biosecurity Center. All of these new since my time. And the buck stops with this Cabinet Office. And all the good studies of the Cabinet Office will show you that the leading committees there have a direct line to the City of London. They represent elite corporate will.
There is no democratic control and even the personal Crown, the monarch, is not involved. So, I don’t know whether that was shown on screen a moment ago or not, but people can also easily find it as one of the main UK Column graphics Cabinet Office Censorship Network, I believe we call it in one version.
Reiner Fuellmich: What we’re dealing with is a British system of psychiatric manipulation which has been sold worldwide, more or less. We have the City of London again aiming for world control. Is that why the Common Purpose people are creating their own future leaders? Is that a special position apart from the Young Global Leaders program?
Gerrish: Well, as with these things, the attack comes in from parallel directions. So, I would strongly suggest that many people within this network will have no idea of what the wider objective is. They are recruited, in the time I was really researching in detail, somebody would be recruited locally and asked to join – it wasn’t as if people were going to Common Purpose to join Common Purpose – sort out the people they wanted. And the agenda was clearly to train that future leader to work with other common future leaders.
And this is why it is so significant when you see Common Purpose now operating, for example, very strongly in India, and former Prime Minister David Cameron was part of the team promoting Common Purpose in India. So, Common Purpose is one of the routes by which people are being recruited and reframed. The World Economic Forum, Young Global Leaders, would be another route via which probably more powerful people are recruited, reframed to bring them in line with what their new role is.
So, Common Purpose is particularly operating at low level, public level, in the first instance but as time went on, from 1985, it was clear to see that they got involved with the corporate, the big global corporates, much more strongly and then from there they’ve gone to their world status.
But what are we doing? We’re selecting people. Their egos are being stroked because somebody is suggesting they’re going to become a very important future leader. World Economic Form calls them global leaders, and then these people are being put together in order to change the world. That is the objective.
Reiner Fuellmich: Well, thank you very much. I think our next Whitney Webb is under a little bit of stress. That’s why I hate to cut you off but that’s why I think we have to give her a chance to maybe fill in the gaps which we will try through asking questions. Unless my esteemed colleagues have any further questions. We would very much like to thank you all three of you for your excellent presentations and then we would turn over, switch to Whitney. Is that okay?
Well, thank you very much Brian and Alex and Debbie, this is very important as far as the geopolitical and historical background of what we’re witnessing is concerned and Matthew, of course.
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.