Dr Robert Endres — Lockdowns and Masks are not Evidence-Based. Vaccine is not Fully Tested.
Watch ➥ LIBRY | Rumble | BitChute | Brighteon | Archive
Dr Robert Endres is a professor of Systems Biology at Imperial College London. He obtained his PhD in physics from the University of California, and his Masters degree in physics from the University of Göttingen in Germany.
He worked as a postdoctoral researcher in the Molecular Biology Department at Princeton University, where he deciphered the signaling properties of bacteria. He heads the biological physics group at Imperial College, and has also designed and introduced the Masters program in systems and synthetic biology.
The original interview is 35 minutes. This post reduced it to 12 minutes. Please consider following host @BreesAnna
Transcript of Clips
Each separate clip is transcribed and time-stamped below.
Anna Brees ➝ 00:00
We’re not being conspiratorial or cynical, are we? Or are we being unnecessarily suspicious? Or is it genuinely something a bit odd going on here?
Yeah, no, I do think, I mean, we can talk about it more. Of course it’s, I mean, some people don’t like this kind of discussion because it’s so, it sounds like conspiracy theory and so on, but of course we can also just talk about the effects, you know, what it is, you know, I mean, you know, there is so many issues which are basically wrong right now.
The key issues, of course, if we wanted to stay on the effect based discussion, you know, all these measures are not evidence-based.
Of course you don’t see as sort of scientific approaches like the PCR test and so on, but how it is being applied, you know, cases being set equal to infections.
And of course then, you test over the summer when no one has respiratory diseases and you test like crazy and then you get all these false positive and these things you don’t do as a scientist.
And you don’t, you have to be sort of careful about these data and how you apply them. And, you know, this is, it’s continuous with everything.
You notice the discussion about the face masks since in Germany they’ve started having them for school children. You know, there’s so many studies coming out now saying face masks don’t work.
And we know even, you look at the mesh size of the face mask and the virus just flies through. And so also, even the [lack of] requirements, the government’s just say, you have to wear a face mask, but if you wanted to, if you would really think face masks make any difference, then you would expect here some specifications, how you have to wear, what face mask you can. And, and there’s nothing about it.
So there’s all these things, or how they counted the deaths. Everyone who tested positive and then died within 28 days was counted as a COVID death and so on.
So it was all these things, you can say one thing, you can make a mistake, maybe three things, but since there was so many mistakes, it’s certainly not by accident, I would imagine, that you can make so many mistakes.
It’s like going like almost on purpose in the wrong direction.
Robert Endres ➝ 2:01
You would never in a modern biology discipline, like systems biology, would never say there’s a single virus. And it’s so dangerous. It’s gonna kill everyone and then the only solution we have is destroy our economy.
There’s a lockdown, and have a vaccine and vaccinate everyone on this planet. And we would never make this reductionist simplistic. It’s a very primitive worldview and systems biology has taught us not to think that way.
And this is sort of a, I can come in. I mean, that’s, of course a lot of people can understand it, any academic with some emphasis on evidence-based research experience, peer reviewing papers, can tell the difference between good and bad science.
Anna Brees ➝ 2:42
And he [Dr. Heiko Schöning] tried to speak to us. He tried to talk to us about the work that he’s been doing and his concerns. And he ended up being arrested at Speakers’ Corner in Hyde Park.
And I shared that on YouTube and I got a [censorship] strike for it. And just a few days ago. So when you have three strikes on YouTube, you lose your channel. And I’m on two at the moment.
The second one was for speaking, talking about someone who wrote – Dr. Roger Hodkinson. And what I said in the video is, “Let’s just check this out. He says… His name is Dr. Hodkinson. It might not be genuine.
Let’s just check that this is fake or not fake.” That got removed from YouTube. And I got another strike.
I’m, you know, as much as I’ve criticized the BBC in the past, I kind of feel like, at least I know where I stand a little bit more with them, because with Google, it’s just bizarre that those two, you know, videos.
So as much as I want to get your interview out now and my YouTube restrictions will end in about nine days and I will, it’s getting really difficult for me to pass this message onto the public.
You know, we can’t protest. I know you’ve been to a lot of the protests in London. So one – you’re not allowed to protest. Two – your main media channels are restricted. It’s really getting quite tricky.
Anna Brees ➝ 3:56
You’re a smearer or conspiracy theorists, and it’s over the last sort of six months since I spoke to you at the beginning, I’d say a lot of people have become more and more suspicious, and they don’t want to have the embarrassment of being labeled a conspiracy theorist.
But, you know, Sue Cook, who was at the BBC, has a fantastic reputation. She is starting to look at it. And Del Bigtree on The High Wire with serious concerns about what the tests, and the announcements around Pfizer vaccination.
We don’t want to be called conspiracy theorists, but we want to know what’s going on, Robert. What is going on? What do you think is going on?
All what we want is basically like how it used to be, effectively a debate.
We want alternatives, we want choices.
Even if everything would be alright, what is happening, these measures, which I really doubt of course – but even if it were alright – why would we have censorship now?
Why can’t we debate it? Why don’t we have a choice? Why are these 90% of other scientists who have an opinion, which appear in alternative media world, renowned scientists, why are they not being heard?
And of course it’s, it certainly makes you you very suspicious. So it feels like, you know, that’s the odd thing, you know.
It feels like we have to speak about it. Otherwise, what’s going to happen in our future? I mean, what is our future going to look like? What does the future of our children look like?
Robert Endres ➝ 5:19
I think if people would know what is happening, I think, they would run on the streets screaming, I think. Because what is happening is just outrageous, I think. I don’t know how to describe it. I’m surprised that people don’t see that more.
Robert Endres ➝ 5:34
So, yeah, it’s a fascinating topic, you know, why are not people, you know, waking up. I mean, it’s hard to understand, but…
November 27, 2020
“Even if everything would be alright, what is happening, these measures, which I really doubt of course – but even if it were alright – why would we have censorship now?
Why can’t we debate it? Why don’t we have a choice? Why are these 90% of other scientists who have an opinion, which appear in alternative media world, renowned scientists, why are they not being heard?”
Well, you are what you watch, you know, and I… Sometimes I’ll put the BBC on or Sky and think, “Oh, the vaccine’s coming. Everything’s going to be okay.” And it can comfort you, can’t it.
But if you then go and look at alternative media, you think, no, all these scientists are being censored. There’s clearly not open debates.
Robert Endres ➝ 5:58
Vaccine, I mean, I’m not opposed to vaccines in general. I had vaccinations, my kids had vaccinations. It’s just I know a little bit how it works, right? I mean, we know vaccines take to be approved. It takes – the measles vaccine, I think took only five years to approve – normally more like 10 to 15 years.
And since it’s different stages, right? I mean, there’s a stage of maybe phase… What is it, phase 2 – animal testing, phase 3 ultimately goes to the human testing.
But now they basically combined the three phases into one and then cut it down to half a year.
I think for some of the vaccines even the animal testing phase was even completely skipped and no one is outraged about the ethical issue that you start essentially testing vaccines on humans. And these are RNA, new RNA vaccines, which haven’t been tested before, and why are people not suspicious about it?
I mean, I don’t mind vaccines if it’s well tested. And if you have the choice.
Maybe it has its benefits in certain cases. But it also does not make sense to vaccinate billions of people because, we all have different backgrounds – not only age, but as a sort of preconditions potentially, and the vaccine might interfere with certain things.
It might interfere with other vaccinations, with other medications. I mean, it’s sort of a heterogeneous situation and having some single minded, primitive worldview where one vaccine has to apply to everyone and because some software engineer decided to do so.
I’m just speechless. I don’t know why people are not realizing that this is just rubbish.
Robert Endres ➝ 7:40
I mean, you know, the whole scenario would just disappear overnight. I think if we just would not follow these rules anymore.
I’m not promoting now, you know, breaking the rules, and I’m not saying, you know, I’m representing anyone here. I’m just speaking as a private person. So I’m not representing our Imperial College obviously.
And I don’t want to say, you know, that the people break the rules here or the laws, but I mean, I’m a theorist, so I can see a rise.
Hypothetically speaking, if we would stop following these rules or at least sort of a fraction. You know, in biology you say 10% is more, let’s say, you know, if you’re above 10, 10%, 20%, that’s already 10 million people. Every fifth person, let’s say, if you would stop following these rules across all ages, all professions, from police to academics to any, I mean, then it would just go away, right?
Because you can’t arrest hundreds of thousands, millions of people. You can’t fire them. There would be no risk basically involved anymore.
Robert Endres ➝ 8:39
I mean, just think about it. I mentioned in the beginning, this is a modern field of biology and in sort of quantitative science, this is what I call systems biology.
It’s a single virus narrative, it’s just so old fashioned to think, like I said, not just think about it, basically knowing now the human body, we are basically an ecosystem, right?
We have two to three kilograms of bacteria in our body. And mostly in our intestines to help us digest food and keep our immune system sharp and so on.. Two to three kilogram, and this is trillions of cells. It’s estimated, I think, that we have 10 times more viruses than bacterial cells [in the gut microbiome].
And then the last is a virus is actually bacteria viruses like, like phages, but. But nevertheless, seeing all this complexity and now picking one virus, which anyway mutates, it’s not the virus from last year. It’s something completely different by now.
And think also about the immune system’s adaptive. The immune system is fantastic. It’s 500 million years old, and of course, viruses were again, much older and human evolution is already 200,000 years old.
And so this puts a perspective, you know, what is happening right now? You would in a modern science discipline, you would not think like that.
Or one gene is a key thing, or one virus is the key thing. It just doesn’t work like that.
So essentially what is happening right now, they’re going somewhat back to the Dark Ages. Literally, I mean this literally, because it’s not evidence-based anymore, it’s sort of a belief-based system.
You know, we talked about that a lot of these measures are sort of questionable anymore and saying, you know, in the beginning also medical exams.
We were prohibited to carry out medical exams to actually determine the cause of death. So it was not allowed because of the virus spreading and so on. But of course medical exams are 2000 years old. It’s I think invented, essentially started by the Arabs. To see how we can learn from the dead or what the living can learn from the dead. And this is even older.
And then in the medieval times as well, there was no safeguarding of kids [from harm of government interventions]. Now again we go back to, you know, how they were painted in these old paintings and children were essentially little people, drawn, like painted like little people in terms of proportions. Now again we go back to this time.
So we see there’s no safeguarding anymore. All these measures invade the school, all these privacy measures, all these face mask measures.
All of a sudden, you know, we say, “Okay, we don’t stop even at the schools anymore.” So we go back to these old times, which then took the Renaissance, I think, to actually realize, you know, we have to protect the childhood. And so we go back to these hundreds of years, even longer.
I mean, how is this, we are basically in a, in a high tech society and we go back to the Dark Ages to some degrees?
November 27, 2020
“So essentially what is happening right now, they’re going somewhat back to the Dark Ages. Literally, I mean this literally, because it’s not evidence-based anymore, it’s sort of a belief-based system.”
Robert Endres ➝ 11:27
And you know, there are so many biologists, every biologist knows what a PCR test is. You know, we all know about this. We know what evidence-based sciences is, and we have to speak out. It’s just really important. And of course, I would like, especially academics to voice their opinions.
Robert Endres ➝ 11:45
It’s interesting to see how history repeats itself.
You know, we talked about Germany in the 1930s, but I mentioned also, you know, the Dark Ages, you know, Galileo Galilei, one of the most, the first modern scientist, he was promoting this evidence, this observation that the Earth goes around the Sun, the heliocentric worldview.
And he was prosecuted by the Roman Catholic church. In the last 10 years, or something like that, of his life, he was under house arrest at home. So it was very similar to the quarantine we have right now, the self-isolation. So you see, it’s amazing as this was 17th century or something like that.
- “If You Take It, You Will Not Get Sick.” — Pierre Kory on Ivermectin
- Martin Geddes on “Collapse of a system of belief. We could call it globalism.”
- PCR Inventor Kary Mullis Talks About Anthony Fauci — “he doesn’t know anything really about anything”
Source: ‘Professor Robert Endres, Imperial College London 27th Nov 2020’, https://vimeo.com/484488794 (Copyright Anna Brees Media, November 27, 2020 – Permission Sought)