On Day 6 of the Grand Jury Proceeding by the Peoples’ Court of Public Opinion, Patrick Wood gave his testimony relating to biodiversity and the genetic takeover of all living things.
“The central premise of transhumanism, then, is that biological evolution will eventually be overtaken by advances in genetic, wearable and implantable technologies that artificially expedite the evolutionary process” – World Economic Forum
Patrick M. Wood has studied and written about the global elite for 33 years and is the author of three books on the subject: Trilaterals over Washington; Technocracy Rising; and, Technocracy: The Hard Road to World Order.
During his testimony on Day 6 of the Grand Jury Proceeding he stated:
“Whereas Hitler’s means of cleaning up the gene pool, if you will, was pretty simple. Just get rid of everybody you don’t like. If you don’t like the way they look, well, kill them. If you don’t like the way they think, well kill them, too. If you don’t like the colour of their skin, that’s a good reason to kill them. And if there’s some other part of the demonised scapegoat, what the Jews became, well, kill them to just get rid of them, get them out of the gene pool. Therefore, they won’t multiply and they won’t contaminate the gene pool again anymore. That was his simplistic view of eugenics – cleaning up the gene pool, according to his vision. He reimagined that himself.
“Today, it’s taken a different twist, you see. It’s the same old meme. How are we going to clean up the gene pool? Now we can just do it directly. We can change – we can edit the seeds, the things we don’t like – we can edit it out or edit in new things, and we can create life in our own image, whatever is in our mind to do. Now, this is very disturbing as we look at this.
“But today’s technology is targeted on the human population for the very first time in a big big way, at least on a massive scale. There have been some genetic therapies that have been available before this, don’t get me wrong, but with today’s pandemic and with the shots, the messenger RNA based shots that are being used today around the world, this is the first massive use of this – and experimental use I might add as well – on an entire human population.”
Below is the video of Wood’s testimony and the transcript.
Click on the image below to watch the video on Bitchute. Patrick Wood’s testimony begins at timestamp 7:03 mins.
Grand Jury Day 6: Patrick M. Wood Testimony, 26 February 2022 (65 mins)
Further Resources
Watch the full Grand Jury sessions Days 1-6 on Odysee HERE or on Internet Archive, with chapters and timestamps:
- Day 1, Opening statements, 05 February 2022
- Day 2, General historical and geopolitical backdrop, 12 February 2022
- Day 3, PCR test, 13 February 2022
- Day 4, Injections, 19 February 2022
- Day 5, Financial Destruction, 20 February 2022
- Day 6, Eugenics, closing arguments and outlook, 26 February 2022
Logistic support is provided to the proceedings by the Berlin Corona Investigative Committee: website (German) or website (English).
More information about the proceedings and contact details can be found on the Grand Jury’s website, HERE.
Transcript Patrick Wood
(Links contained within the text below are our own)
Reiner Fuellmich: And now we will turn to Patrick Wood, who will give us an introduction to the topic that we’re going to discuss today. It’s about eugenics and about genocide.
Patrick Wood:
Thank you, Reiner. I hope we’re on live now. You can see my screen?
Reiner Fuellmich: Yes
And hopefully my picture is up there as well.
But this is me, Patrick Wood. These are the three of the books that will be pertinent to today’s topic. And they’re available pretty much everywhere in the world through electronic bookstores and/or physical bookstores that are able to order books for you.
We’re going to cover some material quickly here, in the time that I have. And I’m titling my topic today, ‘Biodiversity’, which I’ll explain that term as we go along. Subtitle, ‘The Genetic Takeover of All Living Things’.
This is going to be a modern look at what’s happened in the last 25 to 30 years – on how eugenics has snuck up on us in the most unexpected way. But nonetheless, it’s here, it’s real, and it’s in our face. Well, actually, it’s in our arms, too, I guess.
But you’re all familiar with this particular slide or the statement: “The pandemic,” says Klaus Schwab, “represents a rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect, reimagine and reset our world.”
This is described in great detail on the World Economic Forum’s website, but it’s a boring read, and very few people actually go there and partake of it. But Time Magazine did run, in late 2020, this cover showing the world being reconstructed. Now, there’s no imagination going on here, but the scaffolding is up and the doors are open and things are being done to the world that nobody voted for, but they’re out there doing it anyway. This is a big picture, a great big picture of what’s going on.
I want to give you a quotation from the European Academy on Religion, and let me get my screen over here, and Society, they wrote recently:
“While most of humanity is still in the middle of the coronavirus crisis, the highly influential members of the World Economic Forum have a plan for what should come next. It is called ‘The Great Reset’, and it envisions [listen now] a truly ‘transhumanist’ future for us all.”
This is an aspect that has not been covered too much when people talk about The Great Reset. Many people think of, “well, it’s economic or, well, it’s political in nature,” but this one of transhumanism is going to be of great interest to us today.
So, what is transhumanism? This is one definition by the founder of modern Transhumanism, Max Moore, who actually lives in Arizona, oddly enough, close to where I live. But he wrote:
“Transhumanism promotes an interdisciplinary approach [that is NBIC, I’m going to explain that in a second] to understanding and evaluating the opportunities for enhancing the human condition and the human organism opened up by the advancement of technology. Attention is given to both present technologies, like genetic engineering and information technology, and anticipated future ones, such as molecular nanotechnology and artificial intelligence”
Max More, I will say in passing, is a very bright guy. I disagree with everything he says, almost, but he has a PhD in philosophy, which is his background, his primary background. So, this was a philosophical proposition exclusively at one time, but now it’s morphed into something more tangible. Thanks to the advancement of technology today. We all know that technology is racing forward at break neck speed.
So, let me explain just for a second what convergence, or NBIC, means. Just so you can have a background on this.
You notice the four quadrants. You notice that on the left side is physical. On the right side is biology. And if you look at the differentiation over on the right side of the screen, there’s hardware and software involved here as well. But going around the outside of this, in the lighter grain, you see the words atoms, genes, neurons and bits.
What this refers to – this is where the NBIC comes from, by the way – neurons, starting in the lower left, neurons, bits, and then nanotechnology, atoms and genes. The blending of these sciences together – which traditionally had been separate sciences and universities, for instance, information technology had its own department, so did genetic engineering, and so on – they have undergone a merging of disciplines in the last 20 – 25 years. Universities all around the world have contributed individuals from each one of these various departments to form another discipline within the University that is referred to as a convergence, or NBIC. The idea is that these are very closely related, in particular, by data, by the ability to slice and dice these different disciplines with computer technology. And we’ve talked about this a little bit before, but this is a new thing. That’s all I want to point out here. This is a relatively new thing that didn’t exist 30 years ago, but today it’s quite prominent. And because of this, because of this convergence of sciences throughout the world, almost every major university now has this particular convergence in NBIC view and they’re working on things.
There has been a massive research project going on for all these years where papers, scientific papers and advancement papers have been written. Those are kind of papers in academia that nobody ever reads because they’re just kind of only really available to academia. But they made the rounds. And, today we’re dealing with the outcome of this, the fallout of this.
So, the summation of transhumanism is this:
“The central premise [this comes from the World Economic Forum you’ll notice]. The central premise of transhumanism, then, is that biological evolution will eventually be overtaken by advances in genetic, wearable and implantable technologies that artificially expedite the evolutionary process.”
Now, this is a statement that is full of different ideas. And I want to just comment on a couple.
Starting about 25 to 30 years ago, there was a realisation amongst the global elite that they had the possibility to use the new tools of biotechnology to essentially take over what they viewed as biological evolution that they believe, again, was part of 100 million years, or whatever, worth of biological evolution, and somehow man popped out of the primordial soup, and here we are today. They believed that evolution was unkind to the world and to mankind in general because it developed a lot of flaws, and whatever, they’re argumentative, they like to go to war etc those sorts of things to get other personality traits that they may not like. But they saw the possibility, all of a sudden, taking over evolutionary process, not letting it be random anymore, but rather put a design, an intelligent design, if you will, on top of biological – what they viewed as biological evolution.
And so, this is exactly what the World Economic Forum is saying. This is not a new idea with them. It’s been around a while. That biological evolution will eventually be overtaken by advances in genetic, wearable and implantable technologies that artificially expedite the evolutionary process. So, they want to change the evolutionary process. They want to speed it up. And the intelligent design that they want to overlay on life is one that comes up in their mind – this is the reimagining process – what do you want to be like 20, 30, 50, 100 years from now? And whatever that reimagining is why they will say, “well, we can do that now. We have the tools to do that.”
Well, a little backstory now. I’m going to take you back to a book that was written in 1994, two years after the Rio de Janeiro conference took place in Rio de Janeiro. But it was the first Earth Summit. It was the UNCED Conference, that’s United Nations Conference on Economic [Environment and] Development. And it was a very important operation because this giant conference in Rio produced the Agenda 21 document that we talked about the last time that I spoke about the Trilateral Commission and Sustainable development, where it came from, how it came from. But the Agenda 21 conference produced two documents. We’ll talk about that in just a second. One was the Agenda 21 book itself, and the second was the Biodiversity Assessment or the Biodiversity giant book like 1150 pages long. We’ll look at those in just a minute.
But there were two in particular, critics of the whole Agenda 21 process at the UNCED Conference that had really high expectations going into the negotiations that there would be something positive come out. They believed, as they came out, nothing positive happened there. And they wrote this book called The Earth Brokers. And I recommend this book to anybody that wants to kind of dig into an alternative view of what happened in Rio. But this is my opinion, the first book, a serious scholarly book that came out discussing what really happened and what was really important at that Rio de Janeiro conference. And in this book, they made some startling revelations.
And one of the first things that they said, which kind of ties into last week’s presentation is that they wrote:
“We argue that UNCED [that’s the UN Conference on Economic (Environment and) Development, that was what the conference was referred to]. We argue that UNCED has boosted precisely the type of industrial development [that is technocracy] that is destructive for the environment, the planet and its inhabitants. We see how, as a result of UNCED, the rich will get richer, the poor poorer, while more and more of the planet is destroyed in the process.”
And all I can say is this is pretty much exactly what’s happened. Since then, the rich have got richer, the poor are now poorer, while more and more of the planet is destroyed in the process. And on any environmental front that you can look at around the world, you have to really stretch to find any improvements. For the most part, there has been no improvement, but rather it’s gone the other way,
So, (having trouble advancing my slide).
So, they further said, and this turns our focus now to the subject of this, really, today the Biodiversity Convention. The Biodiversity Convention ran in parallel with the Agenda 21 conference. In other words, it was in Rio de Janeiro, the same people participating in it – it was just a different track. You’ll see at conferences all over the world today that take place, if it’s a really large conference, you’ll see that they have different tracks going on within the same conference, maybe to focus on certain areas. And that’s what they did at this Rio conference.
So, the Biodiversity Convention was going along in parallel. They were both at the same conference, but they produced two different documents as an outcome. The Earth Brokers wrote, or the authors of The Earth Brokers wrote, this on page 43. And this is worth really looking at carefully.
“The Convention implicitly equates the diversity of life,” that is, “animals and plants.” And let me point out, just remember that the technocrat mindset, the transhumanist mindset, views humans as nothing more than animals. So, humanity is also included in this statement, but it says:
“… equates the diversity of life – animals and plants – to the diversity of genetic codes. By doing so, diversity becomes something modern science can manipulate. It promotes biotechnology as being ‘essential’ for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.”
Now this is a new definition of biodiversity that most of you probably had not heard of before or been aware of. But this actually is the more accurate definition of what the United Nations meant when it created a doctrine of biodiversity. We typically think of, “well, that’s the species in the forest and the different varieties of trees and animals and insects” and so on. And that is one sense of it. But they changed that definition in Rio in 1992 to be concerned about genetic codes and taking over life, if you will. Diversity becomes something modern science can manipulate, they said, and this was just their testimony. They weren’t making any type of a comment whether this is good or bad. But these two authors were just simply reporting what they saw. And, yes, they were a little disgruntled with what they saw, but they’re not trying to make a statement to us. They’re just saying this is what they saw.
So next up, after this, we see another statement on page 42. It says:
“The main stake raised by the biodiversity convention is the issue of ownership and control over biological diversity …the major concern. [Now listen to this. This is what they said.] The major concern was protecting the pharmaceutical and emerging biotechnology industries.”
This is rather stunning. Because it wasn’t about the environment. It wasn’t about making the Earth a better place to live. These authors wrote that the main stake, not a minor stake, the main stake raised by the Biodiversity Convention is the issue of ownership and control. That’s intellectual property, if you need a little translation there, and control over biological diversity.
And what did we find biological diversity was? Well, it was a control over genetic structure of life. And the major concern that they had, the reason they were making it, the main stake was to protect the pharmaceutical and emerging biotechnology industries.
I’ll be honest with you. Back in 1994, if I had read this book right as soon as it was published, I probably would not have noticed this phrase. Because who understood what the emerging biotechnology industry even was? I didn’t know back then. I was in the agricultural, I was raised in agricultural community. And we understood that, early on that, there was something called bioengineered tomatoes or something that we’re going to grow bigger and better maybe use for harvesting with mechanical machines. But, if you ask anybody on the street or even in academia, “what are the emerging biotechnology industries?” You get a blank stare. Today, this is very meaningful to us. We have a pretty good idea where they emerged to, and that’s where we stand today.
So, the Biodiversity Convention was about the control over genetic codes by using genetic engineering to be manipulated and re-machined by these biotechnology industries and the pharmaceutical industries. Now, I will say that the pharmaceutical and the biotechnology industries have been joined at the hip for these many years, since 1992. So even though he’s mentioning them separately here, we see them intertwining throughout modern history to create all sorts of things that have given us, let’s say modern day fits at this point.
For instance, (let me back up just a minute). For instance, we’ve had the engineering of seeds, for instance, Monsanto was famous for this. They took virtually every food crop they could get their hands on, and they made certain genetic engineering changes to the seeds, to the DNA in the seeds, so that they would have some characteristic that could be perpetuated in the field. For instance, in the case of cotton, they introduced a natural phenomenon called BT, which repels insects. And so, they felt, “well, we used to spray this on the crops with either hand sprayers or helicopters, or whatever. But now we don’t have to do that. We can engineer the seed itself, or the plant, to produce this BT internally as it grows so the bugs won’t bother it.” Well, this philosophy hasn’t worked out very well, by the way. I won’t go into that, but there’s lots of disastrous cases on how BT caught and went the other way.
But they’ve engineered virtually every seed crop you can imagine – rape seed, canola, soybeans, wheat, corn – just about everything that you consume has been engineered by Monsanto. And every time that they engineered a seed, they took it and they got a patent on it. And they said, “we own that seed now, and you can’t grow that seed unless you license it from us.” Okay, so much for seeds. Seeds are living material, part of that definition of biodiversity.
Well, now we know that insects have been modified as well. They’re genetically modifying, for instance, mosquitoes to be able to eradicate diseases that are carried by mosquitoes. We’ve seen other insects have been modified for different reasons as well. Crickets, for instance, have been genetically modified to be potentially used as a food source of protein for humans. I don’t like that thought, but that would be a meal I’d pass on.
But then you have things like fish have been genetically engineered. Salmon now can be raised in a salmon farm to grow twice as fast as they used to grow in the past. And that means more meat production and more profits for whoever. And then you have other animals like cattle and pigs, have been genetically modified significantly. So have sheep. And pigs are being modified, for instance, with human genes, that’s kind of a transgenic process where they take genes out of humans and plant them into pigs. And then the pigs can grow organs that can be transplanted into humans, when somebody needs a kidney or perhaps a heart or whatever, it can be grown in a pig and taken out of the pig and put in the human. So, animals have been genetically modified. And just about everything else, birds, chickens and turkeys have been modified as well.
If you think about, it all up and down the line, everything except for humans, so far, have been genetically modified and heavily so: the seed industry just over the top. The only thing that’s escaped, the only living thing that has escaped modification has been the human population. You see where I’m going with this? If the tools today were available to, say Adolf Hitler – in 19, well, whatever, during World War II – the outcome likely would have been altogether different. But we see this philosophy now is rising again.
Whereas Hitler’s means of cleaning up the gene pool, if you will, was pretty simple. Just get rid of everybody you don’t like. If you don’t like the way they look, well, kill them. If you don’t like the way they think, well kill them, too. If you don’t like the colour of their skin, that’s a good reason to kill them. And if there’s some other part of the demonised scapegoat, what the Jews became, well, kill them to just get rid of them, get them out of the gene pool. Therefore, they won’t multiply and they won’t contaminate the gene pool again anymore. That was his simplistic view of eugenics – cleaning up the gene pool, according to his vision. He reimagined that himself.
Today, it’s taken a different twist, you see. It’s the same old meme. How are we going to clean up the gene pool? Now we can just do it directly. We can change – we can edit the seeds, the things we don’t like – we can edit it out or edit in new things, and we can create life in our own image, whatever is in our mind to do. Now, this is very disturbing as we look at this.
But today’s technology is targeted on the human population for the very first time in a big big way, at least on a massive scale. There have been some genetic therapies that have been available before this, don’t get me wrong, but with today’s pandemic and with the shots, the messenger RNA based shots that are being used today around the world, this is the first massive use of this – and experimental use I might add as well – on an entire human population.
So, let’s talk about those two books that were generated from that conference in 1992. The first one I want to talk about is the Agenda 21 book. This is available. You can see right on, it says: “United Nations Program of Action from Rio.” And you can see the logo down below the United Nations and the UNIP logo as well. This is their official book. It’s still available on Amazon and other places. You can buy it. I recommend people do just so they can see we’re not spinning a tail here.
So, I did a search, fortunately, I have electronic copy of this, a scanned copy of this book. And I did a search for several words because word frequency in documents is very important to me as a researcher. I like to see what’s mentioned most. And often whatever is mentioned most is kind of the theme of whatever it is you’re looking at. So, if you do a little word count when you’re doing research and stuff, you can figure out what the writer is trying to get at and kind of what’s underlying his basis as theory. So, within the Agenda 21 book, I search for some words and they’re listed here: genetic, genes, biotech, DNA, ribosome. And I found that the word genetic appeared 22 times. And this only is a 351-page book.
“Genes” was mentioned twice, “biotech” was mentioned 23 times, “DNA” once, and “ribosome” once. And what that adds up to is 49 mentions, in our general area here, in 351 pages, which gives a saturation count of 14%. In other words, 14% of the pages within the Agenda 21 book dealt with this concept of biodiversity as it relates to genetic issues – to genes, to biotechnology, et cetera. And that’s not really particularly disturbing. If you just read this book and only this book, you can say, “well, that’s a minor theme.” It’s an important theme, obviously, or they wouldn’t have mentioned it on 50 out of 350 pages, but you would not say that this was the main theme. The main stake, if you will, of Agenda 21. And indeed, it was not. If you read the book, it was not the main issue, but this was an important issue.
But when we get to the Biodiversity Assessment, this is the book that was popped out of that conference. It’s a giant book. It’s like binder sized paper, but it’s like 1152 pages long, if you drop this book – I mean, it’s three inches thick – you drop this book on your foot, you’re going to say, “Ouch.”
Well, I did the same word search in this document. And lo and behold, the word “genetic” was mentioned 518 times, the word “genes” 162, “biotech” 112, “DNA” 97 times, and “ribosome” was mentioned 17 times. So, in 1152 pages, 900 of those pages contained at least one reference to genetic issues here, like what we’re talking about, 78% yield. Now, this confirms, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the Earth Broker’s authors knew exactly what they were talking about. I mentioned that they were just simply eyewitnesses, they didn’t make any value judgment on it whatsoever. But this confirms that, to me anyway, that their assessment was absolutely 100% correct. The main state on the Global Biodiversity Convention, and this assessment book came out of that, was specifically about genetic modification of life. And you can see on the front of this book, by the way, the little fish and fishes there in the water. I don’t know exactly what that pretends because it’s an overlay, but when you think biodiversity think genetic modification.
So, this kind of proves the point that the whole concept of modifying genes and living things has been a big big issue, if not the main main issue since 1992. This flew under the radar for so many years. But now, because thanks to everything going on today for the last two years, this has come into full view. This was the plan. This was the original plan. All other forms of life have already been genetically engineered. The final frontier, the last frontier, was humanity itself. And that is exactly what is happening today.
So, I want to make this statement to tie in between last week and this week again just so that you can understand what old Klaus Schwab is up to. Because he’s pushing both technocracy, which is sustainable development, and he’s pushing transhumanism at the very same time. And you say, “well okay, there’s people and there’s the system where people live.” Well, technocracy is to the societal structure if you will, how the economic system will work, how the social system will work. But it’s a brand-new system. As he said, The Great Reset isn’t something that we know from the past century, The Great Reset altogether new.
But technocracy is to societal structure and operation as transhumanism is to the humans who will live there.
The transhuman condition then, is a genetically modified person. You could liken it to Hitler’s Superman, which is where we get Superman from, by the way as a cartoon character. But the transhuman man is no different than the Superman that came out of Germany in the 30s and 40s. And so, nothing is new here – concept is the same, it’s just expressed in a different way. Transhumanism is the idea for Klaus Schwab of those type of people that he wants to live in a restructured world. That implies, by the way, that those of us who belong to the old world, as the new world is created, we are not suitable, we are not compatible with this new machinery of the transformed world. So, we need to be transformed ourselves to live in this new world.
And I want to say that Hitler – just in passing, I’m not an expert on Hitler or World War II necessarily at all – but I want to point out that Hitler was very poignant about this, that the Superman, the super race, that he intended to create – was that race that would inhabit his so-called 1000-year Reich. Those would be the ones that would enter into that 1000-year Reich to populate the world and reform the whole thing from ground zero all the way up to outer space, I guess. So again, nothing has really changed here.
But now we have people coming out of the World Economic Forum. You can see this lady here, Ida, is a member of Parliament in Denmark and she’s speaking at a World Economic Forum background. There you can see with a potted plant behind her head, it’s probably appropriate here. But she says, “welcome to 2030. I own nothing, have no privacy, and life has never been better.” Well, you see, this is the whole vision of Schwab, the World Economic Forum, the Technocrats, the Trilateral Commission, and a whole bunch of them, this global elite. This is their idea today, that the world will be so transformed that you will be stripped down to own nothing, including not just the physical things, not mind you, but privacy as well.
The last bastion of privacy is your mind. The thoughts that you think they want that too. It’s not just that they want our property, but they want the very thinking process that we have that goes on inside of our brain. And she, of course, says with great Pollyanna to proclaim, “life has never been better.” Well, I have news for her. If she really thinks that life has never been better, it’s only because she has a giant vacuum in that pretty little blonde head that just cannot process thoughts. There’s no way you can be happy – unless you’ve been thoroughly brainwashed from the inside out – by having nothing, no privacy, et cetera.
But you also may not have any ownership over your own body because as time goes on, these genetic firms, genetic engineering firms, are claiming patent rights, intellectual rights over their own creation. So, it may well be that when you say, “I own nothing,” yes, you own nothing. You have no physical external things, but you own no physical internal things either.
And I want to close with this slide. Because this really kind of sums it up, where this has come and it’s very pointed.
This is on Moderna’s website. I published the whole picture here so that you can go and look at it yourself. Just go to Moderna’s website, go to their “About us” page and you will see this: “Welcome to Moderna. We believe messenger RNA” – that’s mRNA, the precursor to making proteins, the template for making proteins in your body – “is the software of life.”
“The software of life.” What do we do to software? Well, we engineer software. We constantly want to improve software. We release new versions of software when we make these modifications. And very often, of course, we go through the debugging process where we correct problems that pop up, and life goes on. The software of life, they say. Well, the software of life mentality applied to human beings is exactly what we’re seeing right now. And if anybody does not understand the context of this “about page” right here is, “about us,” they’re just either can’t reason, have no logical capabilities whatsoever.
But this is probably one of the most telling and frightening comments that you could ever see on a vaccine, or excuse me, on whatever you call it, not vaccine, but it’s the messenger RNA injection. This would be the scariest thing you could possibly see. Because the software of life means that since life is in humans, in their view, they’re not inoculating seeds or fish or animals, they’re inoculating humans. The software of life now has become the playfield of the global elite. We’re trying to create humanity that will enter into their own 1000-year Reich, if you will. And this is exactly what we saw before in history. The names have changed, the sophistication of presentation has changed, but the underlying ideology, principles, et cetera, and goals have not changed.
So, I will say “thank you” at that [point]. And I will stop to share on my screen. And if we have some Q & A, that would be fine. But that’s the information that I wanted to put out today.
Reiner Fuellmich: Thank you very much, Patrick. At first glance, this is another, to me, this is another instance of their using euphemisms in order to stand things on its head. Biodiversity, as I learned from your presentation, is really nothing else but gaining full control over humans – everything else is pretty much in their view, at least under their control – now over humans with the help of the pharmaceutical and biotechnological industry. My question is, is this not clear enough for people to see or why has there not been an outcry, at least from the churches? Because this is what they should consider, someone trying to play God.
Patrick Wood: Yes, they should. And this is playing God. Almost everything in the world today that these people look at – living things – when they say “we can do better.” And by the way, that’s the phrase you hear from the World Economic Forum – “we can do better, build back better.” We can do better – that indicates, of course, they don’t believe in intelligent design in the first place. But those who do will say, well, these people believe that whatever God might have created, if they believe in God is an intelligent designer, he was really screwed up. He’s all messed up. He goofed up. He did it wrong. “We can do better. We can fix those problems that he seeded into the system, and we can create a life that we want to live on planet Earth.”
And when transhumanists start talking, by the way, about eternal life, it gets really spooky. Because they’re looking for technology to advance to the point where they can literally become immortal. And they say that openly. Max Moore has written about this extensively. And so, this is not just a transient thing, like our goal is just, well, we want to cure heart disease or something. That’s part of it, maybe, but the ultimate goal is immortality. Which of course, God has something to say about in the Bible, at least, that it’s appointed for man once to die and then comes judgment.
Well, everybody has died so far on planet Earth has left. They think they’re going to be the first group of people that don’t die, that will live on in the computer, on an avatar, or maybe just their own body if they can keep fixing it up and putting it together with baling wire.
Matthew Ehret: Heaven has become “the cloud.”
Patrick Wood: That’s right. Heaven is “the cloud.”
Viviane Fischer: I would like to ask you. So, if the jabs that we are currently seeing being applied, they don’t seem to improve the health of people, but rather cause problems. So, is this part of do you think this might be like – I see three options.
They could serve as a means to claim patent rights with these individuals, maybe with this [mRNA injection]. I mean, that’s maybe one option.
The other option’s, are these the ones that are not going to be part of the crowd that’s going to be immortal or rather disappear rather quickly?
Or, is this maybe like part of a larger scheme that you first applied this stuff at the moment, but we don’t know what’s really in it, and then they add something else that puts them into this realm of them becoming like improved, better, immortal. What’s your take on that?
Patrick Wood: Yeah, well, not being a scientist, disclaimer, not being a scientist, not being a medical doctor, just a person that’s looking at this whole thing like you all are. If this shot is not improving the health of people – and it clearly is not, you’ve already documented that very well – if the purpose of the injection is not to strengthen the immune system, specifically, and if even the incidental outcomes have been serious injuries to people all over the world from having taken the injection, then I would say if it was their stated goal that they wanted to improve the health of people, they have utterly failed to do so.
That indicates that there’s another reason that there’s another agenda for these things. It’s just clear as Crystal that there’s some other agenda that they have behind the scenes that has nothing to do with improving the health of people, even though they have to have an excuse for that needle to go into the arm in order to inject the messenger RNA. And now in India, there’s a DNA vaccine that’s being produced, right? So, people say, “oh, RNA doesn’t affect DNA.” Listen, if you think it’s going to stop at RNA, you’re crazy. It’s already gone beyond that. It’s gone to straight DNA injections under the skin by an Indian pharmaceutical company. And I see one person nodding their head here is probably from India, and it’s absolutely true. They’re going after the genome of the human condition. And I don’t think this has anything to do with the promise of, “oh, we’re going to make life better for you.” Because, you know, the United Nations has a habit of this.
There’re 17 sustainable development goals that say it’s going to transform the world. The first thing they start out with: “well we’re going to eliminate poverty everywhere.” Really? That’s some grandiose promise. It’s never been done. And we’re poorer, the world is poorer now than it was in 1992.
And all the other promises they make on the front end of it, “oh, we’re going to have jobs for everyone, jobs with dignity, and oh, we’re going to have lifelong education opportunities. Everybody is going to have a home to live in, too.” All these promises that they’ve made were vacuous, absolutely vacuous. They meant nothing, and they were not true, and they have not come true. And they cannot deliver on those promises, ever.
Now we have the same scenario working out with this shot. They’re promising that it’s going to strengthen your immune system, that it’s going to prevent the disease from getting a hold of you and your body. And it hasn’t happened. It’s been a false promise. And again, that indicates that there is another agenda at work here. That has nothing to do with the health of humans, much less that the United Nations ever intended really to eliminate poverty in the world. They did not intend to eliminate poverty. It was just propaganda. And I would say the whole propaganda that these vaccines, these shots, are going to completely save the whole world from this ugly, terrible virus is just absolutely vacuous. It’s not true. It’s propaganda. My guess is they know exactly what they’re talking about – as they produce the propaganda, they know it’s propaganda.
Ana Garner: I have a question. Thank you, Mr. Wood, for your excellent presentation. It sounds to me that they are trying to assume the role of playing God when they’re talking about the takeover of our evolutionary process. And I was struck by the analogy to software and what you need to do to software, continually update it. You’ve got to have your 2.0,3.0 – human 2.0. And it seems to me that these injections will never stop until we get what they’re doing and the masses say: “no more.” And that this seems to have been a large experiment to see how many people would capitulate with the fear mongering that they did, the lies that they had [sound dropped] basically because there’s been no informed consent, but coerced people into lining up, voluntarily – they think – for these shots. Do you think it’ll ever stop?
Patrick Wood: Well, it can’t stop. That’s a great question. It cannot stop. And I’ll tell you why it cannot stop. And maybe a little bit oblique to what you would think initially, but once you’ve been injected with this, it’s obvious that your immune system is being changed. Maybe not the same in every case, but the immune system is changed when you take a series of these shots.
That means that as future viruses come down the road – whatever they might be, man-made or not, it doesn’t matter – whatever future viruses come down the road, your natural immunity now has been messed up by these shots. And if you want to be “saved” from that new ugly virus coming down the line someday, and people are really dying in serious numbers around the world, you will have no choice but to take another shot to maybe eliminate or take you out of harm’s way. There’d be no end to it. On that basis alone, there will be no end to it. In my mind, that’s perfectly logical. They so debased the natural immunity of the world that the world is basically now immunocompromised – the whole lot of it that have taken the shots are immunocompromised.
Now, instead of just – I’m thinking back to the whole AIDS debacle where the only way they treated AIDS for a long time is with this giant cocktail of drugs, they called it. They mix like a whole bunch of different things together. It would cost a fortune to get this cocktail of drugs. And they said, “well, that’ll beat back the HIV virus in your body.” Well, thank you, I guess maybe it did to some people. I didn’t have AIDS so I don’t have a clue, I wasn’t close to the community.
But the same kind of thing mentality is working now. In the future, if you want to be out of harm’s way on getting this maybe horrible virus that might be floating around someday, you’re going to be at the mercy of anybody on the outside that has something to stick into your body to give you some kind of temporary immunity to it. And I think that’s got to be in their mind here. Once the conduit into your arm is established, there really is no logical stopping point. Even if you rebelled five years down the road and say, “I’m not going to do this anymore, I’ll never take a shot again.” Well, that’s fine but you may well die prematurely because you do contract some virus, but you have no natural immunity to withstand it.
Ana Garner: That makes sense, unfortunately. Thank you.
Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt: Good evening, Mr. Wood. Virginie, you can go before me. Sorry, I didn’t hear you.
Patrick Wood: I’m sorry. I couldn’t hear that, Desmond Dexter. Say it again?
Virginie de Araujo Recchia: As you wish Dexter. If you want to go first, go first.
Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt: You can proceed, Virginie.
Virginie de Araujo Recchia: Thank you, sir, for your testimony. It was really important. I would like you to illustrate and make links with our perpetrators. You spoke about the seeds, and so I would like to write a point. It was about the bunker of the apocalypse. On February 28 of 2008, the south of our global sea vault was officially inaugurated. It’s an underground vault on the Norwegian Island of Spitsbergen, intended to keep seeds of all the food crops of the planet. And who organized that? They say it in the [Harteko]: Norwegian government, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, [Dupontier, Rockefeller, Monsanto], the Global Crop Diversity Trust. And a French organisation say they are sceptical about the reason of the creation of this bunker. The funders of the project are all part of seed industry lobbyists whose current policy is not oriented towards more biodiversity. But on the contrary, seek to reduce access to current living genetic resources and contribute to their annulation and so on. So, I think it illustrates very well what you were explaining about biodiversity and intellectual property.
And the second point, it was not a question, but the second point also really illustrates what you said, because Professor Peter McCullough explained yesterday that in a scientific study – Alden et al, Lund University, Sweden – that “confirms one of our worst fears.” And I’m reading what he said:
“The exogenous genetic material coding for the dangerous Spike Protein is reverse transcribed into the human genome; possible long-term constitutive expression / synthesis of disease promoting / lethal Spike.”
So, it’s exactly what you said. It’s a scientific study published February 25. So, it’s yesterday. And it’s exactly what you say and it’s very concerning.
Patrick Wood: Yeah. You know, I remember when I first read about the seed bank up in the ice in the north, and it was a little disturbing at first, and I thought, well, maybe that makes sense. We should kind of store these heritage seeds, they’re called, that’s the original seeds before they were modified, right? And so, as they modified all these seeds and spread them around the world, they realised that there could be a doomsday scenario situation here where it caused real trouble. So, they took samples of all of the heritage seeds, that’s the untouched seeds, and those are the ones that went up to the seed vault. It just kind of occurs to me, I have no proof of this, and I haven’t read up on it, but I think I will, based on what you just said Virginie, because I wonder if they’re storing sperm and eggs up there as well now, for humans? Just kind of based on the whole thing. Well, maybe we should preserve some original human DNA in the seed bank up there with all the other seeds. That’s just speculation. But it crossed my mind.
Reiner Fuellmich: Well, considering that I’m sorry, Virginie .. Considering that Bill Gates is, or was, closely aligned with Jeffrey Epstein, I don’t think it’s far-fetched, your conclusion.
Patrick Wood: I know. Well, for the purposes of this particular conference, I know we have plenty of facts to stick to, and there may be some more facts that come up in the near future. But I’ll tell you, just the case as it is right now, is very damning. And I know it needs specific investigation on some very fine points. We’ve got the basic theory down pretty well, and it’s going to be even more as you get the rest of the speakers here. But the theory is good. Some of the particulars are already on the table. But now we have an avenue to get into the absolute smallest, finest part of this, where these conspiracies actually took place and where they actually wrote about this thing. There needs to be probably a host of Freedom of Information Act requests – that applies, at least in America, if not some other countries – to flesh out some of these emails and some of these conversations and tapes and recordings and et cetera that might have taken place over the time, to really find not just the smoking gun, but the spent bullet as well.
Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt: Thank you so much for your evidence. I have noted today your evidence is much more focused on the conference for the United Nations that took place in 1992 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. So, what I want to find out from you, Mr. Wood, since 1992 to date, has there been any major biotechnological advancements in relation to humanity? Can you think of any major advancements besides, now we’re talking about, the mRNA vaccines?
Patrick Wood: Well, as far as advancements, do you mean positive advancements or negative advancements?
Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt: Positive.
Patrick Wood: Well, there may be some incidental positive enhancements that have taken place. And I say incidental because maybe it wasn’t even intended in the first place where they just did it by accident. But the overwhelming majority at this point, this is just my opinion, the overwhelming majority of genetic modification that has been done has resulted in negative outcomes. In other words, it hasn’t helped anything. It hasn’t helped the ecosystem, hasn’t helped people.
I’m thinking back when corn was first modified, genetically modified, there was a big sphere in America where all of a sudden people started buying tortilla chips in the grocery store, right? Big bags made out of corn. And all of a sudden people were having violent reactions and having to go into hospital and stuff because this corn was making them sick, because it was genetically modified. Why couldn’t they have figured that out before they threw it into a store and started making as much money as they could off of it? Well, maybe they could have, but they didn’t. And there have been negative outcomes like that, that are just all over the landscape. I wish I could find some more positive trends, but I can’t find them.
Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt: Okay. So, will your evidence then be to the extent, when it comes to the Coivd-19 mRNA vaccines, will you actually regard it as the most advanced by technological advancements, specifically when it comes to humanity, to date?
Peter Wood: Absolutely. This is the Holy Grail of transhumanism here. It is the Holy Grail. This is the Holy Grail, by the way, that Adolf Hitler had before, too. I mean, he had the same idea. He just didn’t have the means to get there.
Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt: Okay. So, I want to quickly just reflect back to the evidence that we currently have and which has actually been presented to the Grand Jury to date. And for that, I actually make specific reference to Professor Antonietta Gatti. And I quickly just want to put the Jury into perspective here. She’s got a doctorate in experimental physics at the University of Bologna, which is Italy. She’s got a PhD in biomedical technologies, bioengineering, and the Faculty of Medicine of the University of Bologna, Italy.
[Watch Prof. Dr. Antonietta Gatti’s Testimony, Day 4, Grand Jury Proceedings, HERE]
So, what I want to focus on is specifically her evidence and basically tie it in with the biotechnological advancements, technocracy. That is basically your evidence that you have given previously. You actually re-emphasise a technocracy, basically just bringing it in line more with biotechnology.
So, the evidence that has actually been presented to that will be the Jury – and I’m quickly just going to make a reference. “This is the very first time that nanoparticles have been used in medicine. This product is dangerous.” Product is dangerous. “The body cannot counteract these particles. And these particles can create a magnetic field.” Can create a magnetic field. “It’s the first time that nanoparticles have actually been found in medicine.”
So just with those two specific issues, and that is the evidence that we have presented to the Jury, is that all in line with your biotechnological advancement? Your evidence technocracy, is that in line?
Patrick Wood: Yes, it is. And you remember the chart that I just presented about NBIC? The NBIC stood for, first off, the N stood for “nanotechnology.”
Nanotechnology is the manipulation of matter using external means. We think of maybe getting a hammer and a saw to build a house. But in nanotechnology, you’re talking about being able to artificially put atoms together in different configurations and making up different types of matter or devices, or whatever. And this has been experimented in universities for a long time now. I’d say probably 15 to 20 years that technology is advancing where a computer, for instance, can actually change the structure of something remotely by issuing commands and stuff to it. So, this goes hand in hand with biotechnology. That’s what I’m saying. Okay? The two disciplines are combined in the universities. Would they think to use that in today’s injections? I don’t know why not. So, it seemed to be perfectly compatible with the sciences out there that they’ve been working with for years.
Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt: So, in conclusion, Mr. Wood, you have actually also now stated in the evidence, this all comes down to the NBIC. So, squarely, when we look at even what Moderna has said, and you have actually presented evidence, and as a matter of fact, it is common knowledge and it is evidence that can be admitted into this Grand Jury Proceedings and that is when Moderna made a statement that it is – mRNA is the software of life, which means it can be hacked. So, in conclusion – you can basically just say Yay or Nay – this square actually fits in with what they actually planned in 1992 in Rio de Janeiro. And this is basically now where we are at in the fulfilment of the manifestation of the technocracy plan and agenda that is being played out in each and every country in the world.
Patrick Wood: Yay.
Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt: Thank you so much. Thank you.
Viviane Fischer: I have one final short question. So, do you think – because you just mentioned that you only see like destructive or only accidental positive developments with regards to the bioengineering or GMO aspect – so do you think they’re keeping all these maybe positive outcomes from us. Maybe they have something up the sleeves that’s really positive, or are they basically, like, in complete denial that it’s not working and they’re not going to be immortal or no one is going to be immortal because if they don’t have the technologies at hand?
Patrick Wood: Right. That’s a good question. I’m not sure that they care whether there’s positive or negative outcomes, in a sense. But, the overwhelming evidence at this point, from my view, is that evidence of harm is being hidden, not evidence of success. They would have every reason to put out evidence of success right now, tangible success, to convince people this really works, but they can’t do it. What they’re hiding is all of the injuries that are happening, the data – I mean, almost every agency, there’s been scandals already where data is discovered months later that was not released, intentionally not released, because it would taint their narrative. So, I think the evidence points the other way. They’re hiding the bad data, but they just don’t have any good data to put out there.
Reiner Fuellmich: That makes perfect sense, Patrick. Because this is one of the things that we seem to be seeing – through the evidence that’s been presented to this Grand Jury – is vaccine induced immunity doesn’t even exist in these cases because there is no immunity. On the other hand, natural immunity is perfect. How can they deny this? I suppose that you will not object to the conclusion that the only thing that they’re doing right now is lying to us in order to keep us from understanding that they can’t do what they promised to do.
Patrick Wood: That’s exactly right. And I just back up a little further. Whatever they promised to do in the first, in the very first instance, at the very beginning of this, whatever they promised that they would do most likely was a lie from the start. They never had any intention or ability to produce what they said they were going to produce. My guess is they knew that perfectly well at the time. That needs to be proven. But I think that’s kind of the logical way to look at it, that they knew they were lying from the get go and they intentionally deceived people into doing something that they would not have otherwise done. That’s the nature of propaganda, anyway. We ought to know something about propaganda after 100 years of it. We’ve had nothing but non-stop propaganda from the get go. And I wouldn’t believe anything. If I can determine that a piece has propaganda in it, and it is a propaganda piece, I’ll throw the whole cart and not pick a thing out. I rip it up in shreds and throw it away. I don’t want to pollute my mind.
What they said from the beginning, “we are going to prevent the disease from getting into your body.” That’s what they said. Point blank. And just the opposite has happened. That meant how can a scientist be so stupid to think that they could get away saying something like that and not have any evidence behind it? It was untested. It didn’t pass anybody’s regimen of FDA approval or anywhere else and yet they could say it’s going to be 95% effective. “You won’t get the disease if you take the shot.” Ball faced lie. It’s completely false.
Reiner Fuellmich: Yeah, that’s, I suppose, the only conclusion we can draw from this. So, if they’re lying about this, there’s got to be some other objective out there.
Patrick Wood: Absolutely right.
Reiner Fuellmich: Thank you very much, Patrick. Virginie? Muted. You’re on mute.
Virginie de Araujo Recchia: Sorry. I can add that the Bill Gates Foundation with the UN, it was with Kofi Annan at the beginning, have been developing a GMO farm for several years, in Africa, now. And they developed GMO corn to vaccinate food and make [ ]. So, they started to do that in Africa.
Patrick Wood: Yes, they did.
Virginie de Araujo Recchia: We are [ ] concern also with these gene therapy. injections. Thank you.
Reiner Fuellmich: Thank you very much, Patrick. Let’s see if we can dig a little deeper. Let’s hear what Matthew Ehret has to say.
