TRANSCRIPT:
Dr. Luis De Benito: I’m going to
tell you today the findings of this summer, which go along the lines of
what may be behind all this attempt to vaccinate.
Why so much interest in jabbing? What’s the reason? I’m going to tell you.
The international organizations that are
also investigating this matter asked me for a brief report on what I
had done during the summer. And I’m going to read it to you as it is.
I’m going to make glosses of what I’m saying. But this is what I’ve
written to them. And the different teams that are investigating this are
seeing what part of it is right and what part is not. They’re
translating it into several languages. I say this because, probably, by
the 31st it’s going to be made public in other places or whatever.
It’s been hard for me to get here to
read it. Do you know why? Because it does weigh a little bit the fact of
taking out of the medical issue. All this, you know, started as a
channel to discuss the evolution of the pandemic, the affected, the
treatments, the virus, how the ICUs were. Well, and this no longer makes
sense. All that’s part of the past. And now, what we’re going to is a
recognition of a desire, on the part of the authorities, to take away
freedoms from human beings.
I don’t care if you think I’m raving or
not. But as I have a moral obligation to report what I have done, I tell
you today. And whoever wants to believe it will believe it, and whoever
doesn’t will judge, criticize and compare it. As I say, I’ve written
it, and I have already sent it to the teams that are studying this
subject in different parts of the world.
If from the medical point of view
there’s no need to administer any preventive measure for a disease with
the lethality of 2 per thousand, why so much insistence that everyone
should be inoculated? What’s the vaccine going to give me that I don’t
already have? Well, this experiment arose from this reflection.
Although there are many consultations,
during the summer of 2021, in the afternoons, I was the only operative.
There wasn’t even administrative staff in the afternoons in that
building. Under my office, I occasionally parked an ambulance from SUMA,
from the emergency service, because they have a base there. Those were
the only “interferences” I detected. Most of the observations were
carried out without that artifact. I started the consultation at 15:00
and had patients listed every 20 minutes.
Due to COVID measures, it was
recommended that they come alone and, if possible, at the appointed
time. Not before or after. Before starting the consultation, I’d connect
the Bluetooth application on my cell phone and invariably check that
there was no device available to contact. There was no electronic device
in range to connect to. When a patient appeared, often already up the
stairs or at the beginning of the corridor, about 20 meters away from
the practice, on my cell phone, I could see if one or two devices to
connect to with Bluetooth appeared. One or two or none.
On my phone, I could check to see if the
Bluetooth was detecting something or nothing. And if it was something,
it was a device with a MAC Address (Media Access Control) code. This is a
unique identifier that electronic device manufacturers assign to a card
or item that can be networked.
After attending to the patient’s medical
requirements, I’d ask him whether or not he had been vaccinated for
COVID. If the answer was affirmative, it was usually quick and without
hesitation. And if it was negative, it was often accompanied by a
certain wariness, if not anger at the question. A reaction that
explained to me that, in general, those who hadn’t wanted to be
vaccinated had been subjected to some kind of adverse social situation.
After reassuring the patient, whatever his response, I’d write down on a
sheet of paper the answer he gave me.
None of the 137 patients I asked refused
to answer. If the answer was affirmative, I’d ask them what type of
vaccine they had received, when, and if they had had any adverse
reactions. I’d then ask them if they had any cell phones or electronic
devices such as wireless headsets or tablets on them, and if so, I’d ask
them to turn it off for a moment. When they turned it off, on my cell
phone, usually, one of the devices that registered to Bluetooth would
disappear.
Out of hundreds… Here are the results.
Of the 137 patients questioned, 112 said
they had been vaccinated, and 25 said they hadn’t been vaccinated. None
of the patients who said they hadn’t been vaccinated registered on my
cell phone any device available for Bluetooth connection, having ensured
the disconnection of their cell phone, if they had one. In 96 patients
of the 112 who said they had been vaccinated, 96 of the 112 having
switched off their electronic devices if they were carrying them, a MAC
code remained on the screen of my cell phone, which I had already noted
in my notes next to the patient’s medical history.
I interpreted that it was a code that
the patient himself was carrying and that, in fact, when he left the
office, leaving the building, it disappeared from my cell phone. With
this simple observation throughout July and August, I’ve been able to
verify that 100% of the patients who say they aren’t vaccinated don’t
raise any contact device with my cell phone via Bluetooth. But 86% of
those who said they were vaccinated generated a MAC address on my cell
phone. These are the observations made, and many doubts and questions
arise from them.
Among them, the ones that seem to me be
the most significant are: First, does the signal detected on my cell
phone come from the vaccinated person? Well, precisely the isolated
environment and not being interfered with by other signals has meant
that there’s no other source of contamination. In fact, when the SUMA
ambulance arrived, apart from other devices such as “SUMA base” and
several MAC addresses that I attributed to ambulance personnel who could
be vaccinated, I noticed that these signals disappeared when the
ambulance left. And when there were suspicions about whether there was
some other distorting element, for example, patient escorts in the
corridor, accidental operators in the corridor that could be the source
or origin of other markers, then I dismissed that case. It’s not within
the 137 that I have confirmed.
Second, do all cell phones detect Bluetooth devices with equal capability? My answer is no. My experience is that they don’t.
Third, does the detectable MAC Address
on a person allow interaction with him? To what extent? At least I’m
sure of one thing: it allows me to know where he is because I knew that
someone vaccinated was coming to my office before he showed up.
The fourth question I asked myself: If
the MAC Address is something personal, individual, and unrepeatable, how
is it possible that the five people who were injected with the contents
of the same vial, from the same distribution of the same batch, don’t
have 5 different MAC addresses? Well, I consulted with some computer
technicians, roboticists and fellow biologists and engineers, experts in
computer science, and nanorobotics. And they advocate the
possibility that this code is generated as a result of the interaction
of what’s injected with the genetic material of the patient. Perhaps not
so much with their DNA as with the larger compatibility complex, the
HLAs, which are ultimately derived from the genome.
Six, if the MAC address is generated by
the vaccine, why do only 86% of those who claim to be vaccinated have
it? Different answers have been considered to answer this question.
The first one: some of the vials could be placebo.
Second: some vials could be denatured.
Third: a lack of response. In other words, the expected results are not always obtained when a product is applied.
And the fourth, which seems very
important to me, is because the patient lies and says he is vaccinated
when he isn’t to avoid problems or controversies.
I have many doubts. These are the
findings that I’ve made. They’re outside my medical knowledge. I simply
attest that when you’re in consultation with a person in an isolated
environment, that comes up on my cell phone. What does it mean? I have
no idea. But I don’t like it.
And here is a headline with them claiming "power lines". Yes, the plane
knocked the power out but the crash already happened, it did not hit
them and then go down as claimed by the fake headlines and fake audio.
That's really as far as I can take this for now. Why was the clearly
fake video released first, only to have a video that obviously shows
what actually happened get released to prove the first one fake? Why are
they calling it a small aircraft when it was a twin engine jet with a
VNE above 500 MPH??? Ridiculous, "small aircraft" are not in that
category. Why are they presenting this in such a misleading way?
