The David Knight Show - Interview: Pfizer’s Former Chief Toxicologist Exposes the “Vaccine Mafia”

Episode Date: September 4, 2026

Former Pfizer chief toxicologist Helmut Sterz pulls back the curtain on what he calls the “Vaccine Mafia”—a web of pharmaceutical companies, governments, international organizations, media, and powerful financial interests that profited while normal safety barriers were swept aside. Money should have intrinsic value AND transactional privacy: Go to https://davidknight.gold/ for great deals on physical gold/silver For 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to https://trendsjournal.com/ and enter the code “KNIGHT” For high quality made in America products go to HomeSteadProducts.shop and use promo code “Knight” for 10% off your purchases Find out more about the show and where you can watch it at TheDavidKnightShow.com If you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here: SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-show Or you can send a donation throughMail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @[e-mail] App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-david-knight-show--2653468/support.

Joining us now is Hummet Sturts, and he wrote a book, The Vaccine Mafia. I think we all know who the dawn of that mafia is in this last event here. We're going to talk a little bit about what happened, and it's not just a critique of what happened in 2020, but he's a toxicologist, and he worked for Pfizer. He was the chief toxicologist there, as a matter of fact. And so we want to talk about what he would do there typically, so we get an idea of what was skipped. and also his ideas of what need to be done in the future.

Thank you for joining us, sir. Thank you very much for inviting me. And again, the book is the vaccine mafia. And tell us a little bit about what you did at Pfizer as the chief toxicologist. What does the toxicologist do? They look at the safety, I guess. Yes, absolutely. And it depends very much in which position you are.

You start with treating animals. with new compounds in order to make sure that these compounds before they go into men do not show toxicity that are not acceptable. It depends, of course, very much on the compound. If you're treating, if you're searching for a anti-cough medicine, then the side effects must be really disappeared, or it must really be avoided. Whereas if you are searching for an anti-cancer compound,

it is clear that the number of and the severity of the side effects may be much more important and acceptable because these people are fighting for their life. Whereas for an anti-calf medicine, that's comfort. I see, yes. Yes. At the beginning of my career, I was myself working with animals,

in order to make sure that the compounds were not toxic. And later on, especially at the end with Pfizer, I was more in a managerial position, and I coordinated the work in the institute. I had an institute with 150 people of whom about a third were scientists and the other people were technicians. About how long were you there from what dates? From 2001 to 2008.

And I ended my career there because Pfizer had decided to close the site. I had to worry about toxicology anymore. I had too many laboratories for toxicology around the globe. And so the French laboratory was shut. So here in the United States, we have different procedures. of course, if it's a therapeutic versus a vaccine, different amounts of time, I guess, to take a look at both the safety and the efficacy of that.

But what were the procedures in Europe, for example? Were they different than the U.S.? No, the procedures are not different in Europe or in Australia or whatsoever, because the companies always want to have the global market. And therefore, they have to follow the international. national guidelines. In former times, every country had its own guidelines and that was a nuisance because if you wanted to sell your compound in the United States, you had also

to follow the FDA guidelines. And so the community of scientific community, not only in the pharmaceutical industry, they put their knowledge together and they created internationally acceptable guidelines such as the ICH guidelines international consortium of harmonization. If not, there are guidelines from the WHO, for instance, for vaccines, and they have been followed partly by Pfizer and biotech, but there are other guidelines specialized that we follow for the FDA, for instance, regarding pregnant women and young individuals. Yeah, and that was kind of the concerns about pregnant women being given vaccines. Everything has kind of been eradicated.

Pretty much it was on the way to doing that before we actually had the COVID vaccines as well, wasn't it? They were really easing up on those restrictions, weren't they? Yes. Whatsoever compound, be it a chemical compound or a vaccine, there was a golden rule which said, you never really never treat a pregnant woman with a new compound and this has completely been forgotten yes it has it truly is amazing and it happened so rapidly i remember how they were pushing it heavily towards pregnant women it's like wait a minute the narrative that we heard was that this was just affecting older people and now you're pushing it for pregnant women it's crazy

yeah yeah that is interesting now you know one of the things Of course, I really indelibly etched into my memory was Donald Trump saying how he was ordering the FDA. And he's talked about this subsequently. He said, yeah, they were taking too long. And I told him, you get that done right away or you're out of there. And that was the threat that he made publicly at the time. He made that to the head of the FDA. And he boasted about it afterwards.

And so I guess the question is, you know, when we look at the rules, you're talking about international set of rules. I don't know what the, you know, if I guess because it was approved by the FDA and the U.S., did that help to move it with the international rules, or did they just waive all that because the so-called emergency? It was all more or less going with the same speed. And in the United States, there was no approval in an ordinary way. It was an emergency use application.

authorization, which meant that for the duration of the PREP Act, this compound could be used. And whenever the PREP Act would end, then this use authorization would also be terminated. And it's interesting to see that the PREP Act will survive until the end of 2009. So, there are many years ahead. And interestingly, and I was really set up. that Kennedy did not do what he had promised, namely, to take these vaccines, these messenger RNA vaccines of the market. On the contrary, he declared them ordinary vaccines.

So that it's now the doctor who has to decide whether he wants to inject them or not. Yeah, and here we have this law that gives them legal immunity for vaccine damages for children. It's one of the reasons many of us believed that they pushed it to get it authorized for children so they could get that same kind of immunity. How do you see that in terms of legal immunity? Well, this is a relatively long story. This possibility to get out of the responsibility for its own products started with the vaccinations of children in the 70s and 80s, when the pharmaceutical industry told the president, if you don't take this birth,

burden off our shoulders, we will get punk wrapped. So I think it was, which president was it? It was Reagan. Reagan, yeah. Reagan said, okay, now it's this state of the country that will take over these responsibilities and the cost for helping the people. The same thing doesn't hold true in Europe. In Europe, normally the project holder is responsible and will remain responsible.

But there is a clause in the European purchasing contract with Pfizer, which says that, well, the company does not have the responsibility for damage, only if there is willful misconduct. Willful misconduct, that's very difficult to prove because it's an act or omission taken intentionally to achieve a wrongful purpose, knowingly without legal or factual justification and in disregard of known or obvious risk. So get that so that great harm can happen. And this, to prove this will be very difficult. So, in fact, fact, the FISA will most probably not be held accountable in the European community, as long as we cannot prove that they knew exactly what they were doing and that they were

doing willful misconduct. It's a very dirty game from my perspective. Yes. And of course, as all this was happening, there was a report that came out with an industry, trade publication, stat news. I don't know if you're familiar with that or not. But they put out information saying that there was, I forget what the three countries were now, but one of them, they were all in South America.

And because everybody needed to have this vaccine for their citizens or there would basically be a no travel zone, they were essentially blackmailed by Pfizer to say that if you don't give us immunity, talk about willful negligence. you know, they typically had the kind of immunity because it was a rushed emergency situation, but they said we want additional immunity against negligence in terms of manufacturing and other issues, very extensive. And they said, and we want to have collateral for that. We want you to give us some collateral that is outside of your country. And it was really amazing. Are you familiar with that? No. It was reported in that news, but it was, yeah, they were talking about

Some of the people come in on and they said, well, they want like embassies or something as collateral that are outside of the country because they were worried that they were going to find some kind of maybe willful misconduct there. I don't know. But before we move on from what is normal in terms of the childhood vaccine and stuff like that, how does a childhood vaccine schedule differ in Europe to the United States? It's quite a few less, isn't it? I didn't get your question. The required childhood vaccine schedule. I mean, we have a vaccine schedule where we have a lot of different diseases that the children are vaccinated for, and they do it repeatedly. I mean, we have, you know, several different doses of the same vaccine.

What is it like in Europe? Is it like that? It's less frequent, the vaccination of children, but still, it's most probably too much, especially under the discussion about all. autism, and this is coming up. I think we have not more than 12 or 15 obligatory vaccinations and children, but this may still be too much. We know, and it has been proven, that autism is increasing in a traumatic way because we inject the children at very young age frequently.

and if you challenge the immune system in such a way, you must expect side effects, especially if the children develop fever, and all this happens also in the brain area. So if you have fever, you get seizures, and you may have an outcome that is equivalent to autism. And in countries or in areas, even in the United States, for instance, among the Amish,

who are not really fans of vaccination, you have a much lower level of a number of autistic children. Yes, yes. Yeah, we had a situation here in Tennessee. I've talked about a couple of times. We had some family that moved to Tennessee because they wanted to homeschool their kids and some other things like that.

And then they got a divorce. And as part of the divorce proceedings, the wife's mother knew that the judge was a big fan of vaccination and told the judge, these kids have not been vaccinated. He said, well, I think that's child abuse. He said, whoever wants to agree to get their kid caught up on the vaccine schedule gets custody of them. So she said, I'll do it. And she took them out. They gave the three kids, the older daughter didn't get all the vaccines at once because she'd already had a reaction to it. They gave the two younger boys the vaccines to catch up all at once. And they both immediately

went into the intensive care unit and were there for many days. The youngest one was there for the longest amount of time. And after he got out, he is so severely autistic, he has to wear a diaper. I mean, he's just in communicato. And that happened instantly just as they gave them all those catch-up vaccines. And I guess that's my next question to you.

As a toxicologist, were there ever any test in terms of the cumulative effect, one vaccine with another, or the fact that they put in adjuvants in the vaccine to motivate the immune system? to react to it. Is there any testing that it's typically done in the past that would look at the cumulative effect or the interaction between these different vaccines and adjuvants? As far as I know, I mean, we have to distinguish between clinical trials and preclinical or toxicology trials. The only trial in rats that was performed with the vaccine of

anti-COVID, that was a vaccine. That was a trial where the, the, The mother rats were treated not during pregnancy, and thereafter, when they had delivered, the youngs are observed. And normally, among these young pups, you have also to perform behavioral tests. But they were not done. They just were doing an auditory test and an ocular test. But the behavioral test and the learning test and all of that was not done. Would we have been able to discover this?

That's another question, but it was just omitted. And as far as I know, but I'm really not a specialist in clinical experiments, I do not believe that these compounds are ever treated against another compound or for accumulation. And another important fact that it's lacking with the compound of Pfizer and Biontech, that is they have never tested for interference between the vaccine, other vaccines, or other medications. Because as you said, at the very beginning, it was very clear that this was a vaccination, especially in order to save or to help elderly people. And elderly people very often take X different compounds in parallel every day. So it is interesting to see, does the vaccine have an impact on the other compounds that I'm taking?

I myself have to take an anti-coagulant and an anti-aritmic. So it would have been interesting to see what the interactions are. But they said we don't need that. it was really it was like a Swiss cheese more holes more holes in the dossier than than tissue that's right it truly is it truly is crazy what was allowed but of course we have seen that's first time we saw the emergency used in such an extensive way but that basically has become the favorite governing tactic of our president right now he declares everything to be an emergency so that he removes any guidelines I mean we had emergency

is about tariffs, for example. And so it doesn't have to be something that even you could argue is a serious matter. He just declares an emergency arbitrarily and sweeps aside all guidelines and restrictions. But going back to this, when you're talking about the interaction between different things, that reminds me, what about a placebo? I mean, did they run a test when they look at, let's say, the efficacy of it? What do they use for a placebo? Do they use other vaccines?

They could use other vaccines. That's even a standard in the development of vaccines. You do not test them against placebo. However, in the context of the Pfizer compound, I believe that this was placebo. They at least called it placebo. Was it another vaccine? I just don't know.

But it would have been normal to test against placebo, which means not a solution with aluminum or all the other ingredients, but really an inert and neutral. Yeah, something like a saline solution or something like that. I seem to have seen, I don't know if it was COVID or if it was something else, and when they would run the test, the placebo was, for example, the meningitis vaccine with all the adjuvants in it and everything else. Yeah, it's much easier to compare with another vaccine,

because you can say, oh, it's not worse than the other one. But it doesn't prove that it's better. That's right. It doesn't prove it's safe, does it? So we've seen everything just kind of swept aside in an emergency. We already had a questionable series of tests that would be done on this. As a matter of fact, when we talk about the testing of therapeutics and of vaccines here in the U.S. I know the three phases that they go through of testing, the first part of it is really kind of focused on the type of

toxicology exclusively, then as they start to test individuals if it's a therapeutic and they're going to be addressing the condition, the individuals or people have that condition that they're giving you the therapeutic for. And then they look to see if it helps them. You know, that's the basic thing. But if you're doing that with a vaccine, I know that when this was happening, there were a lot of people who were very afraid of the emergency that had been created in the media. And so they were volunteering to be a challenge tester. And I recall when they were talking about that, they said, well, we don't do that. That's unethical.

We're not going to vaccinate you for disease and then expose you to the disease and see if you catch it, which is really, I guess, kind of the whole point of a vaccine, isn't it? At least it used to be. Yes. Yeah. And there is a special point that is at the end of this phase three study, they proposed to all the placebo control people to take the vaccine. And with that, they destroyed immediately the whole control group,

which is fantastic, I mean, unbelievable. Is that something that was never done before as well? I think that hasn't happened before, because they said this disease is so dramatic, it is unethical, not to give them the controls, the chance to be vaccinated and to be protected. So this was completely falsified as a feeling of ethics. For me, we are talking about a mafia.

And for me, the mafia is not just the pharmaceutical industry. On the contrary, the pharmaceutical industry, from my point of view, is a rather tiny part of this mafia. For me, the really relevant parts, they are in a much higher level. It's the governments, it's the military. It is organizations such as WHO, UNO, NATO. They are all involved. I agree.

I agree. The tech giants, the foundations of Gates, Gaviw, CEP, Soros, because they are all earning money with that. And for them, it's important that the money flow is great. And they also do the same thing with the military industry. So they're just investing, making money. It's not important where it comes from. And also the climate policy is involved in this.

And so this mafia is only around making a lot of money, and it's a web of criminal interests, and it's at high levels of the state and government and of the private sector. And here I would like to remind of a word that President Eisenhower said in 2016, when he gave his good... farewell speech. He said, pay attention to the military and industrial complex. They will take over the power. And that's exactly what we have today. That is a very important message. And I'm glad that you brought all that stuff in. It is much bigger than just the vaccine companies. As you

point out, it is a giant web of institutions that are out there. It's a business model. Yeah, it is. It's a business model just like the military industrial complexes. And, you know, the people who are designing weapons for the military industrial complex, they're not really concerned about anybody that gets hurt with any of this stuff. And I think that's one of the things that we certainly, they made no secret about it here in the United States, actually bragged about Operation Warp Speed being tied in with the military. But I think that lesson has been lost on a lot of people. And, of course, the connections with DARPA in terms of developing the MRNA stuff is also very concerning. Did you talk specifically about

the unique issues of MRNA? Well, this is the point, the crucial point in the whole thing, because one thing is the COVID-19 is not over. They are still using this vaccine, and it has to do with the dangers that are coming from the manufacturing procedure. And you must probably know that many compounds are in the pipelines of the companies that are against all sorts of different diseases and they are all based on this messenger RNA technology. And the dangerous thing is when you develop your compound in the preclinical phase or in the clinical phase before launch, you use a very pure DNA, which you can synthesize with BCR technology. And from this template, you translate the information for the messenger RNA.

So you work with very pure material, but this is quite time-consuming and very expensive. So at the end of the development before launch, they had to find a way to produce the vaccines in a much easier and quicker way. And what did they do? They used the information for the spike protein and injected them it into the DNA of E. coli. So into the DNA of a bacterium. And this bacterium develops very, very rapidly.

Within hours and days, you can produce enormous amounts of what you can use afterwards for the vaccination. But, and here's the danger, you cannot avoid completely that parts of the bacterial DNA gets into the jab. So you cannot filter it out. And you know that the messenger RNA is packed into nanolipids of very small fat bullets. And these bullets contain also DNA from the bacterium. And this goes into human cells. and if the DNA of the bacterium gets in a human cell, it can pass into the nucleus of the cell,

and there it can really create a disaster. And that's a possibility to explain the cancer cases that we currently have in a dramatic increase in cancer, the so-called turbo cancers, which you cannot any longer. Very often you cannot treat them because the onset is so wrong, rapid, they pass the first stages of carcinogenicity and go immediately into metastasing processes which cannot be controlled. And that is something that has been pursued and warned against very early on by Professor

Dalgash from England. He said in 2021, pay attention, we risk of having cancer. The other point is, despite the fact that there are much less injections today, we see that the fertility goes down, continuously goes down. Of course, everybody will say, yeah, that started already with the introduction of the contraceptical pill in the 70s and 80s. There is a tendency for lower fertility, but now with the vaccinations, it's dramatically going up. or if you like it's going down the fertility and therefore there are risks that we do not manage and that may be prolonged so with the end of the vaccination period in the context of COVID there may still be cases where the people die or are infertile or other side effects appear despite the fact that the

injections were long ago. So it's like a Daemocles sword that is hanging about the people, especially those people who are constantly getting boostered. Oh yeah. Oh yeah. So it's not over. And the other thing is that I said, they are having projects for many different diseases where they want also to use this new technology. And this technology is intrinsically, Dangerous. Yes, I called up from the very beginning a genetic code injection because, you know, if you're going to bring in something, maybe, you know, you understand more about the mechanics of it than I do. But the way it was explained and the way it was on Moderna's site was that we're going, you know, this is the messenger MRNA that does copying and that type of thing. We're going to turn your body into a manufacturing facility for the active part of the ingredient.

I said, okay, where's the off switch? I think to know how this turns off And for a lot of people it hasn't turned off That's part of the issue I think No One has seen that even after three years The spike protein is still available in tissues It's very difficult to degrade this

To metabolize it So we were given a lot of false information It didn't stay in the muscle where it was injected It did not disappear within a couple of days in the bloodstream, even the messenger RNA, which was more or less a modified messenger RNA, the modification meant that this substance would remain much longer in action in the body. That's what's the modification. And therefore, we were told almost that was all junk that we were told it. There were so many lies that, um, that, um,

But the people didn't understand or the others who were critical, they were just shut down. They were no longer invited. They couldn't publish. There was some sort of censorship. And therefore, the existence of many doctors and scientists was just destroyed. They were just cut out. And so nobody dared any longer to say something. and if you can't publish and if you know that you can go even to jail,

if you have children and you have to nourish your family, then you most probably would say, okay, I'll wait until it will be over. And it were mostly people like me after retirement who spoke up. Oh, thank you for doing that. I appreciate that. Yes. It truly is amazing.

When you look at it, when we're talking about this MRNA stuff, how radically different it was. from anything else. Again, a compound is something that's very different. You would see that happening in these other drugs or vaccines or something like that. But this going in with an MRA approach is something that was really radically new and then totally untested. And yet when Donald Trump comes back in on his second day of, actually his first day, it was the day after he got sworn in, the very first thing he does is say we're going to partner with Oracle and we're going to have AI design custom MRNA for you.

for particular diseases. And so they're doubling and tripling down on this. They're accelerating it. They're not even cautious about it anymore, are they? It would really be good if Donald Trump and also Robert Kennedy said regarding the childhood vaccinations, yes, we stop this because they have said it several times already. They have even tried to introduce a reduction of these obligatory vaccinations.

But they most probably knew that this would not be accepted by the judges and so on. So they lost. And we are back in the United States at an enormous number of vaccinations. If they really were interested in the health of the youth, they would just say, do not vaccinate children before three years of age. Because then you would cut out the age where the brain is very much deviant. developing and is very sensitive to disturbances, fever and other things. So this would really be good, but well, he only sees business opportunities. Yes, yes.

And of course, when we look at it, you know, you're talking about the mafia being a major network of all kinds of interest, not just pharmaceutical company, but all these other entities and institutions out there that feed off of this. But another part of this, of course, that we can't forget about. is the media and how they have been absolutely controlled in this country since the mid-1990s when they started allowing them to do the ask-your-doctor commercials do they do that in the in Europe it's not in the same way but the media very much involved in the the propaganda and fear-mongering procedures so they are one of them the major institutions that

are responsible for this disaster. Yes. And I would also like to mention that if the doctors, I mean, these are people who have studied for 10 years and then they have that professional experience, if they stood up in 2021 and said, we don't inject this. It was over.

But they didn't. On the contrary. I mean, and the few who did got purged here in the U.S. as well. just like everything else. In Europe, in Europe as well. Very sad. It is, it is.

And of course, not just the media, but of course, in the United States, we have the hospitals run by major corporations, and that was one of the reasons why this was happening. It was all fueled by money out of Washington. They gave them bonuses to do whatever they wanted. And then after they got them hooked on that, they said, well, now if you don't do the next thing, you're not going to, we're going to take that money that you got used to away from you. I mean, that is a classic organized crime tactic too as well. So it truly is made. So what do we do about this? You know, we've been critiquing what happened with all this stuff. What, as somebody who has

worked on toxicology for has a lot of experience with this, are there any things that you would suggest that need to be done? Of course, I think at the top of the list would be informed consent and free speech. But what else would you have in terms of reform? A very, very, Very important aspect is what we are doing this evening, informing people and waking people up. I mean, we will not be able to convince the pro-vaxxers that this is dangerous. It's like a religion. They adhere to it and they will not change their mind. But everybody else who doesn't have a very firm conviction about vaccination, he should wake up and he should be told don't get vaccinated again,

and obviously not with the vaccines that are built on this MRNA technology. I mean, there are many vaccinations since many years that may have a positive influence. One can have a doubt about others because many vaccines, were introduced when the disease or the problem was almost eradicated. And the pro-vaxxers obviously say, oh, look, we have eradicated the disease, which is in many cases absolutely not true.

But there are most probably interesting and important vaccinations, but one should in each case see, together with one's doctor, is this really important for me? I have, everybody has a system that fights germs. So our immune system since millions of years keeps us in a healthy state. So why don't we stimulate our immune system so that we can overcome normal infections? There may be infections that need really a vaccination, but in most of the cases, we should just rely on our immune system.

should eat correctly and so on. But this is more a sociological question. In many countries, also in Europe, the people just don't eat healthy food. And this may hinder our immune system to function normally. But I think that's one of the big things when I looked at all this. You know, of course, the science of virology, I put it science in quotes, telling us that, you know,

this is the way this works. We're going to introduce something here. to train your immune system, right? This is going to simulate the disease and train your immune system. And then we had Fauci come out and break the fourth wall, if you will, and talk to regularly the audience and say, well, no, natural, if you've had the disease,

natural immunity doesn't work. And it's like, how could that possibly be true? That's like saying, even if you've been in 50 dog fights as a pilot, you've got to go back to flight school and learn this stuff. We're not going to let you fly again unless you do that. Well, I don't want to comment on Mr. Fauci. That's the subject of another book, right?

Yeah, he's currently the scapegoat after having to be in the hero. I agree. But he's really a little figure in this whole game, only it helps to deviate the view regarding the really responsible people. I agree. I agree, and I've said that myself, they make him the scapegoat so that everybody is, turned on him and they don't see the bigger picture that you're talking about, which is the mafia that is out there. I agree. They personalized it for him because he's elderly. He's been given a pardon by Biden. He was given a commendation by Trump. So he's pretty much a safe guy. They know that

they can heap the scorn on him and not even he is going to have to really worry about anything happening to him. This was done in a very, very interesting way. I mean, why has he been pardoned the time after 2014. In 2014, his institute in AIED started

financially supporting gain of function. Gain of function. So he is personally responsible from 2014 for the support of what finally ended

with SARS-CoF2 and the disease that we went through. So, yes, 2014 is a logical date from which he became unattable. I remember when that started back in 2014, there was an excellent series from USA Today by a reporter named Allison Young, and she was talking about what was happening at these biosafety level three and four labs and have there been one accident after the other people working on diseased animals and they escape out into the wild or you have exposure different workers who are there and everybody started questioning what we were doing in terms of gain of function.

Why are we doing this? What are we really gaining and what is the risk that we have here? At that point in time, they said, okay, stop the gain of function stuff. And Fauci and his boss, Francis Collins, continued to fund that research in a couple of different areas like the ones that you mentioned there. And when they produced their results, there were a lot of people. So, you were supposed to stop that. So, well, we just determined that we would do it on our own.

And so, again, there's no controls that we see in the American system for trying to stop this. Even when you're told and you have your funding cut for that, they find another way to continue on with it anyway. And so it really is laid at the, I don't know, Francis Collins, who is head of the NIH. know if he got any kind of immunity or not, but it seems like he'd have just as much culpability. But nobody talks about him because he's this nice guitar playing, singing scientist, I guess, that's out there. So he avoids the scrutiny that people have poured onto Fauci. But everything about this is just so far out of whack. It truly is amazing. The fact that we've got,

and you point out in your book, you talk a course about myocarditis. How could we not talk about this, we're not talking about myocarditis. These are things that I'd never, ever heard of, but they became household words. And people might want to say, well, why do we have that as a household war now? Why do we have a situation where children who are going to participate in sports have an electrocardiogram before they participate in sports? Why is that the new normal? And everybody just goes along with it.

It's absolutely insane, isn't it? That's again how and where we are obliged to inform, people and to wake them up. There should really be something like a revolution 200 some years ago in France where we really stand up and say, no, stop. That's enough. I mean, we will not be able if there, we cannot build on some heroes who will speak up. The people have to get up and say, no, I don't let my children be.

injected. I agree. Fine. Yes. I hope people can, I hope your book gets a lot of traction because it is something that is really needed. And people need to see the bigger picture here. As you point out, focusing on Fauci or focusing on Francis Collins or focusing on Trump

or Biden, that doesn't change anything because everybody's got their own personal baggage. People need to see that it is an institutional network that is out there. And it has taken over massive sectors of so many areas of our society we're talking about the military or the press or the corporations or the multinational NGOs and all these other things they're all working together and it is such a huge problem that you're right unless people rise up from the grassroots enough of us it'll never stop

until we've said that we've had enough and i guess the equivalent would be uh let them let them inject them RNA right it's uh yeah it's that maria internet you see i also thank think during the development of this vaccine inside of Pfizer, the toxicologists, did they have a say there? Did they oversee what was done? Did they comment it? Most probably not. They were most probably not involved in the development, in the toxicological development, because there was not much. And even Dr. Burla, who is a veterinarian, so he should have understood what was going on,

he should have asked the people in the laboratories, what have we done in order to make this compound safe? No, nobody asked these questions. And the people at Biointech, and that was the beginning of this, they were just not qualified from my perspective. They contracted the studies, the few studies. They contracted them out, and they must probably did not know what to tell the contractor,

so it was done in the usual way. nothing special, but they knew that billions of people would be injected. So there should have been an alert, a real alert, in order to make these compounds safe. No, nothing. Of course, farming it out to somebody, I guess that gives them some plausible deniability, as the CIA would say, right? Yeah, it's not as those other guys. We can point fingers in different directions, can we?

Well, you know, one of the things also that stuck out to me about all this was, there were several European members of Parliament. You probably recall this. They said, we want to see, you know, the reports that you've got and the information. And they fought and fought and fought and fought as members of the European Parliament. Finally, they got some documents and they held a press conference. They said, this is what we got. And it was all redacted like it was something coming from the national security state.

They have stonewalled politicians even on this who want to have that kind of information, haven't they? Yes. That's right. And it has, I mean, we know everything because some people just got these information out of the companies, but nothing happened. Yeah.

Now there may be a beginning of progress, namely Biointech, the partner of Pfizer, was ordered by the court to give the information, all the information on side effects to the victims. So this may be a first step in the right direction. And where did that happen? In Germany. Germany.

In Germany. But as Bayanthek and Pfizer are working together, there will also be an impact on Pfizer. And here in France, there is a case where a private person is asking information regarding the safety of the compounds and because he has lost his wife by a very rare disease, Kreuzfeld-Jacob,

disease of the brain, and he says, my wife developed this a couple of weeks after the injection. And well, the court at the beginning said, well, this disease develops over many years so the injection cannot be, responsible. But if, and it was after the second injection, if this injection creates a cytokin

storm, then in the brain several areas may be attacked and this may result in this disease, which normally develops very, very slowly. And we also have now cases of Alzheimer's or Parkinson appearing in much younger people that are vaccinated. So there is a link, the biological link to the whole thing. And I hope that we can go on and can at least push the companies to care for the victims. This is for me a very important point, also in my book. These people, these are hundreds of thousands of people who are left aside. and they are very often unable to keep on studying to do their jobs and so on.

They are just forgotten. And it would be really normal to take at least the part of what the companies have earned to help these people because most of them have to pay for their medical treatments themselves. They are ruined very quickly. And as a very important point, many young. people with after the vaccination develop side effects that forces them to ask for eutanization they go into Switzerland and get a deadly injection has increased tremendously and this this can cannot just not this cannot go on

yeah terrific the responsibilities have to be taken over and it's not mr. Fauci it is on different levels of this criminal pyramid. I agree, I agree. Yeah, we're talking about people who have been injured and their life has been changed. One of the individuals that I interviewed, a couple of years into this, had been a orthopedic surgeon.

And after the injection, he just started trembling and he, of course, couldn't be a surgeon anymore. And he went to one doctor after the other and they would look at him and say, I can't do anything. You know, they'd get very uncomfortable about it. And he said, finally I got to a guy and he said, well, I think we know what caused this, but we're not going to talk about that.

I'll try to do what I can to help you. I mean, the fear that it engendered into people, the fear and intimidation is really something that you expect to see out of a totalitarian society. And that's what this mafia has imposed upon us, isn't it? Yes, absolutely right. It is crazy. Well, I'm glad that you wrote this book, and I hope that it is widely passed around,

and that people will understand this and pass this on, maybe gift it to your friends. It would be a great way to do this. You've got to get that information out there one way or the other. And if we don't get that out there, certainly nothing will happen. So first of all, people need to understand what has happened. And we've got too many people who are still in the dark because they have been lied to. They've been deceived by this mafia that is out there. So we've got to break that ignorance before we can have any kind of light.

and then it'll be difficult enough after we wake people up to do something about it. But nothing is going to happen if people don't understand what is going on with it. Thank you so much for coming on with us and talking about this book. And thank you for being honest and taking an honest look at this. So we're talking to Helmut Sturts. And again, the book, as you see there, is the Vaccine Mafia. Thank you so much for joining us, sir. Thank you very much to giving me the theater here to talk about my book.

and about general aspects of this criminal. Criminal. It is very criminal, isn't it? Yeah. I'm really, I'm down. Yeah. And I thank you very much. And this is most probably the most important way of giving the information

because selling a couple of thousand books will not really help and push the information to the public. Well, if we can get that information, out there to people, maybe they'll go a little bit deeper, you know. I'd love to sell 330 million books in the United States, but this is probably an illusion. That's right. I mean, you should call it common sense. This is the kind of common sense that we need right now. You know, Thomas Payne pretty much had a book that was in the hand of every American at the time of the American Revolution. We need to win those hearts and minds. We need to wake people up to

the common sense. And it can be done with information because this whole thing has been, initiated and guarded by disinformation and by censorship and punishment of people who question it. And that was one of the things I said from the very beginning and throughout all of it. Science has never settled, is it? It's always questioning the conventional wisdom that moves science ahead. And it's about time we start to question that conventional wisdom, I think. Yes. Yes.

Thank you very much. Thank you. Have a good day. The common man. They created common core to dumb down our children. They created common past to track and control us. Their commons project to make sure the commoners own nothing and the communist future. They see the common man is simple, unsophisticated, ordinary.

But each of us has worth and dignity created in the image of God. That is what we have in common. That is what they want to take away. Their most powerful weapons are isolation, deception, intimidation. They desire to know everything about us while they hide everything from us. It's time to turn that around and expose what they want to hide. Please share the information and links you'll find at the David Knight Show.com. Thank you for listening. Thank you for sharing. If you can't support us financially, please keep us in your prayers. TheDavidnightshow.com.