by Rhoda Wilson, Daily Expose:
The organisers of the international conference held in Stockholm, Sweden, cut off Dr. Astrid Stuckelberger’s microphone two-thirds of the way through her presentation. It was at the point Dr. Stuckelberger moved into discussing graphene oxide found in covid injection vials that she said her microphone was cut off.
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
Dr. Stuckelberger is a scientist, international health expert, author and public speaker. The international conference ‘Pandemic Strategies: Lessons and Consequences’ was held at the Stockholm Waterfront on 21-22 January 2023. A copy of the programme can be found HERE. Dr. Astrid Stuckelberger was allotted 40 minutes at the end of the second day to give her presentation.
Unfortunately, Dr. Stuckleberger’s presentation was cut short. She explained in a Telegram post:
Ryan Cole encouraged by the organisers stepped up on stage to stop my conference, to discredit me on nanotech/oxyde graphene…cut my talk off 15 minutes, even cut my microphone and said it was because of time …. but then they took 5 minutes to say there was no oxyde graphene in the vials … they also tried to censor me during the debate that followed…
Her presentation was titled ‘From Biology to Population: Evidenced-Based Public Health Situation Analysis, Lessons and Next Steps’. “Censorship occurred at point C when I presented the results of nanotech and oxyde graphene in the vials,” she said.
“[Below is] one of the slides that made them jump off their chairs,” Dr. Stuckelberger posted on her Telegram channel. “The slide that provoked the opposition of Ryan Cole, Sven Román & co in Stockholm on Sunday.”
After Dr. Stuckelberger’s presentation, there was time allocated for a panel discussion. Dr. Ryan Cole, who had made a presentation in the morning, was not part of this panel. However, during the discussion, he jumped up onto the stage, took over the microphone and declared that in all the vials he had tested he had not found evidence of graphene oxide.
Dr. Glenn Dormer attended the conference. He stood up and yelled out in defence of Dr. Stuckelberger. According to Dr. Ana Maria Mihalcea, Dr. Dormer said: “[Dr. Stuckelberger] is risking her life to tell more truth than we have heard in the last 2 days in this congregation … They had to have a reason why they had to demic her after only 40 [minutes].” Which is slightly confusing as 40 minutes was Dr. Stuckelberger’s allotted time. Some accounts state Dr. Dormer said “they had to demic her after only 30 [minutes].“ Unfortunately, we weren’t able to find Dr. Dormer’s original statement to verify which version is correct.
In the video below, Dr. Dormer recalled what Dr. Stuckelberger revealed in her presentation before she was cut off.
We hope that the organisers of the event and Dr. Ryan Cole will explain why Dr. Stuckelberger’s presentation was curtailed. It is important to hear all sides of a story before making a judgement. We have not seen an explanation from Dr. Cole or the organisers and we would appreciate it if any of our readers come across one to post a link to it in the comments section below this article.
Sage’s Newsletter noted remarks from Dr. Meryl Nass and Dr. Jessica Rose who both felt that Dr. Stuckelberger’s presentation had not been stopped early. Dr. Rose said that Dr. Stuckelberger in fact ran over the time allocated.
Until the video of her presentation is released, we are unable to gauge for ourselves. If Dr. Stuckelberger’s and Dr. Dormer’s account of events is correct then we need to face up to the reality of censorship occurring within the freedom movement.
We do not agree with curtailing or controlling information scientists and researchers want to present to the world. Scientists and researchers will frequently disagree with each other. These disagreements are healthy in that scientists are challenged to relook at the evidence they’ve found and retest their hypotheses. The scientific method depends on being able to freely debate and we should all be able to rise above personal attacks, curtailing freedom of speech or gaslighting to shut down differences in opinion. Where there are differences, we want to see an open debate.
