ATS News: Swine Flu Conspiracies with Dr. Christopher "Kit" Green

Well-done, ATS.

Bill and Mark, it was great to see that your team was in my hometown of Detroit [R.I.P.]. I am familiar with the Detroit Medical Center, and it is, as Dr. Green, stated, a massive hospital system.

As a former film student at the University of Michigan [Go Blue], I am also aware of the preponderance of outstanding health care in SE Michigan.

While I found Dr. Green's testimony riveting, and certainly find him credible and honest [at the risk of sounding redundant], I can only wonder how much he doesn't know, or fails to accept, due to his allegiances to both the AMA and the CIA.

That said, the good doctor, like any man of science, leans heavily on hard data. Is the data legit? Is some of it suppressed or modified to fit a pre-formatted conclusion? I cannot say. Again, I believe the man believes what he eloquently conveys.

ATS News, if you guys are ever in Arizona [my present location], please contact me. I will gladly provide any assistance I can on your next piece.

Best regards.

God! I'm so sick of hearing about bloody swine flu!

Just a couple thoughts:

The man was clearly reading from a page of prepared responses. He looked down at the page constantly.

At times he was very rigid as someone in the intelligence community would know to be, as body language gives away a lot more than the words spoken.

What such rigidity would try to hide is the unconscious confirmation or denial of one's statements. For example, when you make a statement and shake your head as your are saying it, you are basically saying I'm saying this but don't believe it. And the opposite is also true, if you make a statement and nod your head as you say it then subconsciously you are supporting it.

Watch it again with the idea that when he shakes his head he is unconsciously saying "NO" and when he nods he is unconsciously saying "YES".

Then decide how open he's being...

All thanks to the ATS powers that be for making this happen. All input is informative. Responsibility is within you...

Click here for more information.

I felt the questions raised in the interview were correctly chosen because of their importance. The questions are important not only because of their downplay by the media, but also because of lack of attention by peers (after all, they have their own lives to live). In other words, the questions don't require much logic to conceptualize but require much skill to articulate.

Springer, you did great as an interviewer. I didn't see any flaws in your role. In fact, I think your business attitude is what made Dr. Green so trustful of our intentions.

I was impressed with Dr. Green's credentials. In fact, I was actually expecting Dr. Green to suggest that the virus mutated in Ukraine because it was originally intended to be used as a Cold War weapon.

My other favorite videos have been presentations, interviews, and documentaries. I hope to continue to enjoy videos from ATS such as this interview. I still feel that ATS News is a strong aspect of ATS. But combined with interviews such as this one it is even stronger. While ATS News brings the issues to one's attention, interviews such as this one incorporate them with each other.

reply to post by nightmarehalo


Good interviewer? Jury still out. Horrible interview. I would like someone to relate one piece of new information or relative information to the subject that this man had to offer in relation to anything in his babbling. I like the word relate. I'm not scared. I'm just quick.

Originally posted by MOTT the HOOPLE
God! I'm so sick of hearing about bloody swine flu!

I hear you. A bit like everything now is measured in CO2.

And in a local paper today we were informed that the H1N1 flu is drastically on the remission in Denmark. We are told that the Danish government now has huge amounts of Tamiflu in surplus.

We are about 5 mio people in Denmark (plus some ekstra)

We are told that 16 people (sixteen) have died two of whom were vaccinated.

And then the crunch...

The number 16 is compared to deaths of ordinary flu each year.

16 H1N1
1.000+ from ordinary flu.

And in Denmark only few in certain risk groups have been vaccinated.

Somewhat out of proportion when we think of the hype.

Wonder if someone gained from blowing this out of proportions???



[edit on 13.12.2009 by HolgerTheDane]

First i like to compliment the ATS team for this well presented video content, thank you.

I am most likely a way below B2 source but here she goes anyway, maybe some other below B2 people like to read it.

Dr. Green seems very troubled for some reason.
Why would this be, for me it seems relevant to his answers
My first impression is that he might have come across the information presented i the questions only very recently and does not want to believe any of it to be true.
Maybe he is so shocked by the news and its implications that he is in almost complete denial

My second take on that would be more dark.
Has he been told to keep the real information to himself ?
And if not to lose everything he has.
If i only look at the doctors face this could be true, the man looks very disturbed by something.

In the first video part i as hoping for him to be true but after watching the rest of the video's i am not sure anymore.

It seems that this doctors career is mostly dependent on the powers that are in the middle of this possible conspiracy and his conclusions seem to be based on information that is structured and filtered by these same powers.

Some of the statements he makes are quite weak.
The pharma industry is too stupid for a conspiracy on this scale !?
I find that hard to believe with the billions profit this industry makes every year.

And he claims that all the people he knows in this industry are to nice to pull of something this "evil"
Is that not what we hear all the time after some serious crimes being found out that people could not have imagined this person to be that evil, and yet, on a regular base, they are.

So to give the doctor the benefit of the doubt i think he is in complete denial on this subject, and i think this mainly because of his body language and answers that go all over the place.

When i write this there is a picture of the doctor on both sides of this forum and if i look at the picture on the right i see my conclusions confirmed.
This man is in denial or has been threatened.

Springer, I think you did just great. It isn't easy to interview someone, and you were spectacular! Great job all around on the interview. Excellent!!

Just yesterday I received an automated call from the county. It was telling me that free swine flu shots will be given out at the high school between certain times. They ended by saying, "Be Healthy."

I think I'll just stick to what the good doctor says. I'll be very strict about the rules. Yes, strict is what I need to be. Thank you again for the interview.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I remain puzzled about why ATS chose this man, someone whose entire life has been devoted to supporting the PTB, for this interview? What does that say about ATS management?

My conclusion is that this interview is ATS's way of helping TPTB to pull the wool tighter over our eyes. Whether that was the original intention or not, I do not know, but that is how it looks.

In future interviews it would be helpful for ATS to begin with disclosure of any prior relationships and clearly explain the rationale or objectives for the session.

Otherwise, are we expected to simply absorb the message of the presentation without question?

Edit to add: And "presentation" is what this comes across as; not an interview. A predetermined set of questions with well thought out prepared ahead of time answers -- more akin to propaganda than cutting edge journalism. How many times did he say "That was a very good question."


[edit on 12/13/2009 by wayno]

[edit on 12/13/2009 by wayno]

reply to post by wayno


Wayno you seem to misunderstand the venue that is "ATSnews". We seek to bring the concepts, ideas, comments, questions and concerns of the membership of AboveTopSecret.com to a wider audience via video.

With regard to "disclosure" of the people being interviewed, Dr. Green openly "discloses" his background in the first few minutes of the interview.

In response to Dr. Green's disclosure of his "past relationships" I even asked him, point blank, why the membership of ATS should listen to him or trust anything he says... I don't know what more we could do along the lines of "disclosure of past relationships".

Regarding his "reading from prepared answers", that's just false. He had notes and was checking his facts from his notes.

Regarding "prepared questions", I reviewed what the members of ATS had been discussing about the flu and did, in fact, prepare questions based on what I believed the membership would ask if they were in the room.

Now I have a question for you Wayno, who would you like us to interview?

Springer...

Edit to add: I want to make it clear that ATSnews will ALWAYS seek out people on BOTH sides of any issue we decide to look into.

We will never disregard or ignore one group or "side" simply because the majority (or very vocal minority) of our members dislike, distrust, or just don't understand them.


[edit on 12-13-2009 by Springer]

reply to post by Springer


The relationship issue I was trying to get at was the one between him and you or Bill; ie, was there a pre-existing one? Did you pick him because he is a friend, a colleague, or just got his name out of the telephone book? I'm not after anything personal or confidential, just some basics to allow me to put the interview into context.

The overwhelming majority of this doctor's views turned out to be on the same side as the WHO/CDC powers that are. Are you saying that you intend to interview someone from the other side of the issue as well? If so, then great.

I am not even a D5 on the scale of expertise on the subject. I have only been an avid reader of some the posts here on the subject of H1N1/the jab/the Ukraine. I think the subject is anything but clear cut. My opinions have changed or wavered regularly; even after listening to Dr. Green.

I ended up with a bunch of red flags because things seemed too calculated and one sided. Perhaps that is just the way the doctor works; moreso than anything to do with your efforts.

By the way, the only place I have any A1 credentials is in "reading" people. I worked for more than 20 years as a social worker and got plenty of experience with people trying to pull one over. Usually the more educated they were, the worse it was. I'll admit, it's probably left me a bit jaded.

reply to post by AboveTopSecret.com


First, I want to say that the technical aspects of the interview/videos in general were top notch. It was both interesting and easy to watch. Mark did a good job in phrasing his questions and the doctor was clear and easy to understand in his answers. I would suspect the doctor knew the questions in advance and I have no problem with that.

Enough with the making nice. The problem I see with this interview is that Dr. Green is naïve and thinks that everyone in the medical/pharma industries have the same set of ethics he has. He has no proof of that. I do think that most people entering medicine do so with the same ethics as Dr. Green and most of the civilized world. That is a blanket statement and it would take but a few precisely positioned people in order to implement nefarious schemes within the confines of the existing world pharmaceutical and medical infrastructures. It did not take trained pilots and entire nations declaring war to bring down the Twin Towers. It took but a few men with ethics that differed from the majority. He admits that virus samples can and likely do get released but can not put together that samples could be "gathered" in much the same way by people that have the know how to use them and the alternative ethics that allow them to do so.

People with opposing ethics don't see their set of ethics as bad or evil. And so someone with a progressive socialist mind set for instance might think that middle-class people contribute too little to the world while consuming too much resources. That person might think that relieving the world of this middle layer of consumers is "ethical", good and the like. Thus they would not think of population reduction as bad or "evil" but in fact good for the world and thus would consider releasing a lethal virus or a tainted vaccine as ethical and serving the greater good.

This is a nice man that makes some rather mainstream arguments and I would have injected more pointed follow up questions into the interview. For example, how many people worldwide have contracted the "Swine Flu" specifically and how many have died from that specifically? What are the fatality estimates for any "flu" and how do these compare? The Dr. could not answer these questions with even a guesstimate. And so his recommendations for vaccination would be worthless adding to the mystique and media hype. I do realize that if Mark had been more pointed the interview might not have continued.

Like Wayno, I'm also interested in how ATS become aware of this guy's existence?

He clearly stated that he was a fan of ATS and that he frequented the message boards so did you seek out Dr. Green or did he contact you via his ATS membership, requesting an interview?

I find it very, very peculiar that someone of his professional involvement in the American Medical Association system would even be remotely interested in a REAL quest for the truth via uncovering conspiracies. This is further compounded by his admitted career involvement in the CIA; considering what exposures COULD be allowed from a practicing professional, he should be well aware.

By virtue of his existing career, he is forbidden from exposing any medical conspiracy whether he knows of one or not. His entirely career/livelihood depends on NOT contradicting the medical industry. This should be common knowledge to everyone. All doctors/dentists/health practitioners are forbidden (if they want to keep their license) from exposing or going against any AMA, FDA, ADA, CDC etc. etc. recommendations.

So the question remains, how legitimate could his claims be that he's interested in conspiracies? And if he actually was, how likely would it be that he would work to expose them?

Originally posted by 2compelled
reply to post by nightmarehalo

 

Good interviewer? Jury still out. Horrible interview. I would like someone to relate one piece of new information or relative information to the subject that this man had to offer in relation to anything in his babbling. I like the word relate. I'm not scared. I'm just quick.

You expect Dr. Green to be some kind of messiah that puts his career on the line by revealing brand new information/evidence that no one has heard of before. And you expect too much from ATS to be able to find such a person.

[edit on 12/13/2009 by nightmarehalo]

Dr. Green Responds to posts in this thread:

Dr. Green asked me to post this response on his behalf, the reason I am posting it rather than Kit himself is he doesn't have the free tiome needed to post back and forth with everyone who would ask or comment.

Springer...

"Comments on the Comments"

The discussion is excellent. Again, I understand folks thinking I am not as knowledgeable in the virology as one might like; I also agree that my approach to the Conspiracy issue is limited. It relates to what I know, I do not know what I do not know. That said, I have tried to be clear...if I think I am in a position because of background to understand real ways the government operates in biological intelligence, and others disagree, that is fine. And, mostly, I am really interested in this topic as said in the last segment, to try and find out if there are any "C-3" sources that have non-public data I can investigate. If not, so be it. I promised that was where I was going to put most of my attention in the next few months, and it is.

In the short-term, here are some answers to some of the questions that may help a bit.

I have no allegiances to the AMA: I am not a member because I disagree with more of their precepts than I agree with. I have allegiance to my government.

Some of the data that is "hard" I do believe, and there is some data (discussed in the interview) that is also hard that is contradictory. I deal with ambiguities in Forensic Medicine daily. This is the stuff from which conspiracies of fact are honestly made.

I wasn’t reading from anything, and if my body language seemed stilted, sorry. Actually, everything I said was the truth to the best I understand it.

I think the Ukrainian story is legitimate. I don’t know if it mutated there, we do know it mutated in a laboratory in 1976 in the US. It mutates several times a year. But, the Ukrainian issue is another matter. I can’t get straight answers from the media, yet, and so I am very suspicious. Not necessarily of an "evil" conspiracy to intentionally manipulate the virus...I just don’t believe that is scientifically likely. But, I believe in conspiracies of the intellectually challenged and the mendacity of people, for sure.

I agree fully that I said nothing new. I am surely not in denial. One area we can agree on, is that I do not know people (and I know many hundreds) in the pharmaceutical industry who could/would do the "dark" deed that many fear. That’s the truth. Are there others that are evil I do not know? Are they smarter than I see? Maybe. I doubt it, and others can fairly doubt my doubts. But I can only speak to what I know, or suspect based on reasonable data.

I was only threatened once in my career, and this was not the subject. I used to really believe more than I do now about body language and NLP...since some folks on the thread claim to be qualified, and say I was in denial, and lying...I am not so sure I believe in BL and NLP as much any longer: they are wrong. I actually was relaxed, and told the truth the whole time. The questions, however, about my openly disclosed background and biases are fair: they are what they are, and I am what I am. If that means folks will not trust me...believe me, I understand. I am sorry about that, but I surely understand. I also don’t a priori trust many lawyers and bankers, and I know that I am also being unfair to them.

Yes, the H1N1 really is over-hyped, but mostly in hindsight to the extent the fears that reassortment might result quickly in increased lethality didn’t turn out. We knew that was unlikely, the medical community erred way on the side of "worst case" thinking.

Why?

In part because while the lethality is so much lower than across the board than regular seasonal flu...it is still significant; and importantly, is worse for younger people who didn’t have any herd immunity prior to 1976. And, we still do not know why some people are affected even when they have decent immune systems. Since there are more people getting sick...there are already 7-10,000 who have died from H1N1; sure, this isn’t the 40,000 who die every year from the seasonal flu...but it is high, and may approach the higher mortality, even as the morbidity remains relatively low. And side effects are a confounder.

I want to find the really serious side effects of shock, later neuropathology, and death that are being talked about, So far, I haven’t found a physician I can look at in the eye who tells me they have such a case, and I am talking to the "physicians in the street." Again...as I said...that is my expertise, and that is where I turn my attention...and have asked ATS to find a way consistent with medical ethics and privacy to help me find such cases.

I was also concerned that my answers were overly general and none-specific. That is why I didn’t have a prepared text and didn’t read from notes. I didn’t know the questions ahead of time, except very generally. And Springer will attest that I said many, many times...just ask what you want. But I did talk too long, rant too much, and while I was never interrupted...perhaps should have been. But that’s why I promised ATS I would at least read the first several days of the responses and try to answer any additional questions they send me.

The fact I may "underestimate the power of the elite" is important, and I need to really worry about that. That is a good point.

I was obviously less than clear about getting vaccinated. I have not been, and am not of an age where I am in the high-risk population. If more vaccine becomes available, I will not get vaccinated, because I already have herd immunity, and feel that for me the risk of a neurodegenerative disease approaches the level for which I can be vigilant: I can avoid getting infected by diligence.

My family members have been vaccinated if they are under 12 years of age, are pregnant, or have compromised immune systems. I fear the aquiline and thimerosol, and it makes me explain o them downsides for the mist and the multivalent.

I was on the Golf War Mystery Illness Commission of the IOM, and wrote an appendix with the then Chair of Epidemiology of a large medical school, arguing that we believed the hypothesis that genetically sensitive individuals were at multiple risks from contaminants in the environment, and the multivalent vaccines put them at greater risk. I believed that then, and I believe it now. So, several persons who have said I believe otherwise haven’t read the Academy of Sciences report to which I contributed this. Not all member of the Commission agreed with us, but we were allowed to publish it, it was peer-reviewed and published.

My findings are reported entirely though the National Academy of Science, the Institute of Medicine, and the National Research Council, through the numerous boards and studies on which I serve. I am listed in them all, and all are peer-reviewed by the academy. There have been about 20 studies since the Gulf war. I do not write or publish alone on this subject. My views are reported by me, debated, and written and included or peer-reviewed out. So far, on this subject, nothing has been peer-reviewed out, but often I see my opinions in footnotes and appendices.

I appreciate the reference to Dr. William Deagle: I am well aware of his views, and worry about them. I consider him an A-3 source, and so I really need to pay more attention to him. In the past, I just haven’t felt all he says his logical, but a lot is. Thanks for the boot to pay more attention.

I also need to read more of the excellent A-3 source from Reuters, Benjamin Himschler, who had written over 100 articles on the biopolitics of H1N1. And especially, I want to know more from Zimmer and Burke, and Jane Burgermeister. But again: my real interest has to be in finding clinical data of harm from the vaccine.

I didn’t mean to leave the question about the 1976 vaccine sample unanswered. My answer is that it is believed with some degree of confidence that the strain was released from a US laboratory. It is not known what lab. It is not known if it was intentional.

That said: there are thousands of releases of all kinds of organisms from B1-and B2 labs all the time. They are sent in the mail...thousands a year all over the world, too. To me, it is amazing we don’t have more releases. I know that there is suspicion that this release was intentional, but I have never been given a single piece of evidence as to why this is believed. I would love to have it, because that would falsify my hypothesis that there is a logical and non-evil reason for the spread. It would also mean that the several members of this thread who claim evil is being done by smarter people than I think reside in many places, are right...and that I am wrong.


I agree that the attenuated vaccines are far more riskier, and that genetically susceptible and immunocompromised persons are at even greater risk, and that they have not been adequately tested, and that the risk while lower than getting H1N1 and death for those people are higher...they are still important. I only recommend the nasal mist for a specific population of likely to be exposed healthy children and for any child with any respiratory or other illness only by injection. I guess I really screwed that answer up royally on the interview, and hope this helps.

The side effects I mean by serious are NOT limited to sudden effects: later neuropathological effects are critical, and many do not occur for 5 days to three weeks (i.e. GBS). Sudden serious effects would be shock and death. Nor woozy-ness and nausea...which occur in 30% of all young populations for all doctor contacts with injections of any kind.

I think the discussion so far has been great. I only ask that folks recall that my only real interests are two:

1) Unexplained clinical morbidity and mortality from the vaccine: that is what started my interest, and why I am now focusing on that exclusively.

2) Evidence that real people have suffered from the above, and for which I can have access and data to their primary care physicians.

Dr. Christopher "Kit" Green, MD, PhD, FAAFS

[edit on 12-13-2009 by Springer]

reply to post by Springer


Mark, thank you and Dr. Green for your time and expertise. Although I still have questions regarding ethics and this issue, none of those remaining questions pertain directly to Dr. Green and his extensive knowledge. I was educated and about as reassured as I possibly could be by Dr. Green. I viewed the videos with my wife and she was also impressed with the presentation and Dr. Green's answers.

My sincere thanks.

reply to post by StrangeBrew


I'll be happy to answer how "we" got to know Dr. Green.

George Knapp introduced me to Dr. Green years ago, George (a person I trust implicitly on these "alternative" topics) told me not to be short sighted nor dismissive about Dr. Green and actually "get to know the man".

So.. I did.

It has been one of the most rewarding and interesting relationships of my 46 years on this planet. I consider Kit a personal friend and VERY decent, HONEST person.

So, YES, there is past history between "us" and Dr. Green. One that has been publicly available for years through a simple search of the site.

For those who fear/distrust what/who this man is, I can only say "Thank the stars he is on OUR SIDE", he really is on OUR side in so many ways you may never hear about or know about. If he weren't, he wouldn't give us the time of day much less be open to direct questions.

Our next interview with Dr. Green any prove that to some if it happens.

At the end of the day, we all have to realize one fact...

Dr. Green(and not any others I know of with his background or credentials) IS willing to openly, and HONESTLY IMHO, discuss OUR concerns and that, is huge to me, and I hope our membership will appreciate how huge it is too as time goes by.

Springer...

Is it just me or does this guy go on and on and on... With no point?