In this episode, Dr. John Campbell joins us to discuss his experiences as a researcher and journalist covering the Mycoplasmic Chlamydia virus pandemic of the late 1990s and early 2000s. Dr. Campbell is a leading voice in the anti-vaccination and anti-pharmacist movements, and has spent much of his career challenging the mainstream narratives and narratives peddled by the pharmaceutical industry and the media. He has been a regular contributor to The Daily Mail, The New York Times, and The Huffington Post, and is a regular guest on the BBC Radio 4's Conspiracy Theories. He has also been featured in the New Scientist, The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph, The Economist, and the New Statesman, and many other publications. This episode is brought to you by Awakened Wonder, a global network dedicated to educating, inspiring, and empowering people to change the world. Click here to become a member of AwakenEDW. We are the movement that s going to change our world together. - click here to join us. If only all those things were true, if only they were true! - If only... if only... only if... if... If... only... we were... If Only... If only ... If... If Only - If... Only If... We are it, then we are it! Join us, wherever you are, wherever we are, and wherever you re are - click the red button and become a part of our AWakenedWonder's community, and you are going to become part of the AWaken wonder community. And you are the Awakening Wonder Community. . Click here for more information about Awakening Wonder, click here. Click the link and join us for this conversation, click the link to join in on this conversation. You will be helping us to spread the word. The Awakening Wonder movement. Thank you for listening to Awakening Wonder. , click here We Are It? and we are the Movement That Will Change the World Together. (Awareness is a movement that Will Change The World Together, We Are the Movement that Changes the World, We Will Have A Better Future, We'll Change the Future, Not the Future We Will We All Be Better Together, Will We Have A Place That Will Have a Better Future Together, And We Will Find A Better Place Together, and We Will All Be More Together,
00:00:50.000There is certainly a degree of truth in the fact that I believe that you are a man who believes in transparency, openness, communication and genuine science.
00:00:59.000And throughout the pandemic period, you were certainly one of the voices that I leant into.
00:01:04.000Mate, so let's just start off broadly.
00:01:07.000We've got a lot of subjects to cover in our conversation and I'm reminded continually now that the point of what we do is to ensure that the agenda of the establishment and the legacy media does not go unchallenged.
00:01:20.000That is the function of what we're doing.
00:01:23.000Of course, you came to prominence during the pandemic period and During that time, the public trust in various government institutions, in particular in the United States, you might say that the CDC, FDA, but in our country too and across the world, trust in media and trust in government institutions is failing and falling apart.
00:01:45.000I wonder what you think about the latest round of COVID vaccines in the US, and I wonder what you think about the management and manipulation of that myocarditis information between males, the sort of use of those studies.
00:01:58.000So perhaps you can start with a couple of examples there.
00:02:00.000The new monetization and charges for the Pfizer and Moderna shot.
00:02:04.000So I wonder what you feel about that, Doc.
00:02:06.000Yeah, so I think the new shots are going to be, I think it's $120 each, Russell, per shot or slightly more.
00:02:14.000And yet the advice in the United States is still to vaccinate with the updated vaccines everyone that's over the age of six months.
00:02:23.000And that's really concerning because You know, the risk-benefit analyses that I've often quoted are those from really early on in the pandemic when COVID was, you know, still a dangerous disease to some people.
00:02:35.000But now the situation's really changed quite dramatically.
00:02:39.000You know, vaccines can have some effect, did have some effect early in the pandemic.
00:02:44.000Now, everyone's been exposed to COVID multiple times.
00:02:49.000And we have this wonderful thing called the immune system and it learns to recognize these infections.
00:02:57.000And for the vast majority of people now, the vast majority, COVID is a very mild irritation.
00:03:04.000I guess pretty well everyone watching who's bothered to test will have had COVID in the last year or two or have a partner or a child or someone who's had COVID in the last year or two, and they found it to be a somewhat irritating but pretty mild disease, which is for the vast majority of people.
00:03:21.000So quite why there's this discrepancy between the vaccination protocols in the United States, everyone over six months of age, and the United Kingdom, where it's just I think it's over 65 and people with high risk.
00:03:36.000I mean, you know, this is like a 64 and a half year difference in the recommendations.
00:03:45.000And, you know, if both of these authorizing bodies are working on the same data, why are they coming to such different conclusions?
00:03:53.000It really is quite hard to explain where the evidence is coming from.
00:04:07.000And what kind of agenda is ultimately driving it?
00:04:12.000Increasingly as well, many of the Measures that were taken for granted as necessary and were quite rigorously enforced as time passes.
00:04:20.000And again, one needn't be conspiratorial to inquire about these things, nor assume mendacity where ineptitude will do.
00:04:28.000But it seems that social distancing, surface cleaning, face covering, there wasn't a great deal of evidence for much of that.
00:04:36.000And it makes me obviously wonder what on earth was motivating all of that conduct.
00:04:41.000Those things, it doesn't cost too much to wash your hands when you come in the house.
00:04:45.000And if that didn't do any good, it's not such a big deal.
00:04:48.000But this includes the non-pharmaceutical interventions.
00:04:52.000And of course, that includes lockdowns.
00:04:55.000That includes quarantine hotels, isolation.
00:05:01.000That includes the, remember this term we had, the pingdemic, when people were pinged on their phones and couldn't couldn't do things.
00:05:08.000It includes all of these things, but particularly the lockdown strategies.
00:05:12.000And we've actually had data just published a week or so ago by the UK Health Security Agency.
00:05:19.000And to be fair here, the UK Health Security Agency are going through what they did really quite systematically.
00:05:26.000And what they're doing is they're looking at thousands of pieces of literature to try and work out what the evidence base is for what they did.
00:05:35.000But this latest publication from the UK Health Security Agency had 151 studies.
00:05:40.000So they narrowed it down to that, looking at studies where there was only one thing being studied at a time.
00:05:46.000And they reviewed 151 studies and they plotted what they call an evidence gap map.
00:05:55.000And you can download this as a spreadsheet, and there's loads of places where the evidence is limited, highly limited.
00:06:02.000So only 19 of the 151 studies reported effective measures to reduce infection at the individual level.
00:06:09.000And most of those were to do with mask wearing.
00:06:13.000And two thirds of the evidence was based on modeling studies.
00:06:17.000So 100 out of 151 of these studies were based on modeling.
00:06:22.000My recollection of this, when the first lockdown started, is the government were hoping to get away with it.
00:06:28.000But then we had these modelling predictions that showed tremendous amounts of death and everything from Covid.
00:06:36.000But it turns out these were based on models which have been, well, I think the least we can say is they've been disputed since then.
00:06:43.000So, so much of the evidence was based on modelling rather than based on what we would call empiricism.
00:06:54.000Science is not someone sitting on a computer thinking, oh, I wonder what would happen if.
00:06:59.000No, science is what happens in the real world.
00:07:01.000And to their credit, I just want to give you a couple of quotes actually, Russell, here.
00:07:05.000To the credit, the UK Health Security Agency.
00:07:09.000I've said the evidence available for this category is therefore likely to be weak.
00:07:13.000This is evidence to reduce infections, both in terms of study design and potential bias.
00:07:20.000Studies reporting on travel and border restrictions, they say, a weak evidence base in terms of study design.
00:07:27.000Overall, they say, the body of evidence available on effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions in the UK provides weak Evidence in terms of study design.
00:07:38.000So they have acknowledged this, which is good to see, because if you acknowledge the mistakes, the public are pretty forgiven.
00:07:46.000We didn't know quite what was going on for a while.
00:07:49.000But they now acknowledge that it was weak, and they do say if there is a future pandemic, which there will be, how I won't go into that one at the moment, but they say that there should be a method for collecting feedback empirically as we go along, which is certainly true.
00:08:10.000But looking back, you know, we're these huge lockdowns, this massive financial cost, this social cost, this psychiatric cost.
00:08:19.000Looking back, it was based primarily on mathematical models.
00:08:23.000And people understand those better than me, but they're not the best way to conduct national policy.
00:08:29.000In addition to this sort of, if not pseudoscience, then modelling that you have explained is flawed, plainly is flawed, based on the emergent evidence.
00:08:40.000And you're right, it is to the credit of that agency that they're at least willing to communicate that.
00:08:45.000Plainly there was a degree of hysteria and it's sort of harder to speculate on the impact of something as abstract as fear and the use of fear and the use of hysteria and certainly it's encouraging to hear that in the event of a let's call it inevitable future pandemic the data would be Compiled as the event unfolded.
00:09:09.000What my concern is, and this is again sort of rather more difficult to talk about, particularly with someone as committed to using evidence as you are, which is perhaps one of the most laudable aspects of the work that you do, is the potential that in a way we were, and I'm not suggesting this was deliberate, Primed for authoritarian measures that prior to the pandemic would have been unacceptable.
00:09:34.000The idea that you could shut down the economy.
00:09:37.000I remember when I first heard that football was being cancelled thinking, what?
00:09:44.000And the normalization of individual incarceration, the normalization of massive medical programs that are mandated or near mandated, and we've touched already on the sort of questions that that's left in its wake, suggests to me that with forthcoming potential issues of scale, and you can pick your issue really, whether it's climate change, Food shortages, water shortages, necessity to regulate agriculture as a result of fertilizers, the need to shut down individual farming practices.
00:10:18.000There are so many issues and ideas that appear to be Being defined by a top-down ideology i.e.
00:10:29.000you hear from the WEF or the WHO or some sort of unelected but somehow publicly funded as well as privately funded in the case the WHO entity coming up with some ideas that sort of find their way into government.
00:10:42.000Increasingly this seems common and like an event of the scale of the pandemic doesn't it leave us open to the possibility that a kind of If not social engineering, a sort of piloting may have taken place.
00:10:55.000I don't mean that from a conspiracy theory perspective per se, Doctor.
00:10:59.000I just mean a convergence of interest that led to those measures that evidently were not scientifically undergirded could be repeated in other circumstances.
00:11:06.000I mean, there was certainly a lot of fear going on, wasn't there?
00:11:10.000And I think the reason that people were compliant because there was fear, and to be fair, there was genuine unknowns, although I think facts became available much earlier than they were often shared with the hoi polloi like you and me.
00:11:25.000And I think we can rest assured, Russell, that people that are interested in Organizing, interested in administration, interested in controlling populations, will have taken a fairly thick set of notes from the pandemic.
00:11:45.000They will have noticed what works, what doesn't work, and I think they'll have learned a lot of control.
00:11:53.000Control of social media being one example.
00:11:56.000That started on pretty early in the pandemic.
00:12:03.000The influence of regulatory bodies and the way that they interact with political bodies.
00:12:10.000Vested interest that would like to control populations in a more detailed way, I think, will have learned one heck of a lot from what worked and what didn't work in the pandemic.
00:12:24.000Now, the UK Health Security Agency are rightly trying to take that knowledge to apply it to improving health in the future, which of course, everyone would applaud.
00:12:36.000But, you know, have people who have slightly questionable motives and throughout history, people with questionable motives have arisen in the past.
00:12:46.000I think we can assume that they've learned quite a lot from this as well.
00:12:52.000Yes and perhaps again less tangentially the recent, relatively recent, or proposed WHO pandemic treaty that could grant legislative powers to a non-sovereign transnational body.
00:13:08.000I see that it's been, I don't know, in Canada there's some opposition to it but it feels like the sort of thing that could During the pandemic period, the WHO were granted incredible authority.
00:13:22.000The platform that we've been recently demonetized, I'll speak for myself.
00:13:26.000YouTube still uses WHO guidelines to govern its own community or to form its own community for guidelines.
00:13:35.000I wonder what your views are or if you have concerns about a potential WHO pandemic treaty and how that could become biased or exploited?
00:13:44.000Yeah, so this is based on the amendment of the, I'm pretty sure it was 2005, International Health Regulations.
00:13:51.000So health regulations were put in in 2005, updating previous regulations.
00:14:00.000They said things like, I'm not giving direct quotes here, but quite often they said this will not be mandatory in nation states, it will be advisory.
00:14:10.000But if you read these international health regulations amendments, very often in a sentence all they've done is taken out one word like not.
00:14:20.000So if you go from, these will not be mandatory, and you take out the word not, what are you left with?
00:14:41.000is that the World Health Organization can define in the future when these are probably
00:14:45.000going to be adopted and we haven't got much time to reject these.
00:14:49.000Because what seems to be happening is that these are going to be accepted unless the
00:14:54.000head of state of a country, unless Mr. Sunak actually writes to the WHO invoking a particular
00:15:01.000section and saying, "No, this won't apply to the UK."
00:15:04.000So if Mr. Sunak's watching, I would ask him to do that or to certainly consider that.
00:15:09.000But it's almost that these are just going to click into place.
00:15:14.000And my understanding is that the World Health Organization can define a public health emergency, which could be a pandemic, or it could be a nuclear leak.
00:15:59.000So fortunately, you're right, in Canada there's opposition, and we have interviewed people opposing that in Canada.
00:16:07.000But in the United Kingdom, as you know, we have this idea where you can get 100,000 signatures for a particular topic, and Tess Lorry, God bless her, Dr Tess Lorry, she opened this petition quite a few months ago now.
00:16:22.000It closed, I think, a couple of days ago, but it was well over the 100,000, I think 115,000.
00:16:27.000So we should have a debate in Parliament now on whether these should be accepted or rejected, so at least it's got to that stage.
00:16:34.000But why Did it necessitate a public petition for that?
00:16:40.000You know, you would hope that the civil servants and things will be saying to the Prime Minister, oh, by the way, Prime Minister, you know, you've only got so long if you want to reject this.
00:16:50.000It seemed like this process was just sort of carrying on inevitably, which was concerning.
00:16:58.000And as well as that, another slightly encouraging thing on debates is Andrew Bridgen has been awarded a German debate.
00:17:05.000On the 20th of October, to debate excess deaths.
00:17:11.000Now, when we say debate, I would imagine there's probably going to be as many people in the chamber as there were for this last statement on vaccine dangers, which was, I think, about two MPs stayed, I think.
00:17:22.000But the minister has to give a response.
00:17:24.000But the point is, once you've got the debate, once it's an official government debate, whether it's on the international health regulations, which we'll get, or whether it's on excess deaths, that means it's in Hansard.
00:17:35.000And once it's officially documented, maybe that will encourage others to take more action on this, because people won't be able to say, well, we didn't know about that.
00:17:47.000Well, yeah, you do kind of, because it's in Hansard.
00:17:50.000It's actually possible to see the ghost of democracy inhabiting its institutions.
00:17:57.000You know, the momentum inertia, as you suggest, of power is continually carrying us towards centralised, unelected, globalised power, often supported by billionaires under the guise of philanthropy.
00:18:12.000But in our echoey, dusty old chambers of democracy, like a mouse fart, you can almost just detect So you have to have a debate on that, you know, that a
00:18:23.000couple of people might go to or attend.
00:18:26.000And if you get 100,000 people's signatories on a petition, they will have to consider that.
00:18:33.000But it's almost like the institutions themselves and the principles themselves already exist.
00:18:39.000And I suppose for you, someone who's dedicated their life to public service prior to this
00:18:44.000incarnation as an online truth teller, you must have a greater connection to when something like
00:18:49.000the National Health Service, our publicly funded, formerly at least, health service in the country
00:18:54.000of the UK, was sort of a proud monument to unity and togetherness. And God, it went through the
00:19:01.000various slurs and slams of, "Oh, it's a waste of money and everything should be privatised," and
00:19:06.000slowly sort of vampired from the outside to sort of piece by piece, it's ultimately privatised.
00:19:14.000I wonder sometimes, John, how you feel about the potential of meeting these poly-crises, like that, you know, like one minute it's like the WHO are just about to pass this bill, we've only got a minute, this new online legislation has just been passed that means that platforms that host people that dissent will be able to be, have their, you know, their owners arrested, you know, like I've been talking to, you know, Rumble, About this.
00:19:44.000Rumble is something that could become illegalized.
00:19:47.000And of course they'll say hate speech is the problem, but when it comes... it's sort of comparable to the claim that Ukraine is a humanitarian war.
00:19:56.000What about the US imperialist projects in North Africa and the Middle East have led you to believe that when they get involved in a conflict it's with a humanitarian motivation?
00:20:07.000How do you feel, John, about the small victories, like a debate being held in front of a couple of people or some signatories, when there is these poly-crises of legislature simultaneously passing all around the world, and what appears to be a mass centralising of power and the introduction of new means and measures, whether they are legislative or technological, that appear to be about, as you said earlier, the induction of control?
00:20:35.000It does all seem to be in one direction, doesn't it?
00:20:38.000It does seem to be more towards centralized control.
00:20:43.000One of the things that just really grieves me is all the things that we're missing out on.
00:20:49.000We could talk about the administrative things and the political things, but if you just take some things as simple as talking about pharmacy, talking about therapeutic molecules.
00:20:59.000You know, things that actually do you good.
00:21:01.000So if you go to your doctor, he can prescribe something as long as it's in this book.
00:21:06.000Well, the electronic version of it now, the British National Formula.
00:21:11.000And it seems to me that this only represents a very small subset of the therapeutic molecules that are potentially available.
00:21:21.000I want to give you just a couple of examples, if you don't mind.
00:21:28.000And it's called Lion's Mane because it looks like a lion's mane, it's all straggly.
00:21:32.000I hasten to add this is 100% legal, 100% not hallucinogenic.
00:21:37.000But you know, I've talked to a couple of people who've, one guy who had quite bad post-concussive disorder, the brain fibres in his brain were affected.
00:21:49.000And he took this lion's mane for about a week and he started to feel better.
00:21:52.000And he took it for a month and he felt a lot better.
00:21:54.000Now, of course, we're not prescribing on this channel.
00:21:56.000We're not telling people to go out and take lion's mane.
00:22:11.000For 40 years, I taught nerve cells do not regenerate.
00:22:16.000Well, it appears they may be stimulated to be generating, but of course, that's a natural molecule, so it'd probably be difficult to patent that.
00:22:24.000Are we missing out on this whole class of potentially useful drugs?
00:22:31.000If you look at two of the most successful drugs in history, we've got antibiotics, Everyone knows they come from mould.
00:22:38.000Moulds make them to protect themselves against bacterial infection.
00:22:41.000And ivermectin, even ignoring the most recent debate, has just revolutionized the treatment of parasitic diseases around the world.
00:22:50.000Pretty well eradicated river blindness and elephantiasis in Africa.
00:22:54.000And that comes, the bacteria actually make that to protect themselves against other things in the environment.
00:23:00.000So how many of these molecules are we missing out on?
00:23:03.000And isn't that just so sad that people could be dying of things, that molecules are selected for their ability to go through a trial process to make money rather than go through some form of evidence gathering process in order to help people.
00:23:20.000It just seems so sad to me that this is happening.
00:23:23.000And this is because it's facilitated because we have this centralized authorities and you can understand that doctors nurse practitioners, whatever, are afraid to go against the
00:23:36.000guidelines because if they do and something goes wrong, you know, the first
00:23:41.000question the judge is going to ask is, "Well, did you follow the guidelines? Did you follow the
00:23:45.000So people are frightened to go outside the guidelines.
00:23:48.000And then there's this whole other issue that could be a revolution in psychiatry about the mushrooms that we can't use because they are illegal, the psilocybin type mushrooms.
00:23:57.000But trials going on those now, for example, with microdosing, is remarkably promising for various forms of mental distress, such as anxiety and depression.
00:24:06.000And for those of us that have had anxiety and depression, it's awful.
00:24:11.000We're missing out on alleviations of this.
00:24:16.000It's just very, very sad that all these molecules have been provided.
00:24:20.000We're only allowed a very small subset of these molecules.
00:24:26.000Yes, and it seems that it's carefully curated what is permissive and it appears, as you've said, that profitability and control continue to be important criteria in which avenues of research are conducted and which are left unignored.
00:24:43.000I suppose there's an optimism in that that I often find in the kind of jaws of this deadly apocalypse that They even went talking about recently the likelihood that
00:24:54.000were a Republican candidate to win in 2024, they would immediately shift their focus
00:24:59.000from exacerbating conditions and tensions between Russia to provoking China.
00:25:05.000And I'm just struck that there isn't a presidential candidate or a political movement that says
00:25:13.000I mean, of course, there is Bobby Kennedy and Cornel West, and there are, you know, sort of blessedly great independents.
00:25:18.000But when you talk about institutional thinking, whether it's in the field of medicine, whether it's in the field of administration of medicine and the sort of terrifying WHO treaty that we just mentioned, geopolitics, there's always a kind of a systemic unconsciousness.
00:25:32.000And I suppose systems have to be unconscious by their nature, because they require sets of decisions that are Not going to be able to respond to plasticity and mutability.
00:25:44.000What it makes me continue to think, John, is that decentralization is an absolute necessity and I know that some areas of concerns that you and I share are around ecology and agriculture and the potential that these areas are being mishandled and that even something like climate change, which one might imagine is a significant conversation for all of us, Yeah, I've been thinking about this quite a lot recently.
00:26:15.000It was actually as a result of something that RFK, Bobby Kennedy Jr.
00:26:20.000I started looking at it and I'm actually concerned.
00:26:24.000I mean, we've talked about the problems with control and vested interest in pharmacy and drugs, which is tragic, but I'm actually quite concerned about agriculture and food supply.
00:26:36.000And quite a few things come into this.
00:26:40.000We hear a lot of emphasis at the moment about fossil fuel burning, global warming, and there is good science behind that.
00:26:50.000But what people just seem to ignore, and I've just checked out recently, is the amount of carbon in the soil now on the surface of the Earth is greater than all of the carbon in the atmosphere.
00:27:05.000And greater than all the carbon in all the organisms.
00:27:08.000That's all the trees and the bushes and the cabbages and the human beings on the surface of the planet.
00:27:17.000And as well as that, when you add nitrogen-based fertilizers to the soil, if there's too much nitrogen-based fertilizer in the soil, that produces a substance called nitrous oxide.
00:27:32.000Now, if you've ever been to Glastonbury in the past ten years, you may have heard of nitrous oxide.
00:27:57.000But if you put in huge amounts of expensive nitrogen-based fertilizers on the soil, You're not putting enough organic matter in.
00:28:06.000Now, if you put in plenty of organic matter, the bugs, the bacteria, will feed on the organic matter, and you'll greatly improve the quality of the microbiome of the soil.
00:28:59.000But you don't hear anything about this and it just makes you wonder if, you know, because fertilizers are purchased, they have to be bought, they're paid for, you know, often made by pretty big scale companies that people just don't want to talk about this, this greenhouse gas.
00:29:14.000And the nitric oxide also reduces high up stratospheric ozone as well.
00:29:21.000So why don't we put in more carbon into the soil, reducing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, reducing the greenhouse gases, preventing... We've got more carbon in the soil, so it needs less nitrogen-based fertilizers.
00:29:39.000And again, herbicides and pesticides, huge amounts of these are used.
00:29:45.000And again, these are all marketed products.
00:29:51.000You know, let's control things that are for the good of the ecology and the future of the human race rather than people making money in a relatively short-term period of time.
00:30:01.000Again, it just seems so sad that these common-sense ecological things that are well-known aren't adequately practiced or talked about.
00:30:09.000It seems like a curious anomaly of our time that during war, military industrial complex benefit from that type of crisis.
00:30:19.000During an energy crisis, energy companies benefit from that type of crisis.
00:30:24.000During a health pandemic, Pharmacological company benefit from that crisis.
00:30:31.000That if you have a strata of society that benefit from crisis,
00:30:36.000it's likely that you find yourself in a state of perpetual crisis
00:30:39.000because for what is crisis for people that are not powerful is opportunity for the most powerful interests in the world.
00:30:48.000When you mention and describe the problem with carbon and nitrous oxide in the soil,
00:30:58.000what comes to mind is that even something as immersive, prominent and well publicized as the climate change
00:31:06.000and anthropomorphic climate change, et cetera, it seems that the information that we're given is selective.
00:31:13.000And this total lack of institutions is something that I think exploded during the pandemic because there was this new capacity for control.
00:31:23.000There was this new imposition of control and it seems that many of the claims that were made were not legitimate.
00:31:30.000And this was exposed due to independent media in particular.
00:31:33.000This is where that conversation moved forward.
00:31:36.000There were people, as you are well aware because you were one of them, in the very advent of the pandemic had one perspective and were watching the information as it changed and were able with a degree of objectivity and certainly in good faith To chart what was happening.
00:31:51.000There were people like Robert Malone right at the beginning saying, well I don't think you should be vaccinating at the height of a pandemic.
00:31:56.000All sorts of information that was available was shut down and I feel that we have now a total crisis of trust.
00:32:05.000I don't think that many people actually, and thank God they don't, trust the legacy media.
00:32:09.000A significant number of people do not trust the media.
00:32:12.000A significant number of people think that whoever they vote for, they're going to end up with a political party that ultimately works for a set of financial interests that would preclude meaningful democratic change.
00:32:25.000I think that extends to the judiciary in some course, medicine, doctors.
00:32:29.000I mean, the name, the institutions of our planet are rightly regarded with considerable mistrust.
00:32:37.000And when you were earlier on talking about Oh, the possibility that they could somehow be mobilised again into utility, into service, into principles that are actually sort of rather old-fashioned and quite so simple I blush to mention them.
00:32:52.000It appears to me, John, and I think about it a lot, that Independent media has to become politicised.
00:32:58.000It can no longer just be, oh, here we go, have you noticed this?
00:33:01.000In the end, even if you didn't have an intention to be political, you are politicised.
00:33:06.000You'll get strikes, you'll get bans, you'll get attacks.
00:33:09.000The more traction you get, the more likely those attacks are to come.
00:33:13.000And the extent of those attacks, as far as I can see, has the capacity to be almost limitless.
00:33:20.000Government's getting involved in demonetising channels that they're not Yeah, I think we have to distinguish between party politics and politics.
00:33:27.000It makes me wonder, John, how you feel this may unfold for you personally and what you
00:33:33.000see your role as a communicator like, how you see that evolving, and whether you feel
00:33:40.000like it will become politicised or if indeed it already has been.
00:35:02.000So if we have legitimate concerns that we want to stop incineration to reduce dioxins, we can put forward the science of that.
00:35:10.000But to actually get these decisions changed and to actually influence these decisions, I guess that does become political.
00:35:19.000So, you know, I would like to provide evidence as much as I can, and what I do more and more these days because I'm increasingly out of my depth in a lot of these fields.
00:35:30.000For some strange reason, absolutely leading experts from around the world have come on my channel and they've shared their expertise in ways that people can understand, which we're very grateful for.
00:36:26.000Apparently it went up to, I won't mention which intelligence agency it was, but it went quite high up and they couldn't work out where the threat came from.
00:36:32.000In other words, it was done in quite a sophisticated way.
00:36:40.000It's quite difficult, but there are genuine threats.
00:36:44.000I'm not saying I'm in the same category as someone like RFK, but he says he gets up in the morning and thinks, well, how can I behave ethically today?
00:36:57.000If we do see the threat, there's an Old Testament account of the watchman.
00:37:05.000And it says, if the watchman sees the sword coming against the city, and cries the alarm, and the people get out the way, then that's fine.
00:37:15.000But if the watchman says the sword is coming against the city, and the people do nothing, if they ignore the watchman, then their blood is on their own heads.
00:37:25.000So it's the role of the watchman to say, look, this danger is coming.
00:37:48.000And likewise now, I'm not saying it's the same situation, I'm not comparing it in any way, but we have leading scientists from around the world who are telling me things that concern them.
00:38:02.000Leading analysts, people that do really significant analysis around the world, telling me they have concerns.
00:38:10.000And if we've got these world-leading analysts, often professors, often doctors, People that do this really quite seriously.
00:38:19.000If we don't at least say, well, just a minute, you've raised the question there.
00:38:24.000Then I think that that's tantamount to ignoring the watchman.
00:38:28.000We have to think about it because there are threats coming and I really think we have to take these threats seriously or they could overwhelm us.
00:38:39.000Yeah it's pretty heavy and I mean I also think you're right and even with my personal situation which I can't go into too much depth about for reasons that will be obvious to anyone who understands such matters it's apparent to me that I've just found myself in a position not entirely inadvertently because I've been very deliberate about sort of attacking what I believe to be establishment interests and I've Being deliberately provocative, but what I have seen in terms of the coordination and ability of power, you know, we had a conversation with a guy called Dr. Robert Epstein, who you'd enjoy actually, John.
00:39:25.000He uses monitoring systems to observe the way that Google behaves and relays information, particularly news media, and by his reckoning are able to create almost in impenetrable spheres of data. When it's pointed out to
00:39:39.000them, they alter it. That's the nature of their work. They go, "Hey, hang on a minute.
00:39:44.000In Georgia, all of your news stories are going this direction. All of your news stories
00:39:47.000are going this direction. Look at the biases." They're able to measure bias in reporting.
00:39:50.000For example, political bias is one obvious way.
00:39:56.000When you talk about the impending crises, whether they're of an ecological, ideological,
00:40:02.000or pharmacological nature, there are so many ways now. It's very difficult to envisage
00:42:07.000Now, does it make too much difference whether that's on the point of a bayonet Or at the risk of losing your livelihood, losing your occupation.
00:42:21.000The end result is that the person doing the controlling has people controlled as he wants them controlled.
00:42:30.000And the modality of that probably doesn't matter too much.
00:42:34.000If you'd said to previous fascists, maybe Genghis Khan, for example, are you happy to rule the world And have absolute authority and absolute power everywhere just by using persuasion.
00:42:51.000I'm sure if that was quick enough, he'd say, well, yeah, that's okay.
00:42:55.000You know, it was just the warfare was quicker.
00:43:00.000The modality through which the control is achieved It's perhaps less important.
00:43:54.000Most people just maybe want to go to work and come home and have the tea and have a nice family life, or go to the football on a Saturday, or go walking on the hills on a Sunday afternoon.
00:44:05.000But you do get some people, for some strange reason that I don't understand, and yet I do witness that this is true, are interested in controlling other people.
00:44:16.000You see it in psychiatric hospitals where you get People with particular conditions, particular personality disorders, and they just want to control other people because that's the way that they are wired up.
00:44:31.000I don't understand it because it doesn't affect me, but it is a problem.
00:44:35.000And when these people get into power, they have to be seen for what they are and hopefully identified at an earlier stage, as early a stage as is possible.
00:44:48.000Because once power becomes entrenched, it often becomes self-perpetuating.
00:44:54.000I mean, I just can't believe that the North Korean situation is still going on since I was a child.
00:45:00.000You know, that self-perpetuating, evil, idolatrous country.
00:45:08.000The power is somehow perpetuated down through the generations.
00:45:14.000Let's just take that as a warning for how badly wrong things can go.
00:45:19.000That a people can be so oppressed in that way for so long is possible.
00:45:25.000We've been raised in a pretty good time.
00:47:12.000We've got Dave DeCamp coming on the show talking about potential ubiquitous Armageddon.
00:47:18.000Each party has its own superpower war lined up.
00:47:20.000Michael Schellenberg, a friend of the show, friend of truth, will be on here talking about freedom of speech, legacy media and its ridiculous power.
00:47:28.000Kim Iverson, fellow Rumble host, truth teller And a charming human being will be on the show as well.
00:47:35.000And I'd like to thank those of you that have supported us.
00:47:40.000When the government asks Big Tech to shut you down and Big Tech comply, you know you need a movement.
00:47:46.000You know you need a collective awakening.
00:47:48.000And I'm so grateful to you for being part of it.
00:47:50.000People like Kevin Icke and Paul McMurray, Sarah Penelope, Lagbag Brian Fennell, Thank you for awakening with us.
00:47:57.000And if you want to awaken with us, press the red button.
00:47:58.000You get access to all sorts of extra content, live Q&As with me, guided meditations, readings, and more important than any of that, we get to cultivate this new space together.