Stay Free - Russel Brand - Dr John Campbell: You Were Right! - #078

00:00:00.000 So, so

00:00:20.000 so so

00:00:48.000 so so

00:01:11.000 In this video, you're going to see the future.

00:01:38.000 you you

00:01:42.000 Hello and welcome to a very special edition of Stay Free with Russell Brand.

00:01:47.000 Every week I have an in-depth conversation with free thinkers, radicals, academics, thought leaders and influencers to access truths that we wouldn't find anywhere else.

00:01:57.000 Today I'm joined by Dr. John Campbell.

00:02:00.000 Dr. John came to prominence on YouTube during the pandemic, sharing his incredible insights to a unique global situation, presenting complex medical data, usually data that hadn't been credibly addressed by the mainstream media, often with his unique John Campbell shot from above signature shots, where he would talk us through data, occasionally giving something a tick Or maybe a thoughtful sigh or a, hmm, that doesn't seem quite right.

00:02:28.000 We are honored and excited to have Dr. John with us in our studio today, as well as that particular and gloriously iconic piece of apparatus.

00:02:38.000 For the first 10 minutes, you can watch us wherever you're watching this right now.

00:02:41.000 But after that, we're going to click over onto Rumble so we can speak openly and freely about complex ideas.

00:02:48.000 And sometimes those ideas may be at odds with the interest of centralized Dr. John, thank you so much for joining us today.

00:02:54.000 Therefore we're on a platform that guarantees us free speech and it is our intention to ensure that that free

00:02:59.000 speech brings people together That justifies community collective power and democracy

00:03:04.000 against centralized elite interest wherever we find it So, please welcome our special guest to stay free. It's dr.

00:03:13.000 John Campbell Stay free with Russell Brand see it first on rumble. Dr.

00:03:18.000 John. Thank you so much for joining us today And thank you for this gift

00:03:23.000 What is it?

00:03:24.000 It's a physiology book, Russell.

00:03:26.000 You gave me it in a very offhand manner.

00:03:28.000 Yeah, yeah.

00:03:30.000 It's called Physiology Notes, so it's all the sort of basic systems of the body.

00:03:34.000 Because what's important is there's a lot of people putting forward ideas.

00:03:39.000 And if those ideas are inconsistent with fundamental science, with things we know to be correct, then the idea is probably not correct itself.

00:03:48.000 That's part of the evidence base, you know, we know the background of the science and we like to be consistent with that.

00:03:54.000 Can you give me a clear example?

00:03:56.000 Doctor, of how that evidence-based science is being compromised or contradicted in a mainstream space currently?

00:04:05.000 There's a really interesting one that I'm actually quite worried about.

00:04:08.000 So, at the moment, the British government have decided to produce, in cooperation with Moderna, a plan to produce 250 million messenger ribonucleic acid vaccines a year.

00:04:21.000 Similar plant planned for Canada, 100 million doses a year, similar plant for Australia.

00:04:27.000 And of course, they're already producing it in the United States.

00:04:30.000 But the thing about that is, with the mRNA vaccines, it actually goes into the circulatory system.

00:04:36.000 It's supposed to stay in the arm, but it actually circulates to quite some degree.

00:04:40.000 And these lipid nanoparticles that the mRNA is in goes into the cells, and it's the cells themselves that produce the antigen, the thing the immune system recognises as being foreign.

00:04:54.000 Now, if that's in your arm, that's kind of okay, because the mRNA will go into the muscle cells in your arm, produce this antigen, it will go onto the surface of the cells in your arm, and that will give you a bit of a sore arm because of the inflammatory reaction.

00:05:09.000 But if we're getting systemic absorption, if we understand the way the circulatory system works, we know that from the arm there's some systemic absorption of these mRNA particles around the body.

00:05:20.000 Of course, it circulates around the body.

00:05:22.000 Of course, the blood from your arm drains back through the heart.

00:05:27.000 goes out to the lungs, goes back to the heart, but then it's going through the heart.

00:05:32.000 Now the cell membranes in the heart are very similar to the cell membranes in your arm.

00:05:38.000 So if there's systemic absorption and these things are floating around the body, there's nothing in theory to stop these lipid nanoparticles absorbing into the myocardial muscle cells, the heart muscle cells producing the antigen.

00:05:51.000 And then the immune system recognising that and generating an inflammatory response, potentially in the heart.

00:05:57.000 Now if that's in the myocardium, we call that myocarditis.

00:06:00.000 If that's in the pericardium, we call that pericarditis.

00:06:03.000 And they're both really potential serious conditions.

00:06:06.000 So we've got a fundamental scientific question here, based on the axioms of science that we've known about for hundreds of years, that really haven't been answered.

00:06:15.000 And yet people are ploughing ahead with this massive cooperation between Moderna in this case and our

00:06:22.000 governments to produce huge amounts of vaccine for which there may be a potentially fundamental problem

00:06:28.000 that means they can't be used.

00:06:30.000 So there you've got an interesting conflict really or certainly a paradox at the moment

00:06:36.000 where science is saying one thing and potential interest or even potential vested interest,

00:06:44.000 who knows, is saying something else and the two don't quite marry up.

00:06:48.000 So we have to keep going back to the original science to see where reality lies.

00:06:53.000 Obviously, Dr John, as a prolific YouTuber, I'm relying on you to demark whether WHO's, stroke YouTube's, guidelines suggest this conversation should be curtailed and directed.

00:07:07.000 And what seems to me to be interesting, of course we can speak more freely after 10 minutes when we'll exclusively be streaming on Rumble, what's of enormous interest to me, is precisely this point of contra-interest and vested interest where we find that there are economic and financial outcomes that are favourable that perhaps mean that science and clinical research in particular becomes a subset of those interests and that there's such a will for particular outcomes

00:07:38.000 The facts are often neglected, negated or ignored.

00:07:42.000 And also the media reporting on these facts and the whole phenomena of the pandemic.

00:07:46.000 One of the things you did so expertly, if I may say, is that you focused forensically, solely and modestly on data.

00:07:55.000 And also it seemed to me that you went on An interesting journey, as I suppose scientists must, as data alters, the narrative alters, and the scientists, and indeed science is, perspective must alter.

00:08:08.000 We started, one of the key examples I think, is the way that, just to take one example, is the way that the story around vitamin D, relatively uncontroversial, and now I Yes, empirically demonstrable fact that can be sort of represented.

00:08:24.000 Can you talk us through a little bit what happened with vitamin D?

00:08:26.000 Because I remember 18 months ago saying, oh vitamin D might be helpful in fighting this virus.

00:08:33.000 That was like saying there are people living at the centre of the earth and they're reptiles and they're against us.

00:08:39.000 Yeah.

00:08:40.000 Vitamin D is a fascinating one because we don't really get enough vitamin D from our diet.

00:08:44.000 Most of it has to come from the sun.

00:08:46.000 And of course, if we live in England, as we do, this time of year, you're not getting any sun exposure, so we're not making much vitamin D. Now, vitamin D is one of the fat-soluble vitamins.

00:08:55.000 They're A, D, E, and K. And we used to think that these vitamins can be stored for quite a long period of time.

00:09:03.000 But it appears if you go on your holiday, or you get some nice sun in August and September in England, That by the time Christmas comes around, you've basically got very low levels of vitamin D in your blood.

00:09:14.000 So it drops off quite quickly.

00:09:15.000 So throughout winter we're not making enough vitamin D. So pretty well everyone in the UK, and we know it's also true in the northern states, especially of course people with darker coloured skins, who make it much more slowly, they're chronically short of vitamin D.

00:09:29.000 Now we used to think that vitamin D was important for bone and teeth health and of course it still is.

00:09:34.000 If you haven't got enough vitamin D you can get rickets and you can get bendy bones in children.

00:09:38.000 It's still a problem in some parts of the world.

00:09:40.000 But we now know there's vitamin D receptors in a lot of different cells in the body.

00:09:46.000 And vitamin D is necessary for the activation of hundreds if not thousands of genes.

00:09:51.000 So there are vitamin D receptors in all of the immune cells.

00:09:55.000 The white cells that deal with immunity, the variety of white cells.

00:10:00.000 If you haven't got enough vitamin D and these receptors are not stimulated, then the enzymic systems in those cells are not going to work properly and you're going to have a suboptimal immune system.

00:10:10.000 So we have lots of people with suboptimal immune systems, purely because they're not getting enough vitamin D.

00:10:17.000 And because we don't get it in the diet, we're not getting it in the sunshine, the only way is to supplement it.

00:10:22.000 Now normally we don't recommend too many supplements, but vitamin D is one that's important.

00:10:28.000 And just as an aside, people that are taking vitamin D should also take some vitamin K2 with it.

00:10:34.000 Again, it sounds like I'm just recommending another supplement, which in a sense I am.

00:10:39.000 But the vitamin K2 comes from fermented foods, it comes from bacterial fermentation.

00:10:44.000 Now, like you, you like fermented tea, so that's great.

00:10:47.000 You're probably getting some.

00:10:49.000 I worked with Koreans in Cambodia once, and they eat kimchi with breakfast, lunch, and dinner.

00:10:54.000 That's no exaggeration.

00:10:56.000 So they're getting plenty.

00:10:57.000 It's bacterial fermented products.

00:10:59.000 But a lot of people in England, the traditional diet, we're not eating fermented food, so we need to take some K2 in addition to that.

00:11:06.000 And that means that any liberated calcium goes into your bones to give you strong bones and teeth, rather than going into the tissues of the body where it can cause problems.

00:11:15.000 But vitamin D receptors in all of these immune cells, and if you haven't got enough vitamin D, the immune system is probably not working as well.

00:11:23.000 But to take data, because we like to be fairly specific, there's a meta-analysis just studied on this recently, which looks at pre-diabetes.

00:11:31.000 So at the moment in the United Kingdom, I don't know if you want to have a guess Russell, what proportion of the percentage of people in the United States have got diabetes or pre-diabetes?

00:11:42.000 In the United States, whole population, what percentage?

00:11:44.000 Have a guess.

00:11:45.000 10 to 15.

00:11:46.000 Good.

00:11:46.000 Well done.

00:11:47.000 It's 11.1.

00:11:48.000 That's very good.

00:11:48.000 Excellent.

00:11:49.000 Very, very good.

00:11:50.000 In the UK, it's a bit less.

00:11:51.000 It's about 7% of people that are diabetic at the moment.

00:11:54.000 For other countries, like Cambodia, for example, where there's been a lot of malnutrition in the past and now there's a better diet, it can be 20 or 30% of the population.

00:12:01.000 It's an absolute pandemic of diabetes.

00:12:05.000 So there was a three-year study carried out in the States where they gave vitamin D supplements to people that were pre-diabetic.

00:12:12.000 That is people that weren't quite diabetic yet, but they were struggling and would become diabetics in the next few years.

00:12:19.000 And of course, if you're diabetic, that predisposes to a whole range of possible medical problems, heart disease, circulatory problems, problems to the peripheral circulation resulting in black feet, kidney disease, diabetic blindness.

00:12:34.000 There's a whole range of problems that can be associated with that.

00:12:37.000 But what they found is giving these people vitamin D, reduced by quite a significant percentage the number of people that went on to be diabetic.

00:12:46.000 And it was around about a 78% relative risk reduction by giving vitamin D. The doses that were given were normally about 4,000 units a day, a relatively small supplement.

00:12:59.000 Sometimes it was 20,000 units a week.

00:13:01.000 You can give it either way.

00:13:02.000 Preferably, I would give it every day.

00:13:04.000 And that dramatically reduced the amount of people that are pre-diabetic going on to develop diabetes.

00:13:10.000 Now it is true, as the British Diabetic Association says, that obesity is the main single factor in the development of type 2 diabetes.

00:13:20.000 But people that are obese are even more likely to be vitamin D deficient, because vitamin D is a fat-soluble vitamin.

00:13:28.000 And if you take some vitamin D and you're obese, it's going to fill up your fatty reserves first.

00:13:33.000 So you'd have to give someone with obesity 10 times as much vitamin D to get it into their blood as you would to someone who's got a low amount of adiposity, a low amount of fatty tissue in the body.

00:13:44.000 So the two go together.

00:13:46.000 So why on earth don't we reduce the amount of people getting Pre-diabetes developing into diabetes by 78% with a relatively simple evidence-based intervention.

00:13:57.000 And if we treated 30 people in this way, every 30 people we treated would prevent one case of people becoming diabetic.

00:14:05.000 And that's actually a really quite a good ratio.

00:14:08.000 Compared to some of the ratios I've heard lately, that seems like a very effective way of treating... I think everyone should have to take Vitamin, whether they want to or not.

00:14:16.000 Not just for themselves, but for everybody else.

00:14:19.000 It's astonishing listening to you, Doctor, to...

00:14:23.000 Even contemplate, given your obsession over details, data and facts, that you could ever be regarded as anything other than a diligent professional.

00:14:35.000 And yet you have had a YouTube strike which shows, this is obviously just my opinion, that there are areas where This kind of censorship, or at least these kind of measures, are undertaken not in order to protect people but for some other agenda.

00:14:52.000 Now also, Dr. John, most people will know that over the course of the pandemic, your perspective altered somewhat radically.

00:15:01.000 You're certainly not a person that could ever be described as an anti-vaxxer because I believe you advocate for vaccination in all sorts of instances.

00:15:10.000 I want to ask you, Doctor, about AstraZeneca in particular, yellow card events.

00:15:15.000 I want to ask you about the censorship that's taken place during this pandemic.

00:15:19.000 I want to ask you about your style, and by God am I keen to see that overhead camera.

00:15:24.000 But if you want to see the answer to these questions, then you'll have to join us over on Rumble.

00:15:29.000 If you are a member of our locals community, you can see these conversations take place live.

00:15:33.000 There are people watching us Right now on the stream, some of the questions coming through.

00:15:38.000 A question for Dr Kat, this is from Pawpaw7.

00:15:42.000 If you didn't take the jab and you get a blood transfusion from a vaccinated person, is that the same as being vaccinated?

00:15:47.000 These are the kind of questions we'll be answering those in a moment.

00:15:50.000 If you want to become a member of our locals community, there's a link in the description.

00:15:54.000 Telling you how to do that.

00:15:56.000 We've got a whole host of topics to cover.

00:15:58.000 Excess deaths, myocarditis, strokes in the elderly, Project Veritas, all sorts of things to discuss.

00:16:04.000 But we're going to do that where we're safe to speak freely, hopefully to bring people together in order to create consensus, a consensus which may be at odds with establishment and elitist thinking.

00:16:14.000 You decide what's best for you.

00:16:16.000 You decide which information to take on board.

00:16:19.000 See you soon.

00:16:20.000 Please click on the link and join us over on Rumble.

00:16:23.000 Doctor John, we can relax now.

00:16:26.000 Right, great.

00:16:27.000 We can kick up our heels a little bit.

00:16:29.000 I was relaxed before, but it's always good.

00:16:30.000 Actually, you were relaxed, a bit too relaxed.

00:16:32.000 Always good to relax a bit more.

00:16:33.000 Yeah, just relax so much that we start to drool.

00:16:36.000 Doctor, thank you so much for giving this.

00:16:37.000 I recognise I didn't say thank you for that.

00:16:38.000 That's very kind of you.

00:16:39.000 I will ask you to sign it.

00:16:41.000 These books are free, by the way, Russell.

00:16:43.000 We can give you a link to freely download the PDFs of that book and the You're like a radical you, aren't you?

00:16:49.000 Yeah, it's a radical.

00:16:50.000 This is merch!

00:16:52.000 It's what it is, it's dark.

00:16:52.000 No, it's free.

00:16:53.000 You could be rinsing that.

00:16:54.000 It's free.

00:16:55.000 Okay, so just before we went on air, you talked about AstraZeneca.

00:16:58.000 Now, like even someone like me who's just simply perusing the facts, and I think all of us went on a journey during the pandemic.

00:17:04.000 I was frightened initially, it seemed unprecedented.

00:17:09.000 You know, my perspective on various medicines and various measures, lockdowns, masks, etc, altered over the course of the pandemic.

00:17:15.000 Perhaps you're informed by my general mistrust of authority, corporations, government.

00:17:21.000 That's just my general setting.

00:17:23.000 Could you just, because we were discussing it before, can you tell me again about AstraZeneca and yellow card events?

00:17:30.000 Yeah, absolutely.

00:17:31.000 So the yellow card system is the way that we report adverse events to any medication or to vaccines in the UK.

00:17:38.000 And originally it was yellow cards at the bottom, the back of the British National Formula where you still get these yellow pieces of paper.

00:17:44.000 You can fill them out and send them in.

00:17:45.000 Of course, these days it's mostly done online.

00:17:48.000 Now the problem with the yellow card system is it depends on people actually getting around to and doing it.

00:17:54.000 So MHRA itself, Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency has recognized only about 10% of severe adverse reactions get reported.

00:18:06.000 So basically this yellow card system that the UK depends on, you could say is pretty well 90% useless.

00:18:11.000 Wow.

00:18:12.000 Because people simply don't get around to doing it.

00:18:14.000 And for the more, sort of, less serious side effects, they estimate only 2-4%.

00:18:20.000 reported but that's what we've actually got. Why is such a small percentage of

00:18:25.000 events reported? Why is that? Because it's across a population, people are dealing

00:18:29.000 with illness and death, loads of practical difficult to determine factors.

00:18:32.000 Well partly it's because when people take a medication they might get an

00:18:36.000 adverse event but they don't always recognize that that's caused by the

00:18:40.000 So that's part of it.

00:18:42.000 Part of it is they might not actually report that to a nurse or a doctor.

00:18:45.000 If they do report it to a nurse or a doctor, it's an extra job, isn't it?

00:18:49.000 You know, you've got to spend 10 minutes going through the form, doing it yourself.

00:18:52.000 But of course, any member of the public can report it.

00:18:55.000 I developed higher blood pressure than I'd ever had in my life after my third dose of the vaccine.

00:19:00.000 So at that point you were just taking vaccines, you were into it?

00:19:03.000 Well, I've been giving vaccines out all my life.

00:19:07.000 I've organised teaching programmes for people giving out vaccines for diseases like polio, which have been virtually eradicated with vaccination.

00:19:16.000 The only places we've still got polio now are parts of Africa and parts of Pakistan.

00:19:21.000 And a few areas in Asia where there is no security, where vaccine teams aren't free to go.

00:19:28.000 Apart from that, polio has been basically eradicated.

00:19:31.000 Now, you go into any village in Asia, Cambodia, India, anywhere like that, and you see terrible, still young people with polio-formed deformities.

00:19:39.000 Yes.

00:19:39.000 And that has basically been eradicated with vaccination.

00:19:42.000 Now, people debate smallpox, but there's no question in my mind that the main reason we don't have smallpox now is it was eradicated with vaccination.

00:19:51.000 And I've seen people with intensive care with tetanus.

00:19:55.000 The people we're getting with tetanus tend to be people in their 70s and 80s who were vaccinated as young children or young adults and the vaccine has worn off.

00:20:04.000 And tetanus is a terrible disease.

00:20:06.000 It can need ventilated for weeks.

00:20:08.000 So vaccines actually work.

00:20:10.000 And then these vaccines came along and the COVID vaccines came along as the mRNA vaccines and the adenovirus vector vaccine.

00:20:18.000 And they both kind of con the body into making its own antigen, the thing the immune system recognises being foreign.

00:20:26.000 They're not giving it themselves.

00:20:28.000 So because this was called a vaccine, I and many others thought, oh, this is another vaccine.

00:20:34.000 OK, vaccines are fine.

00:20:36.000 We want this.

00:20:37.000 And the initial data that was released to us showed that these vaccines were efficacious.

00:20:43.000 It showed they were preventing people getting the infection and it showed they were preventing severe hospitalisation and death.

00:20:49.000 That's the initial data.

00:20:53.000 So then not only were the initial releases around the vaccine efficacy potentially misleading, but also the very nature of the medicine was misleading.

00:21:04.000 Do you think that that was possibly deliberate?

00:21:07.000 That they didn't from the get-go say, oh by the way this is some crazy new thing we're all up to?

00:21:12.000 They said this is a thing like, so that even the first wave of medical professionals would recognise the terminology, the language, and the pathology that it was meant to address as something recognisable rather than old.

00:21:12.000 Yeah.

00:21:25.000 I mean, this is experimental.

00:21:27.000 Do you think that was deliberate?

00:21:28.000 They called it a vaccine when really it probably should have been called something else.

00:21:33.000 Why they went down this way, why they went down the adenovirus vector vaccine route and why they went down the mRNA vaccine route is a bit of a mystery because the Chinese didn't.

00:21:43.000 The Chinese went down the traditional vaccine route.

00:21:45.000 So what they did, they brewed up untold billions of these viruses.

00:21:48.000 You can do that.

00:21:49.000 You have a cell culture.

00:21:51.000 You put the virus in it.

00:21:53.000 The virus will multiply exponentially in this cell culture.

00:21:57.000 You then get all these dead viruses, you mush them up, and then you inject them.

00:22:00.000 That is a traditional type of vaccine.

00:22:04.000 But these mRNA vaccines and this adenovirus vector vaccine People have been developing for a while, and you can kind of see that it could be a very flexible approach to vaccination.

00:22:15.000 And I get the feeling that because this technology was there, people were kind of chomping at the bit to use it.

00:22:20.000 So because I've got this, I'm flipping well going to use it.

00:22:20.000 Right.

00:22:22.000 You know, whether it's the, in retrospect, was it the right thing?

00:22:27.000 I think it wasn't the right thing, but it was called a vaccine.

00:22:30.000 Now we know vaccines have very minimal side effects, most of them.

00:22:33.000 Okay, there's recognisable side effects.

00:22:35.000 There are vaccine injuries.

00:22:37.000 But you know, vaccines have saved untold billions of lives.

00:22:39.000 So because it was called a vaccine, we went with it and the initial data indicated it was efficacious.

00:22:44.000 But looking back, and I really don't see why this wasn't clear in my mind at the time.

00:22:50.000 This is a problem for me personally.

00:22:52.000 I didn't recognize this earlier.

00:22:54.000 This is getting the body to produce the antigen.

00:22:57.000 And as we've said, it's not just produced in the arm, it can be produced anywhere in the body, causing an inflammatory reaction, potentially anywhere in the body.

00:23:05.000 Not only that, the way we give the injections.

00:23:08.000 So I've taught for 40 years.

00:23:10.000 When I was 18, my charge nurse taught me how to give intramuscular injections.

00:23:14.000 You stick the needle in, in the right place, then you draw back.

00:23:18.000 And when you draw back, if blood comes into that syringe, you're in a vessel, you don't inject.

00:23:24.000 This is the way we've done intramuscular injections for a hundred years since they've been invented.

00:23:30.000 But then the WHO changed the criteria for vaccinating children because they thought it was less painful.

00:23:36.000 And with the traditional vaccines, if you're given an inadvertent intravascular injection, if you stick it in and by chance you just happen to hit a blood vessel, with an ordinary vaccine that probably doesn't matter too much.

00:23:47.000 It probably just means that it wouldn't be as effective.

00:23:51.000 With this new vaccine, these new vaccines, in vaccines in inverted commas I think we'd have to say now, if you give that in a blood vessel then you're going to get immediate systemic absorption of that.

00:24:01.000 It's going to go all around the body.

00:24:03.000 These lipid nanoparticles or the adenoviruses, whichever vaccine it is, are going to go into the cells.

00:24:09.000 The cells are going to produce that and you can get this inflammatory response.

00:24:12.000 That's the bit I hadn't quite realised.

00:24:14.000 Yes.

00:24:15.000 And that's what I I just wish I'd realised that earlier on Russell.

00:24:18.000 You should have done.

00:24:19.000 I know I should.

00:24:20.000 And this inflammation, notably, as you've already explained, and it's the first time I've understood it actually, can take place in the heart and that's what myocarditis is.

00:24:29.000 With AstraZeneca, it was quite quickly and quietly withdrawn.

00:24:32.000 Yeah, it was.

00:24:33.000 Right, the AstraZeneca vaccine can be systemically absorbed, so there is a degree of myocarditis, pericarditis and other inflammatory conditions.

00:24:33.000 Why?

00:24:42.000 Even in the original trial, there was a problem with the spinal cord called transverse myelitis, but they managed to write that off as an artifact, but there has been more cases.

00:24:52.000 Also, the AstraZeneca vaccine caused thromboembolic events.

00:24:57.000 So, when you cut yourself, you want your bleeding to stop, you want the blood to clot.

00:25:01.000 It's a hemostatic mechanism.

00:25:03.000 What you don't want is intravascular thrombosis.

00:25:06.000 You do not want blood clotting.

00:25:08.000 You do not want blood clotting in your blood vessels.

00:25:11.000 If you get that, it's called thrombosis.

00:25:13.000 If that moves around, it's called an embolism.

00:25:15.000 We call it thromboembolic disease.

00:25:17.000 And that will block off the blood supply to any part of the body, potentially the brain, the heart, absolute kidneys, anywhere.

00:25:23.000 So, AstraZeneca was associated with an increased degree of that, as well as the other complications.

00:25:29.000 So, yellow card data started going in on the AstraZeneca vaccine in early 2021, and it was realized quite quickly that this was causing really quite a high rate of complications.

00:25:42.000 Now, the British Heart Foundation, on their guidelines, and the British Heart Foundation are very much promoting vaccination, they actually say that we now no longer recommend AstraZeneca in the UK because we're now producing the Pfizer and the Moderna mRNA vaccines, and you know what?

00:25:58.000 They work better.

00:26:00.000 They're not saying that this AstraZeneca vaccine kills people, which over 1,400 fatalities on the yellow card scheme have been associated with the AstraZeneca vaccine.

00:26:09.000 1,400 deaths?

00:26:12.000 You can't say it's definitely, but they've been associated with it.

00:26:14.000 Fatalities associated with the yellow card reports, yes.

00:26:16.000 And it could be as many as 10 times that.

00:26:19.000 I mean, is it likely in the case of fatalities that that wouldn't get reported?

00:26:25.000 Well, the data we have still says that most cases aren't reported because the correlation may not have been made.

00:26:31.000 Yes.

00:26:31.000 So if someone has the vaccine and six weeks later they have a myocardial infarction, a blockage to the heart muscle, is it related or not?

00:26:39.000 Also, John, one of the things that has defined this pandemic, there seemed to be an absolute reluctance to report the information accurately, the whole with COVID, from COVID scenario, It's one of your videos in which I learned that previously vaccines have been withdrawn if there's one event in 100,000, one event in 10,000, and this currently stands at one in 800.

00:27:04.000 So the reporting of this was biased from the beginning.

00:27:07.000 It seems like there was an incredible appetite, a serious set of convergent interests that wanted this medication to be understood in a particular way and that wanted this pandemic to be interpreted and regulated in a very particular way.

00:27:21.000 And I suppose we're still dealing with that.

00:27:24.000 Do you think that excess deaths is one of the areas that's most revealing currently about the missteps that were taken during this crisis?

00:27:33.000 You know, during the pandemic years, of course, 2020, we would expect excess deaths because there's no question about it.

00:27:40.000 SARS-CoV-2, in the original form, in an immunologically naive population, was a dangerous disease, did kill people.

00:27:49.000 So people did die from COVID, SARS-CoV-2 infection, from the original Wuhan wave, the Alpha wave, the Delta wave, and to a much smaller extent in the Omicron wave.

00:28:00.000 So definitely associated with fatalities.

00:28:03.000 And there has been an excess fatalities.

00:28:05.000 Now the excess fatalities aren't quite as high as the number of people that were officially thought to have died of COVID.

00:28:10.000 Because the people that died of COVID are just people that happen to die within 28 days of a positive diagnosis.

00:28:16.000 But that doesn't necessarily tell you whether it's of or with COVID.

00:28:20.000 But what you wouldn't expect is when Omicron came along, Omicron came along basically the end of 2021, beginning of 2022.

00:28:28.000 Now Omicron is almost like a supernatural event, it really was.

00:28:35.000 So we had the delta wave, that was killing people and was very transmissible.

00:28:40.000 Then Omicron came along, which was much more transmissible than the Delta.

00:28:44.000 So it replaced Delta because it was out-competing it.

00:28:47.000 But amazingly, brilliantly, Omicron is so much less pathogenic than the Delta wave.

00:28:55.000 It kills so many fewer people.

00:28:58.000 I was talking to a mate of mine who works on intensive care last week, and originally in these first waves, we had this acute respiratory distress syndrome caused by the Wuhan wave, the alpha variant and the delta variant, where the alveoli basically fill up with fluid and people drown.

00:29:15.000 It's basically a COVID pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome.

00:29:19.000 He hasn't seen a case of that for 18 months.

00:29:22.000 in a relatively large intensive care unit, because with the Omicron, we don't get it.

00:29:26.000 So the Omicron has saved us from so many deaths that were associated with the Delta in the previous waves.

00:29:33.000 It really is just, in many ways, you could just say it's a great gift to humanity that the Omicron came along.

00:29:40.000 My friends in Uganda, for example, they were doing an interview on this and they said, look, what you've got to realise is Omicron is the vaccine we failed to produce.

00:29:50.000 Oh wow, it produced itself.

00:29:53.000 Well, where it came from, we still don't know.

00:29:56.000 We still don't know.

00:29:57.000 Omicron could have come from someone who was immunocompromised and was infected for a long period of time, developing partial immunity and then more rapid evolution.

00:30:06.000 But another line of thought actually thinks that Omicron could have been a reverse zoonosis from mice.

00:30:13.000 Because there's things about the Omicron virus that fit very well into a mouse ACE2 receptor.

00:30:19.000 that don't fit in so well into a human ACE2 receptor.

00:30:22.000 But it's very transmissible.

00:30:23.000 It doesn't cause a lot of disease in humans.

00:30:25.000 So we still don't know.

00:30:26.000 No definitive research on that.

00:30:28.000 But whatever, if we hadn't had Omicron, if we still had Delta-type pathogenicity, then a lot more people would have died.

00:30:35.000 That is for sure.

00:30:37.000 So we had this high death rate throughout 2021, which we kind of would expect.

00:30:42.000 With Omicron in 2022, we would expect that to go down.

00:30:45.000 And it did go down quite dramatically.

00:30:48.000 But the excess deaths for the UK at the moment is around about 9% higher all of 2022 than we would expect.

00:30:57.000 Now, they're not COVID-related deaths.

00:30:59.000 There's a great excess of deaths that are not COVID-related deaths.

00:31:03.000 And we're probably talking about 65,000 excess deaths in 2022 in the UK.

00:31:07.000 Those kind of numbers.

00:31:10.000 So the 65,000 deaths that aren't really explained.

00:31:13.000 Now, we know that most of them aren't COVID.

00:31:15.000 They're not COVID related.

00:31:17.000 Some will be related to flu.

00:31:19.000 Some will be related to other diseases.

00:31:22.000 And in fact, this was asked, Esther McVeigh asked this in Parliament just a few weeks ago.

00:31:27.000 Why have we got all these excess deaths?

00:31:30.000 And the minister responsible actually says, well, these excess deaths are partly COVID, partly flu and other conditions.

00:31:37.000 Well imagine that.

00:31:38.000 Partly Covid, partly flu and people are actually partly dying of other conditions.

00:31:42.000 Get away.

00:31:43.000 That's what the minister actually says.

00:31:45.000 People are dying of diseases is what she said.

00:31:47.000 But she said it's not really a problem because this is happening everywhere.

00:31:50.000 So there's excess deaths in the UK, Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia.

00:31:55.000 It's actually quite high.

00:31:57.000 We've got these excess deaths everywhere.

00:31:59.000 So we've got some happening in Australia, some happening in the States, some in Canada, some in the UK, some in Europe.

00:32:05.000 All these excess deaths everywhere.

00:32:07.000 Does that not give you the impression there's some common cause of these excess deaths because they're occurring everywhere?

00:32:13.000 We know they're not attributable to COVID.

00:32:15.000 Yes, a big chunk of them are caused by delays in healthcare during the pandemic.

00:32:21.000 But we know that Chris Whitty actually said a few weeks ago in his technical report that the reason more people are dying is because less people took statins and less people took high blood pressure medicines during the pandemic.

00:32:34.000 But we actually looked at the evidence from Oxford University's data centre on that, and you know what?

00:32:39.000 It's not true.

00:32:41.000 Statin use actually went up a little bit during the pandemic, and high blood pressure medication stayed the same during the pandemic.

00:32:47.000 So we know it's not people getting access to medications.

00:32:50.000 Is it delayed diagnosis?

00:32:52.000 Is it the ambulance problems?

00:32:53.000 Is it the NE crisis?

00:32:54.000 Yes, to some extent.

00:32:56.000 But there's also another factor that are causing these.

00:33:00.000 So if 65,000 people died in a terrorist attack in the UK, I think that might make the news.

00:33:05.000 Don't you think that would make the news?

00:33:07.000 It would be an unprecedented attack.

00:33:09.000 It would be all over the news.

00:33:10.000 As you know, terrorism has disappeared in the last couple of years altogether anyway.

00:33:15.000 But that would be a significant attack.

00:33:18.000 And Doctor, what This mostly helps me to appreciate is that during the pandemic period there has been an extraordinary amount of censorship, there has been a lot of exerted control over public discourse and a concomitant loss of trust in public institutions, big pharma, and I wonder when in particular did you change from being a

00:33:43.000 committed and, I'm trying to say this in the right way, sort of conventional medical professional,

00:33:49.000 when did you start to have doubts and start to think this is not being reported on and relayed in an accurate

00:33:54.000 way and there are anomalies that are worthy of discussion?

00:33:57.000 What personally made you start to doubt what we'll call for simplicity's sake,

00:34:01.000 the mainstream narrative?

00:34:03.000 At the start, we did think it was a bit of an emergency because this was a new virus and there was a lot of

00:34:09.000 unknowns.

00:34:09.000 So at the start of the pandemic, we had the prime minister, Chief Medical Advisor Chris Whitty and the Chief Scientific

00:34:15.000 Officer Patrick Valance.

00:34:16.000 They were all on TV.

00:34:18.000 And my wife says, look, you've got the Prime Minister, you've got the boss doctor, you've got the boss scientist.

00:34:22.000 That's about what you want, isn't it?

00:34:24.000 You know, this is the response we would expect.

00:34:27.000 Then as time went on, some of the stuff they were saying just didn't start, stopped really making sense.

00:34:31.000 They had a particular narrative.

00:34:33.000 They had this particular idea.

00:34:35.000 But times changed.

00:34:37.000 So they had this particular idea, let's say the vaccine idea.

00:34:41.000 So that was an initial idea.

00:34:44.000 But then as time changed, especially when we came on to Omicron, the risks went down dramatically, and yet people were still advising these vaccines.

00:34:54.000 So I started realizing the risk-benefit analysis had dramatically changed roughly at the end of 2021.

00:35:02.000 So for me personally, I had the first two vaccines and then I was offered a booster in November 2021.

00:35:09.000 And I thought, well, I'm denied about it.

00:35:11.000 I thought, but it's a vaccine.

00:35:12.000 That's OK.

00:35:12.000 So I got the booster in 2021, in November.

00:35:16.000 But it was about just in the days and weeks after that, I realized that people were getting Omicron.

00:35:22.000 Omicron was developing huge amounts of natural immunity.

00:35:25.000 So when you breathe in the Omicron virus, it's going into your nose, your respiratory passages, and it's generating immunity there.

00:35:32.000 So you've got specialist white cells in your nose, in your respiratory passages, in your mucus.

00:35:38.000 that generate a special type of antibody that protect your mucosal compartment.

00:35:42.000 They're called immunoglobulin type A's.

00:35:44.000 The sort of policemen there.

00:35:46.000 And they actually stop the virus getting into the body.

00:35:48.000 And if the virus does get into the body, you've got this natural immune system that produces the virus protection throughout the body.

00:35:55.000 So we've got this mucosal compartment immunity.

00:35:57.000 We've got this whole body immunity from exposure to the virus.

00:36:01.000 And I realized that this was just not being talked about.

00:36:04.000 Why weren't they talking about this wonderful natural immune system that we've all been blessed with, that recognises 9 billion different types of foreign particle in the body, and that's a literal number from the scientific data.

00:36:19.000 And this was being ignored and the vaccines were being pushed, and I thought, just a minute, this doesn't make sense.

00:36:24.000 The risks now from Covid are way less than they were, especially for young people.

00:36:29.000 No question, the risks for young people are, you can't, well, negligible.

00:36:32.000 You can't say there's no risk.

00:36:33.000 Of course, there's always a level of risk, but it's absolutely tiny.

00:36:37.000 And yet they were carrying on with these same vaccination programmes.

00:36:41.000 So earlier on, you know, earlier on in the pandemic, yes, you've got some risks.

00:36:45.000 You need to take a bit of a risk, arguably, to treat it.

00:36:49.000 But once the risk has gone way down, why would you carry on with the intervention, which itself is associated with a risk?

00:36:56.000 So my mind started really changing quite dramatically at the end of 2021.

00:37:00.000 Yes, as I heard you say, nine billion cells.

00:37:07.000 Nine billion foreign agents are recognised by the immune system.

00:37:12.000 Nine billion foreign agents are recognised.

00:37:14.000 As soon as I hear billion in relation to this pandemic, I just think Pfizer profits.

00:37:21.000 Dr. John, one of the reasons perhaps that vitamin D, healthy diet, healthy lifestyle, natural immunity may not have been discussed, and this is obviously reductive in particular compared to the vast, deep and varied knowledge that you bring to this conversation, is that these are areas of response that are not monetizable.

00:37:41.000 this also seems to make sense when compared to the ongoing suggestion that different demographics

00:37:48.000 continue to take medication when there is negligible risk.

00:37:50.000 We've talked about young people that a booster program continues to be augmented and

00:37:56.000 implemented even after the risk benefit analysis starts to shift dramatically.

00:38:01.000 Therefore, it seems like a natural point for us to do two things. One, to consider how finance and

00:38:07.000 economics affects research and the distribution of medicine. And two, to introduce your

00:38:13.000 famous, iconic and frankly wonderful overhead camera because I would love you to talk

00:38:18.000 us through the economic connotations implications around clinical research using this device

00:38:23.000 that we are, if you are Doctor Who, that is canine.

00:38:27.000 This is very much a sidekick, we're very excited to have Join us, the R2-D2 of YouTube Conspiracy Theorists or Dr. John's Ovaired Camera.

00:38:39.000 If we agree we can give it a nice big tick.

00:38:41.000 If I don't agree I'll give it a cross.

00:38:45.000 So, alright then, Dr. Scott.

00:38:47.000 On that basis, can you talk us through what you actually have to watch on the telly if you put it up on my screen?

00:38:52.000 Yeah, you can watch it on telly.

00:38:53.000 Then I'll watch it with the viewers.

00:38:54.000 We're in the electronic age, Russell.

00:38:57.000 You have the technology.

00:38:57.000 We can do it.

00:38:58.000 This is amazing.

00:38:59.000 So, this is from the Food and Drug Administration to the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency.

00:39:07.000 Are drug regulators for hire?

00:39:09.000 Now, this is not me speaking.

00:39:11.000 This is an article directly from the British Medical Journal.

00:39:16.000 So that's the reference there.

00:39:17.000 So check it out for yourself.

00:39:18.000 Do not take my word for it.

00:39:21.000 That's had a tick.

00:39:22.000 Check it out with the British Medical Journal.

00:39:24.000 The oldest medical journal in the world, Russell, started from memory in about 1840.

00:39:28.000 This reported things like smoking causes lung cancer.

00:39:33.000 And I think that has been proven.

00:39:36.000 Yes.

00:39:37.000 Yes, that has been proven by Richard Doll and Sir Austin Bradford Hill.

00:39:40.000 What about cigars though?

00:39:41.000 You don't inhale.

00:39:45.000 I'd have to ask them about that.

00:39:48.000 I suspect they probably are carcinogenic.

00:39:51.000 All tobacco products, I'm afraid, are carcinogenic, whether you chew them, smoke them.

00:39:56.000 I wouldn't even have them in the same room.

00:39:59.000 Right, now the proportion of the budget derived from industry of various agencies.

00:40:05.000 So proportion of the COVID-19 Vaccine, so this is the portion of the budget derived from industry and in brackets we've got the proportion of COVID-19 vaccine committee members that declare a financial conflict of interest.

00:40:22.000 So let's start off to begin with our very own, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency.

00:40:29.000 Now the figure there Russell is 86%.

00:40:31.000 So let's be clear, 86% of the funding For the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency that regulate what medicines you can take, 86% of that funding comes from industry.

00:40:46.000 Now we're not talking about industry that makes beer here or tractors.

00:40:50.000 No.

00:40:50.000 This is industry with an interest.

00:40:52.000 Of the members of this committee, the Members in Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, 32% of those members reported, this is the ones that have reported, a potential financial conflict of interest.

00:41:05.000 So you'll be pleased to hear that the people on our Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, with a potential conflict of interest, is under a third.

00:41:15.000 Under a third.

00:41:16.000 Just under a third of them with a reported conflict of interest.

00:41:20.000 86% of their funding.

00:41:21.000 That's the funding.

00:41:22.000 Now, of course, the fact that it's 86% industry funding in no way influences their objective decision making.

00:41:28.000 I don't think there's any proven relationship between giving people money and getting a desired outcome.

00:41:33.000 For example, when you go into a shop and say Here's 15 quid, can I have some fags please, or cigarettes?

00:41:40.000 Usually it's hit or miss whether you'll get some cigarettes in return.

00:41:45.000 This is different.

00:41:46.000 Here there's no influence on the decision-making whatsoever, whereas in the rest of the world there is.

00:41:51.000 Here is the money, do what you will.

00:41:53.000 It appears this is the only exception.

00:41:54.000 Trust your gut.

00:41:55.000 But there's a serious point here, Russell.

00:41:58.000 The reason that I've had to do all this silly, sarcasm, double-talk, tongue-in-cheek, pulling expressions at the camera... Thank God you're British.

00:42:06.000 Yeah.

00:42:07.000 But all that shouldn't be necessary.

00:42:08.000 I should just be able to say it straight.

00:42:09.000 Go on, do it now.

00:42:10.000 What do I want to do?

00:42:11.000 Well, it was saying that there's a clear potential conflict of interest, aren't we?

00:42:15.000 Yeah, but that's not going to get a tick for that.

00:42:17.000 This needs to be explained.

00:42:19.000 This 32%, why are they still on that committee?

00:42:21.000 Why should it be zero?

00:42:23.000 It should be zero.

00:42:24.000 So that 32%, in my view, should resign from the committee.

00:42:29.000 I agree.

00:42:30.000 In fact, I wish I had my red pen with me, because I'd give that a red cross.

00:42:33.000 All I can do now is give it a blue cross.

00:42:35.000 If I really don't like something, I'll give it a red cross.

00:42:37.000 Well, can we bring a red pen in for Dr John, please?

00:42:39.000 It's the least we can do, otherwise I'm going to have to use my own blood, simply for aesthetics.

00:42:44.000 US Food and Drug Administration, 65% industry funded, less than 10%.

00:42:50.000 But here, that sounds like a lot less, but their budget is so massive.

00:42:54.000 Right.

00:42:55.000 We're still talking about enough money to organise huge, huge research Also, Doctor, my understanding is that when it shifted to that figure, there was a radical increase in drugs being approved first time round.

00:43:14.000 When their funding model altered, the number of drugs that got passed after their first round of clinical trials increased.

00:43:20.000 So it seems that there's a relationship between funding a regulatory body and that regulatory body giving you favourable results for your product.

00:43:29.000 The problem is that this is hidden behind layers of complexity.

00:43:32.000 You know, it really is hard to tell, but this is something that should be squeaky clean.

00:43:37.000 I mean, if you take another government agency, we've been doing some work lately locally with the Environment Agency.

00:43:43.000 about an incineration project, which is really a bad idea because they're producing dioxins.

00:43:48.000 And it turns out that the people that are actually building this incineration plant have actually paid the Environment Agency consultancy fees.

00:43:56.000 Now, the fact that this company has paid the Environment Agency, which we think is working for you and me, the fact that it's paid that consultancy fees, of course, In no way, they would say, represent, influences their decision making.

00:44:08.000 You know, I just think this stinks.

00:44:10.000 Yeah.

00:44:10.000 It sort of shows us that the institutional machinery is organised to create certain results that you may as well call systemic at this point.

00:44:20.000 And it seems that this unique global event, the pandemic, brought together so many convergent interests, a desire for the increased ability to surveil, the desire for more control in populations that are increasingly harder to control when there are counter-narratives, the ability to censor more, the ability for big pharma to make profits.

00:44:41.000 It seemed like so many things came together simultaneously that the facts were being lost Massage.

00:44:48.000 Manipulated.

00:44:49.000 Neglected.

00:44:50.000 Negated.

00:44:50.000 And that clearly happens in the pharmaceutical industry anyway.

00:44:53.000 That is my limited understanding of how drugs are trialled.

00:44:56.000 They can do numerous tests until they get the results that they want.

00:44:59.000 They can white label products.

00:45:00.000 There's all sorts of ways around it.

00:45:02.000 It doesn't seem... One of the things I think that's made you so appealing and successful is that it seems that at the heart of what you're doing is, what is best for people's health?

00:45:10.000 And that that should be the pulse, the beating heart of medicine, or be wellness.

00:45:16.000 A sort of a Hippocratic interest in serving people and helping people, and of course not harming people.

00:45:22.000 And it seems that as much as interests have coalesced around this, controversy has.

00:45:28.000 And because of the nature of media now, because of the ability of independent voices, even in the face of some censorship, to communicate openly, the kind of questions that are being raised, it seems to me, are now unignorable.

00:45:41.000 It seems to me The narrative and understanding of the pandemic is shifting.

00:45:45.000 Do you sense that with all of the adverse events, with the excess deaths, with the information coming out about clinical trials, with the Pfizer profits, with Moderna pushing a 4000% markup on prices?

00:45:56.000 Are you starting to think that people have changed their opinion?

00:46:00.000 And also, this is psychologically so it's somewhat abstract, how do you think people are going to adjust Oh, there certainly is.

00:46:06.000 that this was a period in history that was very badly handled and that there's almost,

00:46:11.000 I would say at this point, a requirement for a reckoning, an investigation at very least.

00:46:15.000 Oh, there certainly is. Now, I mean, we would expect vested interests from the pharmaceutical

00:46:22.000 industry. They are there absolutely at the end of the day to make money. That's what

00:46:26.000 you would expect. But we're talking about our regulatory authorities. Now, we used to

00:46:31.000 trust these regulatory authorities. We thought they had our best interests at heart. But

00:46:36.000 it appears that they have these conflicts of interest that just are, to my mind, is

00:46:40.000 not acceptable.

00:46:41.000 What I'm interested in doing is preventing disease if possible and treating it as cheaply as possible if we possibly can.

00:46:48.000 So the vitamin D example, you can go to the supermarket, you can buy vitamin D tablets and they're 1.50 for a tub.

00:46:54.000 So, you know, we're talking about a really cheap intervention here.

00:46:57.000 Whereas all the new pharmaceuticals that are coming along, the new ones are expensive.

00:47:03.000 And it very often is that you need to take a tablet a day for the rest of your life.

00:47:07.000 So there's kind of a long-term market strategy here.

00:47:09.000 They're going to be selling these for a long period of time is what they want to do.

00:47:14.000 But these people should be getting regulated.

00:47:16.000 And in my view, they're just not being adequately regulated.

00:47:19.000 But it's not just that, it's the knowledge as well, how we know things.

00:47:24.000 So, if you're in an argument with a doctor, what you'll often say is, well, have you got a randomised double blind control trial evidence of that?

00:47:31.000 Well, actually, a lot of the time, I'm afraid we don't, because randomised double blind control trials are conducted essentially entirely by the pharmaceutical industry.

00:47:40.000 It costs probably upwards of $10 million each.

00:47:44.000 So, who's going to bother doing a randomized double-blind control trial on vitamin D or ivermectin or other repurposed drugs that are probably very, very efficacious for various conditions because they're not underpaid anymore.

00:47:58.000 You can't make any money.

00:48:00.000 So, Santoshi Omura's institution in Japan, he discovered ivermectin.

00:48:05.000 His institution in Japan offered Merck their facilities to run a randomized double blind control trial at the start of the pandemic on ivermectin.

00:48:15.000 And of course, Merck didn't want to because there was no Well, I can't say why Merck didn't want to, but Merck didn't want to.

00:48:21.000 I might posit that it's because it's not a profitable medicine.

00:48:25.000 And the hysteria that surrounded that conversation was, I think, one of the moments where we came to recognise what was happening in that pandemic.

00:48:34.000 There was a form of media totalitarianism and the assertion of establishment control.

00:48:39.000 that if it was taking places under the guises of another ideology would be called out for what it was hysteria.

00:48:45.000 I was thinking that the way that you just described that double-blind trial process as being an expensive costly one and therefore necessarily under the auspices of a profit-driven model only undertaken in pursuit of profits.

00:49:00.000 That's not even a moral and ethical issue.

00:49:02.000 If something was so tightly bound for example by Sufism or some Christian sect You'd call it crazy.

00:49:09.000 We're not going to carry out that trial.

00:49:11.000 It doesn't prove that Sufism works.

00:49:13.000 It doesn't prove that supporting West Ham United is the only way to follow football.

00:49:17.000 You'd call it mad.

00:49:19.000 But because it's an economic ideology, no one's questioning it.

00:49:22.000 And in a sense, that's what is at the heart of this.

00:49:24.000 Power, dominion, finance.

00:49:26.000 And increasingly, we're seeing this modality mapped onto reporting.

00:49:31.000 Because of course what you're doing is reporting, essentially, from a firm platform and basis of medical understanding and with a demeanour that I imagine many people find appealing.

00:49:42.000 But it isn't presumptuous, it's not condescending, it's open and ethical, it seems to me at least.

00:49:49.000 But ultimately, this has become something that's difficult to achieve.

00:49:53.000 Both you and I, on some platforms, have experienced pushback and consequences.

00:49:58.000 Both of us have been called conspiracy theorists and crackpots.

00:50:01.000 And even legitimate voices like, well you tell me, are voices like that of Peter McCulloch and Dr Robert Malone, are these voices that in a genuine scientific discourse ought to have been included?

00:50:14.000 And was an early warning sign that something unusual was happening, the exclusion of certain data, and what's that thing, the Barraclough Report, or whatever it's called, the Barrington Report?

00:50:23.000 Oh, the Great Barrington Declaration.

00:50:24.000 Yeah, when that kind of stuff starts getting excluded from the conversation, and those revelations around Fauci's emails, the fact that there were three theories at the beginning, and then all of a sudden they just stopped talking about two of them, and the fact that Wuhan does have ties to the EcoHealth Alliance, all of this accumulative information, what does it suggest to us about the driving force behind the narrative, the driving force behind policy, and the exclusion of certain voices from media?

00:50:53.000 Yeah, there's no question that there's been a particular narrative.

00:50:56.000 We've been able to see that.

00:50:57.000 If we take the BBC, for example, they've had a particular line all the way through this pandemic.

00:51:01.000 And, you know, argument against that really hasn't been allowed.

00:51:06.000 And again, big tech have had a particular narrative, and you're not really allowed to argue with that big tech narrative.

00:51:15.000 Now even if these people are wrong, if they're putting forward science, if they're putting forward sensible ideas, then they should be allowed to do that.

00:51:25.000 They should be allowed to publish that.

00:51:27.000 Because a lot of medical publications now are controlled to quite a large extent.

00:51:32.000 A lot of peer-reviewed papers are actually ghostwritten by pharmaceutical industries.

00:51:37.000 The very trials that are done Of course, trials, the pharmaceutical industry can do some trials and choose not to do other trials.

00:51:45.000 So the data that we get out from this is only what they've decided to put into the system in the first place.

00:51:50.000 But we've got people like those scientists you mentioned, our mutual friend Dr. Haseem Malhotra, for example, who's actually in India advocating against the use of mass vaccination in India as we speak.

00:52:02.000 When people like that are putting forward ideas, they've earned the right to be heard.

00:52:08.000 And they're putting forward scientific ideas and they're putting forward scientific data.

00:52:12.000 So for potential scientific data to be rejected out of hand, before it's been analysed, before it's been critiqued, because it doesn't fit with a particular narrative, is a form of intellectual fascism.

00:52:24.000 It's saying who can speak and who can't speak.

00:52:26.000 And that's a fundamental issue.

00:52:28.000 Anyone putting forward a legitimate scientific argument should be able to publish that, should be able to debate it, and should be able to do so freely.

00:52:35.000 And the argument should be based on the content of the argument, not on the man.

00:52:40.000 So play the ball.

00:52:43.000 not the man.

00:52:44.000 Very often people, I mean people have a go at me all the time of course, it doesn't bother me too much, but really it would be much better if they focused on my arguments.

00:52:53.000 Your data says this, this other data says this, how do you reconcile those two?

00:52:58.000 It's a completely legitimate thing to say.

00:53:01.000 But we've got all these people, I mean I talked at the start of this pandemic to the leading physician in the state, one of the leading respiratory physicians in the state, Dr Pierre Corrie, He testified to Senate about the use of steroids in COVID.

00:53:17.000 That was taken on.

00:53:19.000 I did a video with Dr Pierre Couric on steroids.

00:53:21.000 It's still on YouTube now.

00:53:22.000 You can see it.

00:53:23.000 The use of steroids has saved millions of lives in the pandemic.

00:53:27.000 He then testified to Senate about ivermectin.

00:53:30.000 That got immediately 10 million views on YouTube.

00:53:34.000 Then it was taken down.

00:53:35.000 He did a video with me.

00:53:37.000 And his arguments were eloquent.

00:53:39.000 They were consistent with his many years of medical expertise.

00:53:42.000 He cited other medical experts.

00:53:44.000 Of course, that video was taken down because it didn't quite fit the narrative.

00:53:48.000 You've got people of the caliber of Dr. Tess Lorry, who I interviewed as well.

00:53:52.000 She did the original Cochrane data review on ivermectin, found it was efficacious, sent it in, it was rejected.

00:53:59.000 She couldn't quite work out why it was being rejected.

00:54:01.000 It's because it didn't fit this narrative.

00:54:04.000 So we've got We've got Professor Norman Fenton, again a statistician of international renown, putting forward data, but the data is being rejected because it doesn't fit the narrative and that's not acceptable.

00:54:16.000 If we're going to deny the nature of scientific reality, then why do we bother having scientists we're not going to listen to?

00:54:22.000 We might as well go back to the Stone Age.

00:54:24.000 And that's what we're doing.

00:54:25.000 Scientific information, you know, the axioms of science like we talked about in the basic physiology The data, it's all being ignored or suppressed if it doesn't fit a particular narrative, rather than an open dialectic debate, which is what we need.

00:54:40.000 In fact, there are still videos up from much earlier in the pandemic where you can see people say, like, you know, not just people, presidents, prominent newscasters saying, take this vaccine, you won't get this thing and you won't be able to spread it, it stops with you.

00:54:56.000 Transmission seems to be another area where there was a degree of opacity that seems irresponsible, and a lot of the social leverage that was offered was around a kind of a public duty, which for me was a very effective method of communication, because if you believe, as obviously you do, in the sort of sanctity, significance and beauty of human life, then protecting other people, protecting the more vulnerable, is a significant push to take a medication not for your own health, but for somebody else's health.

00:55:23.000 And yet it seems that even that assertion is not one that can be made on a scientific basis.

00:55:29.000 Certainly not now.

00:55:30.000 Again, in the earlier stages of the pandemic, there was some evidence of that.

00:55:34.000 But what's been really disappointing in the pandemic is how quickly any protection has waned.

00:55:39.000 Now, the idea that you have the vaccine and the infection stops with you, that was always nonsense.

00:55:44.000 That was always nonsense?

00:55:45.000 Yeah, nothing is 100% effective in medicine.

00:55:49.000 You know, the only thing that's sure in life is death and taxes, isn't it?

00:55:52.000 It was never 100%.

00:55:53.000 But as time has gone on, it's become patently clear that that is not the case.

00:55:58.000 So now, if you are vaccinated, you probably are going to spread the disease a little less for a short period of time.

00:56:03.000 But only for a very short period of time, probably only about 10 or 15%.

00:56:06.000 It's essentially a negligible effect.

00:56:09.000 So this emotional blackmail that you should have your shot to protect your granny, really, why did people say that when it was patently untrue?

00:56:19.000 After the first few months, we knew that wasn't true.

00:56:22.000 And that's another problem with the pandemic.

00:56:25.000 As time has gone on, the data that was collected is no longer being collected.

00:56:30.000 So the Office for National Statistics, for example, every two months, absolutely religiously, published deaths by vaccination status.

00:56:40.000 So how many people are dying?

00:56:42.000 Were they vaccinated or not?

00:56:44.000 So that was published every two months, sometimes every six weeks, up until the 31st of May 2022.

00:56:52.000 They stopped publishing it then.

00:56:53.000 Now the data before then was showing that the vaccine effect was waning quite dramatically.

00:56:59.000 But for eight months now, having published it religiously every two months, but for eight months now we've had no data at all.

00:57:06.000 So we don't know who is dying in the UK by vaccination status.

00:57:10.000 They stopped publishing that data.

00:57:13.000 Now, Why did they stop publishing that data?

00:57:16.000 We don't know.

00:57:17.000 It does seem a bit strange that they were meticulous about it every two months.

00:57:20.000 We know that the ONS is still being funded by the government, to the tune of several million pounds a month, but they're not producing that data.

00:57:28.000 We need to know deaths by vaccination status because we know the efficacy of the vaccine wanes with time.

00:57:34.000 We know that it's not really preventing transmission in any serious way.

00:57:38.000 We know that the vaccine protection against severe illness, hospitalisation and death wanes with time.

00:57:43.000 But at the same time, we know that because there's such a high prevalence of Covid in the community, that you and I are constantly being reinfected.

00:57:50.000 We know that's boosting our mucosal immunity and we're getting this constant top up.

00:57:55.000 So we're still getting this narrative where the natural immunity is being ignored, the vaccine benefits are being talked up dramatically, but how many people are dying by their vaccination status?

00:58:07.000 has been ignored for the last eight months. If we had that data, it used to be published in even in

00:58:13.000 spreadsheet form, it was still published, then people like Professor Fenton are chomping at the

00:58:17.000 bit to analyse that data. But it hasn't been published, we simply don't know what it is.

00:58:22.000 Why has that not been published is a very interesting question.

00:58:25.000 On the spectrum of how this pandemic could have been conveyed to the public, the evolving story,

00:58:34.000 where between it would have been better if they'd just done nothing at all,

00:58:38.000 not had vaccines, not done lockdowns, not done masks, and certain portions of the population,

00:58:46.000 people with respiratory conditions, people that were vulnerable, comorbidities, whatever.

00:58:51.000 Where do you feel that you are?

00:58:54.000 Or is that too complex?

00:58:56.000 Like sometimes the part of me that is just radical in my sort of, I don't know, my sort of My MO.

00:59:03.000 So if it was like, would this have been better if they'd just not done anything?

00:59:06.000 Or would this have been better if they'd have sort of, from the beginning, been explicit?

00:59:10.000 Like, if you're like, it seems now, like... And also, isn't that kind of discourse impossible when you have the kind of interests at play?

00:59:17.000 The kind of funding that's at play?

00:59:19.000 The kind of agenda to introduce further surveillance, further ability to control digital passports?

00:59:26.000 These are not conspiracy theories.

00:59:27.000 It's sort of well-published, well-understood information.

00:59:29.000 Where do you sort of fall on that?

00:59:31.000 You know, in the early stages of the pandemic, Boris Johnson said it's necessary to flatten the sombrero.

00:59:37.000 So we're having this big spike in cases.

00:59:40.000 And I think we did need to get it down because at the time there was a lot of unknowns.

00:59:44.000 And if it had turned out that this disease had something like a 5% mortality rate, we really didn't know at the time because the data coming out of China was completely useless.

00:59:52.000 We knew that at the time.

00:59:54.000 If it had turned out to have a high mortality rate and had done nothing, then, of course, that would have been negligent.

01:00:00.000 So we did need to prevent the transmission of the SARS coronavirus in the early stages of the pandemic, during the Wuhan wave and arguably during the alpha wave, in the earlier waves.

01:00:11.000 I think that was necessary to do that to some extent.

01:00:14.000 Now, of course, it's utterly changed.

01:00:17.000 So were some measures necessary in the first early stages of the pandemic?

01:00:21.000 Yes.

01:00:22.000 Did the hand hygiene work?

01:00:23.000 Probably not, not at all.

01:00:25.000 Did the mask wearing work?

01:00:26.000 Well, pretty minimal really.

01:00:28.000 But the social isolation did.

01:00:30.000 That did prevent the transmission.

01:00:31.000 Now there was a time when a lot of people were being admitted to hospital all at the same time.

01:00:36.000 And if we'd had a situation where people were queuing up ill outside hospitals, that would have not been good for the people and it would have been politically embarrassing.

01:00:44.000 And if we'd let the disease just run rip in the early stages of the pandemic, that could have happened And more people, I think, would have died.

01:00:52.000 But there's no question now that, of course, the lockdown measures, that's completely passed, of course.

01:01:01.000 We need to promote natural immunity now because we're entering this period of endemicity.

01:01:06.000 The risk-benefit analysis, as you've rightly said, if 1 in 800, 1 in 1,000 people get severe adverse events of special interest to the vaccine, and we need to vaccinate tens of thousands to prevent hospitalisation, the risk-benefit analysis has clearly changed.

01:01:21.000 I believe we should absolutely stop the vaccine now, stop the restriction measures now.

01:01:25.000 Quite when that changed over is a bit of a trickier question.

01:01:31.000 It changed over earlier than I recognise, which I quite honestly regret now.

01:01:36.000 So, as I said, I had my last vaccine at the end of 2021.

01:01:40.000 I should have realised more in autumn 2021.

01:01:43.000 But when it became absolutely clear was in the Omicron era.

01:01:47.000 When the Omicron was giving us the natural immunity, the risks were way less, but the risks from vaccination and lockdown measures remained the same.

01:01:55.000 What I would offer there is that when you have lobbying as a sort of just a normalized component of conventional US politics and politics elsewhere, when you have bodies like the WHO that are funded by organizations that appear to have a vested interest in particular outcomes, and to be less cryptic, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation heavily invest in the WHO, similarly they invest in numerous vaccine programs, and similarly There are organisations that they fund that fund the WHO, so their impact and influence cannot be overstated.

01:02:30.000 It's difficult when there is a pivotal moment, even if you don't take a sort of an adverse or an inverse and proportional reaction of like, never trust anyone, never do anything, like, you know, which is sort of almost my pathology, Doctor.

01:02:43.000 It seems that much earlier, as you have just explained, during the Omicron phase, with true objectivity, what could have happened then is, listen, we can radically re-evaluate this.

01:02:53.000 Also because of what's happening culturally, it became sort of unduly politicised and attached to ideological ideas that have absolutely nothing to do with medicine at all!

01:03:01.000 So to do with liberalism and conservatism, both of which are ultimately framed within such a narrow economic framing anyway, though they amount to pretty muted and muted ideologies when it comes to what's required to change the world.

01:03:15.000 So it's been an extraordinary period for learning for our species.

01:03:18.000 I suppose because it is a pandemic, it was an opportunity to look at the planet As a whole, and to look at human nature, and to look at our institutions, and to look at power dynamics.

01:03:28.000 And I think that your role in helping reason, rationale, medicine, duty, stay central to that, I think, is incredibly significant and important.

01:03:39.000 Thank you for that, Doctor.

01:03:40.000 Thanks for your diligence and your duty.

01:03:42.000 I actually feel a bit better in some ways because I feel like now I'm more in contact with the reality.

01:03:48.000 Two years ago I would have said I'm now more cynical but I actually now do think there is a lot of vested interest at government level, at corporate level, at what you might call the philanthropy level, at the whole control level and that doesn't always, in fact you could argue that most of the time, that doesn't operate in the interest of the ordinary people because healthcare should be of the people for the people by the people.

01:04:13.000 That's what it should be.

01:04:14.000 Yes, it should be.

01:04:15.000 And it shows you that sometimes we lose heart, I think, because there's so much cynicism and so much suspicion and sometimes anger towards the institutions.

01:04:22.000 But actually, institutions, whilst there is a sort of a systemic, almost algorithmic consciousness that takes place within these institutions, they are ultimately human beings as well.

01:04:32.000 And if there are human beings that are corrupted, then that situation can be uncorrupted.

01:04:36.000 Uncorrupted, but we can reassess the type of institutions and the type of individuals we endow with power.

01:04:43.000 If we can envisage for a moment an Anthony Fauci that was as devoted to data and research as you are, then the public response to the pandemic in the United States would have been in keeping with the narrative that you've described.

01:04:57.000 Oh, it seems like a sensible thing to do initially.

01:04:59.000 Hold on, we've got more data.

01:05:00.000 We need to address this.

01:05:01.000 No, not young people.

01:05:03.000 Hey, let's look at these adverse events.

01:05:04.000 But that's simply not what happened, because the truth was too bloody inconvenient to be addressed, and so many factors came together.

01:05:12.000 So, thanks so much.

01:05:13.000 Hey, while I've got you here, we should probably say that Joe Rogan, in a way, was quite right to talk about ivermectin and alternative therapies at the time that he did, and that CNN gave him a bit of a rough ride unduly.

01:05:23.000 They certainly did.

01:05:24.000 Joe Rogan has a fundamental right to bring on experts and ask questions and the experts in authority should answer those questions, not ban him and not say you can't talk about that area.

01:05:34.000 Fortunately, they failed.

01:05:35.000 Brian Stelzer in his over-campaign failed.

01:05:38.000 So damn you, Jill Rogan!

01:05:40.000 We can make sure that he gets that, specially and specifically.

01:05:43.000 I want to see him in a couple of weeks.

01:05:45.000 Dr. John, thank you so much for joining me on this special episode of Stay Free, and thanks again for the incredible work you've done during the pandemic, and presumably up to that point, because I can tell that this isn't a hobby for you.

01:05:55.000 And for yours, Russell.

01:05:57.000 We need a free and independent voice.

01:05:59.000 to act against these elite agencies that are not acting in our interest.

01:06:04.000 Thanks very much.

01:06:04.000 Thanks, Dr. John.

01:06:05.000 I hope we get to talk more.

01:06:06.000 Join me next week for special guests including Tim Poole, investigative journalist, Michael Tracy, transcendental meditation teacher, doctor, no he's not a doctor, Bob Roth.

01:06:16.000 He's my friend.

01:06:16.000 He's an early devotee.

01:06:17.000 Not everyone's a doctor, are they?

01:06:18.000 Some people just are not doctors like Bob Roth, but he's a bloody good meditation teacher.

01:06:22.000 If you want to be able to watch these conversations live as they happen and be the first to see my new stand-up special, join us on local.

01:06:30.000 Stay connected.

01:06:30.000 Our weekly show where we tell you how we make these shows and answer your questions is available once a week and there's one coming out tomorrow.

01:06:38.000 And I also do a weekly meditation with a special guest in response to their inquiry.

01:06:42.000 Sometimes it's Deepak Chopra, sometimes it's my friend Mick the Ferret, specifically Mick the Ferret, who just had a heart operation and is in the process of recovering from that.

01:06:51.000 Please join me next week on Monday, not for more of the same, but for more of the different.

Stay Free - Russel Brand - February 10, 2023

Dr John Campbell: You Were Right! - #078 - Stay Free With Russell Brand

Episode Stats

Length

Words per Minute

Word Count

Sentence Count

Misogynist Sentences

Hate Speech Sentences

Summary

Transcript