Russell Brand is joined by Dr. John Campbell to discuss the controversy surrounding Moderna's $400 million payout to the National Institutes of Health, and whether or not that money is a conflict of interest. Plus, Dr. Campbell takes questions from the Stay Free community. Stay Free with Russell Brand is on all of the social medias, if you search for Stay Free, you'll find us. Stay Free! Logo by Courtney DeKorte. Theme by Mavus White. Music by PSOVOD and tyops. All rights reserved. Used by permission. This episode was produced and edited by Riley Bray. The opinions expressed here are our own, not those of our companies, unless otherwise specified. We do not own the rights to any music used in this episode. If you like what you hear, please consider leaving us a five star rating and review on Apple Podcasts. If you don't, please tell a friend about what you think of the show and we'll make sure to mention it in the comments section below. Thanks for listening and sharing it on social media! Stay free, you're listening to a good show. Thank you! - Your continued support is so appreciated, we'll be looking out for you in the future for more great shows like this one. Timestamps: 5:00 - Thank you for listening to Stay Free With Russell Brand. 6:30 - What do you think about the show? 7: What would you like to see in the next episode? 8:15 - What's your favorite part of Stay Free speech? 9:40 - What are you looking for? 10:00s - How do you feel about it? 11:30sounds like a good one? 12:40s - Is it a good idea? 15:00 sigs? 16:15s - Do you have a question? 17:20s 15s - Does it matter? 18: Is it better than that? 19s - I think it's a good thing or not? 22s + 15s? 21s + 16:10s - do you agree or not a bad thing? 27s=1s + 17s +16c? 26s +15s +17c 25s + 14c & 15s & 16c + 16c)
00:01:03.000Thanks for joining me for Stay Free with Russell Brand.
00:01:06.000We've got a fantastic show for you today.
00:01:08.000We're going to be talking, sadly, about the COVID comeback, which neatly lines up with the emergence of new booster shots available now.
00:01:18.000Plus, our special guest will be Dr. John Campbell.
00:01:20.000We'll be talking about Moderna's $400 million NIH payout, and then we'll be transferring elegantly to that sweet home of free speech where we can discuss It's a pleasure to be back, Russell.
00:01:33.000as controversies, where we can talk about whether or not the vaccine affects your DNA, where we'll take questions
00:02:17.000I just discovered this about a week or two back, and this was the interview between Senator Rand Paul and Stephan Banshell, who's the Chief Executive Officer of Moderna.
00:02:28.000It turned out that Rand Paul said Moderna recently gave $400 million to the National Institutes of Health in the United States.
00:02:35.000I thought that the Chief Executive Officer might question this, but he said, oh yeah, that's right, we gave $400 million just before Christmas.
00:02:42.000So as far as we know, $400 million went from Moderna to the National Institutes of Health in around about December 2022, as far as we know.
00:02:52.000Of course, Rand Paul said, well, do you think This could create any conflicts of interest.
00:02:57.000After all, you're the guys making the decisions about how we use these products, how we use Moderna products.
00:03:03.000And yet you've just been given $400 million.
00:03:05.000Could this create a conflict of interest?
00:03:06.000Now, a cynic might think it would create conflicts of interest.
00:03:10.000It did cross my mind, may have crossed your mind, that there could be a conflict of interest here.
00:03:14.000But the CEO of Pfizer did not admit to that.
00:03:18.000He basically remained silent and didn't say one way or the other.
00:03:22.000So we've got this situation where there's huge amounts of money Going from Big Pharma into regulatory authorities.
00:03:31.000We already know that Big Pharma pays a lot of money into regulatory authorities around the world, and yet no one seems to really to be prepared to talk about conflicts of interest, which is is unfortunate.
00:03:43.000You said the payment was made in December.
00:03:45.000I just assume it's the season of goodwill to all people, and these probably should mind your own business, Dr John.
00:03:54.000Yeah, like the more we look at Moderna's funding, for those of us that are British, we know that the hedge fund that heavily funded them was founded by Rishi Sunak, who's the Prime Minister of our country now, who was able to take his experience running a hedge fund right into being Chancellor.
00:04:13.000And again, no conflicts of interest there.
00:04:17.000I wonder what you feel, also, a UK-centric story, but that surely interests anybody, because the Moderna phenomenon, by nature of pandemics, is one that traverses the globe.
00:04:30.000The conversation between that Australian hearing and members of Moderna revealing that they
00:04:36.000had no money put aside for liability in the event of vaccine injury, that's one aspect
00:04:42.000of this. I know that in Canada they're building a lot of Moderna facilities, they're building
00:04:48.000Moderna facilities here in the UK and they have more than enough of them one might suppose
00:04:52.000in the United States. And now the UK former medical officer Jonathan Van Tam, with a name
00:05:58.000This plant is scheduled to make 250 million doses of Moderna vaccines, mRNA-based technologies, every year.
00:06:08.000There's a very similar plant near Melbourne in Australia that's going to produce a mere 100 million doses per year.
00:06:15.000And there's a very similar plant in Canada that's going to produce another 100 million doses of Moderna products per year.
00:06:22.000Now this is going to include mRNA vaccines, for example, for COVID, but they're also developing mRNA vaccines for influenza, mRNA vaccines for a respiratory infection called respiratory syncytial virus.
00:06:38.000So they're rolling this mRNA technology out.
00:06:42.000Whereas basically we have very little information on it, and the information we do have on it, we're actually somewhat uncomfortable about, and yet we're going on and on developing these in the British government.
00:06:53.000I've actually committed to buy these products for the next 10 years.
00:07:10.000It may have spikes instead of steering wheels, but you're going to buy it anyway.
00:07:14.000You know, we've just gone into this full steam ahead, really on quite a blind basis.
00:07:19.000The only way people find that surprising, I suppose if I was buying that car with someone else's money, if I was buying it with taxpayer money, I'd say what the hell, you know, when you have people in government that just had a hunch that Moderna, we're going to make a lot of money in the forthcoming years and set up a $500 million hedge fund, which as you say, due to ingenuity, and now's Moxie and Insight did come good.
00:07:47.000You know, when you have those people involved, you've got to guess that ultimately this ÂŁ1 billion investment in the Moderna facility in the UK I'm referring to now is going to pay off.
00:07:57.000But it does sound like a commitment that no matter what the doses and the extraordinary number of doses that you described, both in Australia and the UK, one way or another are going to get used.
00:08:09.000It's 450 million doses between the factors and, of course, the massive production capacity that's already in the United States.
00:08:16.000Now, the thing is, one thing that's concerning here is the traditional vaccines where you give basically a mushed up dead virus, you give an antigen to produce an antibody response, an immune response.
00:08:31.000We know how safe they are, we know how dangerous they are, and overall they are pretty safe.
00:08:35.000Why on earth would you take an established safe product, chuck it out and replace it with a completely unknown product?
00:08:43.000It just doesn't seem to make any medical sense.
00:08:46.000I like medical decisions to be conservative, to err on the safe side, only to go into the new areas where there's a significant risk of harm.
00:08:54.000And to be fair, these mRNA vaccines, some of them are going to be acting against particular cancers.
00:09:00.000But these are going to be given to people that have cancer already.
00:09:03.000And of course, people that have cancer already have got severe risk of getting a lot sicker.
00:09:09.000In that situation, you'd be quite happy taking a risk.
00:09:13.000But when you're talking about a healthy person who hasn't got cancer and hasn't got a disease, and you're talking about intervening in their lives, then that actually takes quite a lot of audacity to intervene in a perfectly healthy person.
00:09:25.000And another thing you alluded to there, Russell, was the revolving door.
00:09:29.000So we had Professor Sir, Dr Jonathan Van Tam, Quite a few of these people have done well for knighthoods, Russell.
00:09:37.000So we've got Chris Whitty with a knighthood, and we've got Patrick Vallance with a knighthood, and Jonathan Van Tan with a knighthood.
00:09:44.000So far, I've escaped without physical abuse.
00:09:46.000I don't think you've had a knighthood yet, have you?
00:09:48.000Well, the phone call to be fair, have you checked the mail yet?
00:10:57.000But this revolving door thing, if you think that I might be working, if I think, you know, I think I've got a good chance of a job with Stay Free Media here, I think, I think I'll maybe work towards that.
00:11:08.000Well, I'm not going to start slagging off Russell Brand, because, you know, I don't want to Upsetting.
00:11:14.000I would rather ingratiate myself with them and kind of work towards a job with Stay Free Media.
00:11:20.000You know, this has got to be in people's minds.
00:11:22.000People are in the public eye, in these senior positions, just for a year or two.
00:11:41.000Patrick Vallance, for example, who was the chief scientific advisor, had previously worked for GlaxoSmithKline and made quite a lot of money doing that.
00:11:50.000Good luck to him, but let's hope that didn't affect any decisions he made when he was actually in office.
00:12:38.000I'm only a nurse lecturer, anyway, and an academic.
00:12:41.000But I can do some quite invasive clinical procedures if I need to.
00:12:45.000They're almost required on a daily basis.
00:12:48.000Did Jonathan Van Tam, if I may ask, while we're still on YouTube, of course, because we do our first 15 minutes on YouTube, then we disappear, ascend, one might argue, into the reified free speech strewn air full of pathogens of freedom over there at the other
00:13:06.000place that I sometimes don't name in case the algorithm picks it up. But while we're
00:13:11.000still here on YouTube before moving on to the other place and talking about myocarditis and
00:13:15.000talking about WHO's regulations, do you think to assess whether or not Jonathan Van Tam, while
00:13:22.000chief medical officer for the UK during the COVID period, could have made decisions that
00:13:27.000were beneficial to Moderna, what type of decisions was he involved in?
00:13:35.000Well, from memory, I think we bought over 70 million doses of Moderna vaccine, and the Moderna vaccine was actually the most expensive.
00:13:43.000So the Moderna was the most expensive, then the Pfizer, and then the AstraZeneca was quite a lot cheaper.
00:13:49.000So he was involved really in a fairly direct way in the committee, member of the committee that supervised purchasing of tens of millions of very expensive vaccine doses.
00:14:02.000Now, obviously, he did that purely on clinical grounds because that was his medical professional opinion that that was the right thing to do for the country.
00:14:09.000But cynics might think it was potentially a conflict of interest, given the job he actually transpired to take last week.
00:14:19.000And he was actually appointed to this job, I think it was on the 2nd of May.
00:14:24.000But it was only announced, as far as I'm aware, last week, and it was announced rather strangely on LinkedIn.
00:14:28.000It was a bit of a funny way to do it, and certainly a big delay in the announcement.
00:14:32.000Almost as if he was trying to put it off, but of course we can't possibly know that.
00:14:37.000I wonder what Frenzy's got over there at LinkedIn.
00:14:57.000Eight mice is how many some of the Moderna vaccines were tested on.
00:15:01.000So you know you are getting real quality over there at Moderna.
00:15:07.000Now, we've got to leave YouTube because, as you know, YouTube used WHO guidelines to regulate conversations of this nature, which is one of the topics I'll be talking with Dr. John about, as well as the ongoing debate about the risk of myocarditis between young men compared to older folk, where traditionally old people normally die more quickly than young people.
00:15:31.000I mean, if the Lion King's to be believed, that's part of the circle of life, but we'll be talking about that over on Rumble freely, so there's a link in the description.
00:15:40.000If you're watching this on YouTube, join us over there.
00:15:43.000If you're watching this on Rumble, give us a rumble, subscribe to our channel, and indeed, consider pressing that red button on your screen right now and joining us on Locals.
00:15:51.000That's where we participate in the ongoing conversation, and you even get to join us Live in the event that we pre-record our content to secure high-profile, reliable, and may I say, sexy guests who could soon be on the staff here, like Dr. John.
00:16:06.000Hilani's here, Artbo Wendy-Klein's here, blessed old bird.
00:16:10.000There's lots of people watching it now and I'll be taking some of your questions later in the conversation.
00:16:14.000But first up, Dr. John, I wanted to talk about the debate about the risks of myocarditis.
00:16:19.000Is it higher for vaccinated individuals in the 16 to 24 age group compared to those who contract the disease.
00:16:26.000Can you explain to me what's going on in this complex medical area?
00:16:30.000So again, this came out of that poor Rand interchange with the chief executive officer from Moderna.
00:16:36.000And Rand Paul said, in these young adolescent males and young men,
00:16:43.000is the risk of myocarditis from vaccination higher than the risk from natural infection?
00:16:49.000And the chief executive officer said the risk is greater from natural infection.
00:16:54.000And Rand Paul simply said, that's not true.
00:16:56.000And I formally submit six peer-reviewed papers that actually indicate or show that the risk of myocarditis in young men is actually higher from vaccination than it is if they get the natural COVID infection.
00:17:10.000But there's another factor here, Russell, as well.
00:17:12.000A lot of this early COVID data on how dangerous COVID was, was from the original Wuhan strain.
00:17:18.000Or from the alpha strain, or from the delta strain.
00:17:21.000And we know that they were relatively dangerous viruses.
00:17:24.000in populations which were completely unexposed to this type of virus before, were naive to it and people could get sick from that.
00:17:32.000But then when 2022 started and Omicron came along, the situation really changed completely because Omicron is way less pathogenic, causes way less severe disease.
00:17:44.000Omicron affects mostly the upper airways and causes common cold, chorizal type symptoms.
00:17:50.000Whereas these other, earlier viruses could affect the lungs.
00:17:53.000So to use data that was generated in the Wuhan time, the Alpha time, the Delta time, and to use that to argue that we still need protection from this disease, which in that form essentially no longer exists, because there is no Delta variant now, there is no Alpha variant now, it's all been completely replaced.
00:18:12.000By the Omicron variant, it just seems disingenuous to me to talk about risks from two, three years ago and compare those with the risks for the very minimal risks that are associated with the Omicron infection now, especially in the young, healthy age group.
00:18:29.000And Rand Paul submitted those six papers to the Senate hearing, and it was unambiguous the way he made that claim.
00:18:37.000It's confusing yet convenient that many of the vaccine injuries appear to correlate with symptoms of coronavirus, particularly, as you say, earlier strains.
00:18:49.000Many people were saying at the commencement of the pandemic that over time it would become less deadly, that there would be a kind of entropy.
00:18:59.000These were some of the ideas that were discussed by lunatic epidemiologists I wonder, Dr John, do you think it is possible for us to discuss, with the benefit of hindsight, your experience and analysis, what can we now say has been the benefit of the medical interventions such as vaccines?
00:19:26.000What were the benefits of lockdowns and how might we have approached this differently?
00:19:32.000Can we say that perhaps when it came to the original outbreak that you described, the Wuhan, Alpha and Delta variants, that the vaccines did some good, even in preventing spread and preventing death?
00:19:45.000And subsequent to that, They were not quick enough to amend policy or can we make like I'm not suggesting you do this because you have responsibilities I don't have though we all have responsibilities to truth and authenticity.
00:20:00.000Is there an argument for saying that had we intervened a lot less had we been more circumspect in our regulating around lockdowns and in the near mandating particularly for certain type of workers of vaccines if we'd have done a lot less would the results have been similar or even Better?
00:20:18.000Yeah, actually quite hard to answer that question because to an extent we're still treated like mushrooms in terms of the data that we're given.
00:20:26.000We're kept in the dark and fed an unpleasant material.
00:20:29.000So for example, just going back to the idea of the side effects, the myocarditis, there's actually a study from Switzerland that show that actually 2.8% of people can get a degree of myocarditis.
00:20:42.000Now it's largely a question is of when is myocarditis myocarditis?
00:20:46.000So the Swiss study takes it as being elevated troponin levels.
00:20:50.000Now troponins are markers that are released from damaged myocardium and go into the blood.
00:20:56.000Whereas the Therapeutic Goods Administration and the regulatory authorities in the UK say it's about 1 or 2 per 100,000 people get myocarditis.
00:21:06.000So we've got 0.0002% four zeros after the decimal point,
00:21:21.000So we've got one type of study that showing that this is absolutely minimal because we're measuring this in a very in a way which only merits takes into account very severe disease.
00:21:34.000We've got other studies which are showing well.
00:21:36.000No, these are my these myocardial myocardial markers are significant and I think I think they are significant.
00:21:42.000So we're slightly short of data, really, to judge this fully.
00:21:46.000But look, taking your initial question, things were done that needed to be done, things were done that were done too much, and things that should have been done were not done.
00:21:59.000So first of all, the things that were done probably about right, we did need a vaccine for this type of infection, this new infection.
00:22:08.000Why we went for the mRNA type vaccine and not for a traditional antigen based vaccine, I don't think anyone's ever answered that question.
00:22:16.000So if I was trying to do this, I'd say, well, we've got this tried and tested technology.
00:22:21.000Basically, we take the virus, we brew the virus up in huge culture vats, we mush up this virus, and then we inject that into people.
00:23:00.000I had colleagues working in intensive care and they were seeing people come in with this acute respiratory distress syndrome.
00:23:06.000And the vaccine did offer protection against people getting very ill.
00:23:10.000Did the vaccine offer protection against spread?
00:23:13.000Well, it did a little bit to begin with.
00:23:15.000The protection against spread did go down as time went on as the variants moved away from the original Wuhan type of virus that the original vaccine was designed for.
00:23:27.000But as well as that, we now know that the vaccine only works for a very short period of time, so the coverage actually declines really quite quickly.
00:23:35.000So that wasn't taken fully into account.
00:24:03.000Absolutely certain in my mind that it did.
00:24:06.000Did the vaccine strategy carry on as before when Omicron came along, when the risk completely changed?
00:24:13.000Yeah, the vaccine strategy just basically carried on, whereas in my mind it should have changed dramatically when Omicron came along.
00:24:22.000Also, why weren't our chief medical officers standing up there next to the Prime Minister with a scientific officer saying, look, Everyone in the country should really optimise your immune system.
00:24:32.000Because if you get this disease, we want to prevent you getting it, and we want to stop you getting sick.
00:24:37.000So therefore, make sure you get fresh air, make sure you get plenty of exercise, make sure you eat nutritious food, make sure your vitamin D level is up to standard.
00:24:48.000Doctors should have been taking vitamin D levels and titrating vitamin D levels up to make sure that people were getting adequate levels.
00:24:59.000Make sure you're getting enough vitamin C. And again, there's evidence that deficiencies in all these things, which are actually quite common in our country, predispose to infection.
00:25:13.000So there was things done that were right.
00:25:14.000There was things that were done for too long.
00:25:17.000But there are such obvious things that, I mean, Chris Whitty, for example, is a physician, the chief medical officer and the chief scientific officer is also a distinguished physician.
00:25:28.000Surely they should have been talking about optimising the immune system.
00:25:33.000All these things that could have been done that basically don't cost anything.
00:25:37.000Why was it that all the interventions, apart from the lockdowns which were massively expensive in terms of government lost revenue, but why were the interventions like the vaccines and the antiviral drugs all really expensive when we could have had things that were dirt cheap that could have given us potentially massive benefit?
00:25:57.000That's such a comprehensive, fair and at points very conservative argument, I would say, Dr John, and I think it's a sort of a responsible and appropriate answer and in a sense demonstrates the type of discourse we could be having.
00:26:11.000There are points and were points during the pandemic when I thought That whilst this is a unique situation, what it reveals isn't unique.
00:26:20.000It demonstrates and makes visible a certain type of systemic inertia and certain sets of relationships, in particular relationships between the state and private entities, new and emergent globalist models which are perhaps easier to track now we're able to discuss Moderna factories that are to one degree or another government
00:26:41.000funded in Canada, Australia, the United States, the United Kingdom. When people talk about
00:26:46.000the threat of globalism, perhaps this is in part what they're talking about. Of course, this
00:26:52.000being the radical space that it is, there are people talking about RFK, Robert F.
00:26:57.000Kennedy's book, and some of the more serious allegations that he's made there. And indeed
00:27:02.000on this show, the pandemic was event that was, gosh, if not planned to a degree, pre-empted.
00:27:11.000You know, RFK has talked about the funding of the research in the United States and has said that it was Pentagon funded and I believe there is some significant and alarming evidence that what RFK is saying there...
00:27:24.000We've also got in our chat some pretty interesting questions.
00:27:27.000I'd love, you know, given this is the place that, you know, where we can speak freely.
00:27:32.000Unicornplug asked this very bespoke and COVID-related inquiry, and there were certainly some of the ideas that sprung up in this type of space over the last couple of years.
00:27:42.000Is there any evidence at all, Dr. John, that mRNA vaccines alter your DNA?
00:27:47.000Is that true or is that tin hat stuff?
00:27:51.000You know, that is a remarkably good question.
00:27:54.000In biology, there's something called the central dogma of genetics.
00:27:59.000And that central dogma says DNA makes RNA makes protein.
00:28:05.000So normally what happens is the DNA codes for RNA, and it's the RNA that makes the protein.
00:28:12.000Now in this situation, RNA is actually being given.
00:28:18.000So now there is enzymes found in some cells of the body called reverse transcriptomes.
00:28:25.000So transcription would be the DNA giving information to the RNA.
00:28:30.000If there is reverse transcription, that would be the RNA giving information back to the DNA.
00:28:36.000Now, there is a lot of precedent for this in human physiology, so I don't know what the percentage is offhand.
00:28:42.000I think it's around about 9% of your genetic material, Russell, actually comes from viruses.
00:28:49.000So you and I are probably about 9% virus, and that's because our grandfathers and grandfathers and grandmothers and great grandmothers way back through hundreds of millions of years had viral infections.
00:29:02.000Those viral infections underwent reverse transcriptase and the RNA from those viruses went into the DNA, and that's partly why we are as we are.
00:29:12.000So this idea that there is reverse transcriptase in a wide variety of cells, there is evidence for that, and I'm convinced by the evidence for that.
00:29:21.000Therefore, giving RNA, artificial RNA, could theoretically produce DNA that goes into the cells.
00:29:33.000One is somatically and the other is germline.
00:29:37.000So if it was somatic, what that would mean is that the RNA that is given could form new DNA in your body cells.
00:29:46.000Now if that was the case, if this new DNA was in your body cells, it probably wouldn't do any harm and it would die with you.
00:29:54.000But Another theoretical possibility is new RNA could code for DNA that got into the ovaries and the testes and therefore was incorporated into the next generation.
00:30:12.000But I've actually talked to leading scientists who believe it's possible that giving RNA into cells could lead to some reverse transcription and could have genetic changes to DNA.
00:30:25.000There's no evidence for it that I'm aware of yet, but it is a theoretical possibility that is not ludicrous in terms of the fundamental biology.
00:30:33.000It's an interesting answer, particularly when we consider that earlier in our conversation, you pointed out that a decision was made not to go with a conventional vaccine, but this unprecedented type of vaccine.
00:30:50.000And it's a question that's never been answered.
00:30:53.000It seems extraordinary that that's not something that's been subject to some scrutiny, given the plausible potential for significant intervention, change and I wonder then, Dr John, if you have any thoughts on Australia ceasing to report on vaccine-related myocarditis despite rising concerns.
00:31:16.000I suppose I ask this in relation to the fact that it seems that even with your very fair and reasonable assessment of the entire Covid arc, that if you run a parallel track Where you're continually observing the government's ability to regulate, pharmaceutical companies' opportunities to profit, globalist organisations' ability to impose regulation at a previously unprecedented level, media organisations getting more views, more influence.
00:31:46.000This control of the narrative and ongoing expressions of that, such as this story, appears to suggest are certainly worthy of consideration, aren't they?
00:31:57.000I wonder what your thoughts are on it, Doc.
00:31:59.000Before you mention there, Russell, that some people believe that all this was planned, it's called the plandemic.
00:32:06.000Let me make it clear, I do not believe that this was planned.
00:32:09.000However, the virus, in my view, did escape from a lab.
00:32:14.000I don't think there's really any debate about that.
00:32:17.000The Animal that could have potentially transmitted the virus to humans is being looked for now intensely for three years and has never been found.
00:32:27.000And the virus, the SARS-CoV-2, is really quite dissimilar from other viruses found in nature being found in bats.
00:32:37.000But it's close enough to bats, some bat viruses, that you could manipulate that bat virus and come up with the SARS coronavirus 2.
00:32:45.000And it just so happens that coronaviruses were being studied from bats at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and the next closest ancestor to SARS coronavirus 2 was being studied there.
00:32:57.000We know that that was being paid for partly by money from these various organisations in the United States that we know about.
00:33:04.000So I believe that the virus actually did come from a lab.
00:33:27.000Therefore, we need to have all these new regulations, these international health regulations.
00:33:33.000It will allow the World Health Organization to use national governments, use the power of law to enforce World Health Organization dictates onto individual people.
00:33:44.000It's almost like they've taken an advantage of this situation, and I believe that other groupings have used the pandemic as a kind of power grab, because strangely what's happened here, Russell, is people have taken what has happened and optimized that to their own advantage.
00:34:03.000Rather strange thing that this has happened.
00:34:05.000Human nature can do that sometimes, of course.
00:34:08.000But they're actually taking advantage of the situation as it is.
00:34:14.000I believe it was a mistake, but I believe that people are completely optimizing that for their own advantage, which is a problem.
00:34:22.000Now, to take that specific question, the Therapeutics Goods Administration in the United States What it said is that the amount of myocarditis, and they put it as about 2 per 100,000 injections.
00:34:34.000Now, we know that that's a ludicrously small estimate, but that's what they give.
00:34:39.000But what they've said is because the amount of myocarditis after COVID vaccines is stable, then you know what?
00:35:08.000If there's myocarditis that's caused by a medical treatment, we should be doing absolutely going flat out to get through the research and work out why this is happening, not brush under the carpet, not ignore it.
00:35:19.000And the estimates for myocarditis in the United Kingdom are equally low, or around about the same.
00:35:25.000Again, it's been grossly Underreported in these various areas, but the idea that you say it's stable, therefore will just ignore it.
00:35:34.000Let's hope the people of Australia don't put up with that, and we've on my channel.
00:35:37.000I've interviewed people like Senator Gerard Rennick in Australia and other senators are actually questioning this dogma and are questioning this decision now as we speak.
00:35:50.000And we wish them success with that because we can't just say that this is acceptable.
00:35:54.000The amount of adverse reactions that we're getting.
00:35:57.000I mean, the study that reanalyzed the original data from the Pfizer-Moderna trials worked out it was around about 1 in 800 had a significant adverse reaction.
00:36:11.000But to say there's a whole class of adverse reactions and we're just going to ignore it and not report it is just beggars' credulity, really.
00:36:17.000I don't know quite how they would get to that.
00:36:20.000I would like to ask the TGA what the reasoning for that is, but that's what they've actually said.
00:36:26.000Quite surprising. Certainly vaccines that are significantly less injurious have been ceased
00:36:33.000on the, you know, for less damage than that. And the idea that doing consistent damage is somehow
00:36:41.000not a problem, that suggests that all Saddam Hussein had to do to avoid censure is maintain
00:36:53.000Carry on or Pol Pot is licensed to the world's genocidalists.
00:36:58.000I have another great question from our locals chat.
00:37:01.000Remember, press the red button, join us in the locals chat to get your questions asked and indeed to get early access to some of the interviews we do live.
00:37:09.000Imagination asks, is it true in your view doctor or is there any credibility to the theory that the mRNA vaccines were developed in connection to HIV as Dr. Montagnier has alleged?
00:37:24.000Yeah, there is sort of chemical similarities here, but I don't actually know of any firm evidence that would say that the Covid vaccines have got HIV components in them.
00:37:42.000I think that's probably taking it a bit far.
00:37:45.000If we wanted to start making those sort of claims, the evidence would need to be pretty Pretty absolute, but of course there is a problem here as well that the people that are paying for the evidence to be generated of those that have a vested interest in it.
00:38:01.000So if that were to be the case, which I personally don't think it is, but if it is, it's very unlikely that such research would be paid for.
00:38:11.000Therefore, the research is not paid for.
00:38:13.000Very unlikely that that research would be done, but we'll give that a no for the time being.
00:38:17.000Part of the problem that I alluded to earlier in particular that the pandemic, whilst it was and is unique in many ways, what it exposed are consistent problems.
00:38:29.000One of the, I think, outliers there is only clinical trials that might lead to profitable
00:38:36.000outcomes are undertaken. No one's doing clinical trials, or at least not significantly or
00:38:41.000early enough, to about the benefits of vitamin D, exercise, etc. Of course these things are done sort of
00:38:47.000broadly, but who's going to pay for the trials that show that these vaccine injuries are as serious
00:38:54.000or as profligate as some people have suggested.
00:38:58.000One of the reasons that it's difficult even to, let alone find reliable evidence, even have speculative conversations is because YouTube's medical misinformation policy has expanded from Covid to all diseases and the WHO Of course have a sort of a pretty unique funding model as well as you know I know they do take taxpayer money but significantly they're funded privately.
00:39:25.000What kind of exposure does YouTube taking on this policy present and I wonder this is a bit broader if you don't mind going into this after.
00:39:34.000How over the pandemic period has your Skepticism and open-heartedness changed towards these kind of institutions, whether they're private pharmacological ones or state ones.
00:39:46.000Because I feel like you are, generally speaking, a very open-hearted person, not a sort of conspiratorial cynic looking for problems.
00:39:56.000I wonder how your views have changed accumulatively over this period.
00:40:00.000But if you'd start by talking about the WHO's impact on YouTube guidelines, that would be fascinating.
00:40:05.000So the YouTube guidelines were pretty well identical for, I guess, two or three years throughout the period of the pandemic.
00:40:13.000And then they just seem to have changed.
00:40:14.000I became aware of the change just in the last few days.
00:40:18.000And when you look at them now, they're not so pandemic specific.
00:40:21.000They're more talking about things in general.
00:40:25.000So, for example, they're talking about keeping people safe.
00:40:29.000I actually made a note of a couple of things here.
00:40:31.000You're not allowed to say that turpentine is effective.
00:40:34.000You're not allowed to say that petrol and diesel are effective.
00:40:37.000So there are things that are reasonable for keeping people safe.
00:40:40.000The wording that YouTube actually use now is interesting.
00:40:44.000So the risk, the wording they're using now is we can't have medical misinformation or disinformation where there is a risk of egregious harm.
00:40:54.000And that actually sounds pretty reasonable till you look at the detail.
00:40:59.000But yeah, to prevent, say, people from egregious harm is fair because you do get people who don't understand these things.
00:41:06.000You get someone who appears authoritative is saying, do something absurd.
00:41:11.000I won't even give an example because it's probably too dangerous.
00:41:15.000And there are some people, to be quite crude about it, stupid enough just to do it.
00:41:20.000So there is a level of protection that is required there, but then they go on to give an awful lot of details on the new regulation about vaccines.
00:41:29.000So, for example, they list all these things like ozone, petrol, diesel, miracle mineral solution, but in the same list they actually say that you can't say hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin prevents COVID-19, so it does seem a bit a bit strange what they have chosen to write down there, but they still have this clause that you can't say things on YouTube that are contrary to World Health Organization.
00:42:02.000Principles or World Health Organization doctrines, teachings, whatever you want to call them, and local health authority teachings.
00:42:09.000Now, of course, they sometimes do contradict.
00:42:12.000But basically they're saying you've still got to toe the line.
00:42:14.000Don't disagree with the World Health Organization.
00:42:17.000Don't disagree with local health authorities or you can be sanctioned on YouTube.
00:42:25.000But there's a few strange anomalies to this.
00:42:28.000Now, I don't know if you've noticed this Russell, but in the past week or two, And this is what sent me back to looking at the YouTube guidelines.
00:42:37.000I've noticed that quite a few channels on YouTube have been speaking the drug which dare not speak its name.
00:42:46.000You probably know what I mean, Russell.
00:42:47.000It's hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin.
00:43:13.000Of when ivermectin was first Disband on there, there we go, yeah.
00:43:19.000So the 8th of August 2023, now this purple line here shows the vaccines that have been given in the United States, all the billions of dollars worth of vaccine.
00:43:30.000And then on the 8th of August, when the vaccine campaign is essentially over in the States and the pandemic is essentially over, 2023 the FDA explicitly recognises that doctors do have the authority To prescribe Ivermectin to treat COVID-19.
00:43:52.000Now, the background here is that there are three doctors.
00:43:55.000For example, Dr. Merrick was actually sacked from his position for wanting to prescribe ivermectin.
00:44:01.000Dr. Merrick is a very leading doctor in the States, very highly published, ran an intensive care unit, wanted to prescribe ivermectin, wasn't allowed to.
00:44:09.000The hospital said you can't, largely based on what the FDA was saying.
00:44:15.000Now, he and a couple of the doctors took this to court.
00:44:26.000So the FDA has not said that we want to use ivermectin to treat COVID-19.
00:44:33.000What it has said is doctors are now free to prescribe ivermectin for COVID-19.
00:44:40.000So the idea is that this should have happened all along.
00:44:42.000So if you go to your doctor with an infected toe, He might say, well you've got bacteria in your toe, therefore I think you need antibiotics.
00:44:50.000And you have one way of thinking, the doctor has another way of thinking, you come to agreement.
00:44:56.000So when you walk out, you say, well, I've got these antibiotics for my infected toe.
00:45:01.000There's a concordance is what we call concordance between the prescriber and the person receiving the drug.
00:45:09.000But this wasn't really allowed with ivermectin.
00:45:11.000Doctors weren't allowed to prescribe it, or at least they believe they weren't allowed to prescribe it.
00:45:16.000And doctors were disciplined for prescribing it.
00:45:19.000So we had a situation where adults, consenting adults and their doctors, were not allowed to discuss a particular drug for a particular indication and weren't allowed to do it.
00:45:29.000Now the FDA, the Food and Drug Administration, has now said that doctors and their patients or nurse prescribers and their patients can come to a concordance, come to agreement, And if they want to take ivermectin for Covid-19, they are completely free to do so.
00:46:40.000In other words, no didn't mean no, but now it's obvious it doesn't mean no.
00:46:45.000So, you know, having basically banned ivermectin for these two or three years, it now turns out that these were merely quips and it was allowed all the time.
00:46:52.000So why Dr Merrick was sacked remains a bit of a mystery.
00:46:56.000But now doctors can agree with their patients.
00:47:00.000If the patient says, yeah, you know what, I'd like to try ivermectin for my Covid infection, then that is now allowed.
00:47:07.000Concordance is now allowed, which is a major step forward.
00:47:39.000I offered you earlier, John, the question, how has your trust in medical institutions and the media and indeed the state been affected?
00:47:51.000Where were you, you know, I mean mentally and spiritually in late 2019 and where do you find yourself now?
00:47:57.000What has this journey taught you and shown you?
00:48:00.000Yeah, the background here is that I've worked for the Health Service all my working life and I worked in academia all my working life and you always got to do what the senior people tell you.
00:48:09.000So if the consultant says, John, go and give a particular treatment, you might say, well, are you aware of this factor or that factor?
00:48:17.000And if he says he or she says yes, but still give that treatment, then you do it.
00:48:24.000There's a hierarchy in healthcare and we have to be obedient.
00:48:27.000And throughout all my teaching career, what you teach has got to be what is the official guidelines.
00:48:33.000So the resuscitation counsellor, for example, would update their guidelines and we'd have to change our lessons in according with those guidelines.
00:48:40.000So we've always been in this hierarchy, which is good because we've got senior people who should know best telling us what to do.
00:48:46.000And we've got the guidelines that are written by the government and various other people telling us what to do.
00:48:52.000The National Institutes for Health and Care Excellence, for example, we follow their guidelines.
00:48:56.000So at the start of the pandemic, we had the chief medical officer, we had the chief scientific officer, we had the prime minister standing there saying, do this.
00:49:07.000So, of course, we had to follow the national guidelines, assuming that they were correct.
00:49:13.000But then as more and more information came to light, it appeared that, well, no, actually quite a few of these guidelines aren't correct.
00:49:20.000Actually, quite a few of these guidelines are written as they are because people want it to be that way.
00:49:24.000People want to make a particular amount of money out of this particular preparation.
00:49:28.000People want to suppress that other preparation because there's no money in that preparation.
00:49:33.000And all these other things came to light.
00:49:35.000So I have moved from a position of basically trusting authority because for all my working career, That has worked well and it's been appropriate and it's been based on the best available evidence for the most part.
00:49:50.000But then things seem to have changed quite dramatically over the past few years where now I'm afraid I no longer trust authority because There's too much vested interest, such as revolving doors that we talked about before.
00:50:04.000And as well as that, the principles of evidence-based medicine are now very hard to put into practice.
00:50:10.000So I started as a full-time nurse lecturer in about 1990, late 1989, 1990, and about that time, David Sackett became the Chair of Evidence-Based Medicine at Oxford University and we had this Evidence-Based Medicine programme which we followed throughout all my career.
00:50:29.000And really there's three components to that.
00:50:31.000What is the best evidence based on empirical data and science?
00:50:35.000What is the expert opinion on this and what are patient preferences?
00:50:40.000And we've followed that really religiously throughout all my career and we could do that, but now it's very hard to follow all these.
00:50:47.000So if you take what is the best available evidence?
00:50:49.000Well, the point is the best available available evidence comes from randomized peer reviewed journal trials.
00:51:16.000Well, we've just seen that Paul Merrick, Dr. Paul Merrick, was one of the leading experts in the United States, but he wasn't allowed to give his opinion.
00:51:24.000He was being controlled by external forces.
00:51:28.000So the autonomy of the individual practitioners has now been reduced.
00:51:33.000So we can't get the data we want, the doctors can't make the decisions that they want, and the patient preferences can only be taken into account if you have informed consent.
00:51:43.000And we can't have informed consent because information is largely being controlled.
00:51:48.000So all of those principles of evidence-based medicine that I've fought for all my life, that the best available evidence on the topic, expert opinion, patient preferences, you could argue quite strongly that none of those are now possible.
00:52:01.000So you could argue that evidence-based medicine is now basically an impossibility.
00:52:06.000So what we need to do about that is to make sure the right things are studied, return authority to the experts to make the decisions, and give patients informed consent so that they can make the decisions for themselves.
00:52:20.000Wow, not only did you give us insights, you actually gave us some guidance on what the solution might be.
00:52:26.000How like you, Dr. John Campbell, to provide a sheen of optimism over a two, three year period that's presented us with some pretty difficult facts to consume.
00:52:36.000And against which there is no inoculation other than self-education.
00:53:04.000If it were possible to love you in a more physical way, I'd do it.
00:53:08.000You can see Dr. John Campbell on his YouTube channel and follow him on X. Next week, we've got a little break from Rumble, where I'll be spending some time with old Sonny Boy, but don't worry about that.
00:53:18.000We'll be providing you with regular content.
00:53:21.000In the meantime, every single day, there'll be something for you, and we will be back with a vengeance, with a bang, with some incredible guests, including Sam Harris, Candace Owens, Eckhart Tolle, Yanis Varoufakis, and Ben Shapiro.
00:53:35.000To join our locals community, which means you can join some of the pre-recorded conversations and even post questions, press the red button on your screen.
00:53:42.000Remember, subscribe to our Rumble channel.
00:53:47.000If you're a member of our Awakening Wonders community, you get meditations, behind-the-scenes access, the opportunity to join our editorial meetings, and even direct the show yourself!
00:53:57.000Now, helpful for it is to say that they are tracking the spread of three new sexy little variants.
00:54:03.000Joe Biden, of course, is doing his bit by encouraging Americans to once more get boosted till it hurts.
00:54:46.000If there's a constant wave after new wave of pandemic, then of course, You need to submit to centralised authority and COVID is back again.
00:54:55.000We've only just got rid of COVID, it's back!
00:54:57.000And in other news, new boosters are available.
00:55:00.000I wonder if there's some connection between these new scary waves of COVID and these new brilliantly effective boosters.
00:57:54.000I would accept and respect that counsel.
00:57:57.000If they were being responsible around the clinical trials, the errors in clinical trials, the vaccine injury stories, the evolution of the understanding around the efficacy and lack thereof around lockdown, same for masks, same for social distancing, same for every single policy, and the fact that the general inertia of this narrative are towards Costly solutions that permit the government to regulate and control.
00:58:41.000There is no need for centralized authority now that we have the ability to communicate, regulate, and govern ourselves using brilliant, amazing, advanced technology such as we're using right now.
00:58:51.000And in order to counter that, the instantiation of new centralized authority has to be brought about by raising levels of fear and institutionalizing fear.
00:59:06.000We don't know much about Mandy Cohen, the new head of the CDC.
00:59:08.000Let's see how she arrived in her previous incarnation at the expert decisions to introduce lockdowns, probably on the basis of clinical trials and, as all science must surely be, evidence.
00:59:22.000So I would call, probably the person I called most was the Secretary of Health and Human Services in Massachusetts.
00:59:28.000She worked for a Republican governor just to, um, but, you know, when she was like, are you, are you going to let them have professional, um, uh, football?
00:59:38.000And she's like, okay, neither are we, neither are we.
00:59:42.000Or you could just chat to your mates on the phone and make those decisions on the fly based on a consensus of government rather than the consensus of science.
00:59:51.000So, you know, it was conversations like that.
00:59:54.000Or I'd be like, so when are you going to think about lightening up a mess?
01:00:05.000People that were making those decisions.
01:00:07.000We've now seen we're just having conversations with their friends or their peers and just forming a consensus in order to give the appearance of a scientific consensus when all that was really achieved was an alliance of friends.
01:00:20.000When you bear in mind that people are making those kind of decisions and recommendations in our country, the UK, are now working for, oh, what was it?
01:00:27.000They're working for that charity where they help children.
01:00:28.000Sorry, not charity where they help children.
01:01:05.000North Carolina's former health secretary recalled at one point advising Massachusetts health secretary Mary Lou Sudders to shut her football stadiums to fall in line with North Carolina's COVID mandates.
01:01:16.000She was like, are you going to let them have professional football?
01:01:42.000We oughtn't be surprised that human beings introduce arbitrary guidelines on the basis of alliances with their friends, rather than on the basis of empirical scientific evidence.
01:01:54.000But what we should be is mindful and observant that that's how this authority is achieved.
01:01:59.000Not by, look, we've looked at this data set versus this data set and We would like to invite you to consider what's best for you.
01:02:06.000We now know really that when it comes to these pandemics and the regulations, don't assume that they're doing what's best for you just because that's what they're telling you, because now we know that other motivations could include, well that's what we did because our friends were doing it, Well, that's what we did because I was hoping to get a job at Moderna after the pandemic.
01:02:25.000There's a whole host of other motivations that are demonstrably true and have to be taken into consideration before blindly obeying authority, I believe.
01:02:33.000Let me know in the comments what you believe.
01:02:35.000With all this new COVID around, it makes you wonder if there will be available medicines to mitigate it.
01:02:43.000The Biden administration plans to urge all Americans to get a booster shot for the coronavirus this autumn to counter a new wave of infections, a White House official said on Sunday.
01:02:52.000On Thursday, Moderna said initial data showed its updated COVID-19 vaccine is effective against the ARIS and Fornax subvariants in humans.
01:03:01.000New Lord of the Rings coronavirus with these elves and trolls about us.
01:03:07.000Moderna and other Covid-19 vaccine makers, Novavax, Pfizer and German partner BioNTech have created versions of their shots aimed at the XBB.1.5 sub-variant.
01:03:18.000I've heard the names now, Moderna, Pfizer, Novavax and BioNTech in so many negative contexts that it's difficult for me to regard them as the harbingers of salvation, rather than profiteering organisations funded by you, the taxpayer, that use that revenue to generate huge profits, appoint government officials, have favourable relationships.
01:03:42.000I don't see those brand names anymore as cause for optimism or inspiration for a new tattoo.
01:03:48.000Pending approval from health regulators in the United States and Europe, the companies expected the updated shots to be available in the coming weeks for the autumn vaccination season.
01:03:58.000It's literally spoken about like a fashion now.
01:04:03.000Only on NBC, our Thursday night vaccination season special.
01:04:07.000Which isn't as ridiculous as it sounds, because I feel like there was one bit where the Avengers got vaccines and Sesame Street got vaccines, and in retrospect what they should have had is Bert and Ernie having a reasonable conversation about the cost-benefit analysis of lockdowns when it comes to cancer, diabetes, heart disease, mental health, economics, but they didn't cover that, did they?
01:04:27.000Here's friend of the show, YouTuber Dr. John, talking about Moderna's new boosters.
01:04:32.000And the UK government's just struck a 10-year deal, partnership with Moderna, to build a new factory.
01:04:54.000So you might anticipate that over the next ten years, the government and Moderna have a literal investment in there being a requirement for Moderna's products.
01:05:04.000And that one billion that the government invested has come from you.
01:05:07.000Of course they have to create a favourable cultural environment for those kind of investments.
01:05:12.000Can't allow us to have free conversations about whether or not you want your money going to Moderna factories.
01:05:20.000I remember being told I'm in a democracy.
01:05:22.000I remember being told it's my responsibility to take certain medications because of other people.
01:05:26.000And then I remember learning that there was no clinical evidence to suggest that it was in any way beneficial To anyone other than myself.
01:05:32.000Then I remember learning that there were vaccine injuries that weren't being openly discussed.
01:05:36.000Then I remember learning that Moderna had appointed the government official that was saying I should take Moderna vaccines.
01:05:41.000And now we're learning that there's a 10-year plan and a billion pound investment that no one asked for and no one voted for.
01:05:48.000And this new facility will build mRNA vaccines for COVID, influenza and respiratory syncytial virus, as far as we know.
01:06:00.000And the UK government is tied in for 10 years with this group.
01:06:06.000and committed to buy vaccines for 10 years into the future.
01:06:10.000Quite incredible we've committed a billion pounds to buy these vaccines into the future with no evidence of safety or efficacy of the RSV and the influenza vaccine for sure and very questionable safety of the Covid vaccines and yet, have a billion pounds,
01:06:32.000if it doesn't work out then we'll still buy the vaccines anyway.
01:06:35.000That's an incredible commitment and an incredible deal to have been offered without due scrutiny
01:06:41.000and with plain evidence that there's a revolving door between the government and Moderna in
01:06:47.000Right up to the Prime Minister of this country being an investor in Moderna who is unwilling to explicitly tell us how much or whether he profited from the Moderna vaccine.
01:07:21.000Certainly in Australia, there's a Moderna plant being built to produce, I can't remember, 100 million doses of vaccine a year, I think it was.
01:08:11.000There's also a plant in Canada, a new Moderna plant, to build a... to construct a hundred million doses of Moderna vaccine in Canada, and of course that's on top of the huge capacity already in the United States.
01:08:25.000Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, the United States all seem to be putting a lot of eggs, shall we say, in the Moderna messenger ribonucleic acid vaccine basket.
01:08:41.000Oh, dear old Dr. John there, having an on-camera mental breakdown from the sheer weight of corruption that he is trying to unveil, analyse, and not get banned from YouTube while explaining.
01:08:54.000Moderna has paid the National Institutes of Health $400 million in licensing fees for a chemical technique developed by federal researchers that was used to create his COVID-19 vaccine.
01:09:04.000Moderna received nearly $10 billion in taxpayer funding to develop and test the vaccine.
01:09:08.000Moderna has sold roughly $36 billion worth of coronavirus vaccines worldwide.
01:09:14.000The company has forecast COVID vaccine sales of $5 billion for 2023.
01:09:20.000More and more Julian Assange's maxim, the function of government is to funnel public money into private hands, makes sense.
01:09:27.000It can also be mapped onto the military industrial complex war model, their health industries pandemic model, and perhaps various other seams of what's appeared to me to be corruption that I've not Yet being exposed.
01:09:42.000The pandemic is back, perhaps because it's necessary for the pandemic to be back, because the pandemic has been invested in.
01:09:49.000Moderna factories are being built in Canada, Australia and the UK.
01:09:54.000Boosters are readily available, government officials are making their decision on the phone to one another while chatting, and people that work for the government during the pandemic are now working at No, he's the fucking news!