Stay Free - Russel Brand - “I No Longer TRUST Authority” - Dr John Campbell on Moderna, Myocarditis and mRNA! - Stay Free #198

00:00:00.000 So, we're going to go ahead and get started. We're going to go ahead and get started. We're

00:00:07.000 going to go ahead and get started.

00:00:14.000 We're going to go ahead and get started. We're going to go ahead and get started.

00:00:21.000 We're going to go ahead and get started.

00:00:42.000 Bye, bye, Joe.

00:00:43.000 So I'm looking for In this video, you're going to see the team first.

00:00:55.000 We've got a live shot there.

00:01:01.000 Hello, you awakening wonders.

00:01:03.000 Thanks for joining me for Stay Free with Russell Brand.

00:01:06.000 We've got a fantastic show for you today.

00:01:08.000 We're going to be talking, sadly, about the COVID comeback, which neatly lines up with the emergence of new booster shots available now.

00:01:18.000 Plus, our special guest will be Dr. John Campbell.

00:01:20.000 We'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.

00:01:33.000 as controversies, where we can talk about whether or not the vaccine affects your DNA, where we'll take questions

00:01:39.000 from our community.

00:01:41.000 We're also gonna talk about Dr. John's journey more broadly.

00:01:44.000 Has the pandemic period represented for him a personal odyssey from trust in authority to mistrust?

00:01:52.000 Joining me now is Dr. John.

00:01:55.000 Dr. John, thank you so much for joining us today.

00:01:57.000 It's a pleasure to be back, Russell.

00:01:58.000 Thanks for having me.

00:01:59.000 Should we start off by talking about the $400 million payment from Moderna to the NIH

00:02:05.000 and the concerns around conflicts of interest, which should be called convergence of interest,

00:02:10.000 if you ask me, because there isn't any conflict.

00:02:12.000 Well, what do you make of it, Doc?

00:02:15.000 Very interesting, isn't it?

00:02:17.000 I 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.

00:02:28.000 It turned out that Rand Paul said Moderna recently gave $400 million to the National Institutes of Health in the United States.

00:02:35.000 I thought that the Chief Executive Officer might question this, but he said, oh yeah, that's right, we gave $400 million just before Christmas.

00:02:42.000 So 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.

00:02:52.000 Of course, Rand Paul said, well, do you think This could create any conflicts of interest.

00:02:57.000 After all, you're the guys making the decisions about how we use these products, how we use Moderna products.

00:03:03.000 And yet you've just been given $400 million.

00:03:05.000 Could this create a conflict of interest?

00:03:06.000 Now, a cynic might think it would create conflicts of interest.

00:03:10.000 It did cross my mind, may have crossed your mind, that there could be a conflict of interest here.

00:03:14.000 But the CEO of Pfizer did not admit to that.

00:03:18.000 He basically remained silent and didn't say one way or the other.

00:03:22.000 So we've got this situation where there's huge amounts of money Going from Big Pharma into regulatory authorities.

00:03:30.000 It's not just that direct payment.

00:03:31.000 We 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.

00:03:43.000 You said the payment was made in December.

00:03:45.000 I just assume it's the season of goodwill to all people, and these probably should mind your own business, Dr John.

00:03:54.000 Yeah, 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.

00:04:13.000 And again, no conflicts of interest there.

00:04:16.000 Extraordinary.

00:04:17.000 I 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.

00:04:30.000 The conversation between that Australian hearing and members of Moderna revealing that they

00:04:36.000 had no money put aside for liability in the event of vaccine injury, that's one aspect

00:04:42.000 of this. I know that in Canada they're building a lot of Moderna facilities, they're building

00:04:48.000 Moderna facilities here in the UK and they have more than enough of them one might suppose

00:04:52.000 in the United States. And now the UK former medical officer Jonathan Van Tam, with a name

00:04:58.000 this dangerously close to an action.

00:05:00.000 and a mentality that's dangerously close to a charlatan has taken a role at Moderna.

00:05:06.000 What do you feel about that, particularly in relation to what we've just discussed with that $400 million payment,

00:05:11.000 Dr John?

00:05:12.000 Absolutely. So this trust group, Thelima, I believe it's called, 2013,

00:05:19.000 they put, we believe, according to The Guardian, half a billion, that's $500 million,

00:05:25.000 into Moderna, which at the time was a completely unknown company.

00:05:29.000 But now, fortunately for them, Moderna's come good and is now turning a profit.

00:05:33.000 So a pretty good half a billion dollar investment there back in 2013, you might think.

00:05:39.000 Now, you're quite right.

00:05:40.000 The British government had basically got into bed with Moderna.

00:05:45.000 They've got this joint agreement.

00:05:46.000 The British government, as far as we know, have put £1 billion into this plant that's being developed near Oxford.

00:05:53.000 As we were just talking about, it's probably being built at the moment.

00:05:56.000 A billion pounds have gone into that.

00:05:58.000 This plant is scheduled to make 250 million doses of Moderna vaccines, mRNA-based technologies, every year.

00:06:08.000 There's a very similar plant near Melbourne in Australia that's going to produce a mere 100 million doses per year.

00:06:15.000 And there's a very similar plant in Canada that's going to produce another 100 million doses of Moderna products per year.

00:06:22.000 Now 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.

00:06:38.000 So they're rolling this mRNA technology out.

00:06:42.000 Whereas 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.

00:06:53.000 I've actually committed to buy these products for the next 10 years.

00:06:57.000 Now, they're not tried.

00:06:58.000 They're not tested.

00:06:59.000 We don't know about the efficacy.

00:07:00.000 We don't know about the adverse reactions.

00:07:03.000 But hey, we're going to buy them anyway.

00:07:05.000 You know, would you buy a car like that?

00:07:06.000 You know, this car may exist.

00:07:09.000 It may work.

00:07:09.000 It may not work.

00:07:10.000 It may have spikes instead of steering wheels, but you're going to buy it anyway.

00:07:14.000 You know, we've just gone into this full steam ahead, really on quite a blind basis.

00:07:19.000 The 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.

00:07:47.000 You know, when you have those people involved, you've got to guess that ultimately this £1 billion investment in the Moderna facility in the UK I'm referring to now is going to pay off.

00:07:57.000 But 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.

00:08:09.000 It's 450 million doses between the factors and, of course, the massive production capacity that's already in the United States.

00:08:16.000 Now, 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.

00:08:28.000 These have been tried and tested.

00:08:31.000 We know how safe they are, we know how dangerous they are, and overall they are pretty safe.

00:08:35.000 Why on earth would you take an established safe product, chuck it out and replace it with a completely unknown product?

00:08:43.000 It just doesn't seem to make any medical sense.

00:08:46.000 I 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.

00:08:54.000 And to be fair, these mRNA vaccines, some of them are going to be acting against particular cancers.

00:09:00.000 But these are going to be given to people that have cancer already.

00:09:03.000 And of course, people that have cancer already have got severe risk of getting a lot sicker.

00:09:07.000 They've got severe risk of dying.

00:09:09.000 In that situation, you'd be quite happy taking a risk.

00:09:13.000 But 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.

00:09:25.000 And another thing you alluded to there, Russell, was the revolving door.

00:09:29.000 So we had Professor Sir, Dr Jonathan Van Tam, Quite a few of these people have done well for knighthoods, Russell.

00:09:37.000 So we've got Chris Whitty with a knighthood, and we've got Patrick Vallance with a knighthood, and Jonathan Van Tan with a knighthood.

00:09:44.000 So far, I've escaped without physical abuse.

00:09:46.000 I don't think you've had a knighthood yet, have you?

00:09:48.000 Well, the phone call to be fair, have you checked the mail yet?

00:09:51.000 Is it come through yet?

00:09:52.000 I'll tell you what, they better get this night.

00:09:54.000 I don't think the people are going to stand for this much longer.

00:09:56.000 I think that if I don't get my gong, if I don't get my knighthood, I could see there being a pretty popular uprising.

00:10:02.000 But you are right, as you often are, Doctor, my knighthood has not yet been forthcoming.

00:10:08.000 But you know, the day, we await the day for the alighting of the sword and the bestowing of the honour.

00:10:13.000 As indeed, as indeed do I. I'm at the palace's disposal.

00:10:16.000 But Jonathan Van Tam has gone from being the Deputy Chief Medical Officer to a post in Moderna.

00:10:24.000 So he's actually now working for Moderna.

00:10:26.000 Now, he's going to keep his university job at Nottingham University, it is, I think, but also going to be working for Moderna.

00:10:33.000 Now, of course, no one's saying there's conflict of interest there.

00:10:36.000 But what would be interesting is how far ahead of this appointment did he think, oh, you know what?

00:10:42.000 I quite fancy a job at Moderna.

00:10:44.000 Now, if that was a week ago or a month ago, fine.

00:10:47.000 If it was two years ago when he was deputy chief medical officer, Would that be at the back of his mind?

00:10:53.000 Could that have potentially influenced any of the decisions he took?

00:10:56.000 We're not saying it did.

00:10:57.000 But 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.

00:11:08.000 Well, I'm not going to start slagging off Russell Brand, because, you know, I don't want to Upsetting.

00:11:14.000 I would rather ingratiate myself with them and kind of work towards a job with Stay Free Media.

00:11:20.000 You know, this has got to be in people's minds.

00:11:22.000 People are in the public eye, in these senior positions, just for a year or two.

00:11:25.000 What are they going to do next?

00:11:26.000 They go around the revolving door and they get a job at a... They go from being a regulator to getting a job in one of these companies.

00:11:34.000 They go from gamekeeper to poacher.

00:11:37.000 And this is not just a problem in the UK.

00:11:39.000 Although it is a problem in the UK.

00:11:41.000 Patrick Vallance, for example, who was the chief scientific advisor, had previously worked for GlaxoSmithKline and made quite a lot of money doing that.

00:11:50.000 Good luck to him, but let's hope that didn't affect any decisions he made when he was actually in office.

00:11:55.000 In the United States, it's a problem.

00:11:57.000 British Medical Journal has done quite a lot of good articles on this, actually, Russell.

00:12:01.000 You can actually learn about some of the really quite specific revolving door issues.

00:12:08.000 We would, may I say, Doctor, we would like to offer you a job at Stay Free Media as our in-house doctor.

00:12:15.000 Now, I should warn you in advance, I do require what may seem like an unusually high number of rectal exams.

00:12:22.000 I like to have one every afternoon after lunch.

00:12:26.000 I mean, it's straight to the palace gates to wait for the knighthood.

00:12:29.000 I think you're possibly overqualified for the role.

00:12:32.000 The offer's there.

00:12:36.000 I'll bear it in mind, thank you.

00:12:38.000 I'm only a nurse lecturer, anyway, and an academic.

00:12:41.000 But I can do some quite invasive clinical procedures if I need to.

00:12:45.000 They're almost required on a daily basis.

00:12:48.000 Did 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

00:13:06.000 place that I sometimes don't name in case the algorithm picks it up. But while we're

00:13:11.000 still here on YouTube before moving on to the other place and talking about myocarditis and

00:13:15.000 talking about WHO's regulations, do you think to assess whether or not Jonathan Van Tam, while

00:13:22.000 chief medical officer for the UK during the COVID period, could have made decisions that

00:13:27.000 were beneficial to Moderna, what type of decisions was he involved in?

00:13:32.000 Thank you.

00:13:35.000 Well, from memory, I think we bought over 70 million doses of Moderna vaccine, and the Moderna vaccine was actually the most expensive.

00:13:43.000 So the Moderna was the most expensive, then the Pfizer, and then the AstraZeneca was quite a lot cheaper.

00:13:49.000 So 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.

00:14:02.000 Now, 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.

00:14:09.000 But cynics might think it was potentially a conflict of interest, given the job he actually transpired to take last week.

00:14:19.000 And he was actually appointed to this job, I think it was on the 2nd of May.

00:14:24.000 But it was only announced, as far as I'm aware, last week, and it was announced rather strangely on LinkedIn.

00:14:28.000 It was a bit of a funny way to do it, and certainly a big delay in the announcement.

00:14:32.000 Almost as if he was trying to put it off, but of course we can't possibly know that.

00:14:37.000 I wonder what Frenzy's got over there at LinkedIn.

00:14:40.000 Maybe Rishi Sunak.

00:14:42.000 It'll be an interesting rogues gallery eye, Warrenshire.

00:14:47.000 But as for the pricing of Moderna, it was an expensive but fantastic product.

00:14:51.000 And sometimes you pay a bit extra for quality.

00:14:53.000 If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys.

00:14:55.000 If you pay cheese, you get mice.

00:14:57.000 Eight mice is how many some of the Moderna vaccines were tested on.

00:15:01.000 So you know you are getting real quality over there at Moderna.

00:15:07.000 Now, 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.

00:15:31.000 I 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.

00:15:40.000 If you're watching this on YouTube, join us over there.

00:15:43.000 If 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.

00:15:51.000 That'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.

00:16:06.000 Hilani's here, Artbo Wendy-Klein's here, blessed old bird.

00:16:10.000 There's lots of people watching it now and I'll be taking some of your questions later in the conversation.

00:16:14.000 But first up, Dr. John, I wanted to talk about the debate about the risks of myocarditis.

00:16:19.000 Is it higher for vaccinated individuals in the 16 to 24 age group compared to those who contract the disease.

00:16:26.000 Can you explain to me what's going on in this complex medical area?

00:16:30.000 So again, this came out of that poor Rand interchange with the chief executive officer from Moderna.

00:16:36.000 And Rand Paul said, in these young adolescent males and young men,

00:16:43.000 is the risk of myocarditis from vaccination higher than the risk from natural infection?

00:16:49.000 And the chief executive officer said the risk is greater from natural infection.

00:16:54.000 And Rand Paul simply said, that's not true.

00:16:56.000 And 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.

00:17:10.000 But there's another factor here, Russell, as well.

00:17:12.000 A lot of this early COVID data on how dangerous COVID was, was from the original Wuhan strain.

00:17:18.000 Or from the alpha strain, or from the delta strain.

00:17:21.000 And we know that they were relatively dangerous viruses.

00:17:24.000 in populations which were completely unexposed to this type of virus before, were naive to it and people could get sick from that.

00:17:32.000 But then when 2022 started and Omicron came along, the situation really changed completely because Omicron is way less pathogenic, causes way less severe disease.

00:17:44.000 Omicron affects mostly the upper airways and causes common cold, chorizal type symptoms.

00:17:50.000 Whereas these other, earlier viruses could affect the lungs.

00:17:53.000 So 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.

00:18:12.000 By 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.

00:18:28.000 So that's where that came from.

00:18:29.000 And Rand Paul submitted those six papers to the Senate hearing, and it was unambiguous the way he made that claim.

00:18:37.000 It's confusing yet convenient that many of the vaccine injuries appear to correlate with symptoms of coronavirus, particularly, as you say, earlier strains.

00:18:49.000 Many 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.

00:18:59.000 These 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?

00:19:26.000 What were the benefits of lockdowns and how might we have approached this differently?

00:19:32.000 Can 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?

00:19:45.000 And 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.

00:20:00.000 Is 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?

00:20:18.000 Yeah, 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.

00:20:26.000 We're kept in the dark and fed an unpleasant material.

00:20:29.000 So 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.

00:20:42.000 Now it's largely a question is of when is myocarditis myocarditis?

00:20:46.000 So the Swiss study takes it as being elevated troponin levels.

00:20:50.000 Now troponins are markers that are released from damaged myocardium and go into the blood.

00:20:56.000 Whereas the Therapeutic Goods Administration and the regulatory authorities in the UK say it's about 1 or 2 per 100,000 people get myocarditis.

00:21:06.000 So we've got 0.0002% four zeros after the decimal point,

00:21:14.000 four or five, compared to 2.0.

00:21:17.000 I mean, the differences here are just massive.

00:21:19.000 It's how you measure it.

00:21:21.000 So 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.

00:21:34.000 We've got other studies which are showing well.

00:21:36.000 No, these are my these myocardial myocardial markers are significant and I think I think they are significant.

00:21:42.000 So we're slightly short of data, really, to judge this fully.

00:21:46.000 But 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.

00:21:59.000 So first of all, the things that were done probably about right, we did need a vaccine for this type of infection, this new infection.

00:22:08.000 Why 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.

00:22:16.000 So if I was trying to do this, I'd say, well, we've got this tried and tested technology.

00:22:21.000 Basically, 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.

00:22:28.000 That's what the Chinese did. 1.00

00:22:30.000 Why did we take the mRNA approach, which had never been done before?

00:22:34.000 So we had the biggest pandemic that the planet has seen since the 1918-1919 influenza pandemic.

00:22:41.000 And we introduced a completely new untested technology to try and treat that.

00:22:46.000 That's really quite strange that we would have done that.

00:22:49.000 Really would have made more sense, you would have thought, to go for a tried and trusted technology.

00:22:55.000 Did the vaccine do some good in the early stages?

00:22:57.000 Yes, it did.

00:22:58.000 I'm quite convinced it did.

00:23:00.000 I had colleagues working in intensive care and they were seeing people come in with this acute respiratory distress syndrome.

00:23:06.000 And the vaccine did offer protection against people getting very ill.

00:23:10.000 Did the vaccine offer protection against spread?

00:23:13.000 Well, it did a little bit to begin with.

00:23:15.000 The 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.

00:23:27.000 But 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.

00:23:35.000 So that wasn't taken fully into account.

00:23:38.000 Were the lockdowns necessary?

00:23:40.000 Well, there was a stage, if you think back to early 2020, when there was a risk that the NHS could be overwhelmed.

00:23:49.000 That would have been politically very embarrassing.

00:23:51.000 It would have been bad if we'd had relatives dying in the street.

00:23:54.000 So to have some degree of social control and some degree of lockdown in the early stages was probably necessary.

00:24:02.000 Did that go on for too long?

00:24:03.000 Absolutely certain in my mind that it did.

00:24:06.000 Did the vaccine strategy carry on as before when Omicron came along, when the risk completely changed?

00:24:13.000 Yeah, the vaccine strategy just basically carried on, whereas in my mind it should have changed dramatically when Omicron came along.

00:24:22.000 Also, 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.

00:24:32.000 Because if you get this disease, we want to prevent you getting it, and we want to stop you getting sick.

00:24:37.000 So 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.

00:24:48.000 Doctors should have been taking vitamin D levels and titrating vitamin D levels up to make sure that people were getting adequate levels. 0.95

00:24:56.000 Make sure you're getting enough zinc.

00:24:57.000 And again, there's evidence for zinc.

00:24:59.000 Make 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.

00:25:08.000 Why was none of that done?

00:25:10.000 Why weren't people optimised?

00:25:13.000 So there was things done that were right.

00:25:14.000 There was things that were done for too long.

00:25:17.000 But 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.

00:25:28.000 Surely they should have been talking about optimising the immune system.

00:25:31.000 Why weren't they talking about that?

00:25:33.000 All these things that could have been done that basically don't cost anything.

00:25:37.000 Why 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?

00:25:57.000 That'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.

00:26:11.000 There are points and were points during the pandemic when I thought That whilst this is a unique situation, what it reveals isn't unique.

00:26:20.000 It 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

00:26:41.000 funded in Canada, Australia, the United States, the United Kingdom. When people talk about

00:26:46.000 the threat of globalism, perhaps this is in part what they're talking about. Of course, this

00:26:52.000 being the radical space that it is, there are people talking about RFK, Robert F.

00:26:57.000 Kennedy's book, and some of the more serious allegations that he's made there. And indeed

00:27:02.000 on this show, the pandemic was event that was, gosh, if not planned to a degree, pre-empted.

00:27:09.000 These are pretty out there theories.

00:27:11.000 You 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...

00:27:23.000 Is true.

00:27:24.000 We've also got in our chat some pretty interesting questions.

00:27:27.000 I'd love, you know, given this is the place that, you know, where we can speak freely.

00:27:32.000 Unicornplug 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.

00:27:42.000 Is there any evidence at all, Dr. John, that mRNA vaccines alter your DNA?

00:27:47.000 Is that true or is that tin hat stuff?

00:27:51.000 You know, that is a remarkably good question.

00:27:54.000 In biology, there's something called the central dogma of genetics.

00:27:59.000 And that central dogma says DNA makes RNA makes protein.

00:28:05.000 So normally what happens is the DNA codes for RNA, and it's the RNA that makes the protein.

00:28:12.000 Now in this situation, RNA is actually being given.

00:28:16.000 We're actually giving RNA.

00:28:18.000 So now there is enzymes found in some cells of the body called reverse transcriptomes.

00:28:25.000 So transcription would be the DNA giving information to the RNA.

00:28:30.000 If there is reverse transcription, that would be the RNA giving information back to the DNA.

00:28:36.000 Now, there is a lot of precedent for this in human physiology, so I don't know what the percentage is offhand.

00:28:42.000 I think it's around about 9% of your genetic material, Russell, actually comes from viruses.

00:28:49.000 So 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.

00:29:02.000 Those 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.

00:29:12.000 So 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.

00:29:21.000 Therefore, giving RNA, artificial RNA, could theoretically produce DNA that goes into the cells.

00:29:29.000 That is a theoretical possibility.

00:29:32.000 Now there's two ways that could work.

00:29:33.000 One is somatically and the other is germline.

00:29:37.000 So if it was somatic, what that would mean is that the RNA that is given could form new DNA in your body cells.

00:29:46.000 Now 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.

00:29:54.000 But 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.

00:30:06.000 That would be a germline change.

00:30:08.000 Now, there's no evidence for that.

00:30:10.000 It's highly theoretical.

00:30:12.000 But 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.

00:30:25.000 There'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.

00:30:33.000 It'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.

00:30:50.000 And it's a question that's never been answered.

00:30:53.000 It 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.

00:31:16.000 I 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.

00:31:46.000 This control of the narrative and ongoing expressions of that, such as this story, appears to suggest are certainly worthy of consideration, aren't they?

00:31:57.000 I wonder what your thoughts are on it, Doc.

00:31:59.000 Before you mention there, Russell, that some people believe that all this was planned, it's called the plandemic.

00:31:59.000 Absolutely.

00:32:06.000 Let me make it clear, I do not believe that this was planned.

00:32:09.000 However, the virus, in my view, did escape from a lab.

00:32:14.000 I don't think there's really any debate about that.

00:32:17.000 The Animal that could have potentially transmitted the virus to humans is being looked for now intensely for three years and has never been found.

00:32:27.000 And the virus, the SARS-CoV-2, is really quite dissimilar from other viruses found in nature being found in bats.

00:32:37.000 But it's close enough to bats, some bat viruses, that you could manipulate that bat virus and come up with the SARS coronavirus 2.

00:32:45.000 And 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.

00:32:57.000 We know that that was being paid for partly by money from these various organisations in the United States that we know about.

00:33:04.000 So I believe that the virus actually did come from a lab.

00:33:07.000 I believe it was man-made.

00:33:09.000 I don't believe it was planned.

00:33:10.000 I believe it was a mistake.

00:33:11.000 It was an accidental leak.

00:33:12.000 But When that happened, a lot of people took advantage of that situation.

00:33:18.000 Now, what we're seeing at the moment, for example, is the World Health Organization have said, look, we've had this terrible pandemic.

00:33:25.000 We really don't want another one.

00:33:27.000 Therefore, we need to have all these new regulations, these international health regulations.

00:33:33.000 It will allow the World Health Organization to use national governments, use the power of law to enforce World Health Organization dictates onto individual people.

00:33:44.000 It'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.

00:34:03.000 Rather strange thing that this has happened.

00:34:05.000 Human nature can do that sometimes, of course.

00:34:08.000 But they're actually taking advantage of the situation as it is.

00:34:12.000 So I don't believe it was planned.

00:34:14.000 I believe it was a mistake, but I believe that people are completely optimizing that for their own advantage, which is a problem.

00:34:22.000 Now, 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.

00:34:34.000 Now, we know that that's a ludicrously small estimate, but that's what they give.

00:34:39.000 But what they've said is because the amount of myocarditis after COVID vaccines is stable, then you know what?

00:34:46.000 We don't need to report that anymore.

00:34:49.000 We can just ignore that as if this is somehow acceptable.

00:34:53.000 Yeah, yeah, yeah, we know when you give our mRNA vaccines, there's going to be some myocarditis.

00:34:58.000 Yeah, yeah, of course, of course there is.

00:35:00.000 But I tell you what, we won't bother talking about that anymore.

00:35:03.000 We won't bother reporting on that.

00:35:04.000 This is just completely outrageous.

00:35:08.000 If 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.

00:35:19.000 And the estimates for myocarditis in the United Kingdom are equally low, or around about the same.

00:35:25.000 Again, it's been grossly Underreported in these various areas, but the idea that you say it's stable, therefore will just ignore it.

00:35:32.000 That is utterly preposterous.

00:35:34.000 Let's hope the people of Australia don't put up with that, and we've on my channel.

00:35:37.000 I'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.

00:35:50.000 And we wish them success with that because we can't just say that this is acceptable.

00:35:54.000 The amount of adverse reactions that we're getting.

00:35:57.000 I 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.

00:36:08.000 And that is basically too high.

00:36:09.000 We shouldn't accept that much.

00:36:11.000 But 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.

00:36:17.000 I don't know quite how they would get to that.

00:36:20.000 I would like to ask the TGA what the reasoning for that is, but that's what they've actually said.

00:36:26.000 Quite surprising. Certainly vaccines that are significantly less injurious have been ceased

00:36:33.000 on the, you know, for less damage than that. And the idea that doing consistent damage is somehow

00:36:41.000 not a problem, that suggests that all Saddam Hussein had to do to avoid censure is maintain

00:36:48.000 a certain number of Kurds per month. 0.83

00:36:50.000 We kill a thousand Kurds every month. 0.99

00:36:53.000 Carry on or Pol Pot is licensed to the world's genocidalists. 0.93

00:36:58.000 I have another great question from our locals chat.

00:37:01.000 Remember, 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.

00:37:09.000 Imagination 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?

00:37:24.000 Yeah, 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.

00:37:42.000 I think that's probably taking it a bit far.

00:37:45.000 If 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.

00:38:01.000 So 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.

00:38:11.000 Therefore, the research is not paid for.

00:38:13.000 Very unlikely that that research would be done, but we'll give that a no for the time being.

00:38:17.000 Part 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.

00:38:29.000 One of the, I think, outliers there is only clinical trials that might lead to profitable

00:38:36.000 outcomes are undertaken. No one's doing clinical trials, or at least not significantly or

00:38:41.000 early enough, to about the benefits of vitamin D, exercise, etc. Of course these things are done sort of

00:38:47.000 broadly, but who's going to pay for the trials that show that these vaccine injuries are as serious

00:38:54.000 or as profligate as some people have suggested.

00:38:58.000 One 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.

00:39:25.000 What 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.

00:39:34.000 How 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.

00:39:46.000 Because I feel like you are, generally speaking, a very open-hearted person, not a sort of conspiratorial cynic looking for problems.

00:39:56.000 I wonder how your views have changed accumulatively over this period.

00:40:00.000 But if you'd start by talking about the WHO's impact on YouTube guidelines, that would be fascinating.

00:40:04.000 Yeah, absolutely.

00:40:05.000 So the YouTube guidelines were pretty well identical for, I guess, two or three years throughout the period of the pandemic.

00:40:13.000 And then they just seem to have changed.

00:40:14.000 I became aware of the change just in the last few days.

00:40:18.000 And when you look at them now, they're not so pandemic specific.

00:40:21.000 They're more talking about things in general.

00:40:25.000 So, for example, they're talking about keeping people safe.

00:40:29.000 I actually made a note of a couple of things here.

00:40:31.000 You're not allowed to say that turpentine is effective.

00:40:34.000 You're not allowed to say that petrol and diesel are effective.

00:40:37.000 So there are things that are reasonable for keeping people safe.

00:40:40.000 The wording that YouTube actually use now is interesting.

00:40:44.000 So 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.

00:40:54.000 And that actually sounds pretty reasonable till you look at the detail.

00:40:59.000 But yeah, to prevent, say, people from egregious harm is fair because you do get people who don't understand these things.

00:41:06.000 You get someone who appears authoritative is saying, do something absurd.

00:41:11.000 I won't even give an example because it's probably too dangerous. 1.00

00:41:15.000 And there are some people, to be quite crude about it, stupid enough just to do it. 0.96

00:41:20.000 So 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. 0.81

00:41:29.000 So, 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.

00:42:02.000 Principles or World Health Organization doctrines, teachings, whatever you want to call them, and local health authority teachings.

00:42:09.000 Now, of course, they sometimes do contradict.

00:42:12.000 But basically they're saying you've still got to toe the line.

00:42:14.000 Don't disagree with the World Health Organization.

00:42:17.000 Don't disagree with local health authorities or you can be sanctioned on YouTube.

00:42:25.000 But there's a few strange anomalies to this.

00:42:28.000 Now, 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.

00:42:37.000 I've noticed that quite a few channels on YouTube have been speaking the drug which dare not speak its name.

00:42:46.000 You probably know what I mean, Russell.

00:42:47.000 It's hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin.

00:42:50.000 Oh, ivermectin.

00:42:51.000 Are there four sweeter syllables in the English language?

00:42:55.000 The Dark Lady herself, as sweet Dame Horse Paste, ivermectin, is trotting into the conversation. 0.84

00:43:04.000 Is it true that the FDA has given doctors permission to prescribe ivermectin, Doctor?

00:43:09.000 We've got a chart there, Russell, I think, have we?

00:43:11.000 Can that chart go on the screen?

00:43:13.000 Of when ivermectin was first Disband on there, there we go, yeah.

00:43:19.000 So 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.

00:43:30.000 And 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.

00:43:47.000 So it might come a bit late.

00:43:49.000 That's enough.

00:43:49.000 Thanks for that slide.

00:43:50.000 We can leave that now.

00:43:52.000 Now, the background here is that there are three doctors.

00:43:55.000 For example, Dr. Merrick was actually sacked from his position for wanting to prescribe ivermectin.

00:44:01.000 Dr. 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.

00:44:09.000 The hospital said you can't, largely based on what the FDA was saying.

00:44:15.000 Now, he and a couple of the doctors took this to court.

00:44:18.000 It was rejected.

00:44:20.000 There was an appeal.

00:44:21.000 And at this appeal hearing, that's where that...

00:44:25.000 Those words came out.

00:44:26.000 So the FDA has not said that we want to use ivermectin to treat COVID-19.

00:44:33.000 What it has said is doctors are now free to prescribe ivermectin for COVID-19.

00:44:40.000 So the idea is that this should have happened all along.

00:44:42.000 So 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.

00:44:50.000 And you have one way of thinking, the doctor has another way of thinking, you come to agreement.

00:44:56.000 So when you walk out, you say, well, I've got these antibiotics for my infected toe.

00:45:00.000 This is going to help me.

00:45:01.000 There's a concordance is what we call concordance between the prescriber and the person receiving the drug.

00:45:09.000 But this wasn't really allowed with ivermectin.

00:45:11.000 Doctors weren't allowed to prescribe it, or at least they believe they weren't allowed to prescribe it.

00:45:16.000 And doctors were disciplined for prescribing it.

00:45:19.000 So 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.

00:45:29.000 Now 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.

00:45:47.000 That is a radical change.

00:45:49.000 Consenting adults are now allowed to come to agreements with their doctors, but only happened on the 8th of August after an appeal.

00:45:57.000 And actually, the judge there said, was actually questioning the council for the FDA.

00:46:05.000 Ms.

00:46:07.000 Honnold, who was representing the FDA.

00:46:11.000 And the judge said, well, why did you say no?

00:46:13.000 You might remember that advert.

00:46:14.000 You're not a horse.

00:46:15.000 You're not a cow.

00:46:16.000 Come on, you all.

00:46:17.000 Don't do it.

00:46:18.000 Don't take.

00:46:19.000 Don't take ivermectin.

00:46:20.000 And by the way, we are not advising people take veterinary preparations.

00:46:24.000 Only take a drug that is prescribed by your doctor, as indeed the FDA now allow.

00:46:30.000 So she said, well, when you said no, surely that meant no.

00:46:34.000 And then the lawyer for the FDA said, no, they were merely quips.

00:46:39.000 Merely quips.

00:46:40.000 In other words, no didn't mean no, but now it's obvious it doesn't mean no.

00:46:45.000 So, 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.

00:46:52.000 So why Dr Merrick was sacked remains a bit of a mystery.

00:46:56.000 But now doctors can agree with their patients.

00:47:00.000 If the patient says, yeah, you know what, I'd like to try ivermectin for my Covid infection, then that is now allowed.

00:47:07.000 Concordance is now allowed, which is a major step forward.

00:47:10.000 I can almost taste the freedom.

00:47:13.000 I don't like that they're using quips over the FDA and people are like, what is that?

00:47:17.000 Dr. Merrick is losing his job.

00:47:19.000 A prank?

00:47:20.000 We only did that for a laugh.

00:47:21.000 What about those 34,000 key workers in New York?

00:47:24.000 What was that?

00:47:25.000 A sort of a mass art exhibit?

00:47:28.000 It's extraordinary.

00:47:30.000 An installation of unemployment.

00:47:32.000 That's the kind of radical reframing that invites cynicism and doubt.

00:47:38.000 An earlier question.

00:47:39.000 I offered you earlier, John, the question, how has your trust in medical institutions and the media and indeed the state been affected?

00:47:51.000 Where were you, you know, I mean mentally and spiritually in late 2019 and where do you find yourself now?

00:47:57.000 What has this journey taught you and shown you?

00:48:00.000 Yeah, 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.

00:48:09.000 So if the consultant says, John, go and give a particular treatment, you might say, well, are you aware of this factor or that factor?

00:48:17.000 And if he says he or she says yes, but still give that treatment, then you do it.

00:48:22.000 You do what you're told.

00:48:24.000 There's a hierarchy in healthcare and we have to be obedient.

00:48:27.000 And throughout all my teaching career, what you teach has got to be what is the official guidelines.

00:48:33.000 So the resuscitation counsellor, for example, would update their guidelines and we'd have to change our lessons in according with those guidelines.

00:48:40.000 So 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.

00:48:46.000 And we've got the guidelines that are written by the government and various other people telling us what to do.

00:48:52.000 The National Institutes for Health and Care Excellence, for example, we follow their guidelines.

00:48:56.000 So 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.

00:49:04.000 This is the right thing to do.

00:49:06.000 And they were national guidelines.

00:49:07.000 So, of course, we had to follow the national guidelines, assuming that they were correct.

00:49:13.000 But then as more and more information came to light, it appeared that, well, no, actually quite a few of these guidelines aren't correct.

00:49:20.000 Actually, quite a few of these guidelines are written as they are because people want it to be that way.

00:49:24.000 People want to make a particular amount of money out of this particular preparation.

00:49:28.000 People want to suppress that other preparation because there's no money in that preparation.

00:49:33.000 And all these other things came to light.

00:49:35.000 So 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.

00:49:50.000 But 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.

00:50:04.000 And as well as that, the principles of evidence-based medicine are now very hard to put into practice.

00:50:10.000 So 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.

00:50:29.000 And really there's three components to that.

00:50:31.000 What is the best evidence based on empirical data and science?

00:50:35.000 What is the expert opinion on this and what are patient preferences?

00:50:40.000 And 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.

00:50:47.000 So if you take what is the best available evidence?

00:50:49.000 Well, the point is the best available available evidence comes from randomized peer reviewed journal trials.

00:50:57.000 But who pays for those trials?

00:50:59.000 So drugs which might work are not getting researched because people actually aren't prepared to pay for them.

00:51:06.000 So the evidence that we're getting is the evidence for drugs and treatments that people can make money out of.

00:51:13.000 That is one problem.

00:51:14.000 Take expert opinion.

00:51:16.000 Well, 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.

00:51:24.000 He was being controlled by external forces.

00:51:28.000 So the autonomy of the individual practitioners has now been reduced.

00:51:33.000 So 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.

00:51:43.000 And we can't have informed consent because information is largely being controlled.

00:51:48.000 So 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.

00:52:01.000 So you could argue that evidence-based medicine is now basically an impossibility.

00:52:06.000 So 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.

00:52:18.000 That's the way we need to go.

00:52:20.000 Wow, not only did you give us insights, you actually gave us some guidance on what the solution might be.

00:52:26.000 How 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.

00:52:36.000 And against which there is no inoculation other than self-education.

00:52:41.000 Thanks, Dr. John.

00:52:42.000 That's a fantastic conversation.

00:52:43.000 You're getting so much love out of our locals community.

00:52:47.000 And if you're serious about the job offer, we can discuss terms and perks, because they're basically the same thing.

00:52:55.000 Right, okay.

00:52:56.000 I'm pretty busy at the moment, but thanks, Russell, anyway.

00:52:58.000 I see you're busy.

00:53:00.000 Thanks for joining us.

00:53:00.000 Thanks, Doc.

00:53:02.000 Thanks again, Dr. John.

00:53:04.000 If it were possible to love you in a more physical way, I'd do it.

00:53:08.000 You 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.

00:53:18.000 We'll be providing you with regular content.

00:53:21.000 In 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.

00:53:35.000 To 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.

00:53:42.000 Remember, subscribe to our Rumble channel.

00:53:44.000 Give us a rumble! 0.98

00:53:45.000 Rumble us till it hurts, baby! 1.00

00:53:47.000 If 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!

00:53:57.000 Now, helpful for it is to say that they are tracking the spread of three new sexy little variants.

00:54:03.000 Joe Biden, of course, is doing his bit by encouraging Americans to once more get boosted till it hurts.

00:54:11.000 Here's the news.

00:54:12.000 No, here's the effing news.

00:54:14.000 Stay free.

00:54:14.000 Thank you for choosing Fox News.

00:54:16.000 Good day.

00:54:17.000 No. 1.00

00:54:18.000 Here's the fucking news. 1.00

00:54:20.000 Guess who's back? 1.00

00:54:22.000 Back again!

00:54:23.000 Covid's back!

00:54:24.000 Tell your friends!

00:54:25.000 Also, new boosters available!

00:54:27.000 But can we trust the authorities that are recommending them?

00:54:30.000 The answer's no.

00:54:31.000 Let me explain how.

00:54:34.000 We demand decentralised democracy while they try to make the world one conglomerate of elitist power.

00:54:42.000 And how do they do it?

00:54:43.000 By justifying authority.

00:54:46.000 If 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.

00:54:55.000 We've only just got rid of COVID, it's back!

00:54:57.000 And in other news, new boosters are available.

00:55:00.000 I wonder if there's some connection between these new scary waves of COVID and these new brilliantly effective boosters.

00:55:08.000 Let's have a look.

00:55:09.000 COVID is making a comeback this summer.

00:55:11.000 It's not ABBA!

00:55:12.000 So many of us would like to leave it in the past, but cases are once again on the rise.

00:55:17.000 So when will new booster shots roll out?

00:55:20.000 The news is literally propaganda.

00:55:24.000 Okay, oh no, COVID is back again.

00:55:27.000 So when will booster shots be available?

00:55:31.000 And why should you do exactly as you're told by the media?

00:55:35.000 And how is this Donald Trump's fault somehow?

00:55:39.000 Ann Thompson asked the CDC director.

00:55:42.000 This summer, most Americans left COVID in the past.

00:55:47.000 Goodbye, COVID!

00:55:49.000 But who's this?

00:55:50.000 It's new COVID!

00:55:51.000 Gathering together once again, mask-free. 0.99

00:55:54.000 Which, some suggest, they could have done anyway and in the first place throughout the entire damn debacle. 0.97

00:56:00.000 But tonight, signs of a COVID resurgence. 0.92

00:56:03.000 What's behind this uptick in COVID that we're seeing?

00:56:06.000 The main driver of this is a variant that's relatively newer to the scene, EG5.

00:56:12.000 It's easier to give and get.

00:56:13.000 Another catchphrase, it's easier to give and get.

00:56:16.000 New COVID, EG5!

00:56:18.000 So that makes it kind of easier to pass along.

00:56:21.000 It's been almost a year since the last COVID booster came out.

00:56:25.000 CDC Director Dr. Mandy Cohen.

00:56:27.000 The new COVID booster is expected to be approved by the FDA.

00:56:31.000 Yeah, I'd imagine so.

00:56:32.000 I mean, if I had to put money on it, I would say it will be approved by the FDA.

00:56:36.000 Will it protect against this new strain?

00:56:39.000 Yes, the booster is tailored to what we are seeing circulating now.

00:56:43.000 When have I heard this before?

00:56:44.000 Oh yeah, for the last couple of years, all the time.

00:56:47.000 And then what did we subsequently learn?

00:56:48.000 Hmm.

00:56:49.000 We likely will see this as an annual COVID shot, just like the flu shot.

00:56:54.000 Spring break!

00:56:55.000 Halloween!

00:56:56.000 Christmas!

00:56:57.000 Thanksgiving!

00:56:58.000 And, of course, lots of Moderna money!

00:57:01.000 Just in time for fall, when we'll also face RSV.

00:57:04.000 Can you take the flu shot, the COVID booster, and the RSV vaccine all at once?

00:57:10.000 Can we get all of these things into one convenient, profitable package?

00:57:15.000 I've not seen this before, but my guess is that Mandy's going to say that we can.

00:57:19.000 So for flu and COVID, yes.

00:57:21.000 RSV, again, is only available for older adults.

00:57:24.000 That's one where I'd say, talk to your doctor about what's right for you.

00:57:27.000 That's an interesting pivot.

00:57:28.000 It didn't used to be, ask your doctor.

00:57:30.000 It used to be, we'll tell your doctor what your doctor can say to you.

00:57:33.000 Otherwise, your doctor will be fired.

00:57:35.000 Remember that?

00:57:37.000 So until the new COVID booster comes, get prepared.

00:57:40.000 Stock up on at-home tests.

00:57:41.000 They do cover that new strain.

00:57:43.000 Keep a mask handy in case you're in a crowded place.

00:57:46.000 And most of all, get your shots.

00:57:48.000 COVID, flu, and RSV all by Halloween.

00:57:51.000 That's actual news.

00:57:52.000 That's actual news.

00:57:53.000 That's not an advert.

00:57:54.000 I would accept and respect that counsel.

00:57:57.000 If 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.

00:58:25.000 I no longer think it's a coincidence.

00:58:27.000 I do believe it's a convergence of interest rather than a deliberate conspiracy.

00:58:32.000 But the results are the same.

00:58:34.000 When all interests converge, conspiracy is unnecessary.

00:58:38.000 Governments want to regulate.

00:58:39.000 Big Pharma wants to profit.

00:58:41.000 There 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.

00:58:51.000 And in order to counter that, the instantiation of new centralized authority has to be brought about by raising levels of fear and institutionalizing fear.

00:59:01.000 It's something that never goes away.

00:59:06.000 We don't know much about Mandy Cohen, the new head of the CDC.

00:59:08.000 Let'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.

00:59:21.000 Empirical evidence.

00:59:22.000 So I would call, probably the person I called most was the Secretary of Health and Human Services in Massachusetts.

00:59:28.000 She 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?

00:59:37.000 And I was like, nope.

00:59:38.000 And she's like, okay, neither are we, neither are we.

00:59:42.000 Or 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.

00:59:51.000 So, you know, it was conversations like that.

00:59:54.000 Or I'd be like, so when are you going to think about lightening up a mess?

00:59:59.000 They were like, next Monday.

01:00:01.000 I'm like, OK, next Monday.

01:00:02.000 Follow the science.

01:00:03.000 When did you become a doctor?

01:00:05.000 People that were making those decisions.

01:00:07.000 We'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.

01:00:20.000 When 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?

01:00:27.000 They're working for that charity where they help children.

01:00:28.000 Sorry, not charity where they help children.

01:00:30.000 Moderna!

01:00:31.000 that make vaccines. It makes you realise that some of these alliances have an economic component and

01:00:36.000 it's not entirely about the service of the public. And indeed when you watch Mandy Cohen saying that,

01:00:41.000 it doesn't seem like someone that's just trying to do what's best for people, it's someone that's

01:00:45.000 trying to present a unified front for arbitrary authority.

01:00:50.000 After reports of Mandy Cohen's appointment surfaced, posts on social media showed her gloating about

01:00:55.000 implementing Covid lockdowns, inconsistently following her own mitigation guidelines and

01:01:00.000 forcing public schools to have students masked indoors regardless of vaccination

01:01:05.000 status.

01:01:05.000 North 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.

01:01:16.000 She was like, are you going to let them have professional football?

01:01:19.000 And I was like, no.

01:01:20.000 And she's like, OK, neither are we, Cohen said with a chuckle.

01:01:24.000 This is like something that happens in Grease the Musical or Valley Girls.

01:01:28.000 There's not like two scientists and public officials making a decision for the health of a nation.

01:01:34.000 There's a couple of people giggling their way through a pillow fight.

01:01:37.000 Well, I really fancy Danny Fauci.

01:01:40.000 Oh, he's such a dreamboat.

01:01:42.000 We 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.

01:01:54.000 But what we should be is mindful and observant that that's how this authority is achieved.

01:01:59.000 Not 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.

01:02:06.000 We 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.

01:02:25.000 There's a whole host of other motivations that are demonstrably true and have to be taken into consideration before blindly obeying authority, I believe.

01:02:33.000 Let me know in the comments what you believe.

01:02:35.000 With all this new COVID around, it makes you wonder if there will be available medicines to mitigate it.

01:02:41.000 What a coincidence.

01:02:41.000 There are.

01:02:43.000 The 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.

01:02:52.000 On Thursday, Moderna said initial data showed its updated COVID-19 vaccine is effective against the ARIS and Fornax subvariants in humans.

01:03:01.000 New Lord of the Rings coronavirus with these elves and trolls about us. 1.00

01:03:07.000 Moderna 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.

01:03:18.000 I'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.

01:03:42.000 I don't see those brand names anymore as cause for optimism or inspiration for a new tattoo.

01:03:48.000 Pending 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.

01:03:58.000 It's literally spoken about like a fashion now.

01:04:00.000 No, it's vaccination season!

01:04:03.000 Only on NBC, our Thursday night vaccination season special.

01:04:07.000 Which 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?

01:04:27.000 Here's friend of the show, YouTuber Dr. John, talking about Moderna's new boosters.

01:04:32.000 And the UK government's just struck a 10-year deal, partnership with Moderna, to build a new factory.

01:04:37.000 Now, this is near Oxford.

01:04:40.000 I believe it's being built at the moment.

01:04:44.000 So the British government is in bed with Moderna, to the tune of a billion pounds, as far as we know.

01:04:51.000 That's a ten year program.

01:04:53.000 Ten years.

01:04:54.000 So 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.

01:05:04.000 And that one billion that the government invested has come from you.

01:05:07.000 Of course they have to create a favourable cultural environment for those kind of investments.

01:05:12.000 Can't allow us to have free conversations about whether or not you want your money going to Moderna factories.

01:05:17.000 I don't remember being asked.

01:05:18.000 I don't remember voting for it.

01:05:20.000 I remember being told I'm in a democracy.

01:05:22.000 I remember being told it's my responsibility to take certain medications because of other people.

01:05:26.000 And then I remember learning that there was no clinical evidence to suggest that it was in any way beneficial To anyone other than myself.

01:05:32.000 Then I remember learning that there were vaccine injuries that weren't being openly discussed.

01:05:36.000 Then I remember learning that Moderna had appointed the government official that was saying I should take Moderna vaccines.

01:05:41.000 And 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.

01:05:48.000 And this new facility will build mRNA vaccines for COVID, influenza and respiratory syncytial virus, as far as we know.

01:06:00.000 And the UK government is tied in for 10 years with this group.

01:06:06.000 and committed to buy vaccines for 10 years into the future.

01:06:10.000 Quite 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,

01:06:32.000 if it doesn't work out then we'll still buy the vaccines anyway.

01:06:35.000 That's an incredible commitment and an incredible deal to have been offered without due scrutiny

01:06:41.000 and with plain evidence that there's a revolving door between the government and Moderna in

01:06:46.000 your country and mine.

01:06:47.000 Right 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.

01:06:59.000 It's astonishing.

01:07:00.000 What is going on here?

01:07:02.000 You know, this is just very, very, very, very strange.

01:07:09.000 Committed to buy Moderna's vaccines for the next decade from this new factory.

01:07:14.000 Now, if you're sitting in Australia, don't be smug about it, because I think it's just outside Melbourne.

01:07:19.000 I'm pretty sure it's Melbourne.

01:07:21.000 Certainly 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.

01:07:30.000 That's what globalism looks like.

01:07:32.000 It doesn't matter if you're in Australia, the United States of America, or the UK.

01:07:36.000 There are consistent relationships between the state and global corporations that are able to bypass democracy.

01:07:42.000 And the various unelected officials in the various agencies that facilitated those profits continues unabated, unaddressed.

01:07:51.000 I think the Oxford plant is scheduled to build 250 million doses a year.

01:07:55.000 The Australia plant, 100 million doses.

01:07:58.000 I assume that that means that they're going to quite heavily promote those products, right?

01:08:02.000 Because the government are invested in it.

01:08:04.000 There are all sorts of ways to spend your tax dollars, and you're not invited to consider any of them.

01:08:09.000 Just go and build a Moderna factory.

01:08:11.000 There'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.

01:08:23.000 So this is...

01:08:25.000 Australia, 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.

01:08:36.000 Let's carry on.

01:08:41.000 Oh, 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.

01:08:54.000 Moderna 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.

01:09:04.000 Moderna received nearly $10 billion in taxpayer funding to develop and test the vaccine.

01:09:08.000 Moderna has sold roughly $36 billion worth of coronavirus vaccines worldwide.

01:09:14.000 The company has forecast COVID vaccine sales of $5 billion for 2023.

01:09:20.000 More and more Julian Assange's maxim, the function of government is to funnel public money into private hands, makes sense.

01:09:27.000 It 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.

01:09:42.000 The pandemic is back, perhaps because it's necessary for the pandemic to be back, because the pandemic has been invested in.

01:09:49.000 Moderna factories are being built in Canada, Australia and the UK. 0.98

01:09:54.000 Boosters 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! 0.98

Stay Free - Russel Brand - August 25, 2023

“I No Longer TRUST Authority” - Dr John Campbell on Moderna, Myocarditis and mRNA! - Stay Free #198

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript