TRIGGERnometry - Dr John Campbell： Vaccine Safety, Lockdowns and Long COVID

00:00:00.480 What no one has explained is why we went hook, line and sinker, lock, stock and barrel into these new viral vector and mRNA vaccines, rather than using the more traditional approach to vaccination.

00:00:17.140 Why did we get the message that if you get the vaccine, transmission stops with you? Why were they saying that?

00:00:23.840 I think they had this belief that vaccination was the only way to go to stop this pandemic.

00:00:29.700 And any little bits of inconvenient information that might happen to be true, but could interfere with the vaccine rollout, you didn't need to shout about those.

00:00:37.700 You know, I actually think the public's more intelligent and more interested very often than they know.

00:00:42.760 To me, just simply doesn't add up.

00:00:44.520 And in fact, if you look at the risk benefit analysis, assuming that the risks of adverse events is around about one in a thousand, it basically doesn't add up for anyone anymore.

00:00:54.960 So we've got this phenomena of excess deaths that's occurring Europe, UK, United States, probably Canada, Australia, New Zealand, all of these countries.

00:01:08.080 So what we should be looking at is what do all these countries have in common?

00:01:14.520 Hello and welcome to Trigonometry.

00:01:26.480 I'm Francis Foster.

00:01:27.800 I'm Constantine Kissinger.

00:01:28.820 And this is a show for you if you want honest conversations with fascinating people.

00:01:34.020 Our brilliant guest today is a doctor and a very successful YouTuber, not least thanks to COVID and the lockdowns, which he has been covering in great detail.

00:01:42.780 Dr. John Campbell, welcome to Trigonometry.

00:01:44.840 Welcome and thank you.

00:01:46.260 I've been looking forward to talking to you guys and looking forward to the conversation.

00:01:51.000 And as have our audience, they've been clamoring and demanding that we get you in as soon as possible.

00:01:55.660 Before we talk about all the juicy stuff that we want to talk to you about, John, just tell us who are you, how are you, where you are, what has been the journey through life that leads you to be sitting here talking to us?

00:02:07.240 And by the way, you know, we're sort of thinking we're these hip, cool, young-ish YouTubers.

00:02:12.800 You're crushing it.

00:02:13.540 You've got nearly 3 million subscribers, mate.

00:02:15.960 Oh, yeah.

00:02:16.280 The subscribers have picked up over time.

00:02:17.860 Basically, I'm a bit of a strange eccentric guy from Carlisle in the north of England.

00:02:21.620 But for a long time, I was actually a nurse.

00:02:25.040 So when I was 18, I trained as a psychiatric nurse and then as a general nurse.

00:02:29.180 Did quite a few academic courses after that.

00:02:31.720 And then when I was, I must have been, what, about 30, 31, I went into full-time nurse education.

00:02:38.160 And I put together what I knew about science, the 10 years experience I had as a clinical nurse, and put that into educating student nurses.

00:02:46.140 And that blossomed out into teaching nurse practitioners and basically anyone who would listen.

00:02:51.740 And I did that for 27 years.

00:02:54.120 And then what actually happened was there was this strange guy called Tony Blair.

00:02:57.980 You're probably too young to remember him.

00:03:00.480 Sadly not.

00:03:01.240 Yeah, we do remember Tony.

00:03:03.600 Now, that's a pity.

00:03:04.700 Noted for quite a few notable achievements, which we don't need to go into.

00:03:08.880 But in the 1990s, he decided he wanted 50% of young people in higher education for some bizarre reason.

00:03:17.120 He tried to make everyone an academic, as if there's something wrong with being a practical nurse or a bricklayer or a plumber.

00:03:22.920 He wanted to go into the academic route.

00:03:25.040 So they lifted nurse education, lock, stock and barrel, and plonked us into higher education. 0.99

00:03:30.580 So I found myself in a higher education environment.

00:03:34.040 And that was, it was good in some ways.

00:03:36.500 It meant I could become more of an academic.

00:03:38.200 So I did a couple of higher degrees.

00:03:40.000 I did a PhD.

00:03:41.760 And that's why I'm a doctor.

00:03:43.500 This has caused quite a bit of confusion, really, because I talk about healthcare-related material, because that's what I do.

00:03:49.320 I've learned biology and research methods in healthcare.

00:03:55.380 I've written books on pathophysiology and physiology and all that kind of stuff.

00:04:00.240 But I actually trained mostly nurses. 0.98

00:04:02.360 And then, actually, after I retired, I did some work with nurse practitioners, training registered nurses up to be nurse practitioners to diagnose it in their own right.

00:04:11.620 So I'm basically an academic, but I talk all my expertise in healthcare-related material that I've done pretty well.

00:04:19.460 Well, I've done it all my life, really, since I was 18.

00:04:22.280 So that's where I am now.

00:04:23.540 I now consider myself to be semi-retired.

00:04:26.920 So I don't actually do much clinical work anymore.

00:04:30.080 I did clinical work for three years part-time after I finished academic work.

00:04:34.260 I worked in the local A&E department, which was absolutely brilliant.

00:04:38.240 It was actually great going back to being a staff nurse again, because I was actually giving out medicines and giving people injections and putting on bandages.

00:04:47.040 And I wasn't doing any emails.

00:04:48.780 I wasn't doing any administration.

00:04:50.720 I wasn't having to manage any people.

00:04:52.900 All the stuff from a previously senior role that I had as a senior lecturer, all that was replaced for just doing the actual honest job again.

00:05:02.060 And then I've been making, actually, videos.

00:05:04.200 I started making my videos back in the days of SVHS tapes.

00:05:09.740 So you might just about remember those, but these huge things.

00:05:13.040 So I used to make those.

00:05:15.200 And then we went on to DVDs.

00:05:17.680 And when we started making DVDs, this sort of making lectures, recording lectures, really, that kind of took off quite well.

00:05:26.960 And we were able to, we sold lots and lots of DVDs.

00:05:31.340 We sold them at $5 each.

00:05:33.160 So more or less just covering costs.

00:05:35.020 And we sold thousands of these.

00:05:36.940 And that was going quite well.

00:05:38.720 They were using them in various university courses around the world.

00:05:41.440 And then, of course, YouTube took off.

00:05:43.180 So my technician said to me in 2017, he said,

00:05:47.000 John, there's this new thing called YouTube.

00:05:49.180 I think you should be putting videos on it.

00:05:50.600 Oh, I said, I've never heard of that, but let's go for it.

00:05:52.820 So I had the YouTube channel from 2007.

00:05:57.740 Sorry, 2007 was the first YouTube videos.

00:06:00.460 And then it's gradually built up since then.

00:06:02.560 When COVID came along, I was getting about maybe 20,000, 30,000 views a day, something like that.

00:06:09.820 I think I got to around about 100,000 subscribers.

00:06:13.040 But then COVID came along and we were talking about COVID.

00:06:17.520 We were talking about the principles and things that were going on.

00:06:20.040 And then the YouTube views kind of accelerated.

00:06:23.840 So now I'm mostly doing video work now.

00:06:28.040 Fascinating talking to people like yourselves, of course.

00:06:31.500 But I also, for some strange reason, some of the world's leading doctors and academics

00:06:35.660 come on my channel and talk to me about things.

00:06:38.380 So I'm doing a series at the moment on the history of immunology with Professor Robert Clancy,

00:06:44.140 who's basically the founder of the whole School of Clinical Immunology in Australia.

00:06:50.500 And I've talked to other fascinating doctors and scientists around the world.

00:06:53.600 So try to take what they're saying, really, and put it into the public domain.

00:06:59.400 Because we want this information to be available for everyone.

00:07:03.160 We don't want some esoteric group who've got all the knowledge, you know,

00:07:06.240 this sort of holy priesthood who've got the knowledge and they condescend to give us some information.

00:07:11.320 We want everyone to have the knowledge, everyone who takes an interest,

00:07:15.040 be able to work things out for themselves and basically empower people to make their own decisions.

00:07:19.220 So that's kind of what I'm doing now.

00:07:21.540 And that's pretty well full-time at the moment, really.

00:07:24.400 Well, I imagine it is.

00:07:25.520 I imagine it is.

00:07:26.500 And the posters behind you say, follow the evidence wherever it leads.

00:07:30.360 Yeah.

00:07:30.640 And this is something that we want to get into with you,

00:07:32.940 because before we get into the details of the questions about COVID and vaccines and lockdown

00:07:37.600 and all of that, how a lot of people found themselves in a position during that whole last few years

00:07:44.800 where they changed their mind about things as time evolved, as new things emerged, etc.

00:07:49.940 We've just had the evil Piers Morgan on the show who admitted that he'd made some mistakes

00:07:55.940 and everybody is going crazy about that.

00:07:59.900 What about you?

00:08:01.040 How did your thinking evolve?

00:08:03.300 What was your initial take when this new disease was emerging?

00:08:07.180 We saw the scenes from Italy.

00:08:08.980 Boris Johnson announces the first lockdown, three weeks to flatten the curve.

00:08:13.000 And then quickly, we did find that maybe some of the things we were initially told weren't quite what we saw.

00:08:18.320 How did your thinking evolve over that period?

00:08:20.660 Initially, I mean, I first thought about making these videos in December 2019 and actually made the first one.

00:08:29.520 I think it was on the 26th of January 2020.

00:08:33.020 So this was very near the start of the pandemic.

00:08:35.280 Now, at that time, we did know about other coronavirus diseases.

00:08:39.720 So, for example, there was what's called SARS, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome.

00:08:44.220 There was an outbreak of that in China and Taiwan and various areas in the Far East, 2002, 2003.

00:08:53.880 And that did make people pretty sick.

00:08:56.300 So that was a little bit frightening.

00:08:57.880 But then that died out.

00:08:59.500 The reason that died out is it wasn't very transmissible.

00:09:02.880 It was nothing like as transmissible as the SARS coronavirus 2.

00:09:06.540 And as well as that, the biggie with SARS coronavirus 2 was people become infectious before they become symptomatic.

00:09:14.220 So with SARS coronavirus 1, people would get sick and then they would be transmissible.

00:09:20.800 So when people were sick, you knew if you isolated them, you were probably going to be OK.

00:09:24.900 That's why it died out.

00:09:26.720 And then there's another one called MERS, the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome.

00:09:31.240 Now, we still get a few cases of this every year.

00:09:33.900 I'm not quite sure how many, probably about 100 cases a year, very often in Saudi Arabia because it's a zoonotic spillover from camels.

00:09:42.220 But the thing about the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome, it's got a horrendously high fake case fatality rate.

00:09:48.920 It's probably about 40% of people actually die from this disease.

00:09:52.940 Quite horrendous.

00:09:54.080 It's kind of up there with the ebolers and the really nasty viruses. 1.00

00:09:57.040 But again, this doesn't really spread much away from camel areas where people keep camels because, again, the transmissibility of the disease occurs when people are sick.

00:10:10.480 So you know how to isolate them.

00:10:11.900 And in fact, tragically, quite a few of the deaths from the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome have been in health care workers who've contracted it from quarantined patients.

00:10:23.880 But high death rates.

00:10:25.380 So the probability that there was a new coronavirus disease with a high death rate was not absurd, not by any means.

00:10:32.220 And then we had people like the World Health Organization saying the death rate might be 1% or 2%.

00:10:37.160 Well, you know, if you think about that, if you think about the United Kingdom and 1% or 2% of us die, then that's a pretty big chunk out of the country.

00:10:47.380 And at the early days as well, it wasn't clear who was being primarily affected.

00:10:53.420 So we didn't know initially whether it was young people being affected.

00:10:57.060 And if we take previous pandemics, if you take the 1918-1919 influenza pandemic, what actually happened there is there was two spikes in death across the age range.

00:11:11.720 So old people, of course, died more, as you would expect, because they have comorbidities and other complications. 1.00

00:11:17.380 But the other people that died in 1918-1919 were teenagers, very often 17-, 18-, 19-year-olds.

00:11:25.660 The reason being, they have a very active immune system.

00:11:29.360 They're able to generate a vigorous immune response.

00:11:32.340 But with the immune response goes inflammation, and the lungs became inflamed, and they filled up with fluid.

00:11:38.260 And there was something similar, actually, with SARS-CoV-2.

00:11:43.260 So there was a few frightening things, and we didn't really know.

00:11:46.580 So at the beginning, the only information we had, apart from this background science that we could learn fairly quickly, was what official organisations, like governments around the world, were telling us.

00:11:57.940 And then, of course, enter organisations like the BBC.

00:12:01.400 Now, what the BBC do on their reports, very often, is they'll be talking about something in general.

00:12:10.060 So I remember during the Andrew Wakefield years, he was the guy, the paediatrician, that said there's a link between MMR vaccine and autism, which, of course, we now know there isn't.

00:12:20.220 But the BBC actually showed someone who had the MMR vaccine, and then they say, this is little baby so-and-so, or little boy so-and-so.

00:12:30.360 He had the MMR vaccine last week, and now he's got autism.

00:12:34.260 Now, on a population scale, that will happen.

00:12:37.100 So what they do is they home into individual cases.

00:12:40.360 And that can give a completely distorted view of the nature of reality, because these cases are newsworthy.

00:12:49.200 They don't look at the other 990,000, 900,000 cases where the child did not develop autism after the MMR vaccine.

00:12:57.400 So the BBC started showing pictures of people, understandably, who were getting sick in Italy, and we never really quite knew what was going on in China.

00:13:08.780 They were giving figures, but we knew that the Chinese figures were inaccurate.

00:13:13.200 So quite what was going on in China, we didn't know.

00:13:16.260 There was leaked videos of people having fits and things in the street, which, obviously, looking back, were fraudulent.

00:13:22.300 But we had mainstream media picking on the people that were getting sick, and that gave a bit of a distorted picture.

00:13:31.700 And the other problem in the early stages was the differentiation between the case fatality rate and the infection fatality rate.

00:13:38.180 So the case fatality rate, we did work it out, and it was around about 1% or 2% of people that were being officially diagnosed were dying.

00:13:44.760 But, of course, for every one person that was officially diagnosed, there was hundreds or probably thousands that got the infection that were never diagnosed.

00:13:53.880 I suspect, for example, I don't know, but I suspect I had it in early 2020.

00:13:59.740 And I've talked to hundreds of people who think that, even people who think they had it in 2019.

00:14:05.720 But, of course, it was never officially diagnosed.

00:14:08.540 And as well as that in the UK, what we didn't do in the early stages that we could have done.

00:14:13.060 OK, the antigen studies, the antigen tests weren't readily available.

00:14:17.940 There was government PCR testing, but the lateral flow tests weren't there for mass testing.

00:14:23.380 But what we should have done at an earlier stage is do antibody testing to see who had had the infection in the past.

00:14:29.440 And that was another bit of a gap, really, in the government strategy.

00:14:33.820 So we're giving this information, WHO, government, mainstream media.

00:14:38.380 We had to try and put this together as best as we could with these potential alarm bells from previous infections and previous pandemics.

00:14:46.380 And it did look like we had a pretty serious pandemic on our hands.

00:14:51.940 And in many ways it was serious, but nothing like as serious or deadly as the early intimations indicated.

00:14:58.220 And then as time went on, it became clear that it was becoming the infection fatality rate and the number of people getting seriously ill weren't as many as we thought it was.

00:15:12.140 And then, of course, this wonderful natural evolutionary process comes in because viruses want to survive.

00:15:18.340 So it's kind of natural that viruses would become less virulent and less likely to kill their hosts as time goes on.

00:15:26.340 And that happened.

00:15:27.340 So we had the original Wuhan variant in this country.

00:15:30.700 Then we had the Alpha variant that you might remember.

00:15:33.560 Then we had the Delta variant.

00:15:35.980 And then something really quite almost supernatural happened.

00:15:40.540 We had Omicron.

00:15:42.020 Omicron came along.

00:15:43.940 Way more infectious.

00:15:46.080 Way less pathogenic.

00:15:48.340 Way less people getting sick with Omicron.

00:15:51.160 Now, the fact that it's more infectious, you could argue very strongly that that's a really good thing because it's infecting lots of people really quickly.

00:16:00.980 And that's generating a natural immune response in those people.

00:16:05.360 And as well as that, if you give vaccine, that's just generating immunity in the body.

00:16:10.180 It's what we call systemic immunity.

00:16:11.660 But if you breathe the virus in, then you get immunity in your nose and your mouth and your pharynx and your trachea, what we call mucosal compartment immunity.

00:16:21.160 And that can stop the virus getting into the systemic parts of the body.

00:16:24.860 That's why in the Omicron days, it became much more like common cold type features.

00:16:29.960 So we had all of these changes making the condition less severe.

00:16:35.560 And that meant the risk benefit analysis for interventions changed dramatically because the risks went down.

00:16:41.820 But the problem, I think, was that government thinking didn't change quickly.

00:16:46.280 I'm not sure mainstream media thinking has changed that quickly yet.

00:16:50.720 And so we have a less serious condition.

00:16:53.620 I'm not saying it's negligible.

00:16:55.260 It's not by any means.

00:16:56.820 It's exacerbating people with previous conditions at the moment.

00:17:00.920 But the risk benefit analysis of everything has changed really quite dramatically over the last few years.

00:17:07.980 And we really have to wonder the extent to which government policies have kept up with this.

00:17:14.000 John, before Francis jumps in, can I just ask you one question?

00:17:17.720 Because I was curious how your thoughts changed.

00:17:21.040 Yeah.

00:17:21.360 Did you support the first lockdown, for example?

00:17:24.240 Yes, absolutely.

00:17:25.900 You did?

00:17:26.340 That appeared to be what was necessary at the time, given the information that we had.

00:17:31.620 Looking back, was I over-reliant and over-trusting on governments and the World Health Organization at the time?

00:17:38.960 Looking back, clearly I was.

00:17:41.600 But at the time, given the information that we had, it looked like there would be queues of people with severe illness outside of hospitals waiting to get in who couldn't because those hospitals were full.

00:17:54.520 That looked like a possibility at the time.

00:17:57.420 And to be fair, during the early waves, during the Wuhan wave and during the Alpha wave, there were a lot of people getting really quite sick.

00:18:06.320 And if we hadn't had those lockdown measures, a lot more people would have got sick all at the same time.

00:18:13.200 You know, this flatten the curve, flatten the sombrero idea.

00:18:17.120 There is some, I believe there is some reality to that.

00:18:20.040 So many people would have got sick all at the same time.

00:18:23.300 The health service would have been essentially overwhelmed by that.

00:18:27.580 And that means that people that could have been saved with relatively simple interventions, such as giving oxygen or giving antibiotics or giving these steroid drugs, these dexamethasone type drugs, some of those could well have died.

00:18:41.820 That is still possible.

00:18:44.060 So in the early stages, lockdowns were draconian, but there was a good rationale for them.

00:18:52.320 In the later stages, of course, when you're talking about restrictions in the time of Omicron, it became patently absurd.

00:18:58.960 But specifically in those early stages, yeah, I could see where they were coming from.

00:19:04.400 And John, do you still support the first lockdown or do you think it was an overreaction with the benefit of hindsight?

00:19:10.120 I think with the benefit of hindsight, knowing everything that we do now, it was necessary to reduce the rate at which people were getting sick.

00:19:19.280 Now, whether that's a lockdown measure, yes, that did do it.

00:19:25.000 You know, our intensive care units were not overwhelmed.

00:19:27.380 They were remarkably busy for quite some time, but they weren't overwhelmed.

00:19:30.300 Or whether you could have taken the alternative strategy, the sort of great Barrington Declaration type strategy, where you just took strenuous measures to protect those that were most at risk.

00:19:42.240 So those with comorbidities, those with obesity, hypertension, diabetes, immunosuppression, the elderly.

00:19:51.220 Could we have protected those effectively?

00:19:53.760 It would have been difficult, but it probably could have been done.

00:19:57.180 But given the uncertainties at the time, the very first lockdown, it's still possible to make a case for it.

00:20:07.000 Later on, certainly not.

00:20:10.160 But in the early stages, it's still possible that it saved lives.

00:20:14.660 And of course, we're going to move on to the most controversial part of the whole COVID debate, which is, of course, the vaccine.

00:20:23.440 Now, I listened to some of your interviews and you were saying that you had the vaccine, you had two vaccines, and then you had the third vaccine, which you hesitated over.

00:20:35.520 So talk to us about your journey with the vaccine, your thinking and the way it evolved.

00:20:39.860 I mean, vaccination is such a fundamental part of health care.

00:20:44.660 You know, we've eradicated smallpox.

00:20:48.040 You know, I personally conducted vaccination programs in poor parts of the world to prevent polio.

00:20:53.420 You know, vaccination, measles.

00:20:58.420 Measles is a terrible disease.

00:21:00.580 You know, measles still kills thousands and thousands of children a year that aren't vaccinated in poorer countries, particularly, especially if it's combined with malnutrition.

00:21:10.920 So vaccination is an absolutely essential part of health care.

00:21:14.420 So when we had a new viral disease, it made perfect sense that we would develop a vaccine.

00:21:22.260 That made perfect sense.

00:21:24.340 And when the vaccines came along, I believe that these vaccines would protect us against severe disease, which in the early stages, they did.

00:21:32.540 I believe they did protect us against severe disease in the early stages.

00:21:35.920 Now, how much someone at me was at risk from severe disease, of course, is open to some question and debate.

00:21:43.060 What I'm curious about, what I'm really curious about is what we've always done with vaccines in the past is you brew up lots of virus and you can easily do that.

00:21:52.860 We used to do it in the old days in eggs.

00:21:54.700 Well, my predecessors did it on eggs.

00:21:57.060 Now we have cell cultures and you can brew up any amount of virus.

00:22:00.540 This is the approach the Chinese took, for example, with their Sinovac vaccine. 0.86

00:22:05.020 So you brew up untold billions of viral particles.

00:22:08.700 You kill them and mush them up and then you inject them. 0.87

00:22:12.100 So what you're injecting is an attenuated or a dead viral particle. 0.93

00:22:16.280 The immune system then learns to recognize that dead viral particle, that antigen.

00:22:20.800 But that dead viral particle can't cause disease because it's dead or it's so attenuated it can't reproduce.

00:22:28.220 It's just parts of the virus.

00:22:29.500 What I don't understand, and no one's ever explained this to me, is people had invented these adenovirus vector vaccines and people had invented these messenger ribonucleic acid, these mRNA vaccines.

00:22:45.680 What no one has explained is why we went hook, line and sinker, lock, stock and barrel into these new viral vector and mRNA vaccines, rather than using the more traditional approach to vaccination.

00:23:02.740 Because given that we had what looked like a really potentially quite dangerous pandemic, I would have thought that the safest thing to do is do that which is tried and tested and we know works.

00:23:17.080 And we know these vaccines have some level of efficacy.

00:23:22.260 The Chinese vaccine did. 0.98

00:23:23.960 I think they made a few in Cuba as well, in virtually no time at all, just from brewing up huge amounts of the virus. 0.98

00:23:30.700 Why was it we went for the mRNA vaccine, which is not giving the antigen, it's not giving the dead virus, it's giving the genetic instruction to make the virus.

00:23:42.880 And the adenovirus vector vaccines are also giving the genetic instruction to make the virus.

00:23:47.920 It's just that it's getting into the cells of the body via, in the case of the Oxford vaccine, an attenuated chimpanzee adenovirus.

00:23:56.700 Whereas the mRNA vaccines were giving the mRNA in these lipid nanoparticles.

00:24:02.640 Why did we do that rather than going down the traditional route?

00:24:05.800 That's the big question that hasn't really been answered.

00:24:08.740 John, I suppose a pushback would be, and look, if I may, if I, I'm just a comedian on the internet, so you could argue.

00:24:15.940 You're absolutely entitled to have an opinion about COVID, mate.

00:24:19.000 That's how it works now.

00:24:20.000 We're both experts.

00:24:20.920 Exactly.

00:24:21.240 Get right you are.

00:24:21.840 Anyway, I got my PhD from the University of Life.

00:24:25.240 Now, Sinovac, the example that you just used, is incredibly ineffective when compared to the other vaccines, is it not?

00:24:35.380 And the AstraZeneca, which I think uses a technology you had talked about, was then withdrawn because of the effects of myocarditis.

00:24:45.100 Yeah.

00:24:46.120 Who told you that, Francis?

00:24:48.740 Who told you Sinovac's incredibly ineffective?

00:24:52.460 I read it in the mainstream media.

00:24:55.660 Yeah.

00:24:56.080 It's pretty hard to get good data from China.

00:24:58.360 The data we have got from China is largely filtered through the World Health Organization.

00:25:03.760 And what that seems to show with the Sinovac vaccine is it's not particularly good at preventing infection in the first place.

00:25:11.500 But when you actually compare it to, and, but, you know, who really care?

00:25:15.700 Who do you want to prevent infection in the first place? 0.86

00:25:17.860 You know, if you get a bit of a sniffle, that doesn't matter too much.

00:25:20.960 Plus, if you get the infection, you're going to produce what we said before, this mucosal compartment immunity.

00:25:26.420 So you could argue that that is a good thing.

00:25:28.380 But when you actually look at the data, the reason I took these vaccines is I thought there was a chance of me dying if I got this infection.

00:25:36.020 So that would be bad or getting very ill.

00:25:38.440 That would be a bad thing.

00:25:39.560 So you don't, you don't want that.

00:25:42.740 But when you look at the actual data for the Sinovac vaccine and the, what we would call the sophisticated Western vaccines, in actually preventing death, the difference between the two is not, is not that great.

00:25:55.320 So if you want to stop people getting seriously ill and dying, there's a good argument to be made that the Sinovac probably would have been just about as good as the mRNA vaccines.

00:26:04.780 And of course, remember that the initial trials on the mRNA vaccines were on preventing infection, preventing infection.

00:26:13.160 Now, I used to have a sign behind me that said, stop, stop COVID-19, because we thought we could stop it.

00:26:19.060 We thought we could eradicate this.

00:26:20.960 And pretty well for all of 2020, I thought we could eradicate this virus.

00:26:24.480 But now, no, we can't stop it.

00:26:26.320 You can't stop it.

00:26:27.700 We are going to be endemic.

00:26:29.300 Like, we are, you and me, us three, are going to, and everyone watching, is going to be re-exposed to this virus innumerable times over the next, who knows, decade, two decades.

00:26:40.160 You know, probably for the rest of you guys' lives, you're going to be continuously re-exposed.

00:26:44.400 So we can't get rid of it.

00:26:46.020 We have to learn to live with it.

00:26:47.660 So preventing infection really is a bit of a red herring.

00:26:51.440 It's not what we wanted to do.

00:26:52.700 We wanted to stop getting people, people, stop getting people really sick.

00:26:56.900 Now, if you look at the British Heart Foundation guidelines, they actually say that the reason that we've stopped using the AstraZeneca, adenovirus vector vaccine in the UK, is because we have better ones, mRNA vaccines.

00:27:10.660 To tell you the truth, I'm not that convinced.

00:27:13.600 I'm not that convinced by that argument.

00:27:16.200 Because, as you correctly say, Francis, the AstraZeneca vaccine can cause myocarditis and pericarditis, but actually not that much.

00:27:24.880 Mostly what it caused was blood clotting.

00:27:28.140 So we had this, what we call thromboembolic problems.

00:27:31.100 We have blood clots in the blood vessels, and it was the thromboembolic complications of the AstraZeneca vaccine that were particularly problematic.

00:27:39.500 So I'm just wondering if the reason that the British government stopped using the AstraZeneca vaccine were because they thought it was causing too many side effects.

00:27:46.420 If that's why they stopped using it, because they thought it was causing too many adverse reactions, I'd quite like to hear them say that.

00:27:54.540 But the official guideline now is that we're using the mRNA vaccines because they're better.

00:27:59.920 But, of course, we've gradually gone away from it.

00:28:02.140 So initially, in the spring 2023 campaign, basically, we're only vaccinating those over the age of 75 now and those with comorbidities.

00:28:15.480 In the autumn 2022 campaign, basically, it was over 55 that we're vaccinating.

00:28:21.640 So it does sound to me like the government is sort of quietly moved away from the AstraZeneca to the mRNAs.

00:28:29.000 Now I kind of get the impression it's actually moving away from the mRNAs now. 1.00

00:28:34.640 So, you know, even at my great age, I don't qualify.

00:28:37.920 I don't qualify for a spring booster now because it seems like the government are moving away quietly.

00:28:43.700 So I don't think we can expect any great mea culpa, oh, no, we picked the wrong vaccines, which they may or may not have done from the government.

00:28:52.260 I think they'll gradually move away.

00:28:54.580 And I suppose there could be a dramatic change in politicians where they all stand up and say, sorry, got it wrong, completely wrong, got it wrong.

00:29:01.720 We may get that from Parliament.

00:29:03.540 I'd be surprised.

00:29:04.420 I think we'll just sort of gradually move on to a new way of living with the virus, a new sort of acceptance of endemicity and a gradually waning down of the vaccination campaigns.

00:29:19.680 And, John, how safe was the technology in the, I can't remember the names of the other vaccines now, not the AstraZeneca, but the ones that use this novel mRNA technology?

00:29:30.680 The Pfizer and Moderna use the messenger RNA technology.

00:29:33.660 Yeah, well, first of all, it's strange why they do that.

00:29:38.460 And let me tell you what we normally do is, so there was clinical trials done on this, and it did show that there were some risks.

00:29:46.100 Now, when there's been a paper published a few months ago, which actually reanalyzed the risks from these vaccines,

00:29:53.620 and actually found out that the risk of serious adverse events from this reanalysis paper are probably about one in 800.

00:29:59.980 So perhaps more than we were being given the impression of up to this point.

00:30:04.820 So these vaccines are probably causing more issues.

00:30:08.240 And what we always have to do in healthcare is look at the risk benefit for the individual.

00:30:13.060 Now, we know that these vaccines aren't transmitting, aren't preventing the transmission of disease effectively.

00:30:18.820 So we had famous figures in the United States who we won't mention, but, you know, heads of various this, that, and the other in the United States.

00:30:26.340 And indeed, in this country, we're saying, look, if you get the vaccine, the infection stops with you.

00:30:33.460 It's going to stop transmission.

00:30:35.860 Now, to be quite honest, I can't see that that was ever going to happen.

00:30:40.240 Because if you give the vaccine, as we said before, that can prevent systemic infection to the degree that it does for a limited amount of time.

00:30:48.660 But it's never going to prevent the mucosal compartment infection.

00:30:51.720 And that's how this is spread.

00:30:52.940 So the idea that giving a systemic vaccine was going to stop dead the spread, and therefore young children had to be vaccinated to protect their grandmother, I don't think that was ever based on sound science.

00:31:05.880 John, may I interrupt you there?

00:31:07.540 Apology to interrupting, but let me ask you a very unfair question.

00:31:12.840 Go for it.

00:31:13.340 But if you, as a medical expert, have the opinion that it was never going to be the case, presumably government has plenty of people like you advising them, who are also medical experts, who would also have been telling them this.

00:31:25.900 So why did we get the message that if you get the vaccine, transmission stops with you?

00:31:32.000 Why were they saying that, in your opinion?

00:31:34.700 I think, and you'll have to ask the politicians and the chief medical officer.

00:31:39.280 That's why I say it's an unfair question.

00:31:40.680 That's why I say it's an unfair question.

00:31:42.060 But I think they didn't want to do anything that was going to inhibit the vaccine rollout.

00:31:48.040 I think they had this belief that vaccination was the only way to go to stop this pandemic.

00:31:53.840 And any little bits of inconvenient information that might happen to be true, but could interfere with the vaccine rollout, you didn't need to shout about those.

00:32:01.960 Let's just point out the good bits and any complications.

00:32:04.560 Let's just maybe keep those quieter, because they saw vaccination as the only way to stop the pandemic.

00:32:12.320 Now, it looks like they've turned out to be less than accurate in that, but I suspect that's what it was.

00:32:18.000 They were just trying to make it look good and not confuse the issue.

00:32:21.180 This is one of the things that really gets on my nerves, actually, with governments and chief medical, this, that, and chief scientific, this, that, and the other, is they don't always give us the full information.

00:32:31.060 They kind of give us the edited highlights.

00:32:33.400 You know, I actually think the public's more intelligent and more interested very often than they know.

00:32:39.740 They have to give us this very simplified message, not give us a for and against that we can somehow evaluate, because they think if they do that, we'll become confused.

00:32:50.320 This simplified message, so we'll all comply with this and just say to them, thank you, sir.

00:32:55.460 Thank you, oh, great one.

00:32:56.720 Very kind of you to give me this vaccine.

00:32:58.760 Very kind of you to allow me to do this.

00:33:00.560 Thank you that you've saved me from bothering to think for myself, and let's just toe the line and conform.

00:33:07.080 So I suspect that's what it was.

00:33:09.300 Well, so come back to what you were talking about before, which is they were saying the transmission will not occur if you're vaccinated, and that was part of the way they approached this.

00:33:21.020 Yeah.

00:33:21.420 So it will reduce transmission for a very short period of time a little bit.

00:33:27.860 So we're not saying it doesn't do that at all.

00:33:30.560 But basically, it is not reducing transmission.

00:33:34.680 What we're giving the vaccine for is to reduce severe illness and death.

00:33:39.160 But we now know that it doesn't last for anything like as long as we hoped it would.

00:33:43.600 It actually wanes fairly quickly.

00:33:46.900 And as we've said-

00:33:47.720 How do these vaccines compare?

00:33:49.140 I know I keep interrupting you, but there's so many things you're touching on that I think people would want to answer.

00:33:52.720 Yeah, go for it.

00:33:53.420 Go for it.

00:33:53.740 How do these vaccines, the Pfizer and the Moderna in particular that we've used so extensively here,

00:33:59.300 how do they compare in terms of that, in terms of how quickly they stop working, in terms of how ineffective they are after a period of time,

00:34:07.600 to a typical normal vaccine that you would encourage anyone watching this to take or to give to their children?

00:34:14.640 Yeah, yeah, yeah.

00:34:15.280 So it depends on the type of vaccine that we're talking about.

00:34:19.000 So, for example, influenza vaccine that quite a few of us still take.

00:34:25.160 I didn't get one this year, but we take that quite regularly.

00:34:28.140 That only actually generates immunity that's going to last for a few months,

00:34:32.000 partly because the virus is always changing and you can get a new virus,

00:34:36.180 but partly because the nature of the antigen only stimulates the immune system to be protective for a relatively short period of time.

00:34:45.860 And that's the same with influenza, COVID vaccines.

00:34:49.120 They only work for a short period of time because of the way that the vaccine interacts with the immune system.

00:34:55.340 Whereas other viruses, which are stable over long periods of time,

00:34:59.060 people will remain immune for decades.

00:35:03.080 So, for example, I was vaccinated against hepatitis B when the vaccine first came out

00:35:09.260 and I checked my levels about 20, 30 years later and I still had good protection from it.

00:35:14.840 Smallpox, measles, all these vaccines can last for a long time.

00:35:19.600 Tetanus is another good example.

00:35:21.040 So tetanus toxoid.

00:35:22.740 I've seen a few people with tetanus in intensive care in the UK,

00:35:27.140 but they've all been elderly.

00:35:29.060 And they've all not had their childhood vaccines bumped up, not renewed, not boosted.

00:35:36.080 So they were probably protected for 10, 20 years, but then eventually the immunity wore off.

00:35:42.980 So a lot of vaccines that we give are going to give us very long-term protection,

00:35:48.000 whereas these ones for the transient respiratory viruses,

00:35:51.100 it's not surprising that the protection is not as long-term.

00:35:54.400 So I don't think that's a product of the technology as such,

00:35:58.860 of the way that the antigen gets into the body.

00:36:01.580 I think that's more the nature of the antigen interacting with the immune system

00:36:05.760 and the fact that the viruses are always changing.

00:36:08.600 That makes perfect sense.

00:36:09.960 Yeah.

00:36:10.200 That makes perfect sense.

00:36:11.240 If you get a vaccine now, you know,

00:36:13.060 that's a vaccine against a virus that was here 18 months ago or whatever it was.

00:36:16.420 You know, the vaccines are still, the part of the vaccine is still the virus that was the original Wuhan virus.

00:36:24.380 The bivalent ones have added a bit of Omicron BA2 and BA4, I think it is.

00:36:28.720 But it's still out-of-date viruses.

00:36:31.740 So they're always kind of chasing the tails with these sort of fast-evolving, fast-changing viruses.

00:36:38.920 That makes sense, John.

00:36:40.200 So let me ask you this about the mRNA technology, because you've clearly made a point of it.

00:36:46.320 You've emphasized the fact that no one's ever answered why we chose this approach over the more conventional approach. 0.79

00:36:51.840 Why is that significant, to put it in a very superficial, blunt, idiot, comedian-on-the-internet way? 0.92

00:37:00.060 What's wrong with mRNA technology? 0.89

00:37:03.140 Well, the main thing is that because we haven't used it on a mass scale before,

00:37:07.320 there's lots of things we don't know about.

00:37:10.500 Remember Donald Rumsfeld?

00:37:12.340 He said, well, we've got known unknowns, and we've got unknown unknowns.

00:37:18.200 So there's things that we knew we didn't know about it, but then there's things that we didn't know we didn't know.

00:37:24.360 So what's actually happening with these vaccines is you inject it.

00:37:28.040 Now, what's supposed to happen?

00:37:29.360 It's supposed to stay in your arm, maybe a bit go into your lymph nodes under your arm,

00:37:33.440 and generate a localized immune response there, but that has an effect on the whole body.

00:37:39.320 But what we now know is happening, for example, with these mRNA vaccines,

00:37:42.760 is they're actually being systemically absorbed to a degree.

00:37:48.320 They're going everywhere.

00:37:50.340 So what happens is you've got one of these lipid nanoparticles with this mRNA recipe inside for the antigen.

00:37:57.620 If that goes into a cell in your arm, that goes into your arm.

00:38:01.640 The cell in your arm makes some of the antigen, some of the spike protein.

00:38:05.880 The immune system recognizes that spike protein as being foreign and generates the immune response,

00:38:10.880 and that's good.

00:38:11.960 And because there's inflammation associated with the immune response, you're going to get a sore arm.

00:38:16.260 Well, big deal.

00:38:17.420 You know, I can live with a sore arm.

00:38:19.340 But if the systemic absorption of this, and this is what hasn't been fully answered at the moment,

00:38:25.020 but there is data that's showing that these are systemically absorbed.

00:38:29.660 If they're systemically absorbed, then suppose that that mRNA lipid nanoparticle, one of billions,

00:38:35.800 is going through a blood vessel in your heart, for example.

00:38:39.240 Then that lipid nanoparticle can come into contact with a vascular endothelium inside your heart vessels,

00:38:47.860 inside the blood vessels in your heart.

00:38:49.940 And because the lipid nanoparticle has got a fatty wall,

00:38:53.220 and the cells in your heart have got a fatty wall, they will absorb into each other.

00:38:58.320 Just like when you have two bubbles, and they just absorb into each other when you're playing with bubbles.

00:39:02.680 It's just like that.

00:39:03.380 But the membranes kind of merge together.

00:39:06.680 And that would let the mRNA into the cells now, but not in your arm.

00:39:10.880 Now, the cells that the mRNA is going into could be in your heart.

00:39:15.060 But the same thing will happen.

00:39:16.540 The mRNA is the recipe to make the protein.

00:39:19.800 Then the heart cells will make the protein.

00:39:22.900 And the heart cells will export this protein onto the surface of the cell.

00:39:27.260 And it will stick onto proteins on the surface of the cell.

00:39:31.280 It's called presentation.

00:39:33.220 So all cells can be what we call antigen-presenting cells to some degree.

00:39:38.680 Then the immune system will come by and say,

00:39:40.640 oh, on this heart cell there's a bit of a foreign material, a bit of spike protein.

00:39:45.460 That's not supposed to be there.

00:39:47.300 Because that's what the immune system does. 0.53

00:39:49.000 It recognises the difference between itself and what's not itself.

00:39:52.160 And so what it does is it mounts an immunological reaction to that foreign spike protein.

00:39:59.960 But it happens to be in the heart.

00:40:01.880 And when you get the immunity, you also get inflammation going with it.

00:40:06.620 And if you get inflammation in the heart muscle, that's called myocarditis.

00:40:11.860 You get inflammation in the pericardium, that's called pericarditis,

00:40:15.820 which, of course, we don't want these things.

00:40:18.200 So the problem seems to be that there is systemic absorption of these lipid nanoparticles.

00:40:26.420 And as well as that, this is another one of my big themes.

00:40:29.660 It's my belief that we're giving the injections wrong.

00:40:35.040 So what you're supposed to do when you stick a needle in.

00:40:37.940 So I've got my absolute one somewhere.

00:40:39.980 You stick a needle in.

00:40:41.160 You stick a needle into someone like that. 0.55

00:40:43.740 So you stick it in.

00:40:45.100 And then what you're supposed to do is draw back on the plunger.

00:40:48.200 And then if you're in a blood vessel, you'll get blood going into the syringe.

00:40:54.280 You'll be able to see it.

00:40:55.360 And then you know not to inject.

00:40:57.280 Because the injection that we're giving for vaccines is supposed to be intramuscular, into the muscle.

00:41:03.440 Whereas if you hit a blood vessel, it goes into a blood vessel, that would become an intravascular injection.

00:41:09.900 Could be a vein, could be an artery, more likely to be a vein.

00:41:13.180 And that means it would be systemically absorbed really quickly.

00:41:16.120 It could go all around the body.

00:41:18.880 And we don't want that.

00:41:20.520 So I think what we should do is change the guidelines to say, nurses and doctors, vaccine givers, stick the needle in, draw back.

00:41:28.400 When you're satisfied you're not in a vessel, then inject it.

00:41:31.880 Because I think a proportion of the injections that we're giving are going straight into a vein.

00:41:36.820 And then we're getting even more systemic distribution.

00:41:43.100 And John, the obvious question, therefore, is this.

00:41:46.300 What's the data on the concerns that you have about myocarditis and pericarditis?

00:41:53.320 Yeah. So there is definitely an admission now, if we take the mRNA vaccines, that it is a risk of myocarditis and pericarditis.

00:42:04.740 Now, you can argue about the levels of these.

00:42:07.780 The problem is that most of the data that we get after the release of a drug in the UK comes from what we call the yellow card scheme.

00:42:14.660 Of course, now it's all on a computer, but we still have these yellow cards in the back of the old, in the back of the books.

00:42:23.260 In fact, if you look in the back of these, these are the books here with all the drugs that you can prescribe in.

00:42:31.680 And still at the back, there's some yellow pages that you can fill out any adverse events in.

00:42:39.640 Although it's mostly done on a computer now.

00:42:41.220 But the British Medical Journal actually published an article saying that only about 10% of serious adverse reactions are reported.

00:42:53.880 And for less serious adverse events, it's probably only 2% or 3% that are actually reported.

00:42:59.440 So the question is, to what degree is there under-reporting of these side effects?

00:43:04.520 Because very often, there seems to be a bit of a pressure on doctors and nurses not to say anything bad about vaccines.

00:43:15.400 And as well as that, if someone gets myocarditis or pericarditis,

00:43:23.620 maybe people never thought to ask how long ago it was since they had a vaccine.

00:43:27.680 The connection might not have been made.

00:43:31.820 So we have under-reporting.

00:43:33.580 So we know it causes some myocarditis, some pericarditis.

00:43:37.180 We're even allowed to say that on YouTube now, because that is known.

00:43:41.240 The question is, is the amount, is there significant under-reporting?

00:43:46.240 And what is the risk-benefit analysis for the individual?

00:43:49.020 So if I was treating either of you guys for anything, I wouldn't say, well, what is good?

00:43:56.500 You know, if I'm treating Constantine, I wouldn't say, what's good for Francis?

00:43:59.560 And I'm treating Francis, I wouldn't say, what's good for Constantine?

00:44:01.800 You treat the individual.

00:44:03.640 This is the whole point.

00:44:05.120 So it's all about risk-benefit analysis for the individual.

00:44:07.860 So the idea that you would give a young man an mRNA vaccine for a disease which, for them, is very, very likely to be trivial.

00:44:18.540 Never guaranteed, but very, very likely that a fit 18-year-old is not going to get very sick from COVID,

00:44:25.280 especially a young, fit man who are more prone to these conditions.

00:44:29.160 The idea that you would expose them to that risk of pericarditis or myocarditis, the risk-benefit analysis for them, to me, just simply doesn't add up.

00:44:40.640 And in fact, if you look at the risk-benefit analysis, assuming that the risks of adverse events is around about one in a thousand,

00:44:48.700 it basically doesn't add up for anyone anymore from a much less serious Omicron infection.

00:44:55.000 So basically, times have changed.

00:44:58.740 Risk-benefit analysis has changed.

00:45:01.340 And I don't like this idea where everyone's treated the same.

00:45:04.980 So I think every intervention now, especially as we're not in a crisis situation now,

00:45:10.300 every intervention, whether it's a vaccine or giving a paracetamol or giving an ibuprofen tablet,

00:45:15.720 should be what is the potential benefit for you as an individual human being?

00:45:21.080 What is the potential risk for you as an individual human being?

00:45:26.080 And we know that young men, for example, are more prone to myocarditis and pericarditis from mRNA vaccines

00:45:31.120 with essentially no risk at all from severe COVID, especially now there's a lot of natural immunity around.

00:45:37.620 So the risk-benefit analysis should be calculated on that individualized basis.

00:45:43.160 John, moving on, because there's one thing that I think we don't talk about as much as we should,

00:45:51.980 and that is the effects of long COVID.

00:45:54.700 Now, there's quite a lot of people in this country, even numbers of up to something like half a million,

00:46:00.960 who say that they have long COVID.

00:46:02.920 Could you explain to the viewers and listeners what long COVID is,

00:46:07.620 what do we know about it, and what are the effects on the human body?

00:46:11.180 Yeah, that's a good one.

00:46:13.420 I think the levels are even higher than that.

00:46:15.320 If you look at the Office for National Statistics, there's a huge amount of people.

00:46:19.100 So normally long COVID will be defined as symptoms for more than,

00:46:24.180 probably more than 12 weeks would be a common definition.

00:46:28.220 But of course, there's a substantial number of people who've still got sequelae, complications,

00:46:33.560 after a year or two years after the infection.

00:46:37.080 So the first thing I'd like clarification on is how many of these people with these long-term conditions

00:46:45.340 have got it as a result of COVID-19 infection, SARS-CoV-2 infection?

00:46:53.520 And are a proportion of people that have these long COVID symptoms,

00:46:57.160 is this vaccine-related or is it COVID-related?

00:47:00.400 Because the two can present in a similar way.

00:47:03.120 So I would like to see some pretty good official research to tease out the difference between those two.

00:47:09.980 Yes, this person's got long-term complications.

00:47:13.220 Is it caused by the vaccines or is it caused by the natural infection?

00:47:18.240 Which is which?

00:47:19.000 Let's try and get some quantification of that.

00:47:21.020 But whenever someone gets ill, if someone's very ill,

00:47:25.120 so even if I got one of you guys and I was in a bad mood and I put you in intensive care

00:47:30.540 and intubated you and put you on all sorts of lines and drugs like we do in intensive care units,

00:47:36.220 if you went in with nothing wrong with you,

00:47:38.820 then you would still be, there would still be a risk of dying as a result of those procedures.

00:47:44.100 We only do this to very sick people for those reasons.

00:47:46.160 But people that have been in intensive care, because of the treatments and because of the severity of the disease,

00:47:52.420 it can take them a long time to recover regardless of the cause of it.

00:47:56.860 So anyone who's been very sick can have these post-infection sequelae for a long period of time anyway.

00:48:05.460 But added to that with SARS-CoV-2 infection,

00:48:09.420 you've got the additional problem of potentially the virus damaging tissues

00:48:15.340 and potentially the virus causing ongoing immunological problems.

00:48:20.120 So for example, if the virus has damaged the heart,

00:48:23.100 then you could have long-term chronic fatigue because the heart's not pumping blood out properly.

00:48:28.200 If the virus has damaged the part of the brain,

00:48:30.920 then you could get long-term neurological sequelae if it's caused by physical damage.

00:48:36.840 So that's one possibility.

00:48:38.580 We need to know how much of this is caused by physical damage to the organs.

00:48:43.100 But there's interesting research now that's showing that the actual virus can persist for quite a period of time.

00:48:52.980 So spike protein could still be being produced in people with long COVID months

00:48:58.220 or even potentially up to a year after the infection.

00:49:02.340 Now, the reason that we suspect this is true is that when you have an acute infection,

00:49:07.300 you produce a particular immune response.

00:49:10.040 It's called the immediate immunoglobulins or the IgMs.

00:49:14.440 And some people with long COVID have those weeks and months after the infection,

00:49:18.840 where you should only have them for a week or two after the infection.

00:49:22.080 So damage to the organs, ongoing effects of the illness and the treatments,

00:49:28.320 or potentially, as new research is showing now, ongoing persistence of the virus,

00:49:34.520 albeit at a low level is what's causing it.

00:49:37.600 Typically, you get a chronic fatigue type syndrome.

00:49:41.480 Some people get specific pain.

00:49:43.780 Some people get neurological effects.

00:49:45.920 But you can get these things as well, as we've said, as a complication or potentially as a complication of vaccine injury.

00:49:54.020 So we really need to tease out which is which.

00:49:57.440 But could there be ongoing problems with this into the future?

00:50:00.620 Yes, there could be.

00:50:01.840 Again, after the 1918-19 pandemic, there was people ill for 10, 20 years after that,

00:50:09.540 with various conditions that they developed as a result of that viral infection.

00:50:15.520 After measles, we get people with brain injuries, for example, is one of the problems after measles.

00:50:21.960 Any virus can be associated with sequelae.

00:50:24.500 So most times, thankfully for most of us, we get an illness.

00:50:28.560 We're sick for a week or two, then we get better.

00:50:30.340 But some people, there's ongoing effects.

00:50:34.960 And if you get, and as we have, we have basically, I think we can pretty well say everyone in the UK

00:50:40.040 has been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 now.

00:50:42.360 So a proportion of those people, unfortunately, are going to get ongoing sequelae.

00:50:47.360 And that's what we're dealing with.

00:50:48.720 We have got clinics that we're starting to treat these people.

00:50:51.720 But we really need good research to optimise the treatment strategies that we're going to use.

00:50:59.600 Because at the moment, there are still a lot of people suffering post-vaccine effects,

00:51:03.900 post-infection effects.

00:51:05.700 And we need to help these people as much as we can.

00:51:09.160 Indeed.

00:51:09.900 And what is going on with the excess deaths in this country, John?

00:51:14.640 What is happening with it?

00:51:15.720 Because it's something that we don't talk about.

00:51:17.340 I read a stat the other day that Scotland had the highest rate of excess deaths a few weeks back, since 1952.

00:51:26.180 Yeah.

00:51:27.200 So the figures on that, Office for National Statistics figures, clearly show there's an excess of deaths.

00:51:34.080 In the UK, in 2022, it was probably around about 65,000 excess deaths.

00:51:39.700 So what the Office for National Statistics do is they've taken the data from 2019 to five years before that,

00:51:47.700 taken the average from that, and then compared it.

00:51:50.020 Now, during the pandemic years, of course, you would expect excess deaths,

00:51:53.820 because some people were dying of COVID.

00:51:57.020 And COVID was causing exacerbation of existing conditions,

00:52:00.840 and more people were dying, and vulnerable people had died.

00:52:03.320 But now we're over the acute part of the pandemic.

00:52:09.720 Because more vulnerable people had died, you would expect them, then after the pandemic,

00:52:16.420 the death rate to be less, because the most vulnerable older people had died.

00:52:19.880 So you'd actually expect the death rate to go down.

00:52:22.720 But that's not what we saw.

00:52:24.400 I think nine or ten months in 2022, the death rate was above average.

00:52:29.800 More people dying than we would expect.

00:52:31.500 Now, as you say, Scotland, England, the UK, this is the case.

00:52:36.680 United States, it's almost certainly the case.

00:52:40.900 Where the data is good, like Australia, it's been definitely the case in 2022.

00:52:46.660 New Zealand, Canada, the data is not very good.

00:52:49.740 But the European Union have this database called Eurostat,

00:52:53.440 which is absolutely spot on, that they collect really, really good stats.

00:52:56.820 And they've showed excess deaths through most months of 2022 for virtually all European countries.

00:53:06.400 So we've got this phenomena of excess deaths that's occurring Europe, UK, United States,

00:53:14.720 probably Canada, Australia, New Zealand, all of these countries.

00:53:19.560 So what we should be looking at is, what do all these countries have in common?

00:53:25.740 What could be causing?

00:53:27.740 Because if the excess deaths are high in Australia and here,

00:53:31.520 is that just coincidence that they're high or is there some common cause to this?

00:53:36.360 Now, what the governments are saying is that a lot of these are caused by delays in healthcare.

00:53:41.580 Now, that is certainly true.

00:53:44.460 We've got excess deaths throughout European countries.

00:53:48.140 And the delays in healthcare in some European countries have been quite severe, like the UK.

00:53:53.780 Other countries, the delays in healthcare haven't been too bad at all.

00:53:57.420 And yet we have these excess deaths everywhere.

00:53:59.920 So I don't think that's enough to account for it.

00:54:03.540 Are the increased deaths caused by long-term sequelae of complications of COVID?

00:54:09.980 That's another possibility, that people are dying from that at high numbers.

00:54:16.180 Or is there some other independent variable, something else that is causing these excess deaths?

00:54:23.620 If there is, we should be open to it.

00:54:25.800 Now, the key thing is, we have to be open to all possibilities.

00:54:31.760 So if you take, in 1948, a guy called Austin Bradford Hill and Sir Richard Doll,

00:54:37.640 they wanted to know why so many people were dying of lung cancer.

00:54:41.980 They suspected it might be caused by air pollution and motor cars.

00:54:46.940 But when they actually drilled down into the data, they found out that the people that were dying of lung cancer were smokers.

00:54:53.560 So they actually were open to that possibility.

00:54:56.300 And then what they actually tried to do after that was they tried to disprove their data.

00:55:02.140 And they examined, I think it was about 40,000 British doctors over a 20-year period to try and disprove the idea that smoking was caused by lung cancer.

00:55:10.120 And of course, then it became completely obvious that it was.

00:55:13.980 So what we had there was honest, open investigation.

00:55:19.040 Everything was taken into account.

00:55:20.600 Was it tar roads?

00:55:22.640 Was it pollution in the cities?

00:55:24.860 Was it motor cars?

00:55:26.280 Was it smoking?

00:55:27.820 Was it something else?

00:55:29.580 It took everything on board.

00:55:31.520 So what we need to do is look at the years, say 2014 to 2019, what was going on then.

00:55:39.880 Then look at the years, say 2020, 2021, 2022, when there are excess deaths.

00:55:45.640 There's definitely excess deaths.

00:55:47.080 What has changed in that period of time?

00:55:48.680 What are the independent variables that could be accounting for this dependent variable of increased deaths?

00:55:55.380 And we have to be completely free to analyze all of the possibilities, all of those possibilities.

00:56:02.060 And the problem is at the moment, there's certain possibilities that we're not allowed to freely analyze and discuss.

00:56:08.660 This is the problem.

00:56:10.240 Especially on YouTube.

00:56:12.000 Especially on YouTube.

00:56:13.400 I think we all know what you're referring to.

00:56:16.100 A question that I've...

00:56:17.240 Actually, let me come back on that question.

00:56:18.680 I'm actually not referring to anything in particular.

00:56:21.080 I am referring to what you're talking about.

00:56:23.540 But let's just look at everything.

00:56:25.940 People are dying here, for goodness sake.

00:56:28.280 Well, this is what I was going to say.

00:56:29.900 Let's check out everything.

00:56:31.800 I couldn't agree with you more, and I think that's really important.

00:56:34.360 And I understand the thing that...

00:56:37.220 One of the things you're talking about.

00:56:38.780 But another of the things that frustrated me incredibly during the entire pandemic period is when the decisions were made to lock down.

00:56:46.300 And as we've already discussed, you supported the first lockdown.

00:56:49.380 And Francis and I did.

00:56:50.500 And then our opinion changed as the situation evolved.

00:56:54.020 Yep.

00:56:54.080 The journalists who were egging the government on for more lockdowns, more public health measures, etc.

00:57:00.140 The question that they never asked, that I would have asked if I'd been in the room, is you were saying we need to lock down, right?

00:57:06.400 Yep.

00:57:06.760 That means, presumably, you have done an analysis on the negative impact of lockdown.

00:57:12.380 Yep.

00:57:12.600 And you believe that they are outweighed by the number of lives that will be saved.

00:57:17.440 So my question to you is, do we have any idea whatsoever how many people lockdowns killed?

00:57:23.520 Yeah.

00:57:26.380 I don't know that we can actually put that into numbers, but as a principle, I agree completely with what you said.

00:57:32.620 So we had a lot of the Neil Ferguson data, for example, that the government based the early lockdowns on.

00:57:38.040 And he pointed out the potential adverse effects of not locking down.

00:57:44.320 Now, OK, that data turned out to be pretty spurious in the light of more recent data.

00:57:49.740 But that was looking at what would happen if we didn't.

00:57:54.760 I agree with you completely.

00:57:56.580 There was nothing like enough emphasis on what would happen if we did.

00:58:00.760 So we were looking at the harmful effects of not locking down, not looking at the harmful effects of lockdown.

00:58:09.880 To try and quantify how many people have died as a result of lockdowns would be remarkably difficult,

00:58:17.800 because you're dealing with multiple variables.

00:58:20.180 You're dealing with mental health.

00:58:22.060 You're dealing with economic health.

00:58:24.220 You're dealing with macroeconomic effects.

00:58:26.740 You're dealing with delayed health care.

00:58:28.820 There's an awful lot of variables there.

00:58:32.220 At the moment, could we say that lockdown was awfully bad for an awful lot of people and for society in general?

00:58:38.780 Yes, absolutely.

00:58:41.820 To try and quantify that at the moment, I haven't read anyone who's actually tried to put figures on that.

00:58:47.420 But that was the problem.

00:58:48.780 Failing to look at the risk-benefit analysis, I think.

00:58:51.180 We looked at what could go wrong as a result of the infection, not so much what could go wrong as a side effect of the interventions.

00:59:00.540 That were, it has to be said, pretty rapidly introduced on pretty tenuous evidence.

00:59:06.580 Right.

00:59:06.960 And I suppose the reason that we're having this conversation, John, is, look, I'll be honest with you.

00:59:11.200 Personally, I've sort of moved on from COVID.

00:59:14.100 It's not really a big issue in my life right now, and I hope that that's the case for many people.

00:59:18.620 I think we all have.

00:59:19.760 But what I'm interested in, because of the way that this whole thing was approached, because I think, as you allude to, public health became almost, on certain occasions, sort of a public health became in conflict with truth.

00:59:36.200 It became in conflict with medical evidence.

00:59:39.040 And in the pursuit of trying to get people to, quote, unquote, do the right thing, the governments often, as you alluded to, again, told us things that weren't entirely true, encouraged us to do things that may have been, in their eyes, to the benefit of the population, but were not to the benefit of us as individuals.

00:59:54.000 These are all problems, to me, that I hope we address going forward.

00:59:58.240 And so, I suppose the real question that both Francis and I are trying to get at with you is, let's say we're in spring of 2023.

01:00:08.480 Let's say towards the winter of this year, or perhaps the early months of next year, we get SARS-CoV-3, which is very similar in profile to COVID that we've just been through.

01:00:20.180 What should we do as a society in that eventuality going forward, and what should we not do?

01:00:26.760 You know, you've actually hit on one of the things that's been worrying me for some time there, Constantine, because there will be another pandemic.

01:00:35.800 Yeah.

01:00:36.600 It's inevitable.

01:00:37.700 Now, everyone at the moment is cynical of vaccines, understandably.

01:00:43.220 Cynical of lockdowns, understandably.

01:00:45.780 Cynical of government, understandably.

01:00:48.520 Cynical of chief medical officers, chief scientific officers, understandably.

01:00:52.720 Cynical of academics and professors, completely understandably.

01:00:57.260 But it's quite possible that there is another virus comes along that's got a 10% mortality rate.

01:01:03.600 Right.

01:01:04.320 That is possible.

01:01:05.920 That is more than possible.

01:01:06.860 It's potentially possible.

01:01:11.300 And, you know, various scenarios you can imagine, such as a lab leak scenario, which you could imagine, that a virus could come along with a fatality rate of, I hate to pick a number, 50% or more.

01:01:27.060 You know, the virus could come along with a situation where no one trusts the government or medical experts.

01:01:33.440 Yeah, yeah.

01:01:34.400 Yeah.

01:01:34.700 So September 2023, there could be a situation where we need vaccines in an emergency, where we need lockdowns, where we need all these emergency measures, because we could be dealing with a virus that's an existential threat to the existence of humanity.

01:01:50.240 Now, God willing, this is not going to happen, you know, but there will be other pandemics.

01:01:56.020 The question is, how bad are they?

01:01:57.320 So if there was a really bad pandemic that was killing, say, 10% of people that got it, or just think of another, I don't even want to like to think about it, but, you know, let's suppose we're in a 1918-1919 situation, where, okay, losing old people is tragic.

01:02:14.040 You know, I've lost a parent recently, it's part of life, but it's still difficult, but I've also lost a brother who is younger than me, and that is devastating, it's totally tragic.

01:02:28.300 Just imagine we had a virus that was selectively killing children because of their immune naivety.

01:02:36.260 That is possible.

01:02:37.540 That is medically possible.

01:02:39.000 Well, if that happened, then all of these measures could be completely justified, and would we be in a sort of a crying wolf situation?

01:02:50.720 Well, last time it was a complete waste of time, wasn't it?

01:02:52.920 I'm not going to bother this time.

01:02:53.920 I'm going to, you know, we could be in a situation where these things are actually completely necessary.

01:03:00.540 So to answer your question, it would depend completely on the nature of the virus.

01:03:04.840 In terms of COVID itself, I'm remarkably optimistic about it because Omicron is so infectious, so contagious.

01:03:13.520 Everyone's had it, and whenever you get one type of SARS coronavirus 2, you get some cross-immunity for the other types as well.

01:03:22.500 So I'm optimistic we're not going to get any really nasty mutations.

01:03:27.180 We're not going to go back to the dark days of people going to intensive care unit as it was in the alpha variant of SARS coronavirus 2.

01:03:35.200 I mean, I could be wrong, but I don't think that's going to happen.

01:03:37.920 But there could be another virus.

01:03:40.880 Influenza viruses, of course.

01:03:42.480 There's always pandemics of those.

01:03:45.200 You know, untold, billions of birds have died over the past year from avine influenza.

01:03:53.520 Now, there's been cases of this avine influenza.

01:03:56.860 I think it might be H5.

01:04:00.020 I can't remember the Hs and the Ns. 1.00

01:04:01.500 Anyway, there's a standard one that's all over the world.

01:04:04.840 And people that handle poultry get this.

01:04:07.400 So Cambodia, China, and the people that get it, the death rate is remarkably high.

01:04:12.960 It's around about 40%, 50%.

01:04:14.580 But thankfully, that virus has not been transmitted human to human.

01:04:20.580 But it's possible because what could happen if there's a co-infection situation?

01:04:24.760 So you could have, say, a poultry worker in Cambodia who is infected with this very virulent avine virus, who has a normal influenza at the same time, which is very transmissible.

01:04:36.180 And you could get a rejigging of the viral RNA inside an individual cell.

01:04:40.800 So you could end up with a virus which is very pathogenic with a high death rate and transmissible.

01:04:46.220 That's possible.

01:04:47.840 That would be called genetic shift.

01:04:50.200 And that could cause another pandemic like the 1918-19.

01:04:54.460 And that could have a high death rate.

01:04:56.740 And these things could be necessary.

01:05:00.560 And to what degree would the population comply?

01:05:03.340 Because I think if Wolf was being cried once, we're probably a bit reluctant to run the next time.

01:05:09.360 So that's a concern.

01:05:10.840 And I really just hope that biosecurity around that, that people stop this academic, largely pointless gain-of-function research on viruses.

01:05:23.320 This has been being done.

01:05:24.640 We know it's being done.

01:05:25.680 It has been done.

01:05:27.500 We could argue about whether it was gain-of-function research funded by the National Institutes of Health

01:05:32.280 that funded the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

01:05:34.780 I mean, that's all vague.

01:05:36.360 But we know for sure that gain-of-function research has been done and that sometimes these viruses leak out.

01:05:43.140 And really, there just needs to be, someone needs to get a grip on this.

01:05:46.160 Now, how you do that is difficult because the technology exists.

01:05:50.260 And whenever a technology exists, people are going to make sure they're going to use it.

01:05:54.060 You know, it's like, well, I've got my motorbike outside.

01:05:56.760 I'm blinking sure I'm going to ride it.

01:05:58.380 You know, I can do gain-of-function.

01:05:59.880 Therefore, I'm going to do it.

01:06:00.920 And we need something to control the funding or some audit processes on that because the next lab leak could be dramatically more pathogenic

01:06:14.820 and even more transmissible than COVID.

01:06:18.220 It's possible that that risk is there.

01:06:22.160 And, John, what is the likelihood that we're going to be in another pandemic?

01:06:25.580 Is it heightened because of certain factors?

01:06:28.620 I know there are people who say because the world is warming up, that means that we're more likely to get another pandemic.

01:06:36.460 As some people say, the way that we treat livestock and poultry means that we've increased the chances of getting another pandemic.

01:06:43.220 Higher population density, all sorts of things.

01:06:45.320 Yeah, yeah, yeah.

01:06:46.200 But I think there's three main factors there.

01:06:50.900 The first is, are people going to be jiggling around with these things in labs?

01:06:56.360 So, you know, put Porton down, do this.

01:07:00.960 You know, we know that people are doing virological research.

01:07:04.500 Having said that, the biosecurity in the UK is pretty good.

01:07:07.900 The United States, in the United States, it's also pretty good.

01:07:12.600 The problems in the United States, sometimes they are offshore research that can't be done in the United States to other parts of the world,

01:07:23.080 which can lead to awkward consequences.

01:07:26.880 So what one is people jiggling around with viruses, that's probably the biggest risk.

01:07:33.100 The second biggest risk is probably mass animal monoculture.

01:07:42.960 So we grow up thousands of cows and thousands of sheep and thousands of pigs, thousands of poultry,

01:07:48.980 keep them in conditions which are nothing like the natural conditions.

01:07:52.020 So a virus could spread amongst them really quite quickly.

01:07:56.160 We had this situation actually in ferrets, if you remember, that there was lots of ferrets called in Denmark, Netherlands, I think.

01:08:03.100 Where the virus spread amongst ferrets and they had to be killed in large amounts,

01:08:10.180 largely because they were genetically the similar types of ferret.

01:08:14.240 They didn't have the natural variation that you get in wild populations.

01:08:18.420 So there's the way we do farming.

01:08:20.840 So there's lab leak, the way we do farming.

01:08:23.240 The third one is zoonotic spillover from wild animals.

01:08:28.860 So you've got the way that wild animals are marketed and kept and treated as food sources in parts of Africa, Asia, China, Vietnam,

01:08:41.580 you know, a lot of countries where wild animals are still exploited for food.

01:08:47.520 And the interaction there with wild animals is going to greatly increase the risk of viral infection.

01:08:54.500 In terms of a warming environment, probably less so.

01:09:00.500 The main risk would be that the environmental change degrades animal habitat.

01:09:06.980 And when you degrade animal habitat, the animals have to look for new habitats and then the animals are more likely to come into contact with humans.

01:09:16.180 Because viruses, I mean, viruses, there's probably about roughly in the woods outside my house here,

01:09:23.040 there's probably about 10 to the 22 different types of viruses.

01:09:26.520 That's 10 with 22 noughts on the end or one with 22 noughts on the end.

01:09:29.480 But there's incalculable, incalculable amounts of viruses out there.

01:09:34.900 And viruses are weird.

01:09:36.740 So humans have viruses, dogs have their own viruses, poultry have their own viruses.

01:09:41.560 Every animal has got their own viruses.

01:09:44.960 Millions of them.

01:09:46.360 In fact, every bacterial cell has got its own viruses.

01:09:49.400 These are called bacterial phages.

01:09:51.800 So every bacteria has got many types of virus that can affect that.

01:09:56.840 So there's just huge amounts of viruses.

01:09:58.760 No one knows where they came from.

01:10:01.500 They're probably vital for the ecosystem.

01:10:04.520 But there's absolutely billions of different viruses out there.

01:10:09.160 So all we need is one that can jump species.

01:10:14.260 So there may be viruses living in species in the middle of a woods or a jungle somewhere

01:10:18.580 that actually would transmit in humans really quite nicely.

01:10:22.400 So the Omicron, for example, and this isn't absurd,

01:10:25.520 the Omicron probably came from mice.

01:10:28.760 It could have been what we call a reverse zoonosis from African mice.

01:10:32.840 That could have been where it came from.

01:10:34.940 It could have been from a partly immunosuppressed person.

01:10:37.860 That's also possible.

01:10:38.700 But it's got some features in common with mice macromolecules, mouse histology.

01:10:46.860 So different animals, as we interact with those inappropriately, it has to be said, could result in another pandemic.

01:10:57.760 So no shortage of viruses out there.

01:10:59.920 They're not going to go away.

01:11:01.240 We probably couldn't survive without them, but it's like bacteria.

01:11:04.300 We can't survive without those, but we like them to be in the right place.

01:11:07.200 So we like lots of nice bacteria in our colon, but in the bloodstream, of course, we like absolutely zero bacteria.

01:11:14.420 It's a matter of keeping these things in the correct ecological environment where they're supposed to be rather than human interference with them.

01:11:22.660 Well, John, thank you very much.

01:11:24.700 And what an optimistic note to end on with billions of viruses waiting to kill us all.

01:11:28.840 But we're going to ask you some questions from our supporters on Locals.

01:11:33.780 And actually, I want to get into some of the stuff there that maybe we haven't been able to get into here.

01:11:39.660 But before we go off YouTube and onto Locals, we always ask the same final question, which is, of course,

01:11:45.680 what is the one thing that we're not talking about as a society that you think we really should be?

01:11:49.960 Let me give you one, the sanctity of human life.

01:11:56.700 When does life begin?

01:11:58.700 When should life end?

01:12:00.480 And to what degree should we be interfering with these processes?

01:12:04.280 Because if there's anything important about being human, if there's anything noble about being human,

01:12:09.840 if there's anything important about civilization, it is how it treats the weakest members of that civilization.

01:12:16.360 You know, sometimes I get sick and I'm weak.

01:12:18.560 And thankfully, so far, my wife has not taken that as an opportunity to come and kill me because I'm in a weakened situation.

01:12:25.940 You know, the essence of humanity is that we look after each other.

01:12:30.620 You know, we could call that love if you want to.

01:12:33.300 We look after each other.

01:12:35.300 And my main condition, we could argue about all the political correct things.

01:12:40.100 And I think there's issues there.

01:12:41.240 I think there is probably issues with mass insanity for various things going around the world.

01:12:46.280 I think that's there.

01:12:47.140 But the prime thing is, are we losing sight of how important human beings are, that we are somehow unique and special?

01:12:53.620 And we need to refocus on the sanctity of human life, deciding when it begins and when it ends,

01:13:01.360 that it's not something to chuck around at my convenience or your convenience.

01:13:05.720 It has intrinsic, infinite value.

01:13:09.600 You're talking about abortion and euthanasia there, are you?

01:13:11.860 Whatever, however you wanted to interpret it.

01:13:14.400 Yes, abortion is an issue. 1.00

01:13:17.960 Yes, absolutely it is.

01:13:19.400 Yeah, absolutely.

01:13:19.980 That makes sense.

01:13:21.200 Euthanasia, absolutely.

01:13:22.260 You say, when does human life begin?

01:13:24.380 Answer the question.

01:13:25.260 The question, when does it begin?

01:13:26.680 Well, it obviously begins at conception.

01:13:28.480 There's no argument.

01:13:29.420 Yeah.

01:13:30.180 It's a fact.

01:13:31.060 You know, I can say that's when my life began.

01:13:35.080 I self-identified as a human being when I was a zygote.

01:13:39.520 You know, no one can argue with that.

01:13:40.980 But, and it's not just those factors.

01:13:47.500 It's the way that economic considerations.

01:13:53.520 Yes, it's abortion. 1.00

01:13:54.760 Yes, it's the way we treat children.

01:13:57.200 Yes, it's euthanasia.

01:13:59.120 But it's also the fact that whole economic systems are manipulated for economic ends.

01:14:06.580 Rather than for human ends. 0.88

01:14:08.100 So, just take a silly example.

01:14:12.140 It's not silly.

01:14:12.720 I've been doing some study lately on a type of fungus called lion's mane mushroom.

01:14:18.520 It's not hallucinogenic.

01:14:20.180 It's 100% legal.

01:14:21.540 I've grown it myself.

01:14:23.540 And the evidence that that causes can lead to neuroregeneration in some people is pretty good.

01:14:29.800 You know, we can actually regenerate some damaged nervous systems.

01:14:33.240 That's not being taken up, as far as I'm aware, by the pharmaceutical industry, because you can't patent mushrooms.

01:14:41.380 You know, or, and again, I'm not making political points about the current war or anything like that.

01:14:48.780 But whole economic systems are geared to make money rather than help populations.

01:14:56.580 And if we just put the importance and the sanctity of human life at the center and made our macroeconomic and microeconomic decisions based on that fundamental axiom, then would we be organizing the world, organizing economies, organizing societies on the grounds that we are?

01:15:20.920 And the answer to that question clearly, in my mind, is no, we wouldn't.

01:15:23.980 We would be changing things dramatically.

01:15:26.900 Now, that is a very good note to end on.

01:15:28.800 Dr. John Campbell, thank you so much for coming on.

01:15:31.180 We are going to go over to Locals.

01:15:32.480 But before we do, we obviously recommend everybody head over to your YouTube channel and check that out.

01:15:37.860 Thank you for being with us.

01:15:38.960 And thank you guys for watching and listening.

01:15:40.900 We'll see you very soon on Locals with some bonus questions.

01:15:43.840 Or if you're not joining us there, we'll see you on another brilliant interview like this one or also all of them go out at 7 p.m. UK time.

01:15:50.340 And for those of you who like your trigonometry on the go, it's also available as a podcast.

01:15:55.360 Take care and see you soon, guys.

01:15:58.780 Was there anything you didn't feel comfortable saying on YouTube that you think needs to be said about this entire conversation?

TRIGGERnometry - March 29, 2023

Dr John Campbell： Vaccine Safety, Lockdowns and Long COVID

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript