All Episodes
Previous Next
April 9, 2020 - David Icke
01:16:04
US Doctor: How can you make a vaccine for something never proven to exist? A must-watch
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
♪♪♪ ♪♪♪
♪♪♪ Hello everybody.
welcome to Iconic and welcome to the Plandemic podcast.
I'm Jamie Icke. My guest today is Dr Andy Kaufman.
Andy is a natural healing consultant, inventor, public speaker, forensic psychiatrist and expert witness and he's going to come on today to speak to us about his thoughts on the coronavirus pandemic or Plandemic as we're calling it.
The virus that's supposedly taken the world by storm.
Well it has considering 3 billion people are under basically house arrest.
Supposedly 1.4 million cases worldwide and 7,000 people here in the UK where I'm based have supposedly died of this condition.
And he's got some very alternative views on what the coronavirus is and what it could be.
And I can't wait to speak to him about them.
So welcome to the show.
Thank you very much for joining us.
Well, thank you, Jamie. It's great to be on.
It's really an honor. And I'm pretty excited about talking about this topic tonight.
Yeah, it's a topic that, well obviously given the whole world pretty much is in lockdown, that no one can stop talking about.
It's something that I've seen from my social media.
It's divided friends, it's divided families, it's divided groups that are normally quite together.
Just by the different opinions that people have on it, from thinking like a lockdown is too heavy, from thinking that it's maybe being massively overplayed by the media.
It's really caused a huge divide between people.
And I'd love to get your thoughts on what you think it is What you think it's all about.
So should we start with the biggest question of all?
Do you believe there's a virus in the first place?
No, I do not.
And I can talk about that in terms of viruses in general that cause disease, or we could focus just on COVID-19 virus, if you like.
Yeah, let's focus on that.
So what we're told by the mainstream media is that this virus was in animals and it passed the animal barrier into human in Wuhan through, I believe, someone eating a bat is how it was initially portrayed.
So how does that work from a medical point of view?
Does that story make any sense?
Does it stand up to science?
Well, if I just go by what I was taught in medical school, What I was taught is that you cannot pass a virus between different animal species.
So, for example, it's well known that animals get the flu.
In fact, there are some interesting experiments about contagion that were done on horses a long time ago.
But people have always been not concerned to work with animals who have, you know, this type of illness because there's really no precedent for passing it between different animal species.
So this story about the bat, which I certainly have heard, but I've not seen any evidence to support that that's actually occurred in any way.
Yeah, that's one of the questions I've seen asked a lot is, where's your person zero?
Which, to somebody watching that doesn't understand from a medical perspective, what does your person zero mean?
Is that where it started?
Well, you know, you're talking about epidemiology, which is the sort of scientific study of diseases and populations or other conditions.
And it's not just infectious diseases, it's all kinds of diseases.
But it's kind of a soft science because there's a lot of incomplete and inaccurate data and there's a lot of statistical analysis.
So it's not like doing an experiment in a laboratory where you can repeat it a thousand times and get the exact same result.
So there is definitely some inaccuracies.
And some of the models of disease or how they spread are really more theoretical.
Rather, they have not been proved by empirical science.
So in fact, much to my utter surprise, because I've lived my whole life You know believing that we can pass these infections from person to person and it was told to me as a child by my parents first I learned about it in school and I learned about it in medical school but interestingly all those times I learned it especially in medical school I was never presented with the series of experiments that actually proves that that to be true and If I think about it, it's actually quite an easy experiment to do because all you need to have is a sick individual.
And if you think it's unethical to do on humans, you could do this on animals because animals get the same illnesses, right?
Lots of animals get the flu, same time of year as people do.
And you would just have to put sick people together with healthy people or sick animals with healthy animals and then see that it spreads.
It doesn't prove exactly what's causing the illness, but it definitely could prove that the disease spreads from animal to animal.
And there are almost no studies like that.
There are several studies that were done more than a century ago, in 1918, after the Spanish Flu.
But since then, I have not been able to find any studies to actually provide the scientific validation that we can actually have contagious diseases.
And this is just simply astonishing.
And it's not just my research, but there are several other researchers.
For example, David Parker and Dawn Lester, who wrote an excellent, well-researched book about the causes of illness.
And they too, in 10 years of research, were unable to locate any studies that showed that contagion is provable scientifically.
And this is really important because if you can't demonstrate something through an experiment, Then it's only a theory.
And a theory is something that may be true or it may not be true.
Once you have a theory and then you're able to carry out experiments to prove it, then it would be called a law.
And we're all familiar with some of the physical laws, like, for example, the universal gas law, which is a set of equations that can tell you about the pressure and volume and temperature relationship of an ideal gas.
And if you Do an experiment with an ideal gas and measure those parameters and it'll give you the exact right number that fits the equation and thus it's a law.
But for contagion and for the fact about viruses causing this current illness, if there really is an illness, there really is no conclusive proof at all.
So these things are purely theoretical.
So when this started, or supposedly started in Wuhan, and there was a group of people getting sick, all in the same location, what's your kind of take on that then?
If there's not a scientific kind of...
Basis for the fact that those being in the same place is contagion.
They just spread it to each other.
Do you think that is where this kind of COVID-19 myth, if you like, starts to fall apart?
Because that doesn't stand up to scrutiny, that these people in the same place have all got sick, so it must be this.
Right. Well, I think this is actually related to an experience that most of us have had in our lifetime.
Let's say that we have a large gathering of family and friends, maybe like a family reunion and we have 50 people and we rent out a banquet room at a restaurant and we have a nice meal and we catch up with each other.
And then we all go home and then later that night, maybe out of the 50 people, let's say maybe 12 of us in different homes wake up in the middle of the night and start vomiting and having diarrhea.
Well, We've all had similar experiences like that, and we'll see that only a portion of us actually got sick, and we don't immediately think that we passed some germ between us, but it's pretty obvious that we all had the same dish, and that dish happened to be contaminated with food poisoning.
So we all come home, we ate at the same place, we ate the same poison, and then we have the same symptoms.
And there's nothing that was passed back and forth between people.
In fact, we've all observed that within families or small communities that people do tend to become ill at the same time.
But what we've also observed is that not everyone becomes ill.
So like in my family of four, for example, there have been plenty of times that one or the other kid was sick with a cold or a flu, and those are supposedly infectious diseases that could be spread through Coughing and sneezing near somebody right and we've all been told this since we were a very young age We have to have careful hygiene around that But yet, why is it that only one child is sick and not the other?
Sometimes there's one parent and one child too sick and the other child and the other parent are not sick So if we had this contagion and we're living in close proximity to each other, why didn't we all get sick?
So there's something that doesn't quite add up about Contagion, even in our own experience.
So let's fast forward to December of 2019 in Wuhan, China.
The first cases that were discovered were all people who had the common link of the seafood market there.
And if you've seen any pictures or video of the seafood market, you'll see that it's not quite up to the hygienic standards that we would have in the UK or in the United States.
And not that it's necessarily bad, but it's different.
And there are, you know, live animals right next to dead carcasses and their body fluids and organs, and they're all kind of cross-contaminating with each other.
So if a cluster of people who are at that market got sick, the first thing I would think of is some type of food poisoning, because that's what you would get by having those type of conditions.
And that was never really considered as a possibility when these people were examined by health officials.
They went right to an infectious agent, and they actually at first considered that it could be a bacterial infection, and they tried giving antibiotics to these people.
And a lot of times, you know, that's what doctors do when they don't really know what's going on.
They give antibiotics, and people like that.
People many times go to the doctor and actually demand antibiotics, even if they have a condition that couldn't possibly get better from antibiotics.
So after they tried that for a few days, they kind of said, okay, that's not working, it must be a virus.
And they never really considered any other option.
So there has been since the advent of germ theory and since the modern formation of allopathic medicine after they basically closed a lot of the plant medicine-based medical schools in the United States and the homeopathic medical schools and the allopathic model became the predominant paradigm.
It's basically based on germ theory which states that there is Some infectious agent that is, in most cases, alive and it invades into our body and causes illness.
And we have to, you know, use a military model to kill it, to defend ourselves.
And that's the basis of antibiotics.
And the word antibiotic actually means against life.
Anti is against and bios is life.
So it's a very militaristic and warfare type of paradigm.
And when new diseases seem to emerge, the first thing that the medical establishment does is blame an infectious agent.
Even other illnesses that we don't think of that way, like type 1 diabetes or autoimmune diseases like lupus and rheumatoid arthritis, There is a ton of research trying to look for some virus or other infectious agent as a cause of that.
So this is just like the way of thinking of epidemiologists and other health officials and doctors is that it's the first thing you think of is there's some kind of new virus, some kind of new superbug, right, that's going to attack us and all we can do is try to defend ourselves.
So if you're looking at everything through that lens, of course, that's the only thing that you're going to look for.
Yeah, that's one thing that I found so staggering is how we've gone from a few people getting sick in Wuhan, so right, there's a new disease, to basically the whole world being under lockdown in basically three months.
I mean, going back to people that are not of a medical background, the process of a new disease being supposedly discovered and supposedly found, surely that would take longer than the week or whatever it was to then go, right, there's this new virus, it's going to take over everybody.
Because how could you do...
I'm just assuming how it would work.
How could you do the studies, isolate what it is, do everything you need to do to show that this is something you've not seen before?
How could you do that in that short period anyway?
Well, you can only do it by taking major shortcuts and having highly flawed scientific methods, because you're absolutely correct.
These things are not necessarily that easy to prove or demonstrate using scientific experiments.
There was a prominent microbiologist and physician who came out of the germ theory group named Robert Koch.
And in fact, there's a famous research facility in Germany named after him, the Koch Institute.
And he came up with a set of postulates or rules by which you could prove that an infectious agent caused a disease.
And it's actually quite common sense.
So there are four rules.
And the first one is that you can have a person with the illness and you can basically isolate and purify the infectious agent out of the diseased part of their body.
So if we consider a simple example like strep throat, right, which we believe is caused or they tell us is caused by the streptococcus bacteria.
So if someone has the strep throat, you should be able to take the bacteria and Right off their throat, purify it, and identify it as streptococcus.
And then you should also be able to do the same test on a healthy person who doesn't have a sore throat and not find streptococcus.
And that's really important because if you find the same bacteria in the sick person and the healthy person, it couldn't possibly cause that disease.
Because why would the person be healthy, right?
So interestingly for strep throat, that step has never been proven because streptococcus is something that normally lives in our body.
And many people who have a perfectly healthy throat will have the streptococcus bacteria present.
So then you take the next step and the next step is a really key step if you satisfy that first step.
The next step is you then take that purified infectious agent, in that case Streptococcus, and you apply it to a healthy individual.
So you could take a culture of it and put it on a healthy person's throat, and then you see if they develop a sore throat.
And of course, they would have to develop a sore throat to prove that that caused the sore throat in the first place.
And so it's pretty common sense here, right?
We're taking the infection the infectious agent out of a sick person not out of a healthy one and then we're putting it into a healthy person and causing the same illness and the next two steps I won't even go into because neither of those first two steps have ever been satisfied for any viral illness not even one time and you so for the COVID-19 virus If you look at, there are two papers that describe how they allegedly showed that COVID-19 causes this illness.
And in neither of those papers did they do what I described at all.
In fact, they didn't look at any healthy people at all in either paper to prove that there was nothing there.
So that's the first big mistake.
And then the second big mistake is that they did not isolate and purify any virus out of these people who are sick.
They did take fluid from their lungs, which they thought might contain a virus, but then they mixed that with unhealthy cells in a cell culture that were not from the person, that were from another person or from something they bought from a laboratory.
And those cells in both cases, one of them were cancer cells that were sick.
And in the other case, they were monkey kidney cells, but they mixed toxic antibiotics with them, which puts stress on the cell.
And so I learned something very interesting, that there is something that our body makes that under the microscope looks virtually identical to the pictures of what we've been told is a virus.
And this is called exosomes.
And they're basically little small sacs that contain genetic material.
Exactly the same description that's given to us of these so-called viruses.
And what happens is that these exosomes are actually part of our immune system, if you will.
They serve a protective role.
They've been demonstrated in studies to be able to take up toxic materials inside so that they could eliminate them from the body so they won't cause harm.
And they've also been shown to communicate between different parts of our body as some kind of a signal to help us fight off some kind of insult or illness.
So when they mix this lung fluid with the lung cancer cells, lung cancer cells have been clearly demonstrated to Secrete these exosomes and so basically by mixing it together and then looking at particles under a microscope Well, how do you know if you're not just looking at the exosomes from the lung cancer cells?
How do you know it's something else?
There's there's no way to know and which is why that purification step is the the critical critical step and So there are scientists who have done this purification step with some viruses, but the viruses that they've done this with are in single-celled organisms like bacteria or amoeba or algae.
And so they've demonstrated that there's a clear laboratory procedure, and I could even describe it.
It's pretty simple, just using a centrifuge.
And they can then separate out those particles and show that they exist.
Interestingly, some of the scientists who have studied that say that those so-called viruses in the lower organisms don't actually cause disease, that they may actually serve a protective function to those cells, just like exosomes do for us.
Right. Well, see, that's something you're not hearing on the BBC or CNN or anything like that.
So, coming to the next step.
So, from what you just said, we've made it clear they've not isolated the virus.
They've not done the test to show that there is a virus in the first place.
So, my next question as someone looking at this for the first time.
So, what's this test testing for then?
The test that has been rolled out around the world that says 1.4 million people have got it.
If they've not isolated what the virus is or supposed virus is, what is this test that's showing positive in all these people?
What's it testing for?
Right. Well, you know, I'm glad you asked that because it's a very important question.
And, you know, going back to those papers that I described where they didn't really have the right procedure to show what causes this illness, the first thing they did was try to get some genetic material that they could use for a test.
So it seemed like the experiment was less about proving what's causing people to get sick and more about developing a test.
So what they did is they took that same lung fluid and they just looked at any genetic material that's inside of it, and they found some RNA. So I want to say that in our lungs, in our lung fluid, and in our blood, there are many different sources of genetic material.
And genetic material, you know, is like DNA and RNA, okay?
So, in fact, there's actually studies that show that the RNA from exosomes also exists floating around free in our blood and body fluids.
So it's not always contained in that vesicle.
Some of it could just be floating around.
But in our lungs, there are many sources of genetic material.
There's genetic material from our own lung cells.
There are I don't know the exact number, but there are a lot of different species of bacteria that would be residing inside of our lungs.
They all have genetic material.
Then, if we're in a disease state, there are exosomes, which is our body's protective mechanism, and they also contain genetic material.
So, if you take this sample of lung fluid and show that there's genetic material in it, you don't know what the source of it is.
It could be a lot of things.
If you instead purified particles out of the lung fluid, then you could extract the genetic material that's just in those particles, and that would be a much, much better experiment.
But that's not what they did.
They just took the lung fluid and found some genetic material.
And then what they did is they took this RNA and they sequenced it.
So they could tell all the base pairs that are in there because RNA is like a polymer.
It's like a chain of different blocks and there are four different blocks and they could be in any combination.
So each sequence is somewhat unique and can be converted into proteins.
And that's one of the ways that the main way that our genes actually encode the function of our body.
is that they encode specific proteins and those proteins have functions.
Like even the color of our eyes works that way, right?
That there's a different pigment that has a different color and so there are different proteins that help synthesize that pigment and that determines our eye color.
So it's pretty straightforward kind of stuff that most people understand on a basic level.
But what they did in this case is they did a sequence And they basically compared that to other coronaviruses, because you know that this is COVID-19.
Right, so there's at least 18 that came before it, although 19 may have a special significance.
But nonetheless, so just based on the homology or the similarities between the sequence, they felt that that was the proof.
However, if you go and look at some of the studies on the previous coronaviruses, you'll see the same kind of mistakes in their scientific methods that they have not proved that those viruses exist and cause disease either.
So, the whole thing is kind of based on something that wasn't proved in the first place.
So, in my opinion, it's essentially meaningless.
I also think there's actually a very good chance that this test is actually testing for our own DNA, human DNA. And I have a couple of researchers who are investigating that idea right now to see if we can prove it.
And I'm very anxious for the results of that.
But I want to say something further about the test because What I learned in medical school, and it was actually emphasized, that whenever there's a new diagnostic test, in order to show that it's valid and accurate, you have to compare it to what's called a gold standard.
And the gold standard is the test that is right just about every single time, right?
Like, if you have ever had a loved one who has dealt with cancer, I think you'll know that the gold standard test for cancer is a biopsy where they actually take a piece of the tumor look under the microscope and they can see that it's growing abnormally and they've learned what what cancer cells look like under the microscope so when you get the screening test like you know you get a mammogram or you get a cat scan all they see is some kind of you know lesion or mass they don't know what it is it could be anything right and So we know that that imaging test, the CT scan, has an error rate, right?
There might be some things that make it look more like a cancer, but it's not very accurate.
That's why you always have to get the tissue sample in order to do a biopsy and look under the microscope to know for sure.
And in fact, there used to be this saying when I used to work in cancer medicine years ago before I was in psychiatry, Was that tumor is the rumor, but tissue is the issue.
So in other words, you can't say anyone has cancer and you can't start giving, you know, chemotherapy until you've absolutely proven by the gold standard that it's cancer, right?
And that's a super, super important point.
So for the test for the COVID-19, the gold standard would be to be able to isolate and purify the virus particle and You know from the sick individual and you would have already proven that if you then put that into a healthy person you actually give them the same disease but that that's never been attempted but once you do that then you could say well this is the gold standard then we know this this particle causes disease because we gave it to a hundred healthy people and they all got the same disease and we didn't find it in any healthy people to begin with well then you have a gold standard So you could take, let's say, 100 patients and you could isolate that particle that you've proven caused the illness already and show that it's positive in all 100 people.
Then you have 100 healthy people that don't have that particle and you give this experimental test to all 200 people.
And what you would find is that it wouldn't be 100% accurate.
But it would be accurate to some degree, and you could actually measure it because you'd say, well, in the people with known disease, 80% of them were positive on this test.
So we know that we're going to miss 20%.
It's got a 20% error.
And in the healthy people, we'd say, well, 10% of them were positive even though they didn't have disease.
So then we could say there's a rate of false positive tests, right?
And so if we know that error rate, then we know You know, oh, this is a good test, this is not such a good test, or this test is really poor.
But since there's no gold standard, they can't accurately measure the error of this PCR test.
So there was one study, and you know, it's been retracted since then, and I think because it would discourage people from getting tested, but they had to use estimation.
So they did do some like mathematical calculations on it to do the estimation, but the main way that they determined this is they gave people a test and then they kept an eye on them for the next couple of weeks and said, well, did they get sick or not?
So did they get sick if they had a negative test?
Did they get sick if they had a positive test?
And what they found is that there was an 80% false positive rate.
So in other words, four out of five people that had a positive test Actually didn't get sick at all and weren't sick to begin with.
So that's the majority of positive tests, right?
So you would expect like a good test would have a false positive rate of say less than 5%.
That would be a pretty good test because only up to five people out of a hundred would be mislabeled as having an illness.
So especially if it's a serious illness, you know, I think you could live with that.
It's not ideal.
Ideally, it would be, you know, less than 1%.
But 80%, that just tells you that it's wildly inaccurate and not really measuring anything.
If you tried to apply for FDA approval for that, even as corrupt as the FDA is, they would still laugh you out of the building.
Do you find that very frustrating and bewildering, the fact that something that that scientifically inaccurate, that incompetent, Is what is basically the reason the world is under lockdown right now?
Well, I think that, you know, I didn't even have to look at that to realize that the world being on lockdown is not have anything to do with a pandemic.
And what I mean here is that from the beginning, I was looking at the mortality figures.
In other words, how many people have died supposedly of COVID-19?
And I didn't really look at the number of cases because I knew that they didn't have an accurate test.
And plus, also, like, you're not testing everyone.
So there are people that you don't test that may, you know, be positive if there was really a pandemic.
So I didn't ever trust those numbers, but I did trust the death numbers because you know for certain when someone dies.
Now, you can't Know for certain what to blame on it, but you definitely know when someone dies.
So what I did was I looked at things like the excess mortality or the overall mortality.
So how many people actually died during this time and compare that to the last 10 years.
How many people died the last 10 years or compare it to how many people die of the flu or of heart disease or cancer.
So, in other words, to get some perspective on what it means, like, because if there was a dangerous pandemic that would require these extensive draconian type measures, well, there would be a crap load of people dying from it.
Otherwise, it just doesn't justify it at all, right?
And, you know, like thinking back to the Spanish flu of 1918, There are different figures about how many people died worldwide.
And by the way, the population was significantly reduced at that time because it was right after World War I. And still, like the figures say, somewhere between 10 and 100 million people died at that time.
So, you know, quite a large number.
But we're looking at deaths from, you know, attributed to COVID-19, and it does not even as many cases as the flu.
Even as this year of the flu.
So if we don't have this type of measures for the flu, then why are we having this kind of measure for this thing that is less fatal than the flu?
Yeah. It just doesn't make sense.
So there has to be some other reason, some other agenda that's going on.
That it can't be for the public health reasons that they say because it just doesn't add up one bit.
No, given the lockdown and the extreme measures that have been brought in worldwide, you'd expect to be seeing bodies in the street.
You really would for that extremity.
One thing that I've seen a lot of online, you see a lot of people sharing stories and you see a lot of people talking about the reclassification of deaths.
So people that are already very sick, people that were dying anyway.
How their deaths have been reclassified as COVID-19 because they may have tested for that, positive for that, towards the end of their life.
People that have died of pneumonia.
I know somebody, for example, that was on dialysis, had double pneumonia, and on her death certificate it says COVID-19 when she was already incredibly sick.
They're kind of filling out the numbers, aren't they?
That's why these numbers seem to continue to be going up at an alarming rate.
Well, you know, I think we definitely need to give some credit to the Italian government for going public with this kind of information initially and noting that almost all the people that died in Italy had other serious illnesses, as you mentioned, with half of them having three or more serious illnesses.
But we don't have to speculate at all about this because I can just direct you to a guidance from the CDC itself.
about how to fill out death certificates and what they're saying in this document is that if you assume you should assume it's from COVID-19 if they have the kind of symptoms that are reported and they even say without any testing and they also say that if you if the person had underlying lung disease like COPD for example That you're supposed to put that as just an other significant factor and put COVID-19 as the cause, even if there's not a test.
And they further gave guidance, at least in the Minnesota Health Department, that if someone dies and didn't have a test, you're not supposed to even perform a test after they die to show that they have it.
You're supposed to just record that it was from COVID-19.
So these are all in publicly accessible documents on their websites.
Anyone can go and see for themselves.
In fact, everything that I report is backed up by a scientific reference, so I'm not making up any of this information.
But they're basically telling you to everyone that dies of any kind of respiratory illness should be recorded as COVID-19.
And I'll tell you that the CDC on a weekly basis actually keeps data and they have for years and years on such deaths due to pneumonia and the flu because people that die from the flu and pneumonia often they die of a respiratory illness and it's virtually identical symptoms to what they tell us is this COVID-19.
So now they're telling us basically to record those deaths of pneumonia and influenza As COVID-19 deaths.
And of course, this is going to greatly affect and inflate the numbers and the public perception.
And this guidance has only come out pretty recently.
So I think that you're definitely going to see an inflation of the numbers, but it's not based on any conclusive evidence.
You know, really, in order to show what someone died from, you need to perform an autopsy.
And there are no autopsies being done on any of these cases.
The doctors are filling out these death certificates and they're basically being told to say that they're all due to COVID-19.
And I think there's another really important part of this that I learned about.
So since I've been speaking publicly, I've been very fortunate that various types of medical professionals have been reaching out to me and, you know, with a lot of questions, of course, but also sometimes to Give their own observations and there have been some really strange things that they've experienced which caused them to question things and that's probably how they got to my material in the first place and so I'll give you an example of that there was a physician in a small town somewhere in the middle of the United States and their hospital was empty and this is about a week and a half ago and It's awfully strange to have an empty hospital.
I've worked in many hospitals in my career in several different states and rural areas and urban areas and everywhere in between and I've never ever seen an empty hospital.
In fact much more commonly the situation is that there's a bed shortage and many times I've had patients waiting in the emergency department for days and days until a bed opens up and so this thing about having empty hospitals is It's just unprecedented.
And this is happening across the country.
It is happening across the world.
People are going in with cameras.
So I've also heard from EMTs and paramedics that they've changed the procedures about how they respond and do CPR. So after getting all this information, I kind of put together a picture of what I think is going on.
So what I think is happening is that hospitals all across the world have Basically closed down all their beds for people with the regular type of ailments that they go to the hospital for, you know, like heart failure, cancer, kidney disease, etc.
And they've basically preserved all those beds only for COVID-19 patients, of which there are hardly any.
And so the people that would normally be going to the hospital, perhaps even to die, because You know, most people who are sick and they go to the hospital to die, they don't die at home.
But those people are now kept out of the hospital.
So they have no choice but to die at home.
And all these EMTs and paramedics will respond to the 911 call.
And whereas they used to get maybe, you know, one of those calls a shift or one every other shift, now they're getting five to ten calls every single shift.
And they're going there and most of the time the people are already dead.
Because these are people that would have already been in the hospital and be receiving intensive care.
And they're seeing it, and of course their assumption is, because they didn't see the big picture like I did with all the information, so their assumption is that, oh my god, people are dropping dead from this pandemic.
And then some of them have even been interviewed in the news media.
And of course, they make then they make predictions about how catastrophic it's going to be because it's based on their own perception.
But these people, they don't know how to determine what's the cause of death of somebody.
And they don't even have access to the person's medical records to see what illnesses they have or what their health condition was like.
I mean, they have to basically do things quick, pronounce it dead, you know, call the morgue and go to the next call.
So But it gives the public perception that things are really bad.
And if you don't actually look at what the statistics say and look at the errors in the reporting, you won't be able to figure it out.
And I want to just add one thing about the errors in the reporting, that it's not just someone like me who is maybe an outsider of the mainstream academic system.
I mean, I was an academic physician, a professor earlier in my career, but I'm not speaking from that platform.
But if you go and look at John Ioannidis at Stanford University, and he is a very famous and well-respected scientist in this space, he wrote a scathing editorial about the inaccuracy of this data and the testing results and basically said, you can't tell anything about what's going on from that information.
So this is why I really just relied on the excess mortality data above all.
And so basically, you know, it's been shown that there's no more deaths this year than any other year in recent history.
So that tells me that there's no new serious illness that's killing a bunch of people.
The thing that frustrates me, and I find funny, is then you compare that to academics at places like Imperial College in London, who have been hugely outspoken with their computer models and graphs and predictions on how, if nothing was done, this is what was going to happen.
Because, similar to President Trump in America, Boris Johnson, our Prime Minister, seemed quite resistant initially to bringing in lockdown measures.
Where some countries just went straight in, he seemed quite resistant.
He was very anti-cancelling the sport, for example, and all that sort of stuff.
And he seemed very, very resistant, but his advisors and the so-called experts around him have clearly shown him these sort of diagrams, and he's probably thought, I don't want this on my hands, and he's believed it.
So, from what you've said, they must be based on complete fantasy then, those graphs and those predictions.
Yeah, well I've been a big critic of computer models because earlier in my career I actually did computer modeling.
So I worked for a biotechnology company and this was when I started as an intern when I was an undergraduate at MIT and they basically told me they wanted me to develop a molecular modeling division of the company and I was the one to initially come up with the protocols and be the first one doing this and they use this to design drugs.
And I had a very fancy computer, a silicon graphics workstation, and these fancy 3D goggles, and I could see these target molecules in 3D and rotate them around.
And then I would take the structure of a small molecule that was something they were trying to develop in a drug, and I would have it interact with the big protein and see if I could get it to change the shape of the protein in a desirable way.
And what I learned very quickly Is that there are a million different parameters that you can play around with.
It's kind of like if you've ever been to a concert and there's like a mixing board in front of you with all those levers and dials, right?
Like you can play around with those forever until you get the exact sound that you want.
And it's the same thing with the computer models.
You can tweak all these dials and levers and you can pretty much make it come out any way you want.
It's not really scientific.
It's more of an exercise in discovering how you might do an experiment to prove if something that you model is true.
But you can't actually base decisions or learn actual knowledge from a model.
It's just a tool.
It's like a tool to generate hypotheses.
In that biotech company, they would use it as such.
You couldn't give Modeling software data and get FDA approval for a drug, you would have to actually make the drug in the physical world and then test it in real organisms, animals and later humans to show that it works.
So with a couple of different things, they've used computer modeling exclusively in making decisions about how to deal with this current situation.
So the first example is with the predictions about people Getting ill.
So one is they're basing it on the model of contagion, which I've showed you there's actually no scientific evidence to support.
And then they're using basically exponential functions.
So if you, I wish I had an exponential graph I could demonstrate, because if you look at a graph that has an exponential rise, you'll see that it goes way up very quick.
Yeah. Right? So basically it's like it doubles and then it doubles again and then it doubles again and the numbers go up through the roof.
Like if you double something, you know, 30 or 40 times, you're in the quintillions of numbers, right?
And that's what they're saying is going to happen with the number of people who are going to be sick with this pandemic.
But every time they've given this model in a specific place and then there was actual data that came after it, not one time Did the number of cases match the model?
In fact, they were far off.
And there's lots of other examples in other areas like this as well.
Like, for example, the climate models that people have looked at.
And then when they measure the actual temperature, they find, oh, it doesn't match the model at all.
And there have been several iterations of that.
So this is, obviously, if you show an exponential rise with a severe increase in a very short time, It's going to be very scary because you think, oh my God, like half of my neighbors are going to be dead in a week, right?
So it creates this fear.
And when people have this intense fear, they're going to accept whatever you offer them to remedy this.
And even if it's being under house arrest, if it's to be take a test that's inaccurate, that could label you and have consequences.
If it's to take a vaccine that, you know, is Not even to treat something that's proven to exist.
But there's so much fear people will accept it.
The other area where they've used exclusively computer models is the whole idea of social distancing, which is really the justification for keeping us on lockdown.
So there have been several computer modeling studies and of course they showed that social distancing was a great thing because you can make the model show anything.
But there are no actual real-world studies that have been done that support social distancing at all.
There were some that were done, but they did not support it.
And there's actually the British medical journal, the BMC Public Health Journal, published a review article on this, where they basically said there's no conclusive evidence whatsoever that social distancing prevents the spread of any disease.
And of course it wouldn't because there is no contagion of the disease.
So it couldn't possibly.
But, you know, that's a harder pill for the audience to swallow because you could do hours of research to learn that.
But you can find that BMC public health article very easily and read just the abstract and you can see right there that there's no evidence to back this up.
In the past, the traditional model of containing a disease, and what really quarantine is, is that people who are sick would be isolated, so that they couldn't spread the disease to healthy people.
But that is not the policy, and that has been proven to work.
I'm not sure there could be other explanations besides contagion about why that works, but at least it has success in the real world.
But that's not the policy that we're doing now.
Now we're having healthy people, in fact, every single healthy person virtually everywhere in the world.
I think I'm in one of the few states left that has not mandated this.
Now they just encourage it and there's like a fine if you get too close to people.
And I know that if I am ever in front of anyone who would be able to enforce that, that I'm probably going to be fined.
This policy doesn't make any sense.
When you confine people who are healthy, that is house arrest.
That is not quarantine. I completely agree.
It's about control rather than about care.
In that respect. One more question on this subject before we move on to the vaccine, which you've already mentioned, is if they're talking about the trends and a peak, when's this going to peak?
So, for example, one of the ministers here in the UK said that we're about a week, a week and a half from it peaking here in the UK. So if the computer models are based on complete fantasy and not science, is that similar?
When they say it's going to peak, this is when we'll see the biggest spike in cases and then we'll start seeing a downward trend.
Is that based on fantasy as well?
Well, let me ask you, Jamie.
Are you able to predict the future?
No, no. No is the simple answer.
Right? Do you think Dr.
Fauci is able to predict the future?
So any statements making such bold predictions, they're just unsupported by any science.
I mean, no one is able to predict what's going to happen.
If you want to make a prediction, the only reasonable thing to do would be to look at the places where, like China, where basically everything has gone back to normal and say, how long did it take before that happened?
And it didn't take that long, right?
A couple of months. And everything was pretty much back to usual.
So I think if you want to look at that, that's going to give you the most accurate picture of what might come.
But in actuality, no one is capable of protecting the future.
And if you're using these computer models, which are clearly biased towards creating fear, Then, you know, you're not going to be accurate.
And so I just ignore those predictions.
I mean, they get me quite angry, actually.
But, you know, just like a week and a half ago, I think, Dr.
Fauci made two different statements to different audiences that were in great contrast to each other.
So one was an editorial that he wrote for the New England Journal of Medicine.
And that's for an audience of doctors and scientists, right?
Regular people don't read the New England Journal of Medicine.
So, in that article, he said, basically, most likely, this COVID-19 is no worse than a typical flu and will have a mortality rate of about 0.1%, or one in a thousand people.
Then, a day or two later, there's a White House press conference, and he doesn't mention that at all.
But instead, what he says is that we are headed for a big rise in the number of cases and mortality, and we need to extend martial law measures another two weeks or another month.
And I think it's quite telling, actually, that when you see these White House press conferences with Fauci and Donald Trump standing next to each other, they're not six feet apart.
They're not wearing masks.
They're not worried about getting each other sick.
And they're certainly not in the same family.
They don't live together, right?
They're not married. They are strangers.
So if they really believed all of the things that they're saying, wouldn't they also be observing The same precautions?
Yeah, absolutely.
It makes no sense. None of this makes any sense.
The predictions that you've seen thrown around by different people have been Absolutely staggering.
Some people are talking about a few weeks, we'll be able to go back to normal.
And then, as we said before we started, just before we started recording, Bill Gates did an interview this week where he was talking about the fact that we might be a year to 18 months away from everything going back to normal completely because that's how long it will take to develop a vaccine.
So, speaking, trying to think of somebody who's never looked at anything alternative before, just basing it from everything that you've said in this interview.
We've not isolated the vaccine, sorry, isolated the virus, so we don't really know what it is.
We've not got a test that is in any way accurate.
So then the next question would be, so how do you know what you're creating a vaccine against, even if you're trying to create that vaccine for a positive reason?
What are you creating a vaccine for if you've not isolated the virus in the first place?
Yeah, well, that's an excellent question.
And the only answer I could really give is that the vaccine must be for some other purpose rather than addressing this illness.
Because as I've said, there's really not any evidence that there's any increased deaths from any illness.
And as you've just reiterated, there's no conclusive evidence of any virus that's causing any illness named COVID-19.
So I'm not really sure what is going to be in this vaccine or what's the purpose of it, but if I were heading up a laboratory or a team of scientists trying to develop a vaccine, I would have no idea what to do.
I say that in all honesty, but I think I've heard that there's like seven different companies Who are purported to have developed a vaccine that they're doing preliminary tests on.
And this is also quite incredible that this happens so, so quickly with a brand new, you know, so-called virus that has never existed before.
You know, how could they rush to do this?
I mean, I understand that there's a huge financial incentive to do this, right?
Because You know, whoever comes up with the one that's going to be used, they're going to make trillions of dollars because this is going to be spread out to the entire world population.
So this is a huge, huge potential windfall for the companies.
But nonetheless, even with that kind of incentive, I mean, you can't make the impossible occur.
So I really don't know about that, but I can certainly tell you about other vaccines that already exist.
This is something that I really didn't realize until I reached a certain point of my life that I started to question things.
This really came from my experience practicing medicine.
I did well in medical school.
I was a good doctor.
I did what I was told.
I learned all the information that they presented to me.
It wasn't until I had experience actually following their teachings that I began to see that my patients were just not improving and many times were getting worse and I started to question and look into things and then I found that there's a lot of misinformation even published scientific studies are not telling the whole picture like for example with antidepressants There are studies that are published and then there are studies that are not published.
So if you're a drug company and you have a new drug and you want to test it for depression and you run an experiment with 100 people and they don't get better, well, you're going to take that study and you're going to put it in a shelf somewhere and hide it away.
And that's exactly what's done.
They only publish studies that show a benefit.
Fortunately, when they submit all of the application to the FDA to get approval for a new drug, they have to submit all the studies, the ones that were published and the unpublished ones, and then the FDA decides if the overall body of evidence supports the new drug.
This was done for antidepressants, and then because of the Freedom of Information Act, at some point, You can actually request from the FDA to get all of these studies in total so that then you can analyze them for your own purpose.
And I remember during one of the last years in my psychiatry residency that this paper came out that a scientist had actually filed a Freedom of Information request and got all these studies from the FDA for a particular antidepressant.
And when they combined all of the unpublished studies with the published ones, they essentially showed that the antidepressant didn't do anything.
It was the same as placebo.
So this was quite astonishing because this study, after I read it, you would think that this would cause the FDA to take it off the market or that it would be a main major headline like new study shows that antidepressant doesn't actually work.
But yet nothing happened.
And it still made tons of money for the drug company, and many, many psychiatrists still prescribe it even to this day.
So if you look at the science behind vaccine development, you realize that the FDA actually has a much lower bar for the approval of vaccines than it does for any other drug.
And there's a specific type of experiment or study.
It's called a randomized controlled experiment.
Double-blind study.
Okay, but we'll just eliminate the double-blind for a minute and just say a randomized controlled study.
So what that means is that you want to test a vaccine, let's say, and you have a group of people, or you could even do this with animals, and the vaccine is to prevent a certain disease, let's say just chickenpox for simplicity's sake.
So you have a group of children and you give half of them the vaccine and the other half you give a control and you have to do this you can't give them nothing because of this thing called the placebo effect that our bind is very powerful and it can actually partially heal us or possibly even completely heal us from many diseases so you have to subtract that out of the equation so you know exactly what the vaccine does not what the placebo effect does And you know people know if they get an injection and injections are very very powerful placebo effect.
I've had so many times I've had patients and with some kind of illness and and I offer them a medication and they're like well can't you give me a shot and I say well it's the same medicine in a pill then I don't have to stick you with a needle you can just take the pill and they're like no no no the shot works better.
I mean I can't tell you how many times I've seen that in fact I had a colleague in my training in psychiatry that she went to study psychiatry in China for a month to see how it was different from the United States.
And when she came back, she gave a presentation.
And she told us that in China, when you got hospitalized with depression, they actually gave you antidepressants intravenously.
And this is not done at all in the United States or anywhere else in the world that I'm aware of, because there's actually Absolutely no difference in terms of the drug getting into your body.
It gets in either way.
And, you know, it's better not to give an IV, because IVs can get infected and cause all sorts of problems.
I mean, you know, we're not supposed to have things sticking into our body, really.
It's not a healthy thing.
Our skin is supposed to remain intact and protect everything inside.
So our gut and our digestive tract, that's where we put things from the environment in our body, because it has systems to not let anything harmful get all the way inside.
It just comes out in the toilet.
So this was kind of a strange thing, but it shows the power of this placebo effect.
So to do a vaccine trial like this, you have to give a shot to the control group, and it would just contain salt water.
So you know salt water can't prevent chicken pox, right?
So it should be a no-brainer.
So you have 100 people get the vaccine, 100 get a saline shot, And then you wait a couple of years and see, well, do the people get chickenpox in both groups or only in the saline group?
And if only people in the saline control group get chickenpox, then you can say, wow, this vaccine was effective.
It prevented chickenpox.
And I mentioned chickenpox specifically, for example, because we all are familiar with chickenpox and we know that it's not a deadly disease.
It's a disease that's a nuisance.
You know, it makes you itch and be uncomfortable for a few days, maybe a week, but it doesn't kill anybody.
It's not a deadly or dangerous disease.
And so you could easily do that experiment because if the kids in the control group get chicken pox, well, no big deal.
Just, you know, put them in an oatmeal bath and they'll feel better.
Right? Simple as that.
So that kind of experiment is required for every single drug to get approval Except vaccines.
And in fact, you can look at all of the different vaccines and find that there's almost no studies like that at all.
I found one or two for measles that are really old, like from the 60s and 70s, and one for one other illness I can't remember.
But that's it. There are no other ones.
And you know that since then, many, many new vaccines have been approved, and they've never actually been demonstrated at all to work.
But you don't even have to stop there because you can look at the epidemiologic data, right?
Remember I talked about epidemiologists that collect data on how many people get this disease or that disease every year.
And all these numbers go into a database and it's graphed and analyzed.
And so you could easily find this data.
So if you go back and look at this for a variety of different diseases that we get vaccines for, You know, such as measles, diphtheria.
You can find data, I think, on pertussis, on polio.
And what you'll see in every single one of these cases is that earlier on in the 20th century, these diseases were very prevalent, sometimes in epidemic proportions, like many of the viewers may have lived during the time of polio and remember that every summer there were children getting paralyzed from polio.
And it was a horrible experience.
But if you look at how many of these cases were present year after year and over time, you'll see that for every single one, the curve went way down.
And the number of cases went way down to make it a basically a rare disease from something that everybody knew people who had to something that was rare.
And in every single case, this reduction in the cases occurred Before there was any vaccine even available to be given.
So if all these cases came down without any vaccine, then obviously the reduction in these illnesses is not related to vaccines.
It's related to something else.
And for many of the diseases, it's pretty clear that Sanitation systems and changing the way people lived, having their own private toilets, having clean water to drink.
Simple measures like that is clearly what's responsible for those illnesses going away.
And it has nothing to do with the vaccines.
So if you combine this epidemiologic evidence and the lack of any controlled trials In fact, the only experiments that they use to get approved for a vaccine these days is they give a vaccine and then they measure your blood and they show an antibody.
And an antibody is very nonspecific and it doesn't really mean all that much at all.
In fact, there's a new antibody test for COVID-19 and they're saying that if you have that antibody, you actually have the disease, not that you're immune to the disease.
So the proof that a vaccine works and that you're immune is this antibody, but when it's convenient for COVID-19, the antibody means you're sick.
Right? So there's just so many contradictory things about vaccines.
And I took all this time to reason this out because you don't have to even think about anything harmful in vaccines at all if you realize that there's no proof that they actually work Or do anything good, then why would you even consider taking it in the first place?
Whether it's safe or not safe, it doesn't matter.
The choice is simple.
Why would you take something that has no proof that it works?
That would be foolish.
Yeah, I agree. I've heard that story quite a few times from a few doctors that they bring out vaccinations when the trend's already lowering which then helps to sell the pitch that the vaccine is what's caused this decline in whatever Right.
So to conclude what we've spoken about, I'm already obviously interested in the alternative viewpoint on this and my mind's been blown.
Firstly, a disease has not been in any way proven or even begun to be proven that it actually exists.
The test that we're testing people for that's showing that 1.4 million supposedly have this new killer virus is completely flawed again.
A vaccine that would come out wouldn't actually have anything that it could potentially work because there's no proof that the virus even exists.
It's not been isolated, so therefore what would a vaccine do?
If you add together all these factors...
What do you think is really going on?
What do you think behind that?
Why are we in this pandemic then, if all those three key factors are massively flawed?
Well, you know, Jamie, I want to first start by saying that every time I say these things and think about them to myself, I feel like I must be crazy.
How could it be possible that all of this Taking away of our freedoms and humanity, having it such that people are afraid of each other.
I mean, I walk down the street with my children and people are afraid of us.
They go out of their way to get as far away as possible and they're afraid to make eye contact because they're ashamed and we're alienating people from each other and that's gonna have devastating effects on our well-being and our future.
And so If you have basically this whole fraudulent science that's built upon nothing, nothing substantial, no hard science, no hard experimental results, it's just devastating.
And that's why it's so hard for me to accept.
But all I can think is that there's clearly another agenda here.
And what could be the possible agenda when it's taking people's rights away, having them confined to their own home, having them Basically lose all of their financial resources, the people who own small businesses, restaurants, retail establishments, bars.
Hardly any of those people are going to be able to maintain the business.
People that were living paycheck to paycheck, if they're out of work, then what are they going to do?
How are they going to even feed their family?
So all of these things just seem like They all support some kind of centralized control mechanism, like that the people in authority and the government want to have complete control over the population.
And that's really the only reasonable answer that I can come up with as to why this is being done, because it's clearly not to protect anyone's health.
Yeah, I completely agree.
I always like to finish on a positive with a call to action and something that people can take away.
From your experience in your career in the medical profession, what would you like to see the people that are in the positions to have the microphones, that are in your profession, that come from the background that people are going to take them seriously, they've got PhDs, they're going to be considered credible when they talk and that's why people follow what they have to say.
What would be your message to people in your industry as to what they can do to follow your lead?
Yeah, well, that's another great question.
And I have to say that the first thing that I really recommend everyone to do is to turn off the television and the mainstream media.
Because everything that they say is to make you afraid.
Even when I turn it on, even though I'm spending day and night studying and learning this information, I mean, I'm not sitting idle.
I'm not just You know, here to do interviews.
Like, as soon as I get off here, I have a stack of papers to read and to continue going with my research.
So, and even with all of that knowledge and understanding of what's going on, if I turn on the TV for five minutes, I start to get heart palpitations.
So I'd recommend turn that off, first of all.
And I'd recommend that you just look around you at what's going on And what you're being told, and ask yourself, does this add up?
Does it make sense?
What am I seeing with my own eyes?
And start to question things.
And if you see things that don't add up, if you see discrepancies, look into them.
Start to do some research.
Observe how the administrators of the hospital don't want you to ask questions.
They don't want you to talk to people outside of the medical profession.
And ask yourself, well, why is that?
You know, one doctor told me that they had an empty hospital and she made a public statement in her community because she thought that it would make people be less afraid and calm down.
And she thought that was a good thing.
And the next day she was dragged into the CEO's office of the hospital and told to keep her mouth shut.
So why would why would the CEO Silence something like that.
That would be a beneficial knowledge for the public, right?
It doesn't make sense. So you have to start asking questions and start looking up the information yourself.
Judge for yourself. Look at the hard data.
Look at the instructions that I mentioned about how to fill out death certificates.
Look at the changing policies.
Look at all of the tent rules.
Cities that are going up, you know, to where they're all empty all over the country, think, well, what are those going to be for?
And if you start to figure out that something is not right and realize that there's another agenda that's driving all these policies, then it's your responsibility to educate people about it.
I mean, you know, when I became a doctor, I knew that there was a certain responsibility That came with that to protect the patients and to protect the public, in a sense, against issues that involve your health.
And so that's part of the reason why I'm speaking out right now, because I feel a sense of duty to let people know that they're not being told the truth about what's going on.
And the more doctors that come out in this time, because, you know, we're not in a situation where this is a minor thing and it's going to blow over and we can get back to normal and you have to think about, well, if I speak out, then, you know, my job might be at risk and, you know, then I can't feed my family or I can't, if I'm a doctor, you know, I have to, my Mercedes gets repossessed or something like that.
You know, now's not the time to be thinking about that.
Now's the time to be thinking that, If our rights are taken away by the government for no good reason, what's coming next?
I'll tell you, it's not going to be something where we can all prosper and work and get Mercedes.
It's going to be something different.
And so this is a time to say that you have to make a choice.
Are you going to sit by passively and just watch what happens?
And how are you going to feel about that later?
I mean, like your father said on his interview, when your children ask you in the future, Daddy, Mommy, what did you do about it when the government started to take away our rights and freedoms?
And you want to be able to say that I did everything I could to stop it.
And all that requires is you to make a decision that you're not going to take it anymore, and you're going to talk to people and let them know What's really going on?
And as soon as you stop going along with the program and staying six feet away from people and wearing these ridiculous masks, then the spell is going to be broken.
And the people together can overcome this situation.
We can start going outside again.
We can start shaking hands and hugging each other.
We can start playing.
We can start socializing.
We can go out to a restaurant meal.
And get back on with our lives.
▲
Export Selection