Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Jan. 11, 2021 - The Delingpod - James Delingpole

01:26:12

Ivor Cummins

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	I love DellingPod.
	Come and subscribe to the podcast, baby.
	I love DellingPod.
	And listen, mother, come subscribe with me.
	I love DellingPod.
	Welcome to the DellingPod with me, James DellingPod.
	And I know I always say I'm excited about this with special guest, but behold, Look who it is!
	It's Ivor Cummins!
	Ivor, it's so great to meet you in the flesh.
	Wouldn't it be awful if we were doing this in a tier three zone, which obviously we're not, because that would be like breaking... Isn't it one of the craziest things of this crazy year that an act of supreme rebellion is going for a walk in the streets and not wearing a mask and saying hello to people who aren't in your bubble?
	I mean, has rebellion ever been so easy?
	It's extraordinary, and as I said to you before, James, this is eight or nine months now, but every day almost I have to pinch myself several times at the absurdity of this.
	And it keeps getting worse.
	So yeah, London on Monday wants to go into level three lockdown.
	When the mortality curve in the epidemic in London was quite stiff back in April, and now it's almost non-existent.
	Based on cases from a knowing, we know the PCR test is highly flawed.
	So what's driving them?
	Some kind of insanity?
	Yeah, I think we should move on to the why are they doing this craziness later on in the podcast.
	What I wanted to do first of all, while I've got you, Now there was a lovely chap I know called Xander and he tweeted at me yesterday something to the effect that I'd done my usual thing and being very vocally skeptical about masks and about any of the restrictions, you know, I think we should be let loose and do what we want and enjoy our Christmas and have
	200 people around for Christmas if we want and go to church.
	My church, they're having Christmas services but you can't sing, you have to wear masks and the carols are going to be sort of piped through on a recorder or something and I'm thinking that's not Christmas.
	So anyway, I was reminded by this chap that even though part of me wants to bite the heads off, I see people in cars with their masks on and I want to go to them Like that, to gesture at them.
	And I have to remind myself that a lot of these people who are wearing masks and who are panicked and stuff have been completely brainwashed by a very effective government propaganda department.
	So what I want you to do first of all is to help me explain to my friend Xander Why?
	I don't want to kill his lovely stepfather Mike.
	I, you know, I love Mike as much as he does and I am not being irresponsible.
	But how do we, what are the killer facts that we can use to convey to all those people like that who've been brainwashed into fear and mass compliance that there's nothing to worry about?
	Right, well, you could say, for instance, that Professor Carl Hennigan, who's a doctor and an epidemiologist professor, and he's the head of the Evidence-Based Centre Medicine in Oxford University, and he made it perfectly clear that you can ask people to wear masks as a government, that's legal, but you can never claim that it's evidence-based, because it's not.
	So we have around 40 years of solid science investigating influenza transmission.
	And this is a similar virus, similar family actually.
	And the answer was pretty concrete.
	That masks do not assist in any significant way with viral transmission mitigation.
	So that's randomized control trials where they do interventions.
	It's associational data, looking at people who did and did not, surgeon studies, public studies, yada, yada, yada.
	And the culmination of all our knowledge up until June 2020 was, forget about it.
	I mean, maybe if you're in an absolute crisis and your hospitals are overrun completely, in a desperate bid, you might stick them on, right?
	But the science said that.
	And then in 2020, suddenly within a matter of weeks, there were a few very weak studies.
	I saw them, very weak, associational studies, no causation.
	They popped up like mushrooms and suddenly countries all across Europe were not just suggesting masks, They went straight to nuclear, you know?
	Prison sentences, fines.
	Straight to mandatory masking of our men, women, and children against 40 years of science because of a few papers rushed together.
	So you ask, why?
	Why would you wear a mask given what I just said?
	I mean, why?
	What about the line that, a lot of people don't really want to know about the peer-reviewed data or whatever.
	What they want to know about is their They're more inclined to trust their gut feeling and they're thinking, well, obviously when you put a mask over your mouth and nose, it stops the snot and the bugs and all the things spreading.
	So even if it makes a tiny difference, it still saves a few lives.
	Well, if it made a tiny difference, and it may.
	I mean, in science, nothing is certain, so it may.
	But if it made a tiny difference, then you'd say, guys, if you wear masks, it might help, and we think you should.
	But you don't put in prison sentences and fines, obviously.
	I mean, and the irony is, the people have turned out to be so incapable, I'm being very fair here, in this whole matter, that they would have done it anyway.
	So why the iron in the glove, or the steely Dan I think you mentioned in our last podcast?
	Why the authoritarian hammer?
	Yeah, yeah.
	So okay, so that's the mask thing dealt with.
	And then of course we've got lockdowns.
	A lot of people say that lockdowns are They're making a difference and they are necessary.
	They're stopping grandma, or in this case Mike, dying.
	Yes.
	Okay, there's even nicer facts because the mask is ambiguous.
	All the science said, forget about it, but it could be.
	Lockdown is more clear.
	So I have a link to my website.
	I seem to have trouble sharing these published scientific papers on Google Drives and elsewhere.
	The link kept breaking.
	So, maybe a little bit of intrigue there, but I put it on my website.
	So, we have 22 published scientific papers and they're unanimous pretty much, analyzing all of the data since April.
	Actual data from what actually happened, not modeling like Imperial College.
	That was Crazy stuff.
	So they look at the data and they all say the same thing.
	Lockdown has a near zero or effectively zero impact on mortality in a country.
	And that's up to 191 countries studied, depending on the study.
	All 22 are unanimous.
	There is no credible paper, however, claiming that lockdown works.
	Only an Imperial College one.
	And we know what they'd say.
	So, this science is now ironically settled.
	You know, we say, oh, the science is settled.
	We've decided cholesterol kills you.
	And, you know, they're wrong.
	But in this case, the science is settled and it's correct.
	Lockdown has no significant impact on mortality.
	There's even two studies published that suggest that if you lock down, successfully and you lower the load on your hospital somewhat, because that's the best you're going to do, you'll maximize the COVID death toll long term by doing that.
	So you'll get a short-term slight easing of the hospitals but you get a maximized figure for COVID death.
	And the reason is because when you suppress everyone you put the elderly more at risk next season because of a lack of community immunity.
	So the irony is that these people who shout for lockdowns, because intuitively we think, well, if we all stay apart more, it's better.
	That's incorrect.
	They're actually going to cause more death, ironically.
	And that's not counting the enormous suffering and death caused by the lockdowns.
	Now that's just more COVID death.
	Then you got the suicides, the heart attacks, the lack of care, depression.
	economic disaster which links to mortality in the long run.
	So lockdown is just crazy and one last thing I'll just say you don't need to be an Einstein to work this out.
	So in Ireland we had newspaper articles and we have the data and in the UK and in the US three million grocery workers in the union.
	And the fact is, these people, all during the actual epidemic, at the worst point, with no masks, there were no masks in the epidemic back in April, all these people worked eight to nine hours a day, indoors, with no masks, with the grate unwashed flowing in and out.
	They were ultra not locked down.
	Perfect control, you know?
	Perfect.
	There was no extra infection or death.
	None.
	I seem to remember you saying that there were, was it 4.1 million workers in America as well who had similar, people in shops again?
	Yeah, from memory 4.1, and I checked an article recently to verify, and there's 3 million in one big union, so I think there's 3 or 4 million, and there was 41 deaths during the epidemic phase, which divide 41 by 4 million, A tiny number.
	Now, you could say they're younger on average than the cohort who are most at risk.
	Yeah.
	But in America, if you've been there, you know, there's a lot of older people working and it's the nature of their economy.
	A lot older people work in stores.
	Much more than England or Ireland.
	But either way, Ireland certainly, England certainly, and America.
	No signal.
	So if lockdown worked, you'd see a dramatic and worrying signal that your store workers are getting hit.
	In fact, you'd have a legal problem.
	But they had no legal problem with store workers being exposed because lockdowns don't work.
	And the store workers had the same risk as everyone else.
	That's it!
	I remember this at the beginning of the corona scare.
	And people were saying things like, how are we going to get the dustbin lorry drivers to do their work when they have inadequate PPE?
	Unless they had full NBC suits, basically.
	It was being suggested that, yeah, imagine.
	They were doomed, and there was a massive court case being lined up for these.
	But no, they're not dropping like flies, these key workers.
	So we've got the lockdowns, but let's just pick some examples.
	Am I right in thinking that the worst per capita death rate is Peru, which also had the strictest lockdown?
	Or one of the worst, anyway?
	I've kind of given up tracking it now, but one of the worst certainly.
	So they had mandatory masks way back, military lockdown, Chile hardcore as well, but Peru certainly.
	And Brazil, completely comparable, no lockdown, sloppy mask use, really very weak.
	The occasional borough and city did a little lockdown and then they dropped it.
	It just wasn't practical.
	But Brazil ended up with lower deaths per million.
	Perfect.
	You can make 50, 60 of those compares.
	There's so many, every, and that's why there's 22 papers saying lockdown does not link to reduced mortality.
	And therefore you can, of course, pick any pair of countries you want and show that lockdown doesn't work.
	But you can't pick countries that say lockdown does work.
	So we've got, you listen to Matt Hancock, if you can bear it, which I do.
	Obviously I can't.
	But he's a very emotional man.
	Do you see him crying the other day?
	If he doesn't get the Best Actor Oscar, he's been robbed.
	It was extraordinary.
	It was a sickening moment to see someone so clearly turning a giggle into a pretend cry.
	But anyway, sorry you were saying that.
	No, no, no.
	So Matt will tell us, and of course the SAGE committee will tell us, that the government is following the science.
	And what you've just demonstrated is that they are, demonstrated I say, if people can check on your website the evidence for this, you're not just talking out of your arse.
	This time.
	This time.
	They clearly show that they're doing the opposite of following the science, they're ignoring the science.
	The interesting thing is, James, this is an interesting one.
	You know, it's very hard to toss a coin ten times and get heads every time, unless the coin's weighted.
	And I used to say about cholesterol and fat, my old world I'll be getting back to, on the health advice, like carb, fats, cholesterol, it's almost like they kept getting it wrong.
	over the last 30 years.
	It almost couldn't happen by chance.
	And I think the reason it doesn't happen by chance is because industry lobbying and all keeps the bad paradigms bad.
	And that's why you keep getting it wrong.
	But in this one, since around late March, I got involved in this because I began to wonder who the hell was following what kind of science, like China science?
	When did we start following China science?
	With lockdowns and all.
	It's a bit like Nazi sounds.
	People hate when you compare anything to Nazi, but the last few months for me, I've watched thousands of hours of World War II documentaries.
	You know, the war in the East, the Germany, the Pacific.
	It just fascinates me for the last few years.
	And what I'm seeing the last few months is so reminiscent of that period.
	Or you can choose Stalin.
	You can choose Lysenkoism.
	Same thing.
	I mean, totalitarian regimes, one of the first things they do is corrupt science.
	It becomes politicised.
	They have to sell their ship of, I don't know, bizarre ideas.
	But they need to get the media.
	Tick.
	Twist the science to make a narrative that has people in fear of, I mean, other people are in fear of the French.
	You've got to create an enemy, a common enemy.
	Here we go.
	You heard all the war rhetoric back in March.
	War on the virus, you know, we're winning the war.
	Same old deception.
	And you can list out, it's just very similar.
	You've got people of huge influence in the background, very high up, who are orchestrating things.
	No conspiracy theory, but there are.
	And they're quite open about it, actually.
	And you've got all those things.
	And there's definitely a move towards a new world structure.
	And it's been clear.
	The great reset phrase, come up with Biden, come up with Johnson, came up with Hancock.
	Hancock was with the guys in 2018.
	Yeah.
	Fourth Industrial Revolution.
	Great new reset.
	And they're all saying it.
	And the guy in France as well.
	Canada's a big great reset guy.
	So it's not a conspiracy theory when they're all saying it.
	So, look, we've got to keep Zonda Oh yes, true.
	We'll come to that later.
	We'll throw down the rabbit hole because the rabbit hole is a scary dark place.
	I mean, I tell you what, I've been living down that rabbit hole for quite a few weeks now and the things you find down there, I mean, they're scary.
	So we've done the masks and I think we've dealt with that one pretty conclusively.
	We've done lockdowns.
	What else, what are the other Key sort of bits of reassurance.
	I mean, oh, excess mortality.
	That's huge.
	Yeah.
	So excess mortality is fascinating.
	Now, America has a significant excess, but there are some figures suggesting if you account for the soft season of 2019, America's kind of getting what you might expect anyway in overall annual excess mortality.
	But there's a lot of disputes and there's question marks around the data.
	But you could say this is a tough virus.
	So, America, with its metabolic ill health, its obesity and diabetes, which makes you a screaming target for SARS-CoV-2, you could almost say, look, in fairness, they should get some excess mortality.
	But in America, over 3 million people die a year.
	And reading between the numbers, they've got a couple of hundred K extra, but the CDC has acknowledged that only 7% of those people really only had SARS-CoV-2 as their main problem.
	So there's a lot of people who would have died anyway within a short period in there.
	So if you look at the year, 3 million people and you add on an extra 100 K, if we're fair, we're not going to count all the 200 K, that's ridiculous.
	You know, you got a few percent extra death in a bad virus year.
	This has happened many times before.
	Now in Europe, it's even more striking.
	So in Ireland, for instance, we had an excess bump, but our overall year to date, and even the first five months of the year where the epidemic bump happened, they should be concentrated high death.
	That five months is no different on average than the last five years looked at.
	It's just not.
	In fact, April, our peak month of death, which stands out, excess mortality, and the media were going crazy with this.
	It's no worse than January in 2017 and January in 2018 are around the same.
	So although it looks bad because it strikes quick in a big surge, If you stand back from it, Ireland will have a low excess mortality year this year.
	Nothing will be untoward.
	The UK will be a little up, but you can pick out any few years in the past 20 where it'll be similar.
	And Sweden, with no lockdown, it performed better than the UK, similarly to Ireland.
	And Sweden as well.
	There's nothing major in all-cause mortality this year excess.
	And they follow a very soft 2019.
	So they should be higher and they have an aging population.
	They should be higher.
	If you correct for these factors, Sweden's a nothing burger for mortality with no lockdown.
	Do you want to just spell it out for anyone who's kind of not scientifically inclined?
	Why excess mortality?
	Is it such an important metric?
	Yeah, it's the pivotal central metric because cases are almost meaningless because the PCR test finds old dead viral fragments, it finds old infections, it can have just generic false positives and it magnifies something that was nothing up hugely as the test does.
	So when you've got a test that poor, It doesn't mean much.
	Then you've got hospital cases are a problem and it's important to understand.
	If you only count people in hospital who were wheezing with SARS-CoV-2 and you only count those guys as hospitalizations, you could use the data to be a pretty good reflection of what's going on.
	But if you break your ankle and you go into a hospital and they stick this swab nearly up to your brain, and they do it twice even sometimes, and they get a positive, you're a COVID-19 hospitalisation.
	Now that's the COVID disease.
	I'm assured by doctors all over Europe, a huge amount of those hospitalisations have no COVID issue whatsoever.
	So, hospitalizations now is dangerous data because of that.
	And ICU even is a problem because if you get an old guy that's near the door, ends up in ICU at respiratory with a couple of bacterial pathogens and they test him.
	And I've heard in Ireland sometimes guys like that, they're testing them three and four times to get a positive.
	Yeah, I know.
	And you get a positive.
	Now you've got an ICU.
	Someone's dying in ICU.
	So there's real COVIDs in ICU.
	True.
	But it's the same as hospitalisation.
	You can't trust the data.
	And then we come to all-cause mortality.
	You can't trust COVID mortality either.
	Because anyone who dies with a smell of a molecule of SARS-CoV-2 in their environment and gets a positive is a COVID death.
	That's clearly nonsense.
	So what we're seeing in the UK is COVID deaths this winter have surged up really big but all-cause mortality has only nudged up and it's curled over.
	So all-cause mortality tells you the bottom line.
	How did this season go with this new virus?
	Whether it was the 19-20 season up to April 2020 where we had the epidemic or whether it's the 20-21 season Where we're heading in now and it looks like it's curling over across Europe and coming back down.
	Much smaller than the original escalation or the original epidemic.
	You've got to look, what's the all-cause mortality excess?
	What's the real impact of this?
	And when you do, you say, wow, you know, it's on average, it's not different than at least four or five flu seasons out of the last 25 years where we did nothing.
	So I know that 2017-2018 was a particularly bad flu season.
	Probably the same mortality as this year in the UK and in, well, in America as well, I think.
	There is.
	The best value, or the best data to look at, and people can put in their minds, 17-18 was 145,000 excess deaths.
	You know, tough year.
	19 was more like 70 or 80,000, which is very soft for a respiratory season.
	So that means there's a lot of old and not so well people survived to get hit.
	And we're around 185,000 in the 19, 20 season, the SARS-CoV-2.
	So 145,000, a really soft year.
	That means 19-20 is going to be bad.
	It's going to make up the difference.
	Well, it was $185,000.
	So, what happened was, instead of being spread over the season like influenza or multiple influenzas, It was one virus and the flu basically went away.
	And it wasn't hand-washing, it wasn't lockdowns, it wasn't masks.
	The viral is complex and when a new virus comes in, often it's documented.
	Other viruses literally deactivate.
	So, the flu switched off this year.
	SARS-CoV-2 from November onwards was coming across Europe.
	There was no excess flu mortality, even though 19 was soft year.
	What was happening right up to March?
	No excess mortality.
	It's like, wow!
	Have we become superhuman?
	And then SARS-CoV-2 triggered.
	And it caused a very short, sharp spike.
	If SARS-CoV-2 had been spread over the four months of the season, there would have been no dramatic pictures, nothing.
	And so, just to repeat, in the last 20 years there have been, what, five, maybe, maybe times when, when, five years when, winters when it was at least this bad?
	Yeah, when the respiratory season was.
	What's unique this year is, all of those years would have had a big hump over several months.
	They'd be as bad, but this year had no hump and then a sudden spike, so it's way more visible.
	But when you average out the actual real impact, Yes, many years and even Sweden we have a graph we can probably link to and it shows the Spanish flu back in 1918 and the excess mortality is let's say this this size and then you go along and you see all these little bad monthly mortalities over the decades for influenza seasons and if you look at the last 25-30 years for Sweden
	The Spanish flu is up here.
	You've got the 88 flu.
	I think there was some other Japan flu, another flu and COVID.
	COVID is actually smaller visibly than three or four.
	So 88 was quite a biggie.
	I think it was.
	I can't remember each year now, but I have the slide animated and it's 70s and 80s and maybe one in 90 are bigger in all-cause impact mortality than COVID in Sweden, which didn't lock down.
	And 68 was a significantly worse year, wasn't it?
	The Hong Kong flu.
	That was a really tough one.
	Significantly worse.
	It's debated over the figures because back then they didn't track as much.
	But yeah, that was a real nasty one.
	And that Hong Kong flu was getting third page in newspapers.
	A lot of old people passing away.
	Oh, tough flu.
	But your Woodstock went on.
	Everything went on.
	They went to the moon.
	Yes.
	I mean, no one did.
	Everyone lived their lives.
	That was the people they were.
	Look at us now.
	I mean, just go out in the street and look at people.
	It's true.
	Whenever I've watched documentaries about the 60s, about the late 60s, Woodstock gets a mention.
	I think Paint It Black would probably get a mention.
	This kind of stuff.
	Altamont, when was that?
	It's a perception thing.
	At the time they said there's a bad flu and they accepted that there are bad flus.
	having a great time.
	I don't remember any of these documentaries even hinting it was a well it's a perception thing at the time they said there's a bad flu and they accepted that there are bad flus.
	Yeah.
	We can't stop the bad flu obviously Well, tell Hancock that.
	Or the WHO, who copied China, who tell the WHO.
	Or Boris, who thinks you can literally squash the virus.
	Like, eliminate it, I think.
	The Australians think that, don't they?
	Like his brain has been eliminated.
	Well that could be one of the worrying side effects we should look into.
	It could be.
	Do you know that Homer Simpson x-ray picture of his head?
	It's a classic one.
	No, it's just you can see the outline of a Homer head and inside there's obviously a tiny little brain.
	It's an x-ray picture.
	It's a kind of a meme thing, so we need to x-ray it.
	I was thinking about Mr Burns, about all the diseases in his body in perfect balance.
	Yeah, I remember that one.
	Burns was great, too.
	So, okay, so we've dealt with the... You've covered, actually, pretty much the one I next wanted to move on to, which is the PCR tests, which we know anything above 30 cycles, I think, is just crazy.
	And we tend to run these things at 45 cycles.
	Yes.
	Which is not 15 above 30.
	It's exponential, isn't it?
	Yeah, it's doubling every cycle.
	So you can imagine like if you have a thousand magnifications at 30, you go to 31, you have 2,000.
	You go to 32, you have 4,000.
	So it's going up exponentially.
	So the irony is that there never was an exponential rise that they tried to scare us with this virus.
	It was only exponential for a day and then it went power law and then linear and then it curled over itself.
	So, but the only thing in this thing that's exponential is that PCR test, which is an absolute disaster.
	So, Drosten, who developed the test, in 2014, he was working on MERS.
	You remember the camel disease?
	They tried to scare us about it.
	Yes.
	It's quite a niche virus.
	in some fashion, I believe, together.
	Right, okay.
	Which we don't do in the West.
	It's quite a niche virus.
	It's a niche kind of...
	Geographically kind of specific as well, you might say.
	It kind of is.
	I might have overstated that, but really, it was nothing like this.
	So basically, Drosten, this guy in Germany, Christian Drosten, I think, he came out in January and developed from, I think, some China, probably, proteins, a kind of a PCR test.
	And the whole world took it and used it.
	And that's what we've seen ever since.
	But in 2014, he was interviewed on MERS, and he said, oh, the PCR test is so sensitive, it will basically, if a nurse walks through a room where there's virus particles, they could land on her nasal whatever, and she'd come in positive.
	And he also said the media are basically hyping this whole thing.
	Everything's about MERS.
	It's crazy.
	So he basically dissed the PCR test and he said you have to be using it on symptomatic people.
	But then in 2020, six years later, I don't know how many briefcases were slid under a desk but full of lucre, but he came in and developed this test and he got it peer-reviewed in less than a day and published in a journal, Eurosurveillance.
	Now you know the fascinating thing?
	This guy and his co-author The fastest peer review of any paper in 2020 was 20 days.
	The average was 90 days, approx.
	And they did it in less than a day.
	But himself, Drosten, and the other author are both on the editorial board.
	of the journal that published it.
	So there was a massive conflict of interest.
	The paper was rushed through, accepted.
	The WHO jumped in like jackals, grabbed it and started propagating the PCR test all over the world.
	And it never had a guideline for the number of cycles, which it must have.
	And recently there's 22 scientists published a paper and they listed 10 serious flaws with that paper that gave us PCR test for this virus.
	10!
	So I mean that's literally kind of fraudulent but the whole world never went back and questioned it.
	No one did.
	When it's run at 40 cycles, it can pick up tiny fragments of virus that your body may have just batted off like a... Mostly it does.
	The paper that challenged Drosten and gave the 10 killer flaws with his PCR paper, they noted that If you go over, I think it was 35 cycles, you're 97% likely to be false.
	Only 3% would be viable infections.
	So that's over 35.
	Once you get up to 40, you're out in the boonies.
	I mean, the whole thing above 30 for me is reverse homeopathy.
	I mean, it's taking something tiny and many times irrelevant.
	And expanding it up in an asymptomatic person and saying that that person is sick.
	It's absurd.
	All my doctor friends say it is insane what's happening.
	You clinically must get symptoms and then move in and do tests to verify the cause.
	They've turned medicine on its head.
	I was going to ask you that.
	It is medically unprecedented, isn't it?
	To be mass testing for people who aren't symptomatic.
	Yeah, the only people who would really be excited about doing something like that, a change of that magnitude, are the pharmaceutical industry, I guess.
	I thought you were going to say Dodgy Mengler, but yeah, the pharmaceutical industry.
	I did, that's what I did say, didn't I?
	Oh, I used one!
	I was using you for business.
	Yeah, well, yeah, so okay, so again, my dear friend, my dear friend Xander.
	Oh yeah, we need to bring it back to him.
	I just, I think we need to realize that not everyone out there Has got time to read, to look at charts, to... Apart from everything else, this data is not readily available except when the mail decides, for example, to run a two-page spread to kind of counteract the sort of months of misinformation that it's been propagating.
	But this stuff should be in the papers every single day.
	Absolutely, from the start.
	I mean, Professor John Lee, I was thinking of Carl Hennigan for a moment, but Professor John Lee, Dr. John Lee, who's been a spectator since, I was finding his articles, I didn't know him, back in April, and I thought, oh my God, there's one doctor that actually knows what's going on, is trying to raise caution and say, guys, we've gone a bit mad here.
	And he was correct, I knew he was correct.
	And I thought it was great to see and I said soon the media are going to start saying okay the epidemic curled over, it is a seasonal virus like the conspiracy theorists were saying because it's curled over and they'll begin to get angry about the economy, the businesses destroyed, the suicides, the cancers.
	It never happened.
	It just never happened.
	And Dr. Lee said to me in an interview I did in May, I was saying to him, at this stage, it's complete propaganda.
	We're coming into the summer.
	The ICUs are empty.
	The hospitals are empty.
	We know it's nothing to do with lockdown because we have all these published papers.
	We probably had 15 at the time.
	Now we've 22.
	So, I mean, it's propaganda.
	They just keep screaming about danger when the thing has passed until next winter.
	It'll come back next winter in a smaller hump, but right now.
	And he said, Ivor, it's not propaganda right now.
	He said it's been propaganda since the very start.
	And he said that Real journalism in the newspapers is to take a narrative and bring up competing data and discuss it.
	Bring two sides to any story, discuss them and then come to truth.
	That's journalism.
	Not investigative journalism, that's just plain old journalism.
	Propaganda, however, is when you take a story or a narrative we already know and you keep reinforcing it.
	That's how you know propaganda.
	He said this has been from March, before the virus even hit, they were all talking about no old normal.
	We won't be going back to the old normal.
	I was hearing that in March.
	I thought, hold on a minute.
	Guys, we know from the Diamond Princess cruise ship, that's another fact.
	That was going to be the next one, the IFR.
	So tell us about that.
	Okay, so the infection fatality rate.
	The only true measure, and it goes back to mortality, that matters for me is the PFR, the population fatality rate.
	Because this virus will go through different regions and countries, but it'll always do what viruses do.
	So the European countries that supposedly stopped their first wave, They just seasonally didn't trigger.
	So like Czech Republic and Slovakia.
	Now they're getting big deaths per million because this is their first wave.
	Right.
	Right.
	There's no avoiding this.
	The virus will do what it will do.
	But the question about that's why I say over a long period of time you look at the excess mortality.
	And you look at how many people really died from SARS-CoV-2 and you get the population fatality rate and that's around 0.08.
	It's tiny.
	The infection fatality rate, well you never know how many really got infected so you can guess.
	So below 70 years of age it would be 0.05% and above or generally it's 0.2% approximately.
	And generally, it's 0.2% approximately.
	One in 500.
	And that includes overwhelmingly elderly people and people who are very sick or were going to die not too far away anyway.
	Yeah.
	So it's a very low IFR and it's in the envelope, as Dr. Lee says, it's in the envelope of a bad flu.
	It's in that region.
	Might be twice it.
	You can argue it's 2.4 times it.
	But when we look at 18 and we had 145,000 and we look at 2020 with 185, well that's 35% more.
	That's 1.35 times.
	So we've got to be really careful here.
	It is not a very severe disease.
	It's nasty and as he says we should actually be going back to no measures except what the WHO advised in October 19 in its pandemic management document and it advised no isolation of exposed individuals.
	Not recommended.
	And they were correct!
	And they were talking about a pretty severe pandemic.
	But since May in Europe, for four or five months, there was clearly no pandemic even.
	So I mean, why would you isolate anyone?
	Why would you isolate populations?
	And the Diamond Prince was just the last thing in the infection fatality rate.
	3,711 people, I think, on it.
	Locked in pretty much many, many weeks.
	No knowledge really of what was going on.
	So that's a petri dish.
	They had I think it was 13 deaths and that was a very old population ship.
	Cruise.
	That's what you get.
	I mean there you have it in a nutshell.
	So when my family were a bit worried back in March I just said, but the Diamond Princess has given us the answer.
	It's going to be like a severe flu and it's going to hit the aged, the immunocompromised.
	It's going to be terrible in care homes.
	Obviously, that's where flus and bad coronaviruses go.
	And I said, it's simply not going to affect anyone you know around us.
	And even my mother, who is nearly 80, I said, it's not going to affect her either.
	And the reason is I know her blood work and she's insulin sensitive and in extremely good metabolic health.
	So I knew it's just going to pass over her without maybe some symptoms.
	And I was correct.
	Of course I was correct.
	I was correct before it even started.
	And I've been correct to this day.
	That sounded arrogant.
	But no, it's not arrogant.
	It's true.
	You know, getting things wrong.
	The so-called experts, like I said, the coin tossers, they've got nearly everything wrong so far.
	Dormancy, infection fatality rate, seasonality they denied.
	It's clear as day.
	You know, a monkey could see how seasonal it is.
	And I could go on.
	Re-infection, going on and on about that when it's irrelevant.
	Everything they do is towards hysteria and away from science.
	Alternatively, we from March have been correct in almost every aspect of this and we're technically not experts.
	But the person who's always right is the expert.
	So I interviewed a guy, Tucker Goodrich, in early April and we went through the Italian data and he, for Wall Street, big firm, I think a derivatives kind of investment firm, he was their risk manager and he was in charge of the original SARS on behalf of the investment firm.
	Tucker's smart.
	And Tucker just went through Excel charts in early April and showed how the lockdown in Italy came after the curve had turned and made no impact to the curve.
	We were saying that in early April.
	That was even before the studies came out, the 22 studies.
	We knew it.
	You can see it in the China data.
	Why?
	Why did, you remember that period where we were watching footage from the Italian hospital, northern Italian hospitals.
	Why was Italy, why were the hospitals overwhelmed?
	Okay, yeah, that's one that often gets asked.
	So, northern Italy is the vitamin D black spot of Europe.
	And Europe is a vitamin D black spot compared to Asian countries.
	So, imagine the scale of the difference in metabolic health of the aged.
	So, North Italy has pollution problems and extreme problems with the age of being low in D, which reflects very poor metabolic health.
	So, whatever the Italians are doing with their elderly, they're getting something wrong.
	That's going to be a big driver of a big spike.
	The other thing is the hospital system.
	I can't swear to this, but I hear about Problematic hospital system conditions, you know, infections occurring in the hospital and also bacterial maybe and other problems that in prior years they have in respiratory season had major issues, you know, with the trucks to take bodies.
	It's not unprecedented in Northern Italy.
	So I think they were just a very susceptible zone, like New York was.
	Just after the winter, a lot of dark-skinned and immigrant populations, very poor metabolic health, and following a soft season.
	And right after their winter with their vitamin D in their boots, SARS-CoV-2 triggers.
	So I think Northern Italy, there's a few spots in the world that got hammered, and it's a mixture of what I just said.
	People might like to know though, Japan, because I said that Italy and Europe are worse than Japan for metabolic health, massively.
	In Japan, there's a study for active elderly that 95% of the women were over 30 nanogram.
	That's really good by the way.
	Over 30 is good.
	And in Italy a similar study, 60 to 80 year olds, showed that 74% were below 12.
	That's a disaster.
	So in a couple of studies, Japan and Italy, not only are they different and the Italian elderly are worse, it's in a different universe.
	They are massively different.
	Is it diet?
	It'll be a mixture of poor diets and sun exposure, etc.
	I know Northern Italy would say it should be fine, but all the old folks and everyone who are in homes, I guess, they must not be letting them out.
	And also diet.
	So in Japan, the elderly have a massive culture of health focus.
	They go to a lot of supplement stores.
	They're eating their fish and they're conscious.
	It's their culture.
	They want to live forever.
	Have you seen Midnight Diner?
	It's a lovely series on Netflix.
	No, I was thinking of a movie.
	A Japanese guy who runs this diner that opens at midnight until seven o'clock in the morning and it's about the customers and he'll cook.
	He's only got one item on the menu which is a pork dish but he will cook, as long as he's got the ingredients, he'll cook whatever you want.
	Anyway, it's a recommend, it's very charming, it's got a lovely theme tune and it's kind of It's this entree into the weirdness that is Japanese culture.
	Well, they've got that kind of animation thing that sometimes crosses over into porn.
	What's it called?
	Not manga, anime.
	Anime!
	It's just weird.
	And then there's the underwear you can order.
	The schoolgirls underwear.
	Why wouldn't you?
	You'd get them in vending machines apparently.
	And how come they're not in Sainsbury's?
	That's the question we should be asking.
	That could contribute to the metabolic health of the businessmen.
	It could, it could.
	And of course you could use them as masks if you were short.
	And they'd be as useful and effective.
	Certainly.
	Especially if you cut a big hole in them.
	I've often thought about that, but that's another topic.
	But Japan, there is one last killer fact on Japan that I think the audience, I'll try and explain it a little sciencey, not too much.
	So in Japan, they did what I would have done on day one.
	New Zealand actually banned the import and use of antibody kits.
	So antibody kits really tell you if you had it.
	Way better than PCR.
	Right.
	New Zealand actually banned the import back in February or March, which is quite sinister, because why would they want to ban antibody?
	And I think it's because this could have circulated in New Zealand, October, November, 19, quite a lot, at the end of their summer, out of season.
	And that may be one of the reasons they're doing pretty well now.
	It went through in a safe season, right?
	In which case you'd want to make sure no one's doing antibody tests because you don't want to find a load of people in February 20 with clear prior exposure to SARS.
	That would ruin the narrative of the zero COVID island.
	Yeah.
	So I wonder about that one.
	But that's a separate juicy bit.
	I was told that by a lawyer in New Zealand.
	I didn't know that till last week.
	It was in no media.
	But it happened.
	So, Japan, they did what I would do.
	And during a surge, during their kind of second surge, which was bigger than the first, seasonally, they got a few hundred people and they measured them all with antibody tests.
	It's really important.
	And of course, very few had been exposed.
	And then every couple of weeks during the surge, they measured them again, the same bunch of people, to see how many actually get exposed.
	So the season went through up and began to curl down again, the PCR and all.
	This is Tokyo and our bunch of guys went up to nearly 50% antibody positive for SARS-CoV-2.
	But no one died.
	So Japan didn't do much testing or tracing, didn't do lockdowns, and everyone thought they somehow avoided catching it, but they didn't.
	Because 50% in a sample group through there did catch it, but only because they kept antibody testing them.
	The antibodies fade.
	So they were able to show that it spread all over the place like wildfire just like the UK or Ireland.
	The difference was they didn't get an impact in hospitals.
	Their immune systems were up to the job.
	Their immune systems were up to the job and probably helped by prior exposure to coronaviruses in the East and SARS.
	They probably had a bit even more immunity and they had metabolic health in their aged.
	Now you can have fat diabetic 40 year olds and Japan is getting fat and diabetic.
	But if they're around 40, they're not going to get hit anyway.
	It's really the aged.
	Are the aged metabolically healthy?
	Japan is off the scale.
	Vietnam is off the scale.
	Korea is very, very good.
	And they also have that regional prior immunity probably enhanced.
	Yes.
	Put it together.
	But the only thing we know for sure And I showed the graph of the deaths per million for Sweden, UK and all these places.
	And there's this huge hump.
	And then I showed Korea.
	You can't even see.
	Like they're around 50 times less death and impact.
	And I said, anyone who says that lockdowns and some masks made a difference between this peak and nothing.
	is an idiot.
	Lockdowns and masks might move it a little.
	Yeah.
	You don't see any difference all across Europe and everywhere.
	You don't see any difference when you have lockdown and masks.
	There's no difference.
	But let's say it could make a little difference.
	How are you 50 times better?
	It's not lockdown and masks.
	It's what I just said.
	So the narrative has to say it's the lockdowns and masks even when it's patently obvious that these differences have nothing to do with lockdowns and masks.
	And that's where we are.
	And then you're back to conspiracy theories as to why these guys could be so stupid, or are they more evil?
	Another of the things they're trying to push is this thing called long COVID.
	Yeah, long nonsense.
	No disrespect to the people who have long-term sequelae of influenza-like illnesses, because they do.
	This is not unique to SARS-CoV-2 at all.
	Very small percentage have longer term, maybe a few months.
	Influenza, this happens also.
	Bad flus.
	I know two people personally who months after a bad flu were actually worried and coming to me saying they thought there was something else wrong.
	Maybe they had cancer.
	And I said, no, no, this phenomenon happens.
	It's your immune system.
	It can just overreact and it can take a while to pass.
	So long COVID was a creature of the summer.
	And I noticed when they lost the deaths in the ICU, I actually said to my wife and others, how are they going to keep this thing going?
	Because it's gone.
	We were right and it's seasonal and it's gone now until next winter.
	There's no way they're going to get to next winter and keep this absurdity going.
	They did.
	And they used long COVID as one of the tools.
	Long COVID kept people distracted and thinking when they don't have mortality, you can scare people with long COVID.
	They've all dropped talking about long COVID now.
	You know why?
	Because they managed to get to the winter and they got some ICU and deaths back and they dumped long COVID.
	Yes.
	I was looking, because they've always got a new piece of evidence to show that it's serious shit and way worse than, you know, it's like the end of the world.
	It's totally worth shutting down the economy to deal with this.
	Destroying everything.
	Unprecedented threat.
	So I was looking at somebody, I think Alistair Hames tweeted this chart today showing the deaths rising in Belgium at a kind of... Belgium's a bit tough.
	Well, yeah, but he made the point, somebody made the point in the comments, correct me if I'm wrong, But if, for example, you die in a Belgian nursing home and there is coronavirus present in that nursing home, then your death gets automatically chalked up to COVID-19, regardless of what the actual cause of your death was.
	The WHO, in the first in history, back in March, told all the countries That that's the rule from now on.
	And they all changed their whole approach to death certs.
	All the countries.
	America fell.
	UK fell.
	They all did it.
	Because we were told the WHO do what they say.
	So you basically let an unelected, undemocratic body that's up to its neck in corporate engagements... Run by, let's not forget, a genocidal non-doctor.
	Yes, that too.
	And who conspired effectively with pharmaceutical companies, many of them back in 2009, the swine flu, to downgrade the definition of pandemic so it no longer had to have severity of impact on society.
	Basically, they made it that anything they wanted could be a pandemic.
	So this is this organization.
	But they told everyone, if you get a smell of a molecule of SARS-CoV-2 using that high cycle PCR test, within 30 days of someone dying, that's a COVID-19 death.
	Now, everyone should have said, get out, you're mad!
	They just did it.
	They actually listen to this nonsense.
	It should be that you come in with clear symptoms of COVID and that it's the dominant driver of a death that, in the doctor's opinion, would not have occurred otherwise.
	The numbers would have been massively smaller if that proper definition was used.
	Do you think we've, um, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, er, They were actually quite good and it's some little tweaks that were incorrect in the data but nothing substantial.
	I was blown away by those.
	I was given a huge surge of hope each time I saw one of those and thought, oh my god, the media is going to begin to cover scientific sanity.
	And then a few days later I realised, no, it's a one-off.
	Yeah.
	It's so sad but I think it's almost like we need a... I mean Toby does a great job at Lockdown Skeptics and you do a great job but it requires a degree of... you've got to be into podcasting.
	I mean someone has got to give up half an hour of their time to listen to this section of the show where we go through painstakingly Yeah, well now I've done quite a few 7-minute, 9-minute, 20-minute, just my voice with slides and I make them really clear.
	Now they were popular.
	The big one got to 1.7 million views.
	Did it really?
	Well done!
	That was 36 minutes long and it was the Crucial Viral Update, 8th September.
	But it covered all of what we were saying.
	All the facts.
	And people loved it.
	And it got in the New York Times even.
	They criticised some Irish engineer did a video.
	Oh, well, come on.
	If you're Irish as an engineer, you're not going to know, are you?
	Well, it was actually an anti-Trump article and it was a pro-Rona hysteria article.
	So they were annoyed.
	You know all these videos that's my best method because the podcast you're right people come along if they like the podcast how do you get new people and i'm making these tight five six i've done five six minute ones in sweden even three minute ones that quickly explain the all cause that sweden has done no better no worse than the other nordics
	If you correct for the proper scientific factors and I do these short ones I keep sending them out and I embed them in Twitter and that's all I can do and what we need is for everyone else to keep forwarding them because I'll reach a certain amount but everyone needs to get the best short explanations and share them.
	And, you know, we're even in Ireland now going to be doing double-sided printouts and getting people to deliver them in localities because no media will cover the science.
	It's a bit like, in order to get accurate coverage of coronavirus in this country, you've got to go to a Wetherspoons pub and read, you know... That's why they shut them.
	Tim Martin.
	I know.
	I said this months ago and it sounds conspiratorial but it hit me one day like a blinding flash of light.
	I'm a root cause guy so I fix complex problems and I do get these moments of clarity where something in my brain has been worked out without me knowing it and it hit me like a hammer one day.
	I realised I was really getting annoyed they wouldn't open the pubs because months of the summer had occurred, the ICUs were empty, there was no mortality, this thing was gone till next winter and they would not open the pubs and let people get some normality back and these people their jobs.
	And then one day it hit me like a hammer.
	It's not just about the spread, specifically the pubs.
	The pubs are the place and the sporting events they all kept closed.
	They're the places where all people mix and talk.
	And I think the people who are pushing this nonsense for nine months now know that lots of people talking may waken people up to the obvious facts like I said today.
	And that is not good for the system.
	So I think that's why, and it's actually quite sinister, and I think they're also protecting themselves, that as they've realised it was just a seasonal virus, the second resurgence is not really like the first, and they're realising all of us, we were correct.
	They're in a very difficult position because they burned Europe for nothing.
	So, it's not that they're being told by some megalomaniac to do this, they're now covering their own political arse.
	So there's that coming in.
	Oh, but I think arse covering is the least of it.
	I mean, it's... Are we going to get another rabbit hole now?
	We'll finish up with the rabbit hole stuff then, yeah, I know.
	Yeah, it's like...
	One of the reasons I like talking to you, and you're a very good sort of sceptical voice, is because you're an engineer.
	You haven't got a mind like mine.
	You're much, much calmer.
	You're more comfortable with numbers.
	I mean, I'm a kind of shitposter polemicist.
	I've got a skill set.
	But I think it's better coming from somebody like you.
	I get the impression slightly with you that a bit like they say a conservative is a liberal who's been mugged by reality or something like that.
	And I feel like you are a kind of an engineer who's suddenly realised that the world is not at all as you thought.
	It's a bit like, I'm afraid to say, it's a bit like the Matrix.
	You think that the world is one thing and that actually it's, you know, we go to our jobs and we earn our living and we get a better job.
	Our children get a better future and so on and if you save and everything, you know.
	And then you realize, no, the world is in the control of the machine creatures.
	And your brain wants to deny this because it's so horrible.
	But then you ask the question, why are they doing this?
	Given the plethora of very solid evidence that we've talked about in the first part, what other explanation is there?
	Where are you at the moment on all this?
	What do you think is going on?
	Yeah, I'd say no conspiracy theory, just simple old-fashioned corporatist, you know, kind of conspiracy.
	That's just real and it's business.
	So the 2009 swine flu, it was clearly in 2010, Spiegel magazine did an article and showed how there was disgraceful corruption.
	and collusion going on between pharma and the WHO and I think the German government were putting billions into vaccines and they backed that flu and thought it was going to be a mega payoff and it turned out to be too weak and the whole thing collapsed and became a debacle and then we had of course all the kids got narcolepsy the vaccine was rushed out it was called pandemics You had NHS nurses who, one, committed suicide and many are ruined for life with narcolepsy.
	I mean, it's a side effect.
	All of that happened in 2010.
	It was in the newspapers.
	So that was, I think, forces jumped in on that.
	Mainly Pharma and their buddies in the WHO.
	Fine.
	But I think now, over the last 10 years, organisations like World Economic Forum have come to the fore and Klaus Schwab, their leader, He's 45 years or so building this organisation.
	And people need to realise how big it is.
	On their list of company corporate partners, there's A and there's around 35 corporates, including AstraZeneca.
	And if you go to P, there's another 30, including Pfizer.
	And if you go to any other letter, It looks like there's around 600 corporates are lined up, and he has also met with Prince Charles, he's met with the Clintons.
	Oh, Prince Charles has endorsed it!
	I mean, Prince Charles has been backing it all the way.
	Sorry, Prince Charles is in it, effectively, in the Great Reset.
	But he's met with the Clintons years ago, he's met with Kissinger is involved, he's met with Hancock, a nice picture of him in 2018, the fourth industrial resolution.
	And this guy has a massive, massively influential worldwide structure with all the corporates involved and all the money men and he's published books and he said what they need is stakeholder capitalism.
	They need to move toward the stakeholders, the capitalists, the corporates.
	are directing the show, working with governments.
	You've said this before, this is the definition of fascism.
	It's the definition of fascism.
	It's corporate and state coming together for their mutual benefits, but it always leaves out the voter.
	So it's basically a profoundly undemocratic takeover of the system in the West.
	The other weird thing is that Klaus Schwab was dealing business with the Chinese in the late 70s.
	Like Maurice Strong, who was again very much part of this technocratic kind of China Yeah, there's all that.
	Because China is not so much a government, it's a corporatocracy.
	And I believe the top guys in China are not so much politicians, they're just top corporate brains, like CEOs.
	And they're running China as a business.
	And we know the way you run that business.
	It's not very democratic, it's not very nice.
	No, of course not.
	But it's a great business and they're doing great.
	And I think the West, there's a push towards that kind of model.
	Move towards that.
	So we have the surveillance, the vaccine passports.
	We go towards plastic money and chips.
	People who dissent then can be more easily kind of switched off or squeezed.
	My daughter actually referred to it as, oh, it sounds like they want an ant farm.
	And that's a great way to look at it.
	An ant farm.
	It's not like they want to kill all the ants.
	Because people are saying, oh, Bill Gates wants to depopulate.
	Well, maybe in the long run he'd like to have a few billion less, not eating up his planet.
	Because all these guys believe as well that this is their planet.
	And all these noisy, screeching, dirty, scurrying creatures, which is normal humans, you know, they're eating stuff up.
	They're eating shit up.
	It's gas resources.
	Yeah, and they also have, you saw the Great Reset?
	These guys said, in the future, in 2030 or whatever, you'll own nothing and you'll be happy.
	Right?
	Yeah, yeah.
	But if you, as in all you dirty normal people, own nothing, who owns it all?
	I love the idea of Klaus Schwab deciding where I live.
	I actually quite like having a home that I own.
	And owning stuff.
	And being independent.
	And having a vote.
	bits of it you know i love the idea of klaus schwab um deciding where i live i mean it's just like hello i actually quite like having a home that that i own and owning stuff yeah and being independent and having a vote hey fancy that the vote will become meaningless if If these guys push the system where it's going, the governments in individual countries will become more like middle managers in a corporation.
	You know, they'll just do what the system says.
	Yeah, sure.
	Because otherwise they'll just be thrown out.
	Well, they will.
	I mean, I suppose Klaus Schwab and Bill Gates will be the queen ant of the colony and we'll just be worker ants.
	Basically in their farm.
	And occasionally they'll come and see us, and you and I, and point at us through glass.
	Yes, well, watch us collecting leaves and going along the tightrope and things.
	And actually, they also, this bunch, and myriad more organisations, UN, I mean EU, there's a huge amount.
	The World Economic Forum seems to be like, I don't know, it's the epicentre of the whole evil empire, but there's loads more organisations all wanting the same kind of... Well, there's the United Nations Agenda 2030.
	Oh!
	I don't know as much about that but I know you did a fantastic interview with someone recently.
	Patrick Wood.
	It's almost so depressing that you don't want to watch it because it's a bit like Ignorance is bliss.
	I almost envy the people wearing their masks and thinking it's all going to go away, and thinking the economy is going to recover, and thinking the government knows what they're doing, and the SAGE committee is following the science.
	Yeah, being honest.
	Well, you see, they are the happy frogs.
	They're slowly boiling.
	They don't know it.
	And if they knew what was coming, well, yeah, people ask me this.
	When you explain to people how this works, though, are you not worried you'll make them maybe be a bit depressed, realizing the horror of what's happening?
	And I say, well, yeah, that's a price, but it's a price you have to pay because you can't not let people know the truth about something like this that's going to threaten them and their children's futures just because it'll kind of upset them.
	They might actually step up and do something.
	I mean, where are the leaders?
	The leadership amongst... I talked to working class people all over Ireland and I polled them.
	And a lot of them know that this is complete junk and they even know or have a feel for what we're talking about.
	They know this has nothing to do with a virus.
	But it's the middle class, the fat middle classes watching their government television.
	They're the ones who are deluded.
	I've noticed this too, and you notice this for example when you go into a really rough housing estate or whatever, and you go into the local supermarket, corner shop, whatever, a lot of people not wearing masks, a lot of people, when you go into a waitrose, Everyone is wearing a mask.
	And you're right, it's the middle classes who still trust the BBC as their information source.
	It's a kind of legacy thing.
	Yeah.
	People still imagine that the BBC is what it was in the 1970s, say, with Morkan.
	Yes.
	And that's why it was so clever to purchase The Guardian and the BBC, because people have a perception that this is quality, and it was.
	But it was purchased years and years ago slowly with grants and advertising money and it was transformed slowly under your eyes.
	So it's the same trustworthy people, same accents, same kind of generally how they do things.
	Yeah.
	But it's now selling the message on behalf of very different people.
	So I call RTÉ, the Irish one, just Pravda Ireland.
	RTE has gone so far at this stage that it's almost a parody of a news service.
	It's that bad.
	And yet, James, just like I said, there's still most middle class people sitting watching it.
	They actually believe it.
	And to anyone who knows how anything works, it's a parody.
	I mean, it's literally almost a comedy or a farce, only it's so tragic.
	They're destroying their country, their sovereignty, they're destroying their population, their health, they're destroying our future freedoms.
	This news service is literally Ruining the country on behalf of people who have nothing to do with Ireland.
	Who are way up in the mist.
	Yes.
	And people are watching it and they don't see it.
	And if you try and tell them, they're almost scared of it.
	Oh no, that's a conspiracy theory.
	They don't want to go there.
	They don't want a bad world where RTE and the politicians are effectively lying to us.
	The scientists are completely full of shit.
	They're ruining our economy for nothing rather than saving Granny.
	They don't want to go anywhere.
	They want to stay in their bubble.
	The other key thing we haven't talked about, we've got to talk about, I think one of the most sinister things about this year is that there have been treatments, cures if you like, readily available from the start.
	We know about hydroxychloroquine, which being a zinc ionophore, which if I'm right, a zinc ionophore enables the body, helps the body to absorb zinc, which is very, very effective in combating coronavirus.
	Stops the cytokine storm, I think.
	Yeah, generally speaking, at least that's what the mechanistic science would say.
	But it was suppressed ruthlessly when really it was a harmless 50-year-old drug.
	So the action of suppressing it so violently showed you something was wrong.
	If they thought it was ineffective, they just wouldn't promote it.
	So when Trump started talking about hydroxychloroquine, they jumped on like a ton of bricks and there was a huge campaign to discredit.
	I mean, you had Twitter closing people, shutting people, banning people for mentioning it.
	But that had started well before Trump said it actually.
	So the system was pushing back on things like hydrochloroquine even before Trump.
	When Trump came out with it, It gave them a leverage to completely go crazy.
	But I think hydrochloric acid would have been suppressed all over the world regardless, generally, even if Trump didn't say it.
	I could see those signals early on.
	This country was banning it, this country was saying no.
	New Zealand banned it immediately along with antibody tests.
	She gets her orders from on high, doesn't she?
	Defender Arden.
	She's absolutely a... I'd say every morning she just gets one email and it tells her what to do that day.
	From President Xi, probably.
	It wouldn't surprise me.
	Or one of his vassals.
	One of his underlings who's still above her.
	Yes, in charge of the New Zealand ant farm.
	The Kiwi ant supervisor.
	There were other treatments and obviously vitamin D. I mean the FDA came out and got an injunction to get a couple of websites not selling vitamin D pretending it was a cure or saying it was a cure.
	They were just discussing vitamin D and corona and covid and the FDA told them take down that webpage.
	So, again, how can they get it so wrong?
	It's not by chance.
	They attacked every reasonable kind of thing that could assist.
	We know now vitamin D is massively linked.
	We know there's a randomized control trial where they gave high dose versus nothing.
	In humans, small numbers, but the stats were very strong.
	There's a 90% reduction in impact.
	90%!
	I know.
	Now, that is between a 97% and a 72% say.
	So there's an error there because it was small numbers.
	But it's still statistically powered.
	It's powerful.
	There was a major effect.
	And that was using a special vitamin D type that our liver makes.
	So, I think you wouldn't get that if you're just taking D-pills.
	Oh, you wouldn't?
	No.
	D-pills have to go and get converted in your liver and changed and I don't think you'd see that dramatic result in a trial.
	They gave them very high dose of the pure vitamin D version that your body makes.
	So, okay.
	So, when you go to that health food shop and you buy vitamin D3, does that make any difference at all?
	It will, but more over time.
	And it's best to get, ideally, the sun exposure and the D-rich foods that are nutrient-dense, more than the pills.
	But the pills are fine, especially in our winters.
	But this version they gave them is available in Italy over-the-counter, and they give you a file, I think it's a glass file, you snap the top.
	Oh, it's a positive, because I love... Oh, no, no!
	I love a bit of...
	No, it's glass.
	Not a good suppository.
	Okay, right.
	No, but it's one of those, you know those little ampoules?
	Yeah, I know.
	Snap.
	I've used those, yeah.
	I haven't seen those in so long.
	You have to tap them to make it, yeah.
	Yes, yeah.
	Well, they sell them quite cheaply with this pure form of vitamin D in Italy.
	Someone told me that recently.
	One of the only countries that sell it.
	So it's not like it's an exotic drug.
	It's just no one uses it and it's rarely available.
	But it did that in the trial.
	Let me put this another way.
	Right from the start of this year, when people started dying of coronavirus or with coronavirus, there have been protocols which would pretty much stop you dying of it.
	I would say if you put together the things we knew, particularly preventatively, if you put together improving people's metabolic health, lowering their insulin and their leptin, and that's an easy dietary change, you could massively transform vitamin D status and metabolic health and that would make a huge difference.
	So that's the interventional one to bring up metabolic health.
	It'll blow away any drug.
	It'll eviscerate any vaccine in its effects.
	Just that one.
	But you could say it's a bit hard to get people to fix their diet.
	But this could have been a way to get them to do it because everyone's so scared of this corona.
	And then there's drugs, the hydrochloric and the zinc, selenium, if you think of drugs and supplements, magnesium.
	If you put together, and vitamin D, like we just said, there was a randomized trial.
	If you just put together the best drugs in a logical way, while watching for safety and interaction, but you focused on those drugs, minerals, vitamins, you would get, I'd say, a massive result between those.
	And I think that's what's being seen, if it's done properly, preventatively.
	Not only were neither of those done, but they were actively suppressed.
	Yes.
	So there's two big sources there, whether it's more pharmaceutical supplement, or whether it's more dietary, leptin, insulin lowering, fixing metabolic health, which is immune health.
	Those two axes were both suppressed at every turn.
	We were trying to talk about them, it was pushed down.
	It's against the WHO.
	The media kept saying your diet cannot affect your immune health.
	It can't.
	Only a vaccine can.
	Yes, that's what we've been working towards.
	Always.
	Everything has been working towards that.
	The assumption from March, even before March, was we cannot do anything until the vaccine is... And anything which might have sowed the seeds of doubt in the general public's mind that maybe you could deal with it through other means, they were suppressed.
	Brutally suppressed.
	Like FDA taking down conversations, not even selling vitamin D tablets.
	Natural Health website was talking about COVID, talking about vitamin D status, could be an interaction.
	They actually got an injunction.
	So you're talking about widespread corruption because that's corruption.
	That's not based on science.
	Well, it's also murder.
	We know that France, for example, banned Didier Raoult.
	Oh yeah, he was the guy early on with the hydrochloroquine.
	I haven't looked too closely, but hydrochloroquine increasingly looks like, even though they had no proper randomized control trial, which is the proof of a drug or an intervention, There's a huge amount of corroborative information that hydrochloric acid, when taken early, not late, so if the guy's in the ICU and he's into the final furlong, hydrochloric acid might even make him worse or her worse.
	But if taken early, you know, as it's meant to be by the science of that drug, It would appear that all the data is strongly pointing, and for me as well, it was very telling.
	When the Lancet rushed published the anti-HCQ, which used data from some, I don't know, lap-dancer anonymous person who set up a data company who got data from all over the world on hospitalisation, and it turned out it was all fraudulent, and the Lancet had to retract the paper, the fastest retraction I think in history, in a few weeks.
	When they're doing that kind of thing, you can see the bias is so powerful against these treatments that they will do nearly anything to fight against them.
	Therefore, you can begin to assume they're probably efficacious.
	Otherwise, they wouldn't bother.
	Now we come on to the vaccines.
	Now, I've been trying to say to my children, don't go anywhere.
	My mother told me belligerently that she, well, I'm going to take it, you know.
	I suppose it doesn't matter so much when you're, you know, old.
	But my kids shouldn't be taking this, should they?
	I mean, what's your view on the vaccines?
	On the RNA issue?
	The RNA issue is, it's a technology that would have probably, a professor of immunology told me, that probably would have taken 20 years to come in.
	Not because it's bad, per se, but because it's so new a technology never put in humans.
	That it's going to be very hard to get people to agree to take it because people are worried about new technologies, especially RNA, DNA, vaccines and drugs injected.
	Remember, injected into your arm.
	People are careful with that kind of stuff.
	But on the back of a crisis, it can be brought in in six months.
	Well, that's the thing.
	So just tell me a bit about RNA vaccines and whether one should worry about them.
	To be honest, I would agree with a professor of immunology that I discussed this with.
	His perception was that there's probably nothing to particularly worry about any more than any vaccine or any drug that has an effect can have a negative effect in some.
	And it kind of is like infecting you with a virus.
	So rather than put in just pieces, most vaccines, or all vaccines in the past, got pieces of virus that were broken or dead or weak, or even proteins from them, and just shoved them into your body.
	And your body then sees all these things, doesn't like them, gets an immune response, reacts to the vaccine, and then it's better ready for the disease the vaccine was for, when you get that disease.
	In this case, they're putting in RNA, which is extremely unstable, that's why they're at minus 80 degrees, and they're coating it in fat, nanofat particles, because your body will just destroy that stuff immediately when it comes in.
	And they're getting it to go to your cells, and then it docks.
	And the RNA goes into your cell and your cell, like with a virus infection, kind of mistakenly begins to replicate that.
	Right.
	It takes these strands of instructions, which are from the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
	They've got this bit of RNA, a bit of SARS-CoV-2 code.
	They get it into you using, you know, these nanolipid particles.
	And when it gets in, your body begins to mistakenly copy them and make them.
	It begins to make pieces of virus.
	And then the pieces of virus that are made, of course, cause your immune system to say, what the hell are you making?
	So, in principle, it should be like just giving someone an infection and not really any more sinister.
	Right.
	The problem is, I suppose, it's a new technology and when these things are being done, there's kind of generally unintended consequences with anything new.
	Ideally, it should have a six to eight years of cycle, closely monitoring all of the people and looking for long-term unintended consequences.
	So when you do a six year kind of cycle, that was for a traditional vaccine, this is a totally new one, so maybe it should have been 10 year, and you do it in like eight months, and you say it's fine, well, you're gonna say it's fine.
	And you make sure that you're not liable, because the government gives you immunity.
	Indemnified.
	Indemnified.
	All companies, and that means they're going to be less concerned about potential effects than they would be, because if someone tells me you're completely indemnified, I'm not as worried about potential effects, obviously I'm not, because I'm indemnified.
	That's natural, that's human.
	You'd think the governments who signed off on this wouldn't be unaware that in ten years' time they're going to have class actions against the government.
	They don't care, because that's probably another government.
	They don't care.
	You see, the problem is we have this cycle of governments, five years, and they don't really care.
	That's why all the crashes happen and all the disasters, and they don't invest in the future, because it's someone else's future.
	All they want to do is get through the five years and maybe get re-elected, do some good stuff, get some credits, get in trouble then and leave with a big pension.
	These people are not like the statesmen and stateswomen of 30-40 years ago, who would literally tank their popularity to put in a long-term program that would pay off in 20 years for their country.
	You look at the guys in there now, you think they're like those people.
	No way.
	These people are grifters.
	They're semi-corporate type shysters.
	Generally.
	You sound like you're describing Matt Hancock there.
	Well, I'm describing a good Matt Hancock.
	The really bad one is actually in there doing his thing.
	You know the good angel and the bad angel?
	I describe the good one.
	I think we've covered it.
	I'm thinking, not now because we're firefighting, but another occasion.
	I've got to talk to you about diet.
	We should go back to the good old days, before you went down the rabbit hole.
	You had a life before all this.
	I did, and I was extremely driven.
	I was working for Irish Heart Disease Awareness at the time, and in fairness, I was working really hard to get the message around the calcium scan to save lives.
	So I spent years and years, lectures around the world, medical, nutritional conferences, the book, videos, all to save lives and to improve population health, help people lose weight, feel great, not die of a heart attack, you know, with a few kids left behind.
	That's been my whole life.
	And ironically now, I had to switch to this because what they're doing is destroying not only population health and everything that life is worth living for, but there's a kind of a long-term sense of a plan to make sure it stays destroyed for a long time so very rich people and power-hungry people can have an ant farm and make lots of money.
	So, to be honest, what's the point in spending years fighting to improve population health And then allow this thing to go on.
	I can't.
	So unfortunately, as soon as it got really bad and sinister, I just had to switch to it.
	But I get back to that though.
	And just finally, the question I should have asked you at the beginning.
	Why should Xander, or anyone else, trust you?
	Because I'm always correct.
	Was it like the old superman never lies?
	Well the other thing is I never lie on technical.
	So just for Xander, I'm 30 years as a complex problem solver.
	That's rare in engineering, never mind amongst general public.
	And it's highly complex.
	It takes decades to hone the skill of statistics, logical analysis, comparative analysis, physics, root cause diagrams, hypothesis for against.
	We in industry use a range of tools because we must be the best at fixing complex problems fast.
	The guys who are running this show are an immunologist who knows nothing about other stuff, an epidemiologist who only knows about giving grim predictions.
	You know, you've got specialties.
	Social behavioural scientists who are good at brainwashing populists into doing stupid things.
	Yes, and evil rich guys with German accents who are good when they're not making Bond movies, they're good at making ad firms.
	What could possibly go wrong?
	What could go wrong?
	And this is the thing, I'm an integration specialist, a problem solver, but You need to look at the data as I presented and choose yourself.
	So I've told you there's 22 papers.
	I didn't write them.
	These are scientific teams.
	Woods Hole Institute, it's in the Lancet, it's in the BMJ.
	I am only reflecting what's already published but you will never see because the media will not show you.
	You know, I'm really almost like, I'm a funnel of all the science and data.
	Professors and doctors all over the world are constantly feeding me data.
	You're their vessel.
	I am their vessel.
	They are almost inside me or something.
	Yes, their RNA, their DNA is inside you.
	Ivor Cummings, thank you very much.
	That was great.
	Don't forget everyone, Ivor's really good at this on his podcast.
	Please remember that I have a Patreon site and a Subscribestar site if you want to support me and get more fantastic, probably not as good as this one all the time, but this is about as good as it gets.
	But yeah, if you can support me that's really appreciated and thank you Anna.
	Great stuff!
	Nice one James.

▲