All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 28, 2021 - The Delingpod - James Delingpole
01:06:31
Dr Simon Goddek
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I know I always say I'm excited about this week's special guest.
This week's special guest is here by very, very popular request.
Simon Goddek.
Delingpod, and I know I always say I'm excited about this week's special guest.
This week's special guest is here by very, very popular request.
Simon Godek.
Simon, you used to have a Twitter account, didn't you, with a sort of...
You put out some pretty punchy stuff, and you were definitely one of my go-to guys in the early days of the pandemic.
You were...
And then you disappeared.
Were you kind of driven off social media or something?
Yeah, just... I mean, I wasn't a social media guy before, but at some point I got Twitter.
I think it was in December 2020.
Yeah.
When I figured out that some stuff was going wrong, so I had a publication with vitamin D, just a normal, just a scientific publication, which got published in a high-ranked journal.
And I received mad emails about this, like COVID denier, the editor of the journal received emails that I had conflict of interest, that I was a vitamin D seller, and I never sold vitamin D in my life.
Well, and then I was getting Twitter just to put this information out there.
I was like, okay, this needs to be out there.
So I created a Twitter account and I was publishing my thoughts.
And I suddenly had many followers within, I think, the first month I had 15,000.
And after six months, I had 50,000.
And then my account got deleted without providing any reason.
Who deleted you?
Your account just got deleted.
Oh, Twitter itself!
Yeah, just deleted.
Just suspended.
Let's just take a step back, because not everyone knows who you are.
So, Simon Goddek, you are from... you're Dutch-German, did you say?
Yes, so I grew up in Holland, in the Netherlands, and my parents are from Germany.
Right, okay.
And I'm a scientist.
What's your field of science?
So my field is quite broad.
I did my PhD in system thinking, system dynamics at the Faculty of Biotechnology.
My dissertation, my thesis was about aquaponics, decoupled aquaponics systems.
And I'm publishing about metabolism as well.
So I'm looking into the metabolism of, I started looking into the metabolism of fish, because they were part of the aquaponics system.
And it turned into looking into the metabolism of human being.
So defining our guts, defining our Yeah, our whole system.
Would you agree with me, Simon, that one of the casualties of the last two years is the faith that rational people might have had in science and scientists, that they have rather shit the bed, you might say.
I mean, I'm looking around at the mess the world's in at the moment and I'm thinking, Part of this is scientists not doing their job, or not doing what we imagine they do, which is act as dispassionate seekers after truth.
I mean, they're a bunch of shills, aren't they?
They're mercenaries.
They'll do whatever they do for the highest bidder.
They have no moral principles.
James, I don't know if I can agree with this, because I think the majority of scientists are still doing their job, but they're afraid.
Right.
So all my friends, I wouldn't say I know you can say like this as well, because look what's happened to us of those who speak out, we all get fired.
So there are people who have a family who have a life who can't, who can't dare to speak out.
I mean, they have it's it's a big risk you take.
And look what's happening to too many signs to speak out, they all get fired, or the majority gets fired, I get they get into real problems.
Yeah, this is This is something you have to consider.
And I was speaking out and I wasn't, I was like, everything will be all right, but I got into the same situation.
So I can understand my colleagues to say, I want to stay in the background.
I want to convince my friends on a private scale and who don't want to use social media in order to say what they think.
It's dangerous.
So did you actually lose your job as a result of your outspokenness?
Yes.
So what was your job and tell me the story.
So I got a job, I was a scientist at Wageningen University and I spoke out against Maren Koopmans.
She is like the Dutch advisor for Covid and she's like in all TV shows and I was just publicing about scientific fraud that she committed.
I didn't know it was a big thing, but I got a big shitstorm.
What was the scientific fraud that she committed?
Let's say it was most likely scientific fraud, most likely 99.99%.
So she was co-author of a paper together with Christian Drosten about the PCR test, the code PCR test.
In my opinion, it bypassed period process because it took from submission to publication on the website less than one day, most likely.
Maximum 27.5 hours, I did the calculation.
And I'm an editor myself of a journal, and I know it takes usually approximately half a year.
And so we got the metadata from this journal, Euroservience, and we saw it also takes half a year, this journal.
So how is it possible that this paper, which was even a low quality paper, was passing peer review and all the publication processes within?
What was the publication?
It was about the PCR test, the COVID-PCR test.
So let's say it was the backbone of the whole pandemic.
Yes.
So what was the name of the journal that published this dodgy?
Euroservience.
Euroservience.
It's a EU-owned journal.
Was it, was it a, I mean, has it ever been a respected thing?
Is it, does a lot of, a lot of peer-reviewed science get, get published there?
Yes.
It's, it's high ranked.
Right.
I see.
Yeah.
I mean, I am familiar with with something of the Drosten paper background because of Rainer Fulmik has talked about it before.
But I think it's really worth going into it again, because I read the piece that you wrote about it.
And I think it's it's very damning.
And I think it's important, as you say, that paper Which was rushed through, I mean, rushed through.
It can't possibly have been genuinely peer-reviewed, even if one believes in it.
No, I mean, most likely not at all.
So just give us the full story and tell us about who Drosten is, because, I mean, he's kind of a nobody who's become de facto one of the most influential people in the world because he effectively invented the virus.
I don't know if you can say it like this, it's scientifically incorrect, but he at least defined the PCR test, the sequences to be used.
And his PCR test was considered gold standard one day after the publication was online.
And the person who was in the WHO committee to make this test gold standard was Myron Kopontz, the person which I criticized.
So, what happened is that... I mean, I'm not familiar with all the details because I wasn't part of Tristan Thorsten's team, but I know he was writing a publication.
He started writing a publication about the PCR test somewhere in the mid of January. 2020.
And 2020.
This is before anyone really knew about, before coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2 was a massive story.
I mean, there were...
There were these fake videos from China already online of these Chinese people dropping on the streets, you know, and catching up themselves just before they were hitting the There were these videos out there, and we were already laughing about them back in the times, and even our media was laughing about these videos.
Like, look at this, look at this, oh my gosh, what are the Chinese doing?
And then Drosten came around the corner with this publication, the PCR test.
I mean, he wasn't the inventor of the PCR test, he was the inventor of the COVID PCR test, it has to be said.
And he and his friend Olfad Lund, he's a Berlin-based He's a biochemist.
He has a company.
He produces PCR tests.
And they were gaining money on a large scale.
So he was writing this publication with his co-authors, like Korman, Koopmans, and many other people we would consider shields nowadays.
And it got published literally one day after.
And you have to know the publishing process is quite complex.
First of all, you submit a paper to a journal.
He could submit the paper to a journal where he is on a board of editors.
This is like already conflict of interest, like a heavy one.
So he actually submitted it to his friend.
And the next step is to be that the editor in chief has to find people who want to appear on this paper.
This usually takes, oh, it takes me up to two or three months, because usually they get rejected.
People are like, reject, reject, I don't have time.
Please, no, please contact another one.
They don't check their emails every day.
Okay, they managed to obviously get these reviews within a segment of time, just like that.
Then these reviewers need to read the paper.
I mean, if you do your job correctly, it takes several hours.
Sometimes one day, two days, because you want to write a review report, which is usually one or two pages.
Then the paper goes back to the editor-in-chief, like the suggestions they give.
Mainly it's accept, which is You literally never done the first round.
I've never seen it in my life.
Then there's minor reviews that happen sometimes if it's a really good paper, which it wasn't.
Then it's major reviews or it's reject.
And these suggestions go back to the editor of the journal.
And then the editor decides, do I accept this paper for a second run of peer review or don't I?
So in this case, this editor-in-chief, she said like, yes, they're going to They can do the iteration.
Or they both said accept, and it would continue to go to the typesetter.
But I doubt it was accept, so there must have been a second round.
Everything, nothing is public.
So in case of them, it must have been an accept, and then it goes to the typesetter.
The typesetter is a person who puts the whole publications into the format of the journal.
Usually, let's say, it takes one or two weeks, and then you again have to proceed by doing some adjustments.
So they ask, can you please agree with all the... can you please correct some formatting issues?
And this is shown as queries.
So the authors get queries back, and they have to reply to every query.
It's usually 10 to 30 queries per paper.
And then this goes back to the typesetter and then goes online.
And the whole procedure, which actually takes, as I said, three to nine months, an average six, was done within less than a day.
And we have to assume that these people were working at night as well.
And this is just very unlikely.
And I was publishing about this, like, very rationally.
I was like saying, look, this happened.
And I just explained the whole procedure, which I know as an editor.
And yeah.
I published it, and I got into big problems.
Where did you publish it?
Oh, just like on my Twitter account.
I made a Twitter thread, and I was explaining to my followers, because they were asking, can you please explain to us what happened here?
And I was just making a thread.
And after making a thread, I got a threat with a T. So I got very mad.
Virologists were texting me, were like, also, I'm sending emails to my university saying like, look what I'm doing and I'm attacking colleagues and stuff like that.
And the university got mad at me and I was explaining everything.
I was like, look what I've been writing.
Let's check what I've been writing.
Please read the thread.
And the reading was like, actually, you're quite factual.
Congratulations.
And I was like, yeah, here we go.
And they were backing me.
They were backing me officially.
They published tweets and they said, like, freedom of speech also counts for me and I'm allowed, as a scientist, I'm allowed to express my opinion.
And I thought everything was fine until in March.
So my funding was running out in March.
So I was on an EU project and I was getting Full up funding.
So I was writing a new proposal and I got funded.
I was like, Hey, I got you, I got you half a million euros or like, I think it was between three and a thousand, half a million euros I got for the university.
Well, I'm funding for myself.
They're like, yeah, but well, um, well, I think we need to find another person.
I was talking to a professor person.
They were like, okay, like, like from, from totally the top, like, I don't know if it was the boss of the university or the ministry that said like, please don't, um, Yeah, please don't give them the workplace.
So, now they hired another person, even though I got them the funding.
So, actually, it's very uncommon.
Usually, when you get yourself funding, they hire you.
So, just to clarify, you got the funding in place for your job, but they didn't give it to you, or what?
No, they didn't give it to me.
Political reasons.
They said, like, sorry, we'd like to have you, but political reasons.
That was their phrase, political reasons.
It was just, yeah.
But it was a person who I really like, really likes me.
He just said, like, I'm sorry.
He said, like, there could be your way around.
If you really insisted, you could do it via the legal way, etc.
But it was just like, fuck it.
I just got another I just got another job at a partner of the consortium.
It's totally fine.
So, right.
And, I mean, how did you feel when that happened to you?
Were you surprised?
I found it weird.
I found it very weird.
I was like, shit, because that's an application I wrote in my free time for three months.
Every night I was writing it.
I was like, how ridiculous would it be if I I wrote my own project, and I wouldn't be part of it because of what I express publicly.
I was writing it for a consortium of nine partners, and I was just contacting the other partners of the EU project.
They immediately took me.
They were happy.
They were happy to have me on board.
I'm not sad.
I think this experience actually tells me a lot about what's going on in science and And that scientific freedom isn't scientific freedom anymore.
You have to be very careful of what you say.
I still have to be careful what I say.
Do you?
Yeah, yeah, of course, of course.
Presumably, this was a novel experience for you.
I imagine you'd never before, you know, you thought that as a decent, intelligent scientist, you would always find work and that you would never be judged on your politics.
I mean, I'm a senior researcher.
I'm still a junior because I'm still mid-40s.
So I never experienced anything like this before.
I know there are some pressures towards you to have a specific opinion about climate change.
So I cannot say what I think about it in public.
And yeah, there are some topics you cannot address.
I cannot address.
I will not address.
But I never thought that exposing scientific fraud would get me into problems.
So I was like, look, I'm doing a good job for science.
I'm doing a good job for scientific integrity.
But I never thought it would get me into problems.
And I would never thought these people who committed these frauds would get away with this that easily.
And that no single journalist dares to bring this up.
Because I was providing them the information for free.
No journalist dared to question Kristian Drossel or even Marion Kobold.
And was Christian Drosten, I mean, is he, was he a big name in Germany already?
I'm no virologist.
I don't know, but I was, I was, I was checking his Google scholar and he wasn't, he wasn't any of the big players.
And his main task was about exploring whether coronaviruses are dangerous for, for baby dromedaries.
So, Is it really?
I mean, it doesn't matter.
I mean, yes, no, it's like his latest publication, but it doesn't matter.
I mean, as a good scientist, you can also think about, I mean, it doesn't matter because my background also is in biology and I can read and understand scientific papers.
But it's a bit weird that he is considered a demigod in Germany now.
I think he was twice in a row voted the sexiest man of Germany.
And the Man of the Year.
It's super weird because whenever he says something, it's so contradictory.
So his statements about masks were like changing ten times.
And as a more or less self-proclaimed decent virologist, you should know that masks don't help.
They don't help spreading the virus.
He was first saying it helps, then it doesn't help, then it helps.
It's like this gaslighting methods are being used by these players.
As an upright scientist, you would have an opinion, you would go into scientific debates, but everything Christian Drosten does, where you confront him with his own lies, he blocks you on Twitter.
This is the kind of dialogue he has, and he's supporting shills like Eric Feigl-Ding, etc.
He's supporting that.
And you know, Eric Feigl-Ding is a fearmonger and a shill.
And then I'm wondering, okay, why can't we as a scientific community get back to the essence of science and just sit around the table and talk about what's going on and let numbers speak?
But this is not wanted and this is what scares me.
Yeah, yeah.
I had an early taste of what you're describing At least a decade ago, when I started writing about the about the climate change, the world of climate science.
And I very quickly realized that there is a massive gulf between
what the really really clever people think and what the kind of the the funded scientific establishment thinks and what what you said about how you've got to you've got to keep quiet about what you think about climate change because so much of it yes but James I also I also work with IPCC models so um I mean you also have to consider that this is a an option this is a possibility um
But I think the way that critical thoughts within the topic of climate change are not accepted, or are not wanted, is quite scary.
Because, I mean, we know that there is some change.
There's always changes, and there were always changes in climate.
And people will say, look, I'm totally against deforestation.
Deforestation changes the climate.
In this area, or even globally, that's totally correct.
But in my opinion, the focus on CO2 is fraud.
That's my opinion.
Or it's not expressed rationally.
But this is something I avoid talking about.
And I think there are changes.
I think there are impacts that human beings make.
But it's very hard nowadays to tell what are the impacts we make with the scientific community, Yeah, yeah.
biased by itself.
So it's very hard for me to assess the information as well.
It's very hard for me to understand what's really going on.
So this is my situation.
I think many scientists share this.
And I think there would be a very easy consensus between all scientists in the world if this would be allowed, if people were not afraid to state their opinion.
Yeah, yeah.
But I think that this goes to a bigger problem, which is the way that we've been encouraged to view science.
And if you look at, for example, I don't know whether you've ever been exposed to the BBC at all, but we have... Of course, of course, of course, I know the BBC quite well.
I don't know whether you've ever listened to Radio 4, which is supposed to be the kind of highbrow element of BBC Radio.
And for years now, there has been this campaign run by the, it's a kind of gaslighting operation or brainwashing campaign, if you like, whereby Scientists are set up as the priests of our age, you know, they are the keepers of the truth.
They are the keepers of the flame of truth.
And the reverence with which they're talked about, you know, news stories begin, scientists say, dot, dot, or experts say, you know, experts and scientists.
Experts, always experts.
Always the experts.
And whenever The Radio 4 does a sort of soft feature program involving scientists, you know, maybe asking them about their favorite records or asking them about their career.
I mean, there's a terrible series called The Life Scientific with this really kind of tedious second rater called Jim Al-Khalili, who talks to other scientists.
And the assumption is, These scientists, they just know their shit.
They are so much better than you and they have access to wisdom that you mere mortals could never hope to attain.
And It is not healthy because what we're doing is being encouraged to believe that there is this entity called the science and one cannot question the science because the science is written in stone and you're never allowed to think that science is actually contingent and ever-changing and a matter of dispute and so on.
When you think that the motto of the Royal Society founded in 1660 was nullius in verba, take no man's word for it.
But this seems to have been lost completely and science is now this monolithic thing.
And you must have experienced that, this as well, this, this, this strange sort of veneration of science.
Yep, I just follow, I mainly follow German and Dutch media.
Same here.
Same there.
Same there.
And it's highly concerning because as a scientist, you usually start with a hypothesis and you try to show that you're wrong.
I always try to show that I'm wrong, you know?
So if I have an experiment, I say like, for example, I had a plant growth experiment and I showed that in a specific water condition, plants were growing much faster than in the conventional condition, 40%.
And I was like, this can't be right.
So I was trying to prove myself wrong and follow up experiments, but I ended up proving myself right.
But it's always trying to prove yourself wrong.
And this is what's an issue with many fields of science nowadays, okay?
That they are not repeatable.
So if you have an experiment, you cannot repeat it.
The majority of the experiments you cannot repeat.
And then they say, look, this is an evidence that is like this, but actually science should always question itself.
And this is a scientific, this is like some scientific, This is the essence of science.
But I think the issue here is that the communication of science is not done by the science itself, but by the media.
So they have some kind of selection bias.
They select their experts, and they select those who express the opinion that needs to be expressed.
I don't know why the media does it, what's behind it.
I don't want to get too deep into the rabbit hole, but this is what I I do, I do actually.
Simon, do go as far as you like down the rabbit hole.
I can't say, I can't say everything I really believe publicly.
But I just saw in the case of Covid, especially regarding measures and masks, that the media was highly biased.
They're always asking the same bills.
And you know, my background is also as a system thinker system and it makes modeling so i model i have model papers and i don't even consider modeling science with them but i think i'm a good person to criticize myself because because this is my wife's always nagging me about this she says you should write a book on how shit modeling is because it seems to be the problem with everything in the world so just tell us a bit about modeling why it's not a science so i just look at the models of neil ferguson
and then you know what some signs so you if you if you start writing a model i mean you have your code you have your own idea of how to write the model and I mean, you have your mathematical equations which you have to add to the model, but you always have to make assumptions.
So the parameters, you have to define the parameters.
And many modelers, I mean, me myself, you have to pick a parameter, you have to make an assumption for the parameters, you have to justify these parameters, which you just do.
And just imagine they say, look, let's take it now.
We get the Delta variant and they take a look at Omicron.
The spread is, let's assume it's 10 times higher.
So they add 10 times higher to the model.
This is like, oh, mortality today, the Shell Feigl-Ding was saying, oh, maybe it's 10% less severe.
Then they add 10 times 10 times more, 10% less severe.
Oh, let's make it a model.
Oh, millions are going to die.
And this model is going to be published and it's going to be taken by the media.
And what I just have seen in Holland, the modeling is not such a big thing, but in Germany, you have like the modelers, the Doomday modelers, which always are used again.
So you have a guy who's called Lear and Prisman and Römer, et cetera.
So there's some people who continue to model.
And every time they're so fucking wrong, the model doesn't depict the reality.
We can tell afterwards because we can do the validation of the model.
And again and again, the government asks them to please make new models to justify lockdowns.
And they don't say, look at your work.
It's like shit.
It didn't work.
Your models are shit.
Let another person do it.
But no, they let them do it again and again because they know.
That their outcomes of the model are doomsday scenarios, with millions of dead bodies piling on the streets.
I think it's dangerous.
I think there we lose any sense of logic.
Yes, we call it policy-driven evidence-making.
Yeah, yeah.
You can see why that appeals to politicians.
But you can also see why it's a complete betrayal of members of the public.
Politicians like it because it gives them justification for what they were going to do anyway.
But members of the public... Or what they did.
I mean, like, they did... For example, what we see now is sometimes they put measures in place, then they let the modelers model something, and they say, oh, look, with this measure, it goes down again.
You know, the cases go down.
And the average is like, look, It went down because of the measures, but they didn't take the time factor into account because it already worked before, or it even worked in neighboring countries which didn't have any measures.
So how can the measures work in, for example, Germany right now?
All the cases went down.
It's like, look, the measures worked, but why did the measures also work in Poland, which didn't have any measures?
These are things they don't take into consideration, and the media doesn't take into consideration.
And the scientists, whenever they publish their models, they don't discuss this in the discussion.
And this is, to me, yeah, it's not science.
It's not fraud either, because they just leave away facts.
But they don't tell the truth, and they're not critical enough.
Assume for a moment that SARS-CoV-2 is the, and I think this is a reasonable assumption, is the biggest scientific fraud in the history of science.
The biggest, the whole pandemic, the way that a fairly routine influenza type bug which kills no more people than in a kind of averagely bad flu year, has been bigged up into the reason for shutting down the world economy, killing jobs, causing hundreds of thousands of deaths from untreated cancers and suicides and all sorts of things.
All manner of collateral damage in the name of this virus, which I don't think has even been isolated, and yet it's been bigged up into this major thing.
So, the question I would ask you as a scientist, and I don't know whether you can give me any insights on this, a lot of people are saying, well, why would virologists, why would they make this shit up?
Why would they lie to us?
Why would they exaggerate?
Why would epidemiologists all be on board with this program?
Why are these, why are the men in the white lab coats, the men in positions of authority, the men who went into science, presumably in order to make the world a better place, Why are they participating in this gigantic, toxic fraud, which is going to end up in millions of deaths and the destruction of the world economy and the removal of all our freedoms?
Why are scientists participating in this?
So I think it's the majority of the scientists.
I think they were picking out those who expressed the opinion they want to hear.
And about the isolation of the virus, I don't have any information on that.
So I hear it a lot, but I can't say anything about this.
But I know that they don't put things into proportion.
But you just said, of course, I mean, I'm no virus denier, no COVID denier.
That's what they like to say.
Oh, look, he's a virus denier.
No, the virus exists, obviously.
So there is a virus that kills people.
And there was a virus before that killed people, which was called influenza.
And if you look at the excess mortality in most countries, it's not much higher than in the years before.
I think it's even lower in Germany in 2021 and 2020.
So it's very hard to make an assumption here, because I'm no politician, I'm no geopolitician, I don't have the view on what's going on in the world, but I know, I mean, what I read, I read papers about this, that just the impact on world I read papers about this, that just the impact on world economy and world hunger is so much higher than the excess death of
So they actually, if you want to see it like this, so there might be, just considering, just hypothetically considering, That some more people are dying in the Western country because of the virus.
What about the millions of people who are dying in Africa or in the Middle East or whenever because of hunger, because the economy is crashing?
So I think it's not fair to continue that way, to deprive us of our freedoms and to continue brainwashing people and to let people wear masks on the streets.
I mean, even if you say, OK, mask work.
Just imagine you say mask work inside.
Don't let people wear it on the street.
In Brazil, it's obligatory to wear masks on the street.
If you go outside jogging or for a run, you have to wear a mask.
It's maniac.
So people are gaslighted that way.
And I think it's not scientific to hold on to measures which are unscientific.
But the media keeps on pushing for that.
And I think that's scary.
Now we have a big majority, at least in some countries, maybe not in the UK, but I think in Central Europe, where people really believe all of what they were told within two years.
It's a massive psychosis and we need to get out of there.
We need to get out of there in a way that we sit around a table, a big table, and have a dialogue with each other.
So we always keep saying, please talk to us.
Let's talk.
Let's talk publicly.
Let's have a nice debate.
We excluded from any debate, which is sad.
I agree with everything you say, Simon, but I suspect that you are further down the rabbit hole than you're admitting.
Because the last two years have been an absolute revelation for me.
I mean, it's been like the best Fun, fair ride, imaginable.
I've just been on the roller coaster and I've gone down to the depths and I've come up to the highs and it's been really exciting.
I mean, actually, almost as exciting as fox hunting, which is the most exciting thing you can do, obviously.
And what I've learned about the world, the scales really have fallen from my eyes.
And it seems to me that almost everything that one knew about the world and everything one trusted in the world was a lie.
And that definitely includes science.
It seems to me that That a lot of scientists, and maybe unwittingly or otherwise, because ignorance is, I think, transferred through academe, you know, all it takes is one sort of pH supervisor to transmit ignorance to the people below him and so on and so forth.
But it seems to me that scientists aren't really seekers after truth.
They are gatekeepers of lies.
They are promulgators of lies.
Please don't generalize, or please don't generalize all scientists What I could agree on is that our education system is structured in a way that we are not allowed to learn how to think critically anymore.
I think this goes all the way up to academia.
Those who didn't learn as a child how to think critically at school, you cannot even I mean, in Europe, in many countries, you cannot even criticize your teacher.
You cannot even say, hey, teacher, I disagree with what you just said.
And if you have this mindset, you don't question anything.
And it's science.
Science means to question everything.
And nowadays, people don't do this anymore.
And I also see many of my colleagues say like, yeah, but science says so.
Like, what is science?
Please talk to me about what is science?
I mean, I don't have lots of knowledge about virology.
I mean, I look into the human metabolism.
I know how things work in our body, but I don't know a lot about mRNA vaccines, etc.
So I don't have to get there.
I don't need to get there in order to be a critical scientist, in order to tell, look, there's something going wrong.
I mean, there are many things I cannot, I don't have a clue about.
For example, what's the endgame?
So other people say, oh, well, look, it's the financial system that tried to transfer it into a digital euro, digital dollar, digital pound.
Others say, look, it's about controlling people.
It's Orwell 1984.
And other people say, look, it's Big Pharma.
It's a conspiracy just so everybody has a vaccine subscription.
I don't know what's true.
I think it ends up being about power.
It's about power.
But I don't know which direction we'll go to or what the actual goal is of those who might have I don't know whether it's a pandemic or a plandemic, but there are many signs that it doesn't make sense.
You know, nothing makes sense.
Hardly anything makes sense.
I mean, why do I have to vex myself in order to vex other people?
Why do I need to wear a mask for your mask to work?
There's so many simple questions I can ask and nobody can answer.
And they're repeated, they're repeated.
And it's the task of the journalist to talk about this.
It's the task of the journalist to dig deep into what's going on.
It's not the task of a scientist.
It's not my task to dig into the lies.
And this heads me up.
But yeah, many people are now taking over the task of the journalist in order to check what's actually going on.
How can we avoid the path we've been taking?
How can we get back to a dialogue?
How can we get back to reality?
Yeah, and scientists are taking over now.
And I know many of his colleagues, Martin Kulldorff, he's speaking out.
There are many, many, many scientists who speak out.
Yeah, yeah, there are, there are.
We know their names.
I mean, that's how few...
I'm not sure it is that many.
I mean, we know their names and the fact that we know their names is indicative of just how much.
Let me tell you, you're wrong.
You're wrong there, because I'm in many private groups on Twitter with my third account and also on Telegram.
There are many scientists who are doctor or professors, PhDs, Who actually use social media with the synonyms.
So they just don't use their real names in order to speak out.
Many do this, and it's great that they do so.
And I understand why they cannot use their real name, because they all explain to me that it has an impact on the family, on their social life, etc.
But these people, many sides are still working to get the reality out of there.
That's what you have to keep in mind.
I would do the same.
I'm out there with my real name because I thought whatever I publish wouldn't cause any problem for myself.
That's why people know me with my real name.
It gets me into problems, yes, but now I cannot change it.
Now I'm out there, people know my name, people know how I write, people know my opinion about Vitamin D, people know how I write, so I cannot hide anymore.
But there are many people who use pseudonyms in order to publish their findings or to
say what they think and I think it's also a good job to do it that way because they they still let the data speak and they still go on demonstrations on the street they go on the streets but they don't use their real name online because there are so many trolls there's so many PR agencies who would immediately contact the universities who would who would uh yeah who would get them fired most likely yes yeah I I mean look I'm I'm alive to this argument and I can see why people
Obviously, everyone wants to be able to pay off their mortgage and, you know, feed their families and stuff.
At the same time, you know, I'm looking at it from the world I know, the world of journalism.
I could make the same case that you've made for scientists, for all the journalists who have completely failed to do their job.
And I could say, well, look, they'd kind of love to tell the truth about what's going on, but they can't.
Because, you know, when you get paid 150,000 a year by the mail, you know, that's not the kind of money you can turn down lightly.
And they can't criticize the vaccine.
But the problem is that when you get the cumulative effect of all the journalists on 150,000 a year, not daring to criticize the vaccine because that's their paper's policy, what you get de facto is a world in which nobody is criticizing the vaccines.
No one's questioning them anywhere.
I mean, no one in the mainstream media, every single article you read, Even in kind of sceptical articles, they will always genuflect before the vaccine god.
They will always cross themselves first beforehand and they'll say, of course I'm not an anti-vaxxer and I myself have had my, you know, my two clots shots and of course I believe the vaccines are working and blah blah.
And only then do you get their licensed bit of dissent.
Well, that's no resistance at all, because unfortunately what that means is that everyone out there who trusts the mainstream media, which unfortunately is still quite a lot of people, everyone out there is reading this stuff and going, well, clearly the rational position is to put the faith in the vaccine, because I can see no one's criticising them.
You see what I mean?
I mean, I would like a few scientists that, other than Martin Kulldorff and, you know, Cidret Bakhtiar and You know, we know their names.
I'd like a few more to say, well, hang on a second, I'm prepared to lose my job because this is ultimately the end of our civilization that's being planned here, you know.
People speak up.
So now you have, for example, the German professor Kekulé.
He was speaking up, but he got fired two days ago.
More people dare to speak up and at some point we'll be the majority.
Say like, hey, let's have a talk, let's please talk about fans.
We will be, just give it a while.
I mean, more and more people are being critical, like how you guys would say waking up.
Some kind of waking up from dystopia.
And I think eventually we will get back to the dialogue.
I think we have to be a bit patient here.
When I scroll social media, I just get myself some popcorn, you know?
Because it's also hilarious.
It's like, I always like to let the data speak.
I always say, let the data speak.
But you can see what the hardcore extremist coroners do.
They just come up with, but do you want to kill grandma?
Stuff like this.
And I think it's amusing.
It's amusing to read as well.
If you just If you just try to switch the position, if you just try to understand their point of view, it's hilarious.
And the best thing we can do is to keep the rational way, because nothing beats rationality.
Of course, I feel myself very emotional sometimes.
For example, yesterday here in my flat in Sao Paulo, I mean, I'm autistic and autistic people don't have to wear a mask.
In Brazil.
And the guy who was the manager of the building where I live, he was telling me, he was giving me a fine for not wearing a mask.
And I ended up calling the police and calling them xenophobic.
And it worked.
It worked perfectly.
And, you know, I also fight my personal emotional wars.
But whenever I publish stuff, I try to be I try to be rational, but I also try to use some kind of humor, because with memes and with humor, you can kind of show how ridiculous the other side can be.
Not always.
I mean, they have valid arguments as well.
We shouldn't forget about that.
But, as I said before, we have to take the data, we have to take the raw data, not the Media often likes to show, and where they take out specific data, for example, I know for Germany again, they like to say, look, but the capacity of the hospital goes down, goes down.
Every month we have less capacity in percent.
They just say the percentage.
But don't show that they're reducing hospital beds.
Since the start of the pandemic, so if you were in a real pandemic, they wouldn't reduce hospital beds by 20%.
So come on, they wouldn't close hospitals.
But, you know, whenever they come up with this argument, we come up with the argument, we just show the graphic, look how many beds there were before the pandemic, or at the beginning, and how many hospital beds there are now.
And this is like an argument we can come up with.
This is super important to come to counter arguments with valid data.
And the best thing, the best data we can provide is official data from the very government.
So, have you got any theories on why Germany's been cutting its hospital beds?
So my theory would make me a conspiracy theorist.
Go on then.
I just think they use it in order to create panic.
They say, look, we are almost at a triage.
Um, we need to, we need to, we need, um, heavier or like, uh, stricter measures.
I'd love to see the charts on this.
Have you, have you got, have you got a link?
Um, have you written about this?
So, um, I can, I will publish it on my Telegram channel.
I will publish it later tonight and you can just, you just put a, put a link to my Telegram channel below your videos and there you can see the chart.
That is quite funny.
I mean, things like that.
We had another thing where, because, you know, I'm totally with you, Simon, about science should be about data.
It should be about, you know, you look at the facts and two people from the alternative sides of the argument can look at the data and come to a reasonable conclusion, a dispassionate conclusion.
That's the idea.
That's our dream, ideal version of science.
But we've got to a stage now where you can have official bodies providing this data.
And what's happening at the moment is either the establishment is just covering up the data, I mean, just burying it.
They're denying its validity.
So, for example, we've got this terrible TV doctor.
I bet you've got similar ones in Germany.
I mean, really, really bad TV doctor who's called Dr. Schillery.
And Dr. Schillery chills for Big Pharma.
And Dr. Schillery appears on this breakfast TV program, which idiots watch.
I mean, you know, the brain dead watch it and they get all the information from it.
And Dr. Schillery tells them what to think.
And there was this yellow card data, the official notification within the within the National Health Service of adverse reactions to vaccines.
It's a bit like the VAERS data in the US.
And Dr. Schillery ripped up The yellow card data on television to symbolise that this was just worthless.
But ripping this data up on TV doesn't render it worthless.
It just means that you're ignoring it.
And this is what's going on.
There is this evidence out there and it is being suppressed, which is extraordinary.
Yeah, it's like this all over, all over, even in Brazil.
It's crazy propaganda on TV.
24-7.
And you know, I publish a lot about vitamin D. And it even goes so far that mainstream media say like, okay, vitamin D is a myth, it's a conspiracy theory.
And we have data that most likely when you have a blood serum value of 59 grams per milliliter, the likelihood to die of any virus is close to zero.
And the information is out there.
There are hundreds of publications on vitamin D out there regarding COVID.
And this is what the numbers show.
But no, they keep on pushing.
Whenever I write about vitamin D, I get the shills.
The shills enter my comment section.
And they come up with saying that high doses kill people and stuff like this.
It just fucked me insane.
I mean, of course, they can be dangerous if you don't also supplement with vitamin K2 and K7 in order to avoid calcification.
But this is what I always mention in whatever publication I write.
You know, everything is out of proportion.
So real, like ivermectin, vitamin D, etc., everything is denied by the media.
There's only one way to achieve herd immunity.
It's mass vaccination, mass boostering, mass vaccination, mass boostering.
And now they even say, look, whenever we booster everybody, we will have herd immunity.
But then we say, then we say, hey, look at, look at Gibraltar, look at Malta, look at Israel.
The opposite is the case.
Why do you make this claim?
And you know, it results in being blocked.
So you can't come up with everything.
And the only thing they do is block you because either they're ignorant or they're shills.
I don't have any other, I don't have any other explanation why a dialogue, why a dialogue is wanted.
Yes.
Given you've brought up vitamin D, will you give us a sort of vitamin D 101?
I mean, I take vitamin D every day, well, vitamin D3.
What should people be doing with vitamin D?
So, Gretchen, how much do you take, James?
I take about...
Um, I think they're, they're high strength.
So they're 4,000, what's the measurement?
Megagrams, is it?
4,000.
International units, I hope.
4,000 milligrams.
Rest in peace, James.
No, no.
4,000 megagrams.
Micrograms.
I don't know.
What?
Tell me.
International, international units.
It's measured in international units.
If you take 4,000 milligrams, you are six feet under.
Hang on.
I'm going to, no, I'm going to look at my packet now.
Wait there.
All right.
Yeah.
4,000 milligrams.
Okay.
Joking.
This is what I currently take.
High strength vitamin D. And you're right.
It's, uh, they are 4,000 IU per tablet.
And I take a handful.
International units.
Yeah.
So I reckon I take three of these a day.
Yeah, it could be, it could be, yeah, it could be all right.
I don't know.
What's your weight?
Stones?
I do kilos, you know.
But I'd say I take, I'm like 83 kilos, which is probably 160, 170 pounds.
I don't know, I don't do pounds.
And I take 10,000 units every day.
And I take it together with vitamin K2.
So I take 200 milligrams of vitamin K2 in order to avoid calcification, which means that the calcium is like cutting the arteries, you know?
So you should always take it together with vitamin K2, write it down.
And I take magnesium, citrate, 500 milligrams per day, so twice a day, 250, and zinc, as in gluconate or citrate.
Because magnesium and zinc are required for enzymes.
I take the zinc, but so I wonder whether I'm calcifying my whatevers by... I need to take some... Yeah, just take K2, or what you can also do is Just eat fermented foods.
So, K2 is in old cheese and fermented foods.
It's also very good.
In cheese?
Or vitamin K, in this case.
In cheese, in old cheese.
Not the British cheese.
Old cheese?
Yeah, old cheese.
Did you say old cheese or old cheese?
Like ripe, like ripe.
We call it outgas in Dutch.
It's like ripe cheese, which is like hard, you know?
Oh, okay.
I think I just better get some K2.
The strong one.
Yeah, you can, vitamin K isn't, sauerkraut, sauerkraut, kimchi, kombucha, just consume plenty of it.
Yeah.
Okay.
Right.
So anyway, but, but, but, um, vitamin D generally.
Okay.
Obviously take it with K2.
It's not, it's not vitamin.
It's, it's a hormone.
It's an immunoregulating hormone.
It's a hormone which regulates your immune system.
Is it?
Okay.
It's, it's, it's not vitamin.
It's not vitamin as such.
I mean, they, it's declared as vitamin, but it's, it's a hormone.
Okay.
And it regulates your immune system.
That's why it's very important to not be deficient.
So studies showed that people who died from COVID, the majority had a vitamin D blood serum level of below 15 nanograms per milliliter.
And optimum is between 50 and 90, 50 and 100.
Okay.
So I have 68.
I haven't been sick since then.
I haven't been sick for 10 years.
Before that I had I took a flu every year now.
Simon, can I just ask you, because I've just had this flu-like bug that is going around, and I wasn't expecting to get it because I dose myself up on my vitamin D and my zinc and stuff, but I still got sideswiped by it for the last week.
Why do you think that is?
I don't know.
Do you know your blood serum level?
Do you take your vitamin together with fats or do you take it just in like that?
Because it's fat soluble.
So you have to take it together with maybe a spoon of olive oil or with a meal in order to be taken up.
So it would be very interesting to know your blood serum level.
You just go to the doctor, it's 20 pounds to get it tested and then you know more.
And of course you can get ill still but the likelihood is is I have to say I did feel I did feel very cheated when I got ill.
I just thought I thought I was invincible, especially given I was taking cold showers every day, which I thought would would instantly make me into a kind of, you know, like a one of those Victorian, Victorian muscular Christians who cold showers and God, you know, and I wasn't going to get ill ever again, but but it didn't seem to quite I mean, I'm not dead.
That's the thing.
Yeah.
And vitamin D is not the only factor, so what I also did is to get my gut under control.
I have goat's milk kefir every day.
Even the goat's milk kefir did not save me.
No, but just for the general public, it's very important that the gut is It's healthy because 70-80% of the immune system is located at the gut.
So people eat lots of gluten or let's say lots of bread, lots of pasta, drink lots of alcohol.
I mean, you British are very good at drinking.
Yeah, it's not good for the gut.
So it's important to cure the gut with good microbes.
So it's very good that you have your kefir, very good to eat fermented stuff.
It's good to eat vegetables, good to eat meat.
I have to say, people are hating for that, but it's very good to eat meat which is organic, okay?
Because inorganic meat has a very unfavorable omega-6, omega-3 fatty acid ratio, which again causes inflammation within your body and makes you sick.
So you want to have really organic meat, pasture meat.
Permaculture meat, which has an omega-3 to omega-6 ratio of 1 to 1 and not 20 to 1.
Let's just keep it rough, the numbers, but studies suggest that.
So it's very good to eat organic meat.
It's very good to eat vegetables.
Enjoy yourself.
Have a beer now and then.
Have a red wine.
Don't go on hard alcohol and try to cut the gluten.
I mean, I love eating my sourdough bread.
If you eat bread, make it yourself at home.
Use more rye, less wheat.
Yogurt treating got very well.
I used to make sourdough.
It's such a time-consuming thing there, Simon.
It's just like... No, it's not.
It's not at all, James.
It's like it's 30 seconds per day just to feed the sourdough.
No, you then have to get... You have to knead it.
You have to do all that stuff.
It's not... Oh, you mean you make the bread yourself, not to take care of the... Yes, that's true.
That's true.
It does.
Yeah.
I mean, I've done it.
It's a bit time-consuming.
And it is better.
It's so much better than the stuff you get from the shops, but...
Not everybody has the time, but there are bakeries that offer this.
So if you get bread, just check if there's a local bakery.
In Brazil, we have local WhatsApp groups, and there are so many neighbors who bake bread.
You just pay them one or two pounds for a kilo of loaf.
So there are always people who will bake it for you.
I mean, it doesn't take a lot of time just to connect yourself locally.
No, no, no.
find people who make sauerkraut, who make these breads, just to have a healthy lifestyle.
Because there's no better way of revolution than to be self-sufficient.
No, I agree.
Simon, I've enjoyed our chat.
I've got to go quite soon, unfortunately, but I just wanted to ask you before we go.
So you've moved out to Brazil.
How are things?
Because we get sort of mixed reports.
I mean, it seems to me that Bolsonaro is fighting a good fight on the vaccine front, but he's being undermined by his state governors or his Supreme Court.
Is that the deal?
Yeah.
I'm not a big fan of Bolsonaro because he used to be a sexist.
Eventually a racist, unfortunately.
But what he says about COVID is quite correct.
I don't know why he says it, but what he says is correct.
Let's just keep it like that.
I think it's correct.
And the Supreme Court, yes, the Supreme Court, whatever he says, whatever he wants to make law, the Supreme Court is getting and they say no.
So now you need a vaccine in order to enter Brazil.
But I also heard sources that say PCR tests are still fine.
Here on the streets, they wanted to ban the masks on the streets, so they just wanted to lift the law to wear masks, but they prolonged it until whenever because of Omicron.
So the latest official numbers, there's actually nobody dying from COVID anymore in Brazil because it's summer, you know?
Seasonality also kicks in in Brazil, and I'd say Besides the mask-wearing fetishism here, the life is fine.
You can go to the beach, you can go to the bar, you can go to the club, you can do whatever you want.
And you've got to wear a mask on the beach?
I think you have to, but nobody does.
So, I know here in Sao Paulo, everybody wears a mask on the street, but if you go to the countryside, it's very hard to find people wearing it on the street.
So, it's also like The more liberal, the more social city is more woke than the countryside and the hilly-billies.
But if you go to the beach, I think you will not see anyone wearing a mask.
I didn't see anyone wearing a mask at the beach.
Also, when you enter a club or a bar, you wear the mask for three seconds until you're at the table.
Then you can, when you have a beer, you can stand up, you can sing the song, no problem.
But in the hallway, although the virus is very active, so you have to wear a mask.
Yeah, well, the virus is very clever.
It knows when you're standing up or when you're sitting down.
When you're standing up, when you're sitting down.
Yes, exactly.
It can only be a weaponized virus that is that intelligent and versatile.
It's very intelligent, yes.
Gain of function.
He knows when you get up.
Simon, where can people now read your stuff?
So, they can read my stuff on Twitter, so I'll have a lawsuit against Twitter at the court case at the end of January, so I'll probably, I'll hopefully get all the count back.
It's Godek et al, et al like scientific, and otherwise it's my Telegram channel, Godek, just my surname.
So, just briefly, you're fighting a lawsuit against Twitter?
Yes, yes, because I don't, I don't, I don't like being, being banned for talking about vitamin D or whatever.
And where are you, where are you fighting this case?
In Brazil.
Oh, okay.
I'm living in Brazil.
And yeah, you've got lawyers there.
Where will it be heard, this case?
It will be heard on 28th of January here in the court in Sao Paulo.
So I got, I got myself a media lawyer, one of the best.
Who has this office at the Paulista, it's the main street of São Paulo.
And he's fighting a good fight against censoring of Big Tech.
And yeah, let's see what's gonna, you know, it could be both ways, you know, Big Tech has lots of power, but let's see where it goes, because there's a law in Brazil that everybody has the right to have a social media account.
So they can't take the right from me, so let's see what's gonna happen.
Let's see what's gonna happen.
I'm not too positive, I'm not too negative.
I think it's a 50-50 chance.
But meanwhile, I'm also on Twitter.
I have an account called DrSimonSpirit, just because it's a fan account.
I'm not running it alone, because they would delete me again, or would delete the account again.
And on Telegram, it's just got G-O-D-D-E-K, and I have a channel with 25,000 followers.
And I'm giving insights into latest science, into papers.
In absurdities, etc.
So it's a more scientific channel, but I'm also communicating with a big sense of humor.
Simon, it's been an absolute pleasure talking to you, and good luck with your lawsuit, and good luck with everything, and enjoy your time in Brazil.
Yeah, muito obrigado, James.
Thanks a lot, and enjoy your time in Great Britain.
Thank you.
Oh, and I must remind people, do please, I welcome your support on Patreon and Subscribestar, and go to my website, dellingpoleworld.com, where you can buy your special friend badges.
And yeah.
Happy Christmas, everybody, as well.
Right.
Thanks a lot, Simon.
Thanks a lot, James.
Enjoy your day.
And when will it be published?
Oh, soon, I should think.
I mean, I'll bring it down.
When I get my act together, it'll be up pretty soon.
So, one to three days?
Yeah, yeah.
One to three days.
Okay, perfect.
Because then tonight I will post this graphic as promised.
Yeah, that'd be cool.
Okay, thanks a lot.
You also have a Telegram channel.
Mine?
Yeah, you've got a Telegram channel.
You must join my Telegram channel because it's really good.
I'll send you an invitation.
Okay, nice.
When I followed yours.
Alright.
Nice.
Okay, alright.
Take care.
Bye-bye.
▲
Export Selection