Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 28, 2022 - The Delingpod - James Delingpole

01:33:30

Dr Mike Yeadon

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Welcome to The Delingpole with me, James Delingpole.
	And I know I always say this about this big special guest, but I'm really excited.
	Back for a third time is Mike Yeadon.
	Mike, Good to see you, James.
	And you too, James.
	I was just saying to Joanna, I'm genuinely looking forward to speaking to you again, because despite all the awfulness that we're going through, you're one of the people who managed somehow to Stay perky.
	Maybe that's just a personal way, yeah.
	If I can return the compliment, Mike.
	I was canvassing my telegram followers on what it was that sent them down the rabbit hole, that red-pilled them, that made them understand that the world is not as it was presented to them most of their lives.
	And quite a lot of them said the thing that really changed me was your first interview with Mike Yeadon.
	I think, I think, you've educated a lot of people and you've, you've, you've been persecuted for it.
	I mean, you've, you've been forced into exile, haven't you, basically?
	Pretty much, pretty much.
	Yeah, pretty much, James.
	So, yeah, I mean, obviously I don't know what would happen had I stayed in the UK, but I had heard from various sources that were not necessarily reliable, but I couldn't ignore them, that March, April time, there was talk of interning, you know, the more annoying critics.
	That's what I'd heard.
	But I didn't know it was true or not, but my house in Kent, our front door is literally on the tarmac road.
	It's a medieval street.
	So, you know, a black suburban could roll up and tap on the door and you disappear.
	Sounds a bit dramatic, but it has happened in other parts of the world.
	So, so there was that.
	And also, I was very worried that Britain would do another one of its lockdowns, even though we know they don't work.
	And that awful man Johnson,
	was asked to rule them out and he didn't rule them out even though we know they don't work and he knows they don't work and he knows that we know they don't work but he's still talking about using them so if they lock down again you might be prohibited from leaving the country and because I had by then secured work visas in the States my wife and I we thought let's go now while we can so we're in Florida in the should we say the land of DeSantis
	He's a very brave guy, I think, Governor Ron DeSantis.
	I think he's put his cards pretty much on the table.
	He's called it COVID theatre.
	It's quite an interesting phrase.
	All of it.
	He said lockdowns, masks, closing your businesses.
	He said it's COVID theatre.
	And he has got, as a Surgeon General, Dr. Joseph Ladapo, who he hired about six months ago, And I knew, I'd heard of him beforehand, because I support America's frontline doctors, and I'd heard him speak.
	So I knew he had already worked stuff out, as I had done.
	And so the fact that he was DeSantis' pick as Surgeon General made me think, well, that means the Governor also knows that it's just, it's a horrible game.
	He hasn't said that, but by using the phrase, As long as I'm in the chair in Florida, we will dispense with COVID theatre and also no one will be required to be injected in order to be in a particular role.
	So he's laid his cards on the table that as long as they re-elect him, then Florida is going to Do what Florida has done, I think, and that's why I'm here.
	That's why we're in this state and in no other state, honestly.
	I mean, apart from what DeSantis says, I mean, he's obviously a hero.
	Does it feel free in Florida at the moment?
	Yeah, obviously I don't have a comparison personally with other states, but I can say that there's almost no mask wearing anywhere, even inside shops and shopping malls.
	There's a little bit, um, but we've, we've been, it's been very generously visited by several couples.
	Some of them have driven from like Colorado, uh, uh, Minnesota, things like that.
	People have made journeys across the nation to take us out to dinner.
	I kid you not.
	And some of them have said that.
	Americans are very generous, aren't they?
	They're very friendly.
	They're very generous and they're very friendly, very generous.
	And they don't mind travel.
	I'm just constantly shocked at, uh, how, You know, driving to Tennessee.
	I don't know how many hours it is.
	Probably take me three or four days.
	But, you know, we've met a couple here and they're just going to nip off to Tennessee.
	It'll take them 14 hours of almost continuous driving.
	But they just take it in turns and they'll get there tomorrow morning.
	Anyway, so yes.
	And I am told that in some of those other states it really is awful.
	Certainly California and New York still are really quite bonkers.
	Really deranged places.
	And I'm told that a thousand, I think it's a thousand people a day net are flooding into Florida, which is, it's not that many.
	But you know, it's a thousand and it's every day and it's the net and it's been going on pretty much for two years.
	And yeah, and the effect of this is that it's quite hard to find property to rent or buy.
	So at the moment we're renting and we're moving around You know, a condominium block, as it were.
	We're taking the availabilities, in other words, the bits that others didn't want.
	But it's okay.
	We're happy to be here and, you know, we'll be here for some time.
	I won't say exactly where we are, but should we say we're in southwest Florida somewhere and we'll be here for a while and then we'll make a decision as to what we're going to do towards the end of the year.
	By which time, I mean, it shows we're pretty serious, by which time I Our UK property will be sold, we think.
	And honestly, I can't see any point in coming back.
	If I was ever allowed to visit family and friends, I would.
	But at the moment, the situation is that unless you're an American citizen or a resident, so not a visa visitor, which is what I am, if you're a resident or a citizen, you don't have to be vaccinated to enter the US.
	But if you're like me, a foreigner with a visa, if I leave, I can't come back.
	Not legally, anyway.
	How did you arrange that?
	I mean, how did you get in without a vaccine?
	No, it was completely legally.
	That awful man, President Biden, Stopped people flying in.
	So you couldn't arrive by air after December the 6th and we got our visas about that time.
	So we were in England, got them sorted out in the US Embassy in London.
	But anyway, so we were checking all the rules and we noticed that you could still come in through seaports and land borders.
	So we thought, oh, okay.
	And so you could still enter legally without just a negative PCR test up to, I think it was the 31st of December.
	It might've been a bit later.
	So we, so we went into Mexico and then had a few days there.
	And then we took a dogleg through Mexico City to a very small, rather dodgy airport.
	I call it a half-horse town.
	It's the most northerly half-horse town airport you can find.
	And we waited there while a friend of a friend, who's a Mexican, drove four hours south across the border, rendezvoused with us, and drove us four hours back, you know, through one of the legal border crossings.
	We presented our credentials, and after a rather worrisome two-hour wait, they came out and said, you know, enjoy America.
	And that was, they didn't even ask for the test, by the way.
	So it looked like the border people on the Mexican border were not even enforcing the rules.
	And they were not wearing, none of the staff were wearing any masks, either outside or in the primary and secondary inspection.
	And it was quite a, we were told it was an unwise thing to have done.
	You know, a couple of gringos, you know, touring across drug country.
	But it's not that it's not that dangerous where we went.
	We were not on the west side.
	That would be suicide.
	But sort of like in central Mexico, came up, actually flew into Arizona because we got a couple of friends in Tucson.
	So I spent two days in Tucson and then over to Phoenix and then flew to Miami for a month.
	And then we're down in On the southwest side.
	Yeah, southwest.
	So we got in legally, but if we leave, I don't think we can come back in.
	So just let's not leave.
	That's what we're doing.
	It's quite upsetting that we can't visit our family because we couldn't come back and they can't come in anyway.
	They can't come in.
	Yes, I forgot to finish the story.
	So eventually Biden closed all the borders to foreigners.
	You can't legally enter by air, seaport or land unless you just get lucky.
	And I do know, I know a family that just, bold as brass, just flew into, I think they flew into Tampa about six weeks ago and nobody asked them.
	It just flew in.
	It's quite a risk though, isn't it?
	It is quite a risk.
	Is American immigration very good at turning you back?
	Absolutely.
	They don't think, oh, it's going to be awful.
	You know, we'd have to, like, stick you in the brig until the flight comes.
	They don't care.
	They love it.
	The ultimate discretion lies with the Customs and Border Protection officer.
	And if they don't like the look of you in any way, Apparently they don't even have to have a formal grounds.
	It could be just, you know, I didn't like the story.
	For example, if they think you're not visiting, but you're likely to illegally stay, if that's their impression, they don't have to prove it.
	And so you need a return ticket and you maybe need a list of appointments if you were over on business.
	Who are you seeing and when?
	Where will you be staying?
	And if it's just, oh, I'm just going to tour around for a bit and then I'll come home when I'm done, that won't do.
	Especially if they, in our case, we had four heavy suitcases.
	We clearly weren't on holiday.
	But they said, why are you here?
	And I said, well, I've got a job of work to do for a couple of nonprofits, medical nonprofits, and I do.
	And they said, well, thanks for coming.
	We've never had someone like you across the Mexican border.
	So, you know, we, you know, we, yeah, we basically, we got a certain type of visa, which was, I was very pleased to get, but it's normally the kind that movie stars get and I'm not a movie star.
	Basically, you can apply for, if you're outstanding in a particular field, normally it's like the performing arts and stuff like that, or politics, I guess, or maybe journalism, your field.
	But, so we gave it a punt, and it didn't take long, and they said, okay, fine.
	Then the main problem the next few months was we're just complete amateurs.
	We didn't know how to, We didn't have to translate the approval into a stamped visa, stamped passport.
	And in the end, it's like easy.
	You have to do it in your own country because nobody will give you a priority or appointment if you're anywhere else.
	And the U.S.
	no longer perform that final step inside the U.S.
	itself, which is bizarre.
	But apparently since 9-11, If you've applied for a visa and granted it, it has to be all buttoned up and in a US embassy outside of the States, and then you present credentials all finished.
	I didn't know that.
	So we wasted time in Central America last summer trying to get appointments in one despotic regime after another before eventually flying home with our tail between our legs.
	And we got it sorted out in three weeks in London.
	So here we are.
	And yeah, I hope we're doing the right thing.
	It's certainly entertaining.
	Well done for making a home run from coldness.
	It is extraordinary, isn't it, that we're having a conversation where There's a possibility that you could have been picked up by the government of cuddly Boris Johnson in England, the land of the village Bobby and Dixon of Dock Green and... All gone, James.
	The legal system, the envy of the world, English common law.
	All this is gone, hasn't it?
	It has all gone.
	I don't think you're being paranoid, because to remind those listeners and viewers who haven't come across you before, I mean, you were a senior figure in the pharmaceutical industry.
	Yeah, so that's right.
	I'm very much a normie.
	I think you were too, James, until two and a bit years ago.
	So I remember once telling their story of how What Ron DeSantis calls COVID theatre, and I call it COVID lies.
	I was just taking them through all the data, and I had several papers I could point to on my computer.
	And I said, so the bottom line is that it's all a big trick.
	I mean, you could call it a conspiracy if you want, whatever you want.
	And the person, they clearly listened to me for like 20 minutes.
	This is an accountant, so someone who's been my accountant for over a decade.
	So he knows I've done a few things.
	I was in the industry and then I started a biotech and we sold that successfully.
	So he looks at me brightly and he said, have you always been a conspiracy theorist, Mike?
	I nearly strangled him.
	I said, that's exactly the point.
	No, I, you know, all the things you just said, James, you know, you know, the romanticism of the leaving liberal democracy, the mother of parliaments and all.
	I knew there was corruption.
	There always is corruption.
	But it's like, in the end, the government wouldn't do things like that, would they?
	That was what I thought.
	And they, you know what?
	They would, they will.
	And it's not even the government mostly.
	It's the, if you remember House of Cards, a rather nasty, dark, you know, drama.
	And I think it was Sir Francis Urquhart-Stewart or whatever it was.
	There were nasty figures that would float around the establishment, the sound of the establishment, but they were really unpleasant characters that would influence people and...
	And they would often manipulate elected and appointed politicians because they were a bit stupid.
	But it was those were the people behind the power.
	And I suspect it's people like that.
	I don't even think it's the first level saps, you know, on Sage, some of whom I could happily call liars.
	Hello, Sir Patrick.
	Yes.
	So, you know, I don't believe... You're old mucker, Sir Patrick Ballance.
	That would probably be slightly too big a claim, but yes, I was in the industry for 32 years, mostly in big pharma and then a decade or so in biotech.
	So our paths of Sir Patrick's and mine, when he was just at, crossed in about, I think it was 1990 or so, plus minus a year.
	And he was doing a postgraduate degree, a research degree, doing a PhD at Wellcome Research.
	He'd managed to settle under the research director.
	That's quite very lucky for him.
	And so I don't know how that happened.
	That's quite interesting just to think about it.
	But he managed to buzzsaw his way through a research-based PhD in two years.
	And we always used to sort of comment that that Pat bloke will end up running one of these big drug companies.
	And sure enough, he did.
	You know, 10 years later, he was running it.
	So, you know.
	Yeah, I thought I have to say it did occur to me at the time.
	I thought he must be a friend of a friend.
	So I wouldn't say I knew him, but we did work in the same place for at least a year and I attended a presentation of his and vice versa.
	I even think I referred to some of his papers in some of mine when I was at that point in my career where I cared about publishing.
	But then after Glaxo bought Welcome in 95, I zipped off down to Sandwich in Kent and I stayed the rest of my big pharma career down there with Pfizer.
	Pfizer wasn't bothered about publishing literature mostly.
	People need to understand that commercial science does not turn on peer-reviewed journal articles.
	You don't get paid for that.
	The shareholders do not pay.
	Scientists do that.
	They did it welcome, but that's because they were they didn't know what they were doing.
	Frankly, that's why they got bought.
	But so what you really want commercial results in the end, you know, acquiring compounds, forming business relationships that eventually are more profitable than if you've not been involved.
	Yes, certainly selecting compounds, moving them forward into the clinic.
	And that's that's the sort of thing I did.
	So by the time they closed the site in 2011, I had been for some time Vice President and Worldwide Head of Allergy and Respiratory Research for Pfizer.
	So I don't know how I survived.
	I think I survived, honestly, because I was reasonably good.
	I wasn't a political worker.
	I didn't like that stuff.
	I wasn't any good at it.
	So they didn't fire me because we kept producing for a while.
	And after the site closed, a number of things happened.
	So one is, you know, I was very passionate about the work we were doing, and I worked very hard to try and get another company, any company, to buy some of the stuff we were doing that Pfizer had given up on.
	There are generics companies like Mylan is one of them and it's the second biggest and they did then acquire the inhaler device that my colleagues and I've been working on and several compounds in it and I think several scores of staff.
	So they just literally moved building at the Sandwich Research Site, sold the site to a new landlord, Mylan, I think, had either bought or leased some buildings to run this activity.
	It was a bit of my old portfolio, not just mine, but with about half a dozen senior folks in each of the different disciplines, and we made that happen.
	And it was acquired in November after I'd left, so I pitched it, but I was not involved in the deal.
	And I would look at their pipeline every couple of years, and it took them a long time, but it actually is on the market now, what we were working on.
	is on the market delivering generic inhaled steroids and beta-agons to people with chronic respiratory disease.
	And that was the vision.
	I don't know what else they're doing.
	None of them will speak to me anymore, I'm afraid.
	I'm persona non grata in my former world.
	But just to let people know then, another thing.
	So I started consulting for biotech.
	And that happened because I literally got a call a few weeks after the site closure announcement had been made public.
	And I got called by someone from Boston who was the CEO of a company I've never heard of.
	But he had previously been CEO of a biotech that I had led to.
	technical due diligence on and he said I remember being impressed by you you were you were thorough well briefed you know courteous and uh yeah we could have done a deal but there wasn't the business interest so when I heard that you guys were being flying out of work I wondered would you fancy doing a bit of consulting for me so that's how it worked and that was my first gig and before I'd even left Pfizer with the permission of my boss this was years ago
	um because you can't work for someone else while you're still on contract without permission so I asked them under the circumstances they said sure so I was oscillating backwards and forwards to Boston while I was still on Pfizer's shilling until they fired me at the end of the year um so that's what I did um and while I was doing that and I spoke to people and they said well what's happening to your old pipelines And I explained that hoping to sell, I hope Pfizer will sell some of it.
	They said, what about the other stuff?
	And I said, well, I don't know.
	They said, look, if you do something like this, here's a back of the napkin pitch.
	Uh, you should, you will be able to raise venture finance.
	I said, what about me?
	And it's like, yeah, yeah, you will be able to.
	Uh, it did take you 70 presentations and London was not interested, nor, nor investors in, uh, nor Kate Bingham, by the way.
	Remember she was the queen bee of the vaccine thing.
	I was at Oxford with, with Kate.
	She's in my college.
	There you go.
	So you, you were at Oxford and I pitched to Kate, uh, in her capacity as, I think she was CEO of a biotech fund.
	And she's, she's a really clever woman, but I, in the end it was, uh, A chance meeting in the financial districts of San Francisco with a friend of a friend.
	I got introduced to a really quite maverick investor, someone who would invest in anything if they thought it would make money.
	And I spoke for 20 minutes.
	The guy got up, tapped me on the shoulder and spoke to his chief operating officer and said, look, Mike, I'm going to be, I'm, I'm your investor.
	It's a bit like Dragon's Den.
	We will be your sole investor and we will help you extract those compounds.
	And in return, We will be in charge of the sort of business development process, which of course is, you become then, you're at risk of being completely, you know, done over.
	And they did do us over a little bit, but they put a tremendous faith in us.
	And the reason I asked him about a year later, and he said, well, the fact that you were there 7,000 miles from home, Pitching stuff that was of no use unless you could raise money and then you would have to ride it meant I believed you and there were good reasons for availability of the assets and overall I just I thought you'll make something happen.
	You're the kind of people who make something happen and that was it.
	So I did that and we ran that for six years, got bought by Novartis.
	Novartis subsequently abandoned the compound.
	I'm sorry that they did but to the critics out there It's not my job anymore, is it?
	Once they bought the bloody thing, if they decide for any reason, having done full diligence and paid lots of money, which they did, if for any reason they decide not to advance it, well, I don't know why that is.
	You give it a go if you think you can do it better, critics, all right?
	So yeah, so that's what I was doing.
	That's what I've done for my life.
	I think you establish your credentials, Mike, as somebody who is steeped in the pharma industry, knows what he's talking about.
	And you and I know, because there have been many unfortunate cases of this, that the Big Pharma does not treat kindly people whom it considers to be traitors to the cause.
	And, I mean, even to the point of bumping them off.
	You must be aware of this.
	I mean, it's a... Yeah, yeah.
	I do remember that there was... I can't remember the names of the companies, and it'd be wrong to mention.
	Actually, I can now, and I still won't mention.
	But there were several Swiss companies, and I remember some One or more scientists have moved from one to the other or left and blown a whistle and was kind of chased around.
	And yeah, I think eventually at least one was killed or died in mysterious circumstances.
	And another got arrested for things they hadn't done and vanished in jail for a decade.
	So yeah, it's not, it's not, it's not recommended what I'm doing.
	You've been very brave.
	Well, I don't know if it's brave.
	I think it's, I honestly think I didn't have a choice once I realised what was going on.
	I don't know the whole of it, but once I realised what was happening was not what we were being told, and therefore there's an ulterior motive, and it's obvious that there is.
	It is funny, in fact, as we talk about that, I bumped into at least two completely different people from different schools of thought, and everything, where they think it's going, where I think it's going, based on the science, they arrive at exactly the same spot, sadly.
	Oh, you better tell me.
	I mean, I was going to ask you about, you've written a very robust piece called The Covid Lies, which I commend to people.
	I think you can find it at doctorsforcovidethics.org.
	We obviously haven't got time to talk about every detail.
	In the three conversations we've had on the podcast, your position has hardened, hasn't it?
	You used to be quite, you know, you were thinking that maybe people were acting honestly but mistakenly, but now you think that this is, well, tell us what you think now.
	Yeah, yeah, you're right.
	So early on, even in the spring of 2020, I could tell things were wrong in that talking heads on the TV were saying things that I knew that they didn't believe.
	And for example, when they were speculating about whether having had this virus, whether having recovered from it, whether they would have immunity or not.
	And if so, how long would it last?
	I thought, you know, this literally is immunology 101, you know, and the person saying it has the same training as I do.
	So I became very suspicious quite early.
	And also, this idea of lockdown, as soon as I heard it, I thought, this is prison slang.
	And I thought, I'll go and find the literature that supports lockdown or shelter in place.
	There's none, right?
	So there isn't any.
	It's never been used anywhere ever before, right?
	So I realized by end of March that we were going down a nasty dark tunnel, and then when sure enough, instead of being, was it three weeks to flatten the curve or anyway, when Mr. Johnson extended the lockdown, that's when my hair started coming out.
	So I thought, yeah, there's no reason for them ever to release it or whatever.
	So yes, but at first I thought, Yeah, I think at first I came up with this idea because I probably couldn't believe that it could be planned for two reasons.
	One, I didn't think people would be that evil.
	And two, it's too complicated, surely.
	But we'll come back to both of those.
	And therefore, I thought, well, Then these people are opportunists.
	You know, like, if you're a green person and you'd really rather we didn't fly or drive our cars, you'd think, oh my God, you know, there's reduced activity in travel.
	We'll take advantage of that.
	And then there'd be other people in the financial system who could perhaps use it to transfer huge sums of money through subsidies from the poor people who pay the taxes to the rich people who receive the subsidies, ultimately.
	So that they could be too often in the pharma industry, you know, they might have been tinkering with some vaccines.
	It's like, oh my God, instead of a few hundred million doses, maybe we can jab everybody twice.
	You know, that's I could imagine that could be quite enticing.
	And for a few months I had satisfied myself.
	The phrase I used was convergence opportunism.
	Yes.
	That kind of sounds sensible but it's bullshit and I kind of thought it wasn't quite right.
	Why?
	Too much preparation.
	How did the whole world end up with enough PCR tests to be able to kind of swap every whatever, to swap the number of people who were being tested almost everywhere from Costa Rica to Mexico to New York and so on.
	So You know, the literary requires, it probably has been tens of billions of these things, more units of any single medical product probably that's ever been made before, apart from aspirin or something, you know, the over-the-counter headache tablets, there's probably never been any medical, anyway, I could, there's too much preparation, but on to the point of people wouldn't be that bad, would they?
	I kept coming across examples, Here's one, for example.
	You may remember, I think it was in the 1980s, where there was a contaminated blood scandal, and blood products had been given to people with factor X deficiency, certain haemophilias.
	And in fact, it happened to the son of my sister's best friend, who lived next door, and her son had been given this contaminated blood product to treat his haemophilia, and I think he'd got one of the nastier hepatitises.
	And was at risk of dying either of the hepatitis or of cancer which can follow from it.
	And it turns out that the civil servants and the governments of the day knew perfectly well that the blood products either were contaminated or were likely to be because the blood products came at low cost because they were collected from prisoners and intravenous drug users in the US who could just walk in and donate blood.
	Um, and the government's just they basically just like, well, we don't really care.
	We won't be caught and it'll be someone else's problem.
	Um, and that there have been several such examples.
	Now I know that, you know, it's awful if it's happened to you, but it, it doesn't affect the whole world.
	But, uh, country by country keep coming across occasions where, where truly awful things have happened.
	Um, and you know, in the end you're left with, with no choice.
	So for example, if people would like to go and look at the, You know, the Covid lies, or how much of it was truth, and the answer, unfortunately, is none of it.
	But just very briefly, I won't take more than a sentence or so, I've got 12 and I keep adding to them.
	Oh yeah, please, tell us.
	In order to get people to run for the hills and do what they're told, they lied to us about how lethal this virus was, as compared with other respiratory viruses.
	So, extraordinary lethality.
	It's not true, is it?
	It's a little bit worse than flu.
	They said because it's new there'll be no prior immunity.
	Well, that's always unlikely because viruses, even under mysterious circumstances, if they're related to prior viruses, some people will have been exposed to relatives of those earlier viruses.
	And it's true.
	I knew it would be true and it was true.
	So somewhere between a third and a half had some kind of immunity.
	Is this from SARS-CoV-1?
	It could be SARS-CoV-1, it could be from other people that they may know now, but there are several coronaviruses, some of which cause human common colds.
	So I think there are like seven coronaviruses now known to infect human airways.
	But certainly that was the idea, that we're battered by, you know, the no virus people sometimes get on my case and I think they might have something, there is something In what they're saying, by the way.
	But when I strike back and say, I'll accept there's no viruses as long as you will provide me with an alternative means to explain transmission.
	The common experience is that people do catch colds from each other.
	So if you're telling me it's purely, what do they call it?
	Terrain, like depression or bad nutrition.
	So how come then a fit, well and cheerful person can visit a friend with a cold and then get a cold?
	I don't care what you call it.
	So if you don't call it viruses and you say it's not this little sphere, that's an exosome, that's fine.
	But I think there's a transmissible agent and I think that's people's common experience.
	Furthermore, at an immunological level, you can detect antibodies to and T cells that respond to bits of things that we call viruses.
	So even if they're not it, There's this, what I call this molecular fingerprint is left after infection.
	So, so it's the common experience of being infected in respiratory illnesses.
	And then this, this, you know, the immunologists, maybe virology is a fraud.
	I don't know much about it, but I can tell you immunology is definitely not, you know, there are some dodgy techniques, but a lot of what, you know, of what it seems, I think is, is probably the most complicated thing other than the human brain that we know about, because we don't understand it.
	And it wasn't even a discipline when I trained as a biochemist stroke toxicologist.
	You could not do a degree in immunology, I don't think, in Britain.
	So it's bodied off and become an enormous discipline.
	So yes, that was true and I have deviated.
	But other people, what were they saying?
	No one's safe till everyone's safe.
	I mean, that's, come on.
	We knew at the time, and it's been hardened ever since, that pretty much the only people who are at serious risk of getting really ill and dying are the people who are close to the end of their life by virtue of age and usually additional chronic life-shortening illnesses.
	So you can see already we shouldn't be locking down because it's not much worse than flu if anything and lots of people have got immunity and the only people it matters really are the old people.
	Then, very quickly, we were told you could carry and transmit this thing, this virus, without any symptoms yourself.
	That's just not true.
	I'm not saying it never occurs, but it's extremely rare.
	It's epidemiologically irrelevant.
	So I would say that was the central psychological deceit.
	It's really actually, I'll pause and say that again.
	The idea that you could carry and transmit and give others this infective agent without having any symptoms yourself.
	It's a central psychological deceit.
	So you've been told to be frightened.
	It's a really horrible thing.
	And you all have to wear masks and separate, but it's like any person could give, if you're a well person, any person walking down the street might breathe on you and give it to you, and you could kill granny and so on.
	So, and people still believe that now, two years later, even though the data, surely their experience is they don't know anyone who isn't relatively old and already ill that's died.
	But nevertheless, so that was the central.
	It's brilliant, brilliant psychology.
	You've given a very good explanation before of why asymptomatic transmission is just nonsense.
	Really unlike, really unlikely.
	So I never say never.
	Basically, In order to let's let's accept for the moment that there is something in release from your airways if you're heavily infected it's releasing the secretions and you're breathing it out coughing it out so it's not to anger the virus the no virus people there's a transmissible agent and the thing is in order to shed that stuff wrong word in order to spray it out you need symptoms you know coughing you that does definitely generate aerosols that will contain
	Micro samples of whatever is in your airway surface liquid in your upper airway when you get really bad cough central airways and certainly from sort of nose, larynx, mouth.
	But if like me right now, no symptoms whatsoever, that means even if I had viruses in me, I'm not shedding them.
	And by the way, I don't have any because if I did, it would be attacking me and I'd be fighting back.
	And that's what would make me ill.
	That's what causes the common cold.
	So some infective agents landed.
	It's replicating and doing its best to whatever they do, you know, to replicate, to preserve their genetic lineage.
	And you're doing your best to get rid of this damn interloper using powerful immunological weapons, some of which can raise your temperature and hurt you.
	You end up with sore throat and swollen lymph nodes in your neck and under your arm.
	But so if you've got no symptoms, a number of things.
	One is you're not an active sprayer.
	The more important thing is if you've got no symptoms, you don't have much viral load in you.
	So it's a low level and eight being squirted out.
	So that's the logic and it's always been true.
	And empirically it's actually been studied, and then meta-analyses where you combine studies that are rather similar, and there's no question that we're looking at somewhere between like 30 to 50 fold less likely to infect someone if you have a so-called positive test and no symptoms compared with a positive test and you have got symptoms.
	And then the final proof of the pudding is lockdowns don't do anything.
	The reason they don't do anything is not much transmission was occurring between the People without symptoms, we call them well.
	Even if some of them had the virus, there wasn't much transmission going on.
	Because, for reasons I've explained, low loads and they weren't spraying the stuff.
	And so when you then stop those people from interacting, nothing happens.
	So I remember that awful, was it Chris Snowden, as a rather arrogant journalist.
	I haven't thought about him for a long time.
	A libertarian, supposedly.
	I mean, working for a think tank, where supposedly the people who work for think tanks are supposed to think, sort of blue sky thinking, looking at the facts.
	He helped me because, yes, he and Toby Young were doing a head-to-head about all the measures, and I remember Snowden saying arrogantly, and I was puffing away on his frag, he was saying that all the people on the other side must be denying, you know, Germ theory, whatever.
	Transmission from person to person.
	Because if that wasn't true, then, you know, since that's true, then if you reduce the number of contacts, that will reduce transmission.
	And in a heartbeat, I realized.
	Silly men haven't been thinking.
	And it's not the number of contacts you have per day that matters, Chris.
	It's the number of potentially infectious contacts.
	That's what matters.
	It doesn't make any difference.
	Honestly, you can go and hug someone who's a positive test result with no symptoms.
	You won't get it or give it.
	So you were wrong.
	But I credit you with being so rude that I thought, I know he's wrong.
	And it's like, ah, you've just given me the answer.
	You've got the wrong mental model of transmission.
	But here's the thing, here's the magic thing.
	The people with symptoms who are ill, they don't need to be told to stay at home until lockdown because if you've ever had flu, and I had flu last year, you don't need to be told not to go out.
	It's hard enough to get out of bed, brush your teeth, go to the loo and have a cup of tea.
	It's really tough.
	So hardly anybody who's got a raging COVID-19 disease, or influenza for that matter, hardly any of them will be out and about.
	Now, there will be occasions, there'll be perhaps some people who are roughly tufty and manage to somehow have a half decent amount of virus in their airway and not show much by way of symptoms.
	But the bulk of the work has been done already, naturally, by people who are sick.
	Perfect.
	who are also best source of infection, instinctively keep away from each other because they're ill. - Almost as though nature has designed us not to spread it too much and has taught us. - Perfect, perfect.
	And in fact, I've got one more thing that shows you how wonderful evolution is.
	When you're wandering around outside, you're coming up to something, so you're walking towards somebody, If you're a male, certainly when I was younger, I would assess the person, are they a threat to me?
	You know, a physical threat.
	I used to live in Portsmouth, I'm in my 20s.
	Does this person look like they might wreak some violence on me?
	Nowadays, I'm thinking, you know, and you do this automatically, you look without noticing Um, you're scanning them for whether they're potentially a health threat to you.
	So what's their, what is their gaze like?
	Uh, what about their, their gaze?
	Uh, are their eyes bright and open?
	If they're coughed and hunching, you know, Really, really coughing.
	You might have TB or something.
	What do you do?
	You can't help it.
	You kind of walk around and step off the page.
	You do.
	And so I tell you what, people don't let other people cough in their faces.
	So even if in the unlikely event that some nutcase, you know, whatever, brave person, foolish person had gone out anyway, and needs to go out and get whatever it was, their medicines or a box of facts.
	Um, they, uh, you, you almost certainly, they wouldn't encounter someone because most of us have got this mental, uh, radar running.
	Why is this?
	You might think, well, I'm not worried about whether somebody might, I don't know, cook me too many fried eggs and bacon and give me heart attacks.
	It's, it's to do with the immediacy.
	The, if you think about like 30,000 years ago, where I'm sure we probably had these occasional respiratory infections.
	If you caught that in the wintertime, say, say you were the prime Breadwinner or deer stalker, whatever it is.
	You and your family might die if you were ill for two weeks in the middle of winter, if you weren't in a farming community.
	So it's bloody important that you have really good radar and you're assessing, is this person an acute spiritual health threat to me?
	And if they are, You probably couldn't force yourself to go up and give them a hug.
	You did the strangers, you know, you go around.
	So that's why it was all nonsense.
	And Christopher Snowden, the more you think about it, the more it's really obvious what I've said is true.
	And then, as I've said, it has been empirically studied dozens and dozens of times.
	And there's lots of peer-reviewed journal articles.
	So I'm afraid a lot of the people on my side of the fence, shall we say, who are saying, you know, you shouldn't be locking people down and definitely never Insisting that they get vaccinated.
	I can't persuade even all of them to use the L word.
	They are lying.
	They're not mistaken.
	And it's not just we're working these things through.
	It says, go and have a look, folks, that the masks work, lockdowns work, there were no treatments.
	All three of those are lies.
	And they knew they were lies.
	Right?
	Most of these, they knew they were lies before they were imposed.
	That we're not sure if you can become reinfected.
	That's this point about immunology 101 says you can't.
	Yes, there's the odd one-off, but I'm not even sure that they really are reinfected.
	Yes, actually Mike, I wanted to ask... I thought positive twice, yes.
	I wanted to ask you about that one because I had a debate with one of the Probably several doctors in my group, but there's one doctor who's completely on, or almost completely on side, but she said that she knows of lots of people who've had it, whatever it is, twice.
	I personally have had it twice in as much as I had flu-like experiences, you know, slightly different the two times, and the PCR tests, which I know Completely inaccurate, but what would you say to people who say, well, I had it twice and I'm convinced?
	Yes.
	Yeah, no, fair enough.
	I'd say, one, I don't believe that the symptoms associated with infection by this real or alleged virus, SARS-CoV-2, are so outstandingly different from the symptoms you get when infected by any other Alleged virus that the symptoms alone is going to tell you very much.
	And by the way, I'm not sure what the upper limit of estimates are with whatever these infective agents are.
	But last time I looked, there were at least 60 different entities that can infect the human respiratory tract.
	Isn't that amazing?
	So you could have been infected by what I think is you could have been infected by any one of a number of other infectious agents.
	And since the symptoms can overlap, And then all you need in order to spring the trap is for a PCR test to be positive and then you'll think you've had it twice and you'll go well look the test says I have symptoms are look I've lost my sense of smell it's like If you don't notice when you've had a cold, you often can't taste it.
	And it's not everybody, but not everybody says that they lose their sense of smell either.
	So it's just bizarre.
	Even doctors seem unable to like separate these categories.
	So the PCR test, you can definitely get a positive result, even if you've no virus in you.
	Or a different virus, right?
	Or it could even be the real virus.
	Let's say you've got one copy, because that's what Harry Muller said.
	He said, it's such a technique.
	It's technique for making a lot of something out of something.
	And the lowest limit of detection is one unit of the thing you're looking for.
	Now, no one thinks you'd be made ill if you had like one molecule of RNA.
	Are we?
	Come on.
	Just to give people an idea, human cells are enormous compared with viruses.
	And if you had a million cells, human cells, like from your blood, if you get like a biro like this, this sort of biro, and just make a careful dot on a white piece of paper, that would be about a million cells.
	If you had them in a little test tube, span them down in a centrifuge, scrape them out, put them next to the dot, that's about a million, just to give you an idea of how many there are.
	Now, these alleged viruses are tiny compared with these These cells.
	So what one tiny part of that is enough to sicken the entire body?
	No, it probably isn't.
	So it's the same with bacteria in water.
	So we don't want any coliform, which is like fecal bacteria in your drinking water.
	But if there were one or two per litre or something, it wouldn't make you ill.
	It's not enough.
	You've got wonderful protection.
	There's acid in your stomach and so on.
	But if you have 10 per litre or 100 per litre or it's turbid, you know, it's cloudy, don't drink that.
	You know, and it's dose-related, and it is dose-related.
	The inoculum, the size of an infective sort of blob required to really to light up an infection in you, will be dose-related, and it'll vary perhaps with your own robustness, physiological robustness, and luck and things like that.
	Back to my point, you could have several copies of this viral material, could be dead, as dead nucleotides as Tony Fauci would say.
	So you could have a genuine positive that is at the molecular biological level, but you haven't got the disease, you wouldn't expect to have any symptoms.
	You could have all the symptoms and not have this virus and that's because there are scores of other viruses that can produce, I'm not saying they all produce the same symptoms that would be silly, but it is interesting even when you have a cold sometimes we say it was a really bad cold you know that's true sometimes it's like 24 hours you think oh where did that go and other times certainly when I was a smoker I would get like a hacking cough and it would persist for like weeks but it wasn't flu you know it was mostly upper respiratory tract and nose and so on so so I think
	A lot of the time, people have not realized.
	So if the asymptomatic transmission lie is the central psychological deceit, I would say the PCR test and belief in it, it's the central operational deceit.
	Even now, people point to it and say, well, but I've got a test, you know, Mike, I must have it.
	It's like, not really, no.
	And it's actually good science, but it's been badly used.
	And And also, it's just so far out of the norm of the way we do biomedical measurements.
	I can't remember what the discipline would be.
	Anyway, medical biochemistry.
	It's not being done properly.
	So, yes, we just got through this idea of no reinfection.
	Then I don't think variants.
	I don't want to get into a big argument about it, because in the end we'll lose our liberty while we argue about whether viruses exist or whether variants are different enough to matter.
	So it's like, will you people stop writing to me about whether viruses exist or not?
	I've made the deal eminently clear.
	My reasoning, my arguments about what's going on, Actually don't require viruses at all.
	You know, they don't.
	It's mostly psychological.
	It's mostly psychological.
	And people following orders and bad testing and then being jabbed by dangerous materials.
	You don't actually have to have a virus at all.
	And I do believe that the thing that they've talked about, this SARS-CoV-2, I do think it exists.
	Whether it's actually has been released is another question.
	So sometimes I'm, I'm open minded, not stupid.
	I'm open minded enough to say it's not unequivocal where we are with this.
	Is it?
	Was it really a bio weapon?
	that mostly acted through fear propaganda rather than actually what it did.
	Because I would say, if it was a bioweapon, it's a pretty rubbish one, because it kills one in 500 or one in 1000, and the average age of death, exactly the same as the average age of death in the same place from all other causes.
	So it's a really, in fact, that was one of the things that got me.
	Logically, I thought, well, we've introduced a new source of death, a new source of more of fatal agent.
	And it biases, it kills people towards the end of their life and doesn't, it's much less risky for the young.
	I thought it must do something to the sort of age lethality structure, I think, and there's no effects at all.
	And so, anyway, so that the variant stuff, the variants, again, lots of people seem to dwell on the variants.
	My point there is that Every time the virus replicates, it makes typographical errors.
	These particular types of agents have got inbuilt error detection, error correction software, wetware.
	And so, although it makes typos, mutations, most of them are corrected.
	Of the ones that are not corrected, most are lethal, so they don't get to replicate.
	And a small number will be better, as far as it's concerned, in some way.
	And let's face it, if it became an option of more transmissible or more lethal, think about this for a moment.
	Which one is likely to propel the genes of the progeny further?
	And the answer is it's the one that's more infectious, because it will then get to several more hosts, use yours to grow in and then go on again.
	Whereas if in fact it became more lethal, it would truncate that transmission chain more quickly and they'll die out.
	So just, you know, if you've got a choice of becoming more infectious or more lethal, and then you just run the cycle of life, it always favours the more transmissible, less lethal.
	And that is in fact what we observed.
	So although on every cycle it's not necessarily going to go that way, more transmissible, less lethal, over time they always do.
	In fact, if they ever went the other way, James, There'd be no human beings if they ever went the other way.
	If they ever went more transmissible and more lethal and then kept doing that, humans would be gone.
	Or other animals that can suffer from these viruses.
	And as far as I can tell, there's no examples of that.
	So, you know, you can see the sort of genetic logic and then the converse logic if what they're saying might happen.
	It was true.
	It just doesn't occur.
	In fact, it's worth me saying this.
	I'm going to write, I'm going to try and develop something which I'm starting to think about, but I just want to put it in people's minds.
	I'm not actually sure that global respiratory virus pandemics are possible.
	If I'm right, it's so important because, folks, if you don't know this, you should read up about it.
	The WHO has proposed an amended treaty and the amendments are effectively, if it all gets signed off, that the WHO exclusively and without peer review gets to decide if a pandemic is occurring.
	And I assure you, you can make it look like a pandemic just by misuse of PCR testing.
	So for example, I personally don't think there's a bird flu pandemic going through the chicken and turkey and duck herd flocks.
	I don't think so.
	But they're using them to To damage the supply chain of food.
	Really, really frightening.
	So I've just lost the thread of the thinking.
	Yeah, so I'm not sure that a respiratory viral pandemic of any consequence is possible.
	Because if you have a very serious infection, Generally the ones that end up killing you generally have shorter incubation times.
	Not always, but it's a general rule of thumb.
	So if you think of toxicology, if you take a little dose of something and it doesn't make you ill, and then you take three times the dose and it makes you ill in a few hours, if you take 10 times the dose, it'll probably make you ill in A few minutes, you know, whatever that is.
	Not always the case, but usually the severity and the latency of the lag period, they tend to be inversely related.
	And so I think with something like Ebola, I think it's true that most people become ill the same day they become infected, something like within 24 hours or so.
	And that means, imagine if you had a respiratory infection like that.
	So it seems to me about the time you become infectious is about the time you become very ill and stay at home and stop transmitting to the wider public.
	So I have to work this out and I'd want to check it out with some of our British epidemiologists and some others.
	I'm just not sure that what Gates is now constantly worrying about.
	I don't think it's actually possible.
	I think the only really good pandemic respiratory viruses are the ones that are highly transmissible and not very lethal.
	I think they're the only one.
	And then you don't need to worry about it.
	We didn't need to worry about this one.
	One that was actually 10 times worse than it actually is still would not warrant the measures imposed because they don't work.
	We would have just had to have taken it on the chin and used best early treatments.
	But if I'm right, then it makes it even worse.
	Because why are they plotting to put together this?
	Pandemic Treaty.
	And the answer is, sorry folks, they want to take over the world.
	And before you scoff, let me point out something really logical.
	Let's say there's a new respiratory virus, nothing to do with SARS or whatever, and it looks really nasty.
	And it seems to be transmitting from person to person in the Central African Republic.
	And then it turns up in, I don't know, Northwest Canada or something like that, and then it breaks out in Mumbai.
	So, and then you have people on the telly, they'll be showing all the PCR tests.
	Now, at this point, what you've got, let's say you've got two choices, apart from praying, let's say you've got two choices.
	One is, you know, you let Gabrielsus at the WHO and that bunch of people funded by, you know, Gates and others.
	Would you rather, A, they get to decide to call where there's a pandemic, and B, what we all do about it, what, from their hollowed-out mountain?
	It's a new one, isn't it?
	It's a new one.
	So they know about how best to manage this virus.
	It's a new one, isn't it?
	It's a new one.
	He hasn't got special powers of divination.
	So they don't know.
	My main point here is nobody would know what the best response would be.
	Whereas, and I've been in this situation all my professional life, it's called drug discovery.
	No one has a monopoly on working out where's the next target.
	And the history has shown, and it will be true in the case of pandemics, Success is mostly dependent on the number of innovation units.
	So the number of people independently trying to work out what's the best thing to do and communicating with other nodes, that's the fastest way.
	Humans have done this forever.
	This is how we find out what truly what's the best thing to do.
	You need, as it were, diversity of, you need independence of response.
	You don't want, it's actually illogical, In a novel situation to give it to one group who we know doesn't know what to do, right?
	Because they're not going to run.
	They're not going to run 50 experiments.
	Whereas if you say, look, we're under challenge, folks, we need to keep having like nightly telecoms or weekly Zoom meetings or whatever.
	That's what they should do.
	And let's hear what the proposed responses are.
	Some are going to do lockdown.
	Some are going to be, you know, whatever they're called, big whites, like they're doing in Shanghai.
	It's very frightening, isn't it?
	Let's have half the government officials wearing chemical and biological Warfare suits and then we'll have Sweden, you know, doing whatever the Swedes do.
	Kill all the pets.
	And let's just see how we go.
	Let's kill all the pets.
	Let's see what happens.
	So it's not only is it illogical for the WHO to say, you know, maybe somebody's got to call the pandemic.
	I don't know.
	But for them to take charge of the response is illogical and dangerous because it's a novel situation.
	No one knows what's the best thing to do.
	And I'm telling you that the humans are good at this if you allow Independent innovation units, that is, each country or group of countries decides to do what they think best.
	And then frequent contact, you'd work out within a few weeks or a couple of months, and then you'd have the right thing to do.
	You don't need WHO to coordinate that.
	And so they are going to do that.
	Why do you think they're going to do that?
	Well, they're bad actors again.
	It's a control mechanism.
	The one thing, if we all sign up to that, I assure you, they will create the impression of a global pandemic.
	They will declare it and then they'll tell you what to do.
	And that will include shutting your economy and probably staying in your home until a paramilitary force comes around and injects you.
	I'm absolutely serious.
	I think that's what will happen.
	Tell us about the injection.
	Tell us about the so-called vaccines.
	Okay, yeah, so the last two lines.
	The only way out of this is universal vaccination.
	Remember Bill Gates saying we won't get back to normal until pretty much so.
	You don't vaccinate people who are not at risk, Bill.
	Even if he's a professor, a doctor, a scientist with a PhD.
	So you don't need to.
	We've never done that.
	Probably some prophylactic treatments in the army and so on.
	But most of the time, if people aren't at risk of something, you don't need to treat them for it.
	And we knew that the risks only became really quite serious when they're older than me.
	I'm 62 next week.
	And I'm not worried about it.
	So that's a mad thing.
	So again, there's real evidence of lying.
	At the very least, it's, you know, lying in order to get lots of people, you know, billions of doses instead of maybe hundreds of millions.
	But of course, then the other, the final lie is these vaccines are safe and effective.
	And I'm afraid they're neither.
	And I have to say, I don't know why.
	I do know why.
	I clung to the last lie, the longest really.
	And I know why it is.
	It's because I worked in that industry.
	I didn't work in vaccines.
	But I think when I finally allowed myself to look at the data and it's like, I think it was Professor Norman Fenton's analysis that shows essentially the claims are, they arise from data fraud, really.
	I think they arise from data fraud.
	So I don't think the vaccines do anything good at all.
	And they are definitely dangerous.
	And I did War in the World, I was the first to do it, with Wolfgang Bodarg in December 2020, before any of them were actually launched.
	We missed several important toxicity, by the way, but we accurately called several of them.
	If people like us could see that these things were inherently dangerous, just by what I call toxic by design, you could just, you know, no question that's what would happen.
	And furthermore, that all four leading companies made the same errors.
	Seriously, I mean, that's... How does that work?
	I knew it was collusion and malfeasance.
	I'll explain it very briefly because I probably haven't talked about it.
	I haven't talked about that before.
	But so, yes, the...
	Another rule of thumb.
	So, one, I'm not sure that respiratory viral pandemics sufficient to perturb the global economy are possible.
	I'm not sure they're possible.
	You can have them, but if it's a common cold pandemic, you know, so what?
	Get your cold.
	And people do die.
	You're all going to die.
	Everyone watching, in case you think I'm ruthless, you're going to die too, and so am I. Quite possibly of some respiratory viral infection or whatever it really is.
	You know, there's no escaping this.
	The end will come.
	And in the case of SARS-CoV-2, the median age of death looked like about the same as the median age of death in the country in question.
	So in Britain, it was like 79 for men and 83 for women, something like that.
	It hasn't really moved very much.
	It's moved now.
	It's gone down now.
	I'm sure you know why that is.
	It's because a small but meaningful number of people are being killed by the alleged vaccines.
	So yes, so I've talked about how you I don't think important respiratory viral pandemics are possible, minor ones.
	It's inappropriate to try and treat a novel, moderately serious respiratory virus using a new vaccine.
	Why?
	Because it will take you longer to acquire decent, safe, longitudinal safety data so that you can give it to lots of people than the pandemic lasts.
	And that's unavoidable.
	Unavoidable.
	Even using new technology.
	Absolutely.
	So we shouldn't have been doing this in the first place, is my point.
	You can't get longitudinal safety data in any kind of time scale that would fit with a pandemic of a few months or a couple of years.
	And again, we knew this before we started.
	Why have they all used gene-based technology?
	There aren't any public health products that use this technology.
	So I would say, having been just a few years on the inside.
	If we were having a conf lab, I would say, folks, you know, we've all been, you know, reading around the block a few times, and we know that when you do something novel, the chances that it will work are low, and the chances that it will require rework, even if it does succeed, are very high.
	You know, so you're not going to be able to go from here to the goal quickly.
	And they'd all go, yeah, that's absolutely right.
	Seriously, it's no question whatsoever.
	That's our common experience as research scientists.
	So if you pick a chemical starting material that's something similar to the one that's given rise to drug-like molecules to affect heart rate or blood pressure, You probably can modify that and as long as it does what you want it to do, all the rest of the characteristics like being stable enough to be made into a tablet, being absorbed well enough so you can actually give it as a dose, lasting long enough and so on, those features are probably built in.
	What I wouldn't do is suddenly take some completely novel chemical and say, hey, let's make a drug out of that, because my peers would have said, well, what other 19 interesting properties might it have?
	We won't bother with that.
	So it's a mad thing to do to make vaccines at all.
	Second mad to use completely novel technology.
	And then third, here's the problem.
	I'm not a vaccinologist but I've worked in drug discovery long enough and these are essentially gene-based drugs, aren't they?
	You put them in the body and the genetic code is then converted into to manufacture whatever's encoded.
	That's what they are.
	So what you would do is if they've picked a piece of the virus, the spike protein, it's a very big claimed virus, this thing like 30,000 molecular weight, and they've picked a bit that's I think 12% of it, a minority of it.
	So if you're looking for a piece to make some genetic code and get your body to make it, I would say rule one is make sure that the bit you're asking the human body to manufacture is not inherently toxic.
	And the most inherently toxic part of SARS-CoV-2 is the spike.
	On its own it's capable of causing cells to fuse, of initiating blood coagulation and interfering with certain neuronal properties and in addition it marks the cell for execution by your own immune system because it's foreign and your body is tuned to not allow that.
	It's not allowed, that's why you reject a tissue graft like a kidney transplant unless you're a good family match or you take enormous doses of immunosuppressants if you don't do that and you take a kidney from a complete stranger chances are you'll just reject it and even more spooky sometimes the graft will reject you you know most tissues actually have some components of an immune system of their own you get graft versus host disease so
	So you definitely don't want to pick a part of the virus that's intrinsically harmful, because the method of operation is to harness your body's ability to make lots of copies of the thing that's in the genetic code.
	And so if you ask, if someone's body efficiently and gaily goes off and makes, you know, 100,000 or several million copies of this toxic spike protein in the circulation, because some of it after you've injected it in your shoulder does get into the circulation, it's been measured, it does.
	So you're now going to have an unknown amount of biologically really dangerous spike floating around.
	They could have picked any other part of the alleged virus and it would have done just as good a job.
	You don't have to have the outside bit, folks.
	You could have picked any bit.
	So they picked the most dangerous part of the virus and they all did that.
	The next is, they all come to the same answer, but the next one is you want to pick something that's genetically most stable in the virus.
	Because we know that they make mistakes, typographical errors, what we call variants.
	So if you could, you're left with a free hand, you'd pick the thing that was genetically most stable.
	It's like a nucleoprotein or the capsid protein.
	Nope.
	They chose spike protein, which is by far and away the bit that's changed most quickly after these mutations.
	That's why we've got Delta and whatever they're called.
	Media control.
	Omicron.
	That's it.
	Sorry.
	Couldn't really be media control, could it?
	That would just be far too much of a coincidence, wouldn't it?
	So you wouldn't do that.
	So you wouldn't pick something that was genetically unstable and then finally Yeah, you'd want to pick a part of the virus that was most unlike the human.
	Because, you know, we've got a bit of everything, you know, life bears a lot in common.
	And some bits of the virus are a bit similar to ours, not very, but a bit.
	And some bits are just like completely alien.
	Or wouldn't you want to pick the latter?
	You want to pick something that's so different from you, That when your immune system takes up cudgels and learns how to fight it, it's not going to accidentally punch you in the face.
	But what they did is they picked the bit that was most like human or the least unlike.
	That's the spike again.
	So they picked inherently the wrong target because it's biologically active and could hurt you.
	Secondly, it's the least stable.
	So as the virus mutates, it could run away from the effects, even if a successful vaccine, which they never ended up with, And then the third one is they've forced your body to make an immune response against something that's so close to several of your other proteins, guess what happens?
	You get some cases of autoimmunity.
	Autoimmunity is when you attack self and this material is likely to prompt that.
	And I would say that to anyone from Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, AstraZeneca, and you might fight me out of one of those three, but you're not going to fight me out of all three of them.
	I'm not wrong in every one of those.
	So you shouldn't have picked Spark.
	Your inference is that this could not have been accidental, this was deliberate?
	No.
	No, I would say that the worst possible, it might be possible, somebody might have said, we believe that the most promising immune responses are the ones to the outside of the virus.
	And probably, maybe at the time, I might have agreed with that.
	It turns out actually, James, if you look at the immune responses, either T-cells or antibodies that humans make to whatever this is, this infection, most of the responses are not made to the spike.
	If you'd like to say there were 100 responses, a bit of antibody, a bit of T cell, and if you like, X marks the spot on the model of the virus.
	Most of the immune responses are made to bits of the virus other than the spike.
	Your body's smart.
	It didn't want to make antibodies and T cell responses to something that was quite similar to itself.
	I honestly think that's how it did it.
	It didn't think it through, but basically you normally You grab hold of the virus, I do this dramatically, and your body can get slightly...
	Fireman snips cutting up a crashed car.
	Your body biologically snips this damn virus into lots of bits, parcels them out, basically, and asks whether your defensive forces, do you recognize any of these bits?
	And seriously, it's like, oh, I thought that was a bit of my left leg.
	Put that down then.
	So this bit, I definitely recognize, and it definitely doesn't belong here.
	OK, take that one, go and multiply.
	And your immune system filters like that.
	It checks, have we seen this before?
	And is it Is it something we can make a unique and powerful immune weapon against?
	And when you let human bodies do that, it picks something like 90% of the antibody and C cell reactions are to non-spike.
	Something like that.
	Maybe it's 85, but predominant.
	So I wasn't wrong.
	But you don't hear a peep.
	I would love it if some of the people in the drug companies, they don't have to address my comments, because then, you know, I don't think they should be.
	But why haven't they written a paper explaining the rationale behind the invention?
	I assure you, you normally do.
	You normally would see, because people like to take the credit, and it would be on the design, You know, research and development of ADZ, whatever it was.
	No one's written any of them.
	Just astonishing, isn't it?
	They always do.
	They've not appeared.
	But, Mike, they must... Sorry, just... All the drugs companies, Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca, etc., Johnson & Johnson, all their vaccines, so-called vaccines, have the same... So there must have been collusion.
	Because they're not exactly the same.
	So two use DNA and an attenuated chimp virus to access this little vector to get them to go into you.
	And then two of them, the Pfizer and the Moderna one, they use mRNA and then it's wrapped in this sort of lipid nanoparticle to allow it to sort of slither around your body undetected.
	So, but they both effectively, I say they're fundamentally, Whatever.
	Back of the napkin.
	Similar.
	They both encode some or all of the spike protein.
	That's what they do.
	They all encode some or all of the spike protein.
	And I don't understand how they can all do it.
	Because it ought to be obvious that you would pick this and not anything else.
	And I'm pointing out Reasons why it would be a bad idea, which have come to pass, and then you look at the immunology and that also supports what I've said.
	You would target bits other than spike.
	Do we know of any other ingredients in the vaccines which are dangerous?
	I know that the lipid nanoparticles do contain some novel lipids that have not themselves been through normal But I'm not, I haven't focused on, I haven't focused on that.
	So I'm not the right person to.
	Yeah, basically.
	I got to the point where once I'd realised this whole thing was kind of a criminal fraud, it no longer hinges on the science.
	So I won't tell you wrong things, but there's no point in stamp collecting at this point.
	I don't need any more sciency stuff, because I've got enough already to tell you that.
	So where are you now?
	What's going on?
	Yeah, well, I wish I didn't think this, but I don't think it can be stopped.
	You know, we've been people like you and me and others, Drs.
	Malone and McCulloch and Tess Lorre and loads of people.
	We haven't really, it's hard to persuade myself that we've made a, we've woken a lot of, a few people up, you know, maybe a few million, maybe it's tens of millions, but, oh, but the arc of this deception, it seems to me is moving pretty much unchanged.
	And I think You know, if the perpetrators, that's why I call them perpetrators.
	I don't know who they are really.
	I don't really care who they are.
	It wouldn't make any difference, would it?
	But whoever the, if they wanted any points, they could come up with some silly reason why mandatory digital ID is required us from tomorrow or next week.
	Yes.
	So they could say, another variant has arisen.
	I know this is really annoying.
	I know we said we wouldn't have to do it.
	But you will require your vaccine passports.
	They'll do it in such a way that...
	I think something like, is it like 70, 80?
	I don't know.
	What percentage of Brits from age of like, I don't know, 11 and up?
	I don't know.
	70 or 80.
	I think it's two thirds, isn't it?
	Have had two doses.
	I'm not sure.
	I think, I think that they lie about the extent of it.
	Yeah.
	That's a good point.
	That's a good point.
	But they, if they, if they said, you know, you know, and if you've lost your QR code, you will have registered with an email, you know, Monday morning, your QR code will be there.
	And, you know, We're not going to make a big deal of this, but you need to share this if you want to get on the tube or enter a large supermarket.
	And you know what?
	I think a lot of people would just get coerced that, oh sorry, I'll go and get jabbed.
	And you'd end up with a too small a number of people to be able to stop it.
	That's one possibility.
	So I say to people who are, I think they're in denial, but they've done good work.
	Perhaps they have actually forced the government back on its heels.
	Make this a demand for me, if you're in Britain.
	Ask any of the ministers responsible on the floor of the House of Commons to say we will not reuse the vaccine passport database that exists because, of course, it's all out of date by now.
	Some people would have been injected maybe 14 months ago, so it's all out of date.
	So we commit to putting it beyond use in the sort of the lingua franca of ending military campaigns.
	And it'll be overseen by Sir Christopher Chope and a technical person say, not me, I'm not in England, but if I was there I would volunteer.
	And, and of course, If they've no intention of using this, James, then they surely would at least concede putting it beyond use.
	But I think they are intending to use that.
	So the vaccine passports database, I think, is being consolidated.
	I think they're probably connecting it up with your bank details, your national insurance number, NHS record, while we're speaking.
	And they could just spring it on us.
	And some countries are much more advanced in this regard.
	Even in America, I think about eight or 10 states have agreed to have a digital ID which then represents you on the medical insurance system.
	So when you've got medical insurance, you've got this sort of 3D, whatever it is, you know, a mandatory ID that comes along with it.
	And I've always said to people, if it looks like a digital ID and smells like a digital ID, that's what it is.
	And ultimately, A requirement to carry a digital ID, the government can thereafter impose any restrictions they want.
	So you can say, you know, you can't go on public transport or you can't, you know, whatever it is, enter large shops.
	That's what they were doing in France.
	The control is unbelievable.
	And then, of course, the second ingredient, and I think this is what this whole pandemic, this whole bunch of lies has been about, is the great financial reset.
	Because they've stolen so much money, according to, I'm not an expert in this area, but according to Catherine Austin Tix, they've stolen so much money, like, I don't know, 50 trillion dollars, that the system is, they can't even manage it, despite having, you know, control of the spreadsheets and telling the lies and so on.
	So, She thinks that they will reset the financial system and issue central bank digital currencies, which Rishi Sunak was talking about in public quite recently, CBDCs.
	So it's cashless digital money, mandatory digital ID.
	That's it.
	It's all you need.
	And then if you have a benign government, the best you can hope for is that they don't do nasty things to you.
	But you're going to need a benign government forever.
	Because you can't fight that.
	If the rule is, if the blind computer says when you present your pass that, sorry, Dr Eden, you're 0.2 kilometers further from your home than the algorithm allows.
	So, you know, your bank card won't work.
	Seriously, it's that easy.
	It wouldn't be personal.
	You just set up the criteria.
	And these lunatics, I think, We'll try and, in inverted commas, save the world from global warming, which is another... I'm afraid that's for another day.
	But as soon as you start questioning, you know, you realise almost everything you've been told is a lie.
	What do you think about the health consequences for those who've had the jab?
	Yeah, I'm not sure.
	I'm not sure.
	I think just looking at the design of them, it's not good.
	But I would have thought as a toxicologist, you know, pharmacology, toxicology, I would think, unless they deliberately designed it to integrate in your DNA, and they told us they didn't, and furthermore, it couldn't happen.
	Then someone seems to be finding some examples of it.
	But if it doesn't reincorporate, if it doesn't incorporate in your DNA, I think it must fade away over time.
	It may take years, but I don't believe, I can't think of why it would lead inevitably.
	Some people have said, oh, everyone's been injected will die.
	I've never said that.
	It's been said that I did, but it's not true.
	No, I'm glad you said that, because I've got loved ones who've had it, and I don't want them to die, but I mean... No, of course, exactly.
	So I think I don't see, I can't, unless it's been designed to actually kill people, rather than just, I don't know.
	Does it contain genetic sequences, for example, that are proto, pro-oncogenes?
	Do they turn on certain genes that, when they're operative, tend to lead to cancer?
	So certain, certain liver cancers are triggered that way, when you turn on a certain, probably Genes originally captured from viruses which, when active, tend to produce this runaway replication of hepatocytes in the liver and you get cancer.
	So unless they built that into it, I don't see any reason why it shouldn't just gradually fade away with some kind of a half-life.
	And it is interesting that I think most people did not have a bad experience when injected.
	A minority had horrible side effects and an even smaller number died.
	Um, but it's so it's not very good as a bioweapon.
	It's not very good as a, as it were, as a killing tool.
	And so I, I never thought it was a killing tool.
	But I thought, yeah, exactly.
	But I thought, but you've used The scaffold of a technology that's inherently quite unpleasant.
	Why would you do that?
	And the answer, I think, and I did realise this quite early on, is they're going to use it for something else.
	So, you know, the vaccines is the first story, but they're not very good at vaccines and they're not particularly lethal, as far as I can tell.
	Now, it could be they've got a ticking clock, you know, in there.
	I don't know.
	I see all sorts of people asserting all sorts of things and I'm thinking, you might be right.
	How do you know?
	You know, so, so I'm not, I'm not, I can't go as far as the other way.
	I can't say you'll be fine.
	Well, you've got the figures though, haven't you?
	You've got adverse reactions.
	You're being suppressed.
	What do they tell you?
	Well, yeah, they, well, they tell you, oh sorry, are you saying what's, what does it tell us?
	That the government has suppressed the, yes, yes, they don't, they don't want you to know about it.
	It's just a bizarre thing, don't you think?
	So, for those who are not quite on what we're talking about now, Vaccines do produce a degree, you know, some frequency of injections do produce adverse events, undesirable things.
	And they range from, you know, having a sore arm, whatever, sore bum, wherever you inject it, an injection site inflammation, all the way through to death.
	And these particular gene-based agents, the ones against COVID-19, they are associated with more deaths and more adverse events and serious adverse events than all other vaccines in history for the last 30-something years added together.
	So in a few months, just from the COVID vaccines, there were more dead people.
	Then it died after any vaccine administered over 30 years.
	That was true in the US system called the VAERS system, the European system and the UK yellow card system.
	Now these systems are heavily, only a fraction of what actually happens gets recorded.
	And so when we I'm not a skilled person looking at that sort of database, but I've read dozens and dozens of papers written by people who are.
	People who are actuaries, some who are doctors, some who are just like, as I say, numerically smart people looking at correlations and so on.
	And there are various criteria you can use to determine whether or not this association is a casual one or is likely to be causal.
	And sorry folks for those who think that it's all a right-wing plot.
	All of the criteria that we use to work out whether something's causal, you know, did A cause B, all of them light up.
	There's no question.
	Almost all of these side effects are being caused by these alleged vaccines, which are not doing, they don't provide you with any protection either.
	In fact, It seems that in, I think, Scottish data, Israel, a couple of other places, if you've had three injections, you're actually now more likely to acquire this infection, more likely to go to hospital, more likely to die with so-called COVID than if you had no vaccination at all.
	So they definitely seem to be weakening people's immune system.
	Whether that's just because they're toxic to your immune system and then the rest just happens, or does it contain, you know, basically some poisonous material?
	All are possible.
	But I do think, and I haven't changed my mind, I do think the most likely Final outcome is to mandate digital identity.
	Because there's so many forces, aren't there?
	So many forces coming at us.
	For example, in America, I saw just a little newspaper article.
	It was like, as from next autumn, we will be providing children with training on how to get onto and use the internet.
	I thought, funny.
	Read down to the bottom of it.
	And at the bottom of it, they would get their certificates of competence.
	And they would enter that number every time they went online.
	I thought you creepy bastards.
	So at lots of American schools, it even sounds reasonable, James, it sounds reasonable, doesn't it?
	Yeah, it does.
	But it's a very bad idea.
	And people will be used to basically you'll be showing ID every time you do any kind of query, you know, even if it's on someone else's device, you know, whatever.
	So they're going to try and do that.
	Again, I'm not I'm not the money person, but again, just look around.
	One of the consequences of lockdown, it may have been one of the most important ones, was just to kid people that the central government could help out by essentially printing money Not even quite QE, but sort of QE, concept of easing, that you could stay at home and you could be very virtuous, save granny, middle class laptop Brits and so on.
	And basically, it'll be okay.
	We can borrow this money from the future.
	Trust the government.
	Exactly.
	My salary keeps turning up.
	You see, I'm being virtuous.
	I'm having more time at home with my family and even having extra cycle rights.
	You know, but come on, I remember at the time thinking, if you do this, you will, you will literally, you'll blow up conference in the international community of the pound sterling.
	People will realize that you've basically printed more pounds than you can back with economic activity and assets.
	And what happens is its value falls.
	It doesn't necessarily go away, but it falls.
	The price of imports rises.
	That's inflation.
	What are you seeing?
	Inflation.
	So I think they deliberately have done that.
	The US is committing suicide right now.
	I know enough about this.
	They came off the gold standard, I think, in 1971-72, and more or less managed to exchange a gold-backed sovereign currency for a petrol-backed one.
	So the world has run on what is known in slang as the petrodollar for 50 years.
	Basically, because they can, the Americans have insisted that pretty much all oil transactions, even if they don't involve America, are priced in dollars.
	And what that's done is it's forced everybody to have dollars.
	And so you may have realized recently a couple of things.
	One is the Saudis publicly stated, apropos of nothing, that they were negotiating some contracts for sale of oil and fossil fuels to the Chinese in Iran.
	I know why they were telling us this.
	It's like Petrodollars over.
	And then what did Biden do after the war in Ukraine?
	Again, I don't know anything about war, but I can tell you nothing what you're being told is true.
	It's much more nasty, brutish and duplicitous on all sides.
	So Biden decides to punish Russia by pushing them outside of the banking system called SWIFT.
	Which is a really efficient system for moving large sums of money around, and it's internationally accepted.
	It's just like part of the ecosystem that we all live in.
	When you push them out of SWIFT, they have no choice but to use their own part developed or maybe fully developed alternative, which they're doing.
	And so they have moved off using dollars.
	They've said, we will accept gold or rubles or, you know, whistle for the gas and oil.
	Seriously, they're not interested in dollars.
	So if you give them a dollar, US dollar denominated instrument, In exchange for the gas or the oil, they will not accept it.
	Yeah, yeah.
	And so that's two major blows against the petrodollar.
	The United States, it doesn't, although it's huge, you know, it's really huge because it's spent half the next century's income, which it hasn't got yet.
	It's borrowed a huge amount of money and it's got nothing to back it.
	It's like Britain, only worse in that they make far less than they used to and they rely Partly on these sort of arm-twisting arrangements that make people use the dollar.
	And it has given rise to, and this is a lovely phrase, exorbitant privilege.
	So because the US dollar is the world's currency, or at least it was, it gave the Americans exorbitant privilege, which they abused, but they could have and did for decades.
	They could run quite a good-sized deficit, that is, spend every year slightly more than they earned every year, and no one really minded.
	Because it's like they do have, we have full faith in the credit of the United States and so it always meets its obligations.
	And as long as everyone else is using these dollar things, the greenback, then everything's fine.
	But what they've done in the last two years, I think they have printed or brought into existence, I think something like 40% of the US dollars ever created have been created in the last two years.
	Some number like that, which is considering it's been going for, I don't know, well over 100 years under the current Federal Reserve System, which was 1913.
	That's a shocking thing.
	And as I say, they've then taken really stupid steps to drive both their biggest ally in the Middle East, the Saudis, into the arms of the Chinese.
	And then they've done the same with the Russians to try and push them off the petrodollar.
	So I think it's a dead man walking.
	The dollar's going to die.
	We've got heaps of fun ahead of us.
	- It will take every currency down with it.
	Yeah, it's gonna, so it will take every currency down with us.
	And I'm not an expert, I'm not pretending to be, so I am parroting what I've learned from Solari, solari.com.
	If you go to Catherine Austin Fitz, she is, she's a former member of the Rake administration back in the 80s, and has been a banker, was actually a partner in one of these Wall Street banks and so on.
	So she knows, and you know, I've watched her be interviewed several times.
	I've read a lot of what she's written.
	She thought this whole thing was about finance before.
	I think she's right.
	I've had her on the podcast.
	I agree.
	Mike, I would love to talk to you for many more hours, but I'm being called for my supper and you've probably got Some Florida sunshine to enjoy and some mosquitoes to swat off.
	May I enlist your support on this podcast?
	You're a big draw and I hope people are going to rush to watch this before my big event in London on the 29th of April with Majid Nawaz Um, if you can't come to the show, which is at six o'clock at the Emmanuel Centre, then you can see, you can, uh, buy, um, you know, tickets to see it online, you know, a live cast or whatever it's called.
	Um, we'll put the details below, um, and, um, yeah.
	And don't forget to support me on Subscribestar, on, on Patreon, on, um, Substack and Locals.
	And Mike, anything you want to, you want to promote?
	No, I'm still not promoting anything and you may need to cut this back into another part of the recording.
	So, when I wrote my COVID Lies document, I didn't put in the denouement.
	So, I'll just say this and let you get to your supper.
	When I realised that everything they were telling us was a lie, that means no part of this could have had any beneficial activities.
	They knew that they were going to shut down, attenuate, slow down, Big chunks of the world economy for as long as they chose, and it turns out it's been at least two years.
	Who are you going to have to clear that with, folks?
	You're going to have to clear it with the people who own Uber capital and the assets of the world, at the very least.
	And why would they say yes?
	Think about that.
	It's not to make money, is it?
	Because they've slowed the economy down.
	And this is where it gets very dark.
	They must have asked the people who are in charge of the assets.
	And they said yes, because it's happening, but they couldn't have said yes for monetary reasons.
	So, one, I think they are going to do this financial reset that Catherine Austin Fitts talks about, in order to not have us all rioting when we're told your pension's gone, you don't own your own house, for example, and you can't turn your thermostat up above 13 centigrade or whatever the number is, all of which could happen.
	In order for that not to happen, they need you to have managed digital ID on the basis of which they will regulate your abilities across thresholds, entering shops, public transport.
	And then, are they going to do that just to change the financial system?
	So now we've got a bunch of controlled people using digital ID and new money.
	I don't think that's enough of a reason.
	And I don't think you do either.
	And I'm afraid, I think the final conclusion is, once they have that totalitarian control, they will kill lots of people.
	I don't know how many.
	Some people think half of them.
	Look at DEAGAL.com, D-E-A-G-A-L.
	Others look at the Georgia Guidestones and think it's 95% reduction.
	But don't kid yourself, folks, that normal's ever returning.
	So if you haven't got on your back legs and started protesting, Then, you know, then you're playing your role every bit as much as the perpetrators in shoving everybody down, you know, the gates of hell.
	That's a good way to end.
	I'm sorry I had to do that.
	Thanks a lot.
	Great to have you on the show.

▲