All Episodes
Previous Next
April 30, 2023 - The Delingpod - James Delingpole
01:14:22
Thinking Slow
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I love Danny Paul, go and subscribe to the podcast baby!
I love Danny Paul, unless another time subscribe with me!
I love Danny Paul, go and subscribe to the podcast baby!
I love Danny Paul, unless another time subscribe with me!
Welcome to The Delling Pod with me, James Dellingpole.
And I know I always say I'm excited about this week's special guest, but before I introduce him, let's have a word from our surprise sponsor, Black Group.
No, Hunter & Gather.
It's our old friends, Hunter & Gather.
As you know, I've been recently advocating the positive impact a real food diet can have on your health.
And I'm not about to stop.
Hunter and Gather have changed the game for me, so I want to keep sharing them with you.
They are an ancestrally inspired real food and supplements brand, simplifying optimal healthy living by making the most amazing range of products.
Their range spans from great tasting mayonnaises and condiments, all free from refined sugar and seed oils, to cooking oils and supplements such as collagen powder, freeze dried lamb's organs in easy to take capsules, and MCT oil.
In addition to a 10% discount on subscription orders, which can be cancelled at any time, we've teamed up with the folk at Hunter & Gather to offer you a further 10% off, which you can redeem by heading to HunterAndGatherFoods.com and using the code TDP10.
Enjoy!
Well, my special guest, back again, Alex from Thinking Slow.
Alex, how are you?
I'm doing well.
I've been quite busy again recently with our favourite themes but I had a little break but I'm back into it now.
I know, I was noticing a sort of, a slight note of despair creeping into some of your recent tweets because I, look, I think I speak for all of us when I say the work you do at Thinking Slow, and if people don't know what you do, well, they should follow the links at the end of this podcast, is absolutely brilliant.
Because what you do is you provide metrics which help answer one of the most commonly asked questions in the truth movement.
Which is, is this person on our side, or are they a fake?
Are they some manner of control or position?
And I know you want to talk to me about at least one of the people who masquerades as being somebody who's on our side, but you have lots of evidence to suggest that he is not.
But you also wanted to talk to me about some data from Australia.
Oh, but first of all, remind people who you are.
Yeah, so, well, personally, I'm by background a physicist and I worked for somewhere about 30 odd years in the pension and investment industry.
And my history in this situation here is looking at the Diamond Princess data and then being convinced that something is badly wrong, and actually I'd forgotten it when we last spoke, but I actually had some correspondence with Professor Leavitt, and I actually helped him out with one piece of his calculations, so that was my history into this.
You were early on, because I think the Diamond Princess, which was the cruise ship, wasn't it?
Which gave us a kind of a closed community of potential victims of this alleged virus, and it gave us Fairly accurate figure on the IFR infection stuff.
Yeah.
I mean that that was that was one of the one of the those moments where I think those of us who were looking for evidence that the official narrative was was bunk.
That was one of the first ones wasn't it?
Well, I was quite definitive and I think my sort of realisation was that Professor Ferguson was there in order to produce an inflated model.
He wasn't there to steer us through, you know, optimal policy.
He was there to create panic.
And, you know, because of that, we then have this sort of 60 billion worth of vaccine sales and all the other things that we've had since then.
The model was the key.
And it was pretty clear early on that it was it was grossly exaggerated.
Yes, exactly.
He created the He created the evidence they needed.
Exactly.
Policy-based evidence-making.
That's what he does.
With the help of lots of money from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Yeah, it's over $300 million into Imperial College from Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Yes.
So what possible reason could they have to push a line favourable to Bill Gates?
I can't imagine.
Just be cynical to imagine there's any such relationship.
It would, wouldn't it?
I mean, what's 300 million pounds, so dollars between friends?
Yeah, absolutely.
The other thing I'd just like to say as well is I'm much bigger now as a group, so we've expanded as a group actually many things to the last podcast.
We're up to about 12 people now.
There's actually now three physicists and lots of other people working in the background, so it's a much bigger group now.
And we've moved, as we said last time, much more into trying to at least document our unhappiness with what's going on.
So we have sent in several letters into the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner, into MPs, into Ofcom, and, you know, we're documenting our unhappiness with a lot of what's going on.
Well, we know from the experience of the last three years that those MPs are really keen to learn.
They're really keen to ask hard questions.
Well, I was thinking about that because what I think is going to happen now is as the wheels fall off the safe and effective narrative, some of those letters are going to, maybe not our letters, but some of the other letters like the Doctors for Covid Ethics, they wrote to all of these regulatory bodies and said, listen guys, there is strong evidence that you're going to have bad blood clots.
from these vaccines.
And unless you can produce this data, we ask you to stop the rollout immediately.
And that was already in February 21.
Now those letters are there, and they're on record.
So I think, you know, sometimes those letters can make it very difficult for people to say, to deny responsibility for what they've done, because there's a paper trail.
That's interesting.
I wonder what the legal obligation is on MPs, on receipt of a letter like that.
Could they plead that, oh, I was blind that day.
My eyesight failed and I couldn't read.
Yeah, well, I can tell you now that I wrote to three members of the Parliamentary Committee that was investigating all of this and looking at models.
Greg Clarke.
I wrote to them and said the model is wrong and here's the workings from Professor Leavitt.
So they have that but they ignored it of course.
But it's there.
But there's no obligation for them to respond to anyone who's not a constituent.
So that's it basically.
But I did it.
What people should have done perhaps is copied this letter to their constituency MP and then they would have been obliged to have it.
Yeah, at least answered.
Yeah.
Yeah.
What by the way, I think we talked about this briefly before why is it that I trust physicists above most scientists?
I mean, I have bias here in that when I in the days when I was fighting the climate wars some of the doubtiest people on the rational side of the arguments were physicists for example Richard Lindzen and Yeah, Hapur is another one.
Hapur and Linsen, probably the two best.
Well, as you ask the question, I'm just thinking it's because physicists don't really produce anything.
We're not making sellable products as such, you know.
I mean, of course they're involved, but we're not sort of farmer people that have to, at the end of the day, push out a product that gets sold.
So, possibly because it's less close to money and a sort of tangible product that has to be sold.
I mean, I don't know, but that's a possibility.
And it's hard.
It's hard.
I mean, it's a hard science.
So, you know, there is a more or less definitive answer so that you can't make up too much stuff without getting caught out.
Did I mention to you before that I have a grade B in physics O level?
Mm-hmm.
He didn't mention that though.
Are you quite impressed?
Because I am impressed.
I was, as you can imagine, I was much more, I was much better at biology.
I think I would probably have got an A in biology had I done it, and my biology teacher was really upset when I gave up biology.
But I did physics because I looked at the qualifications to become an RAF fighter pilot.
And I saw that you needed... So I thought, just in case, just in case I want to be going strafing the Argentines or whatever it would have been at that time.
Or fighting the Russians as their tanks come across Lüneburg Heath.
I want to be in that tornado and I will need physics, physics only.
So that's what I did.
So, tell me, tell me about Australia.
Well, there's been a big release of data probably a couple of weeks ago, and there's a backstory to who released it.
I can tell you the backstory.
The reason I know about it, actually, is a guy called Dr. John Campbell, who we'll probably speak about, made quite a big theatrical announcement concerning this information, saying, for the first time ever, I can show you that The vaccine travels all around the body.
It's not limited to the injection sites.
And based on this table, and he showed the table, lipid nanoparticles are heavily concentrated in the ovaries.
And so I heard about it through that.
And then I immediately realized, well, actually, many of us, including me with Professor Bakhti, did an analysis of that in June 2021, based on a Freedom of Information request in Japan.
So that data was already out there.
So the whole, this new release was completely theatrical and completely fake.
And we can get into it a bit, but I think this is part of the narrative that's happening now, where things that you and I and many others knew from 2020, 2021, are suddenly being exposed as new information.
Therefore, all of these guys that push the vaccine can then say, well, we didn't know and we were tricked.
And I think that's a narrative build.
But anyway, I then started looking at that Australian paper and what's really utterly amazing is not that piece, which we know about, but it's firstly on the front cover.
There's a phrase in there that they carried out.
This is from Pfizer, by the way.
It's a Pfizer document, January 2021, submitted to the Australian regulator.
I can't remember the agency's name, but it's It's basically the Australian regulator for medicines and... No, I'm sorry.
I'm completely distracted.
Hold that thought.
There's something wrong and my children are not letting him in.
Okay.
Sorry, Alex.
I couldn't... No worries.
I couldn't think of the words you were saying because I could see the guy out of the window and it was really annoying me.
Yeah, that happens.
Yeah, carry on anyway, tell me.
Good, yeah, so there has been this report released and the important thing about the report is it's dated January 2021, it's from Pfizer and it's to the Australian Medicines Regulator and there's two really, for my money, amazing things there.
The first thing is on the front cover, they've said that in the experiments that they were doing on monkeys, The T cells and the antibodies that were introduced, they declined rapidly over five months and therefore there's big questions over the longer term immunity from these vaccines.
So right from the beginning, these guys knew that whatever efficacy you're going to get is kind of gone in five months.
Do you remember at the time all the pressure about this is much much better than natural immunity or the immune system response and you know this is good long-lasting protection and they called it the vaccine cavalry.
It's all rubbish because they knew right then that the effect of this thing wears off within about a five-month period.
You know, I don't remember when they first started mentioning boosters, but it was, they knew, they knew immediately, this is not like a vaccine that you and I would think of, that you take it, you get immunity and job done.
They knew this thing was going to, wheels would fall off quite quickly.
That was very surprising.
Well, I mean, on that point, I wouldn't.
I expect nothing of vaccines these days.
I'm against all vaccines.
They're a con.
So even if they lasted 10 years, allegedly, I still wouldn't bloody take one.
But back to your point, what does that... Okay, so Pfizer...
New?
When in 2021?
January, right at the beginning.
So this is before the vaccine rollout?
Before the rollout, yes, absolutely.
You knew they were only effective, if that, for five months?
For those monkeys, yeah.
So what implications does that have on the policy that governments took and on Well, it's just like everything they did was totally dishonest, like everything they did in this whole COVID thing.
So they withheld, you know, any mention of this thing lasting only five months.
And there was all this talking of, you know, the vaccine cavalry and don't waste your time with real immunity from the immune system, innate immunity, because, you know, this is going to be so much better.
And actually they knew right from the get-go it was so much worse.
Right.
Yes.
I think what you're describing, this process whereby the mainstream is now waking up, supposedly, to stuff that we knew a long time ago, is called the controlled release, isn't it, of information?
Exactly.
You call it, I guess, limited hangout controlled release.
Any of those things.
So I think really for me, I mean, what I see it now is this plausible deniability for all these blanks who push this vaccine all these years.
It's plausible deniability.
They're trying to build a narrative.
Oh, we didn't know that this vaccine travels all around the body and goes into the ovaries.
So we didn't know that the trials were so limited in scope.
Whereas in reality, all of that was known.
They just ignored it and carried on pushing the vaccine.
They either ignored it or were too lazy to check.
You can never know for sure.
One of the counters that I often meet when I talk to people about controlled release, limited hangout, whatever, is they say, but why would they do this?
This is just your paranoid conspiracy theory.
What is the purpose of releasing this information now rather than Well, yes, I think in all these situations, there's a lot of people and a lot of coming from it in a lot of different angles.
So I guess for many, they just went along with the flow.
So they just need this to be released now and pretend it's a shock piece of news to justify what they've done and trying to excuse themselves.
But in terms of the guys who actually decide when to release what or when it becomes news, That's more difficult.
Obviously, beyond, you know, autumn or let's say December 2021, a lot of this information is kind of now only theoretical interest because they've pushed this thing and everyone took dose one and dose two.
So, releasing, you know, after December 21 is the horses bolted.
So, for them, it doesn't really matter anymore.
Yes, so in other words, as many people as were ever going to get jabbed, have now been jabbed, so it's job done.
They're not going to persuade the...
Yeah.
But the interesting thing about limited hangout is there are some massive issues that have not been disclosed, that we again all know about, and that's the impact on sperm.
There was an Israeli study, I don't remember the exact date, enormous negative impact on total motile count.
And that paper's been read very widely in our circle, but there's nothing in the mainstream media.
So they're still holding back, you know, a couple of limited hangout issues that they still don't want disclosed.
So you can talk about myocarditis, you know, you can talk about something else, but you can't talk about the sperm count.
Yes.
Well, this of course is one of the things that There are those of us who are fully awake and pretty hardcore, pretty uncompromising because we're angry, justifiably so, and we don't like people, and this is a neat segue you can detect coming up here,
We don't like people who purport to be on our side of the argument, purport to be seekers after truth, whose job is actually to withhold information until such point as the official narrative wants them to release that information.
We think of lots of examples.
But what I like about your research Is that you put hard, measurable figures, because for most of us, it's just gut instinct.
I mean, I don't trust, for example, Jordan Peterson because blah, blah, blah, or I don't trust whoever.
But you can demonstrate this through, by showing their Twitter traffic, for example, which I think is useful.
Yeah, yeah.
Just before I take that segue, which is, I want to take that segue, but I want to say one more thing about the Australian data.
The segue looks very appealing.
But just before that, one other thing I wanted to mention about Australia, which is another mind-blowing fact, and that is the section about pregnancy and fertility.
They did experiments in that Again, this is January 2021 before this thing is being rolled out on 44 rats and they measured those things through pregnancy tests and there's really two statistics.
There's one which I always get wrong.
I think it's the pre-implantation loss.
That's right.
It doesn't matter what it is really, but for unvaccinated rats that's 4% and for vaccinated rats it's 9.8%, more than double.
And what they've really done is they've said, oh, that's more than double.
And then they look at that number for the whole of history and say, oh, but there was a rat somewhere that had an even worse outcome.
Therefore, there's nothing to see.
It's absolutely mind boggling from a safety perspective, because you would take the control group and you'd say, OK, if it's four, then between sort of, you know, maybe six and two is your range.
And this is coming out at 9.8.
This is way, way outside any kind of normal range.
But they say, well, actually, 9.8 is still not the highest ever in history.
Therefore, we're good.
You know, it's just insane.
And it's a similar thing with the anomalies in the foetuses.
So in the unvaccinated rats, they're generally 1, 1 or 0.
And then on the vaccinated column, it's sort of 3, 4.
I think the highest one is 12.
I mean, it's again, Miles off the radar screen and we've done a deep dive on this with David Bell who's done a great job walking through those tables.
This is very upsetting.
It's shocking.
I go to a chiropractic clinic who are very much into all sorts of wellness, if you like, wellness issues and one of the things they run is a fertility clinic and They tell me that the figures are through the floor.
Women are coming to the clinic desperately trying to get pregnant and they're not able to conceive.
Pfizer knew, but we know that all the pharma companies have gained indemnity for these outrageous contracts they signed with the various governments.
But who else would have known?
with various governments.
But who else would have known?
Because I mean, even now, even now I see on Twitter, this woman who poses as a kind of an ex-wife an expert on women's fertility and says the vaccines are safe and effective.
And I noticed that this was being pushed throughout the rollout, that women were being told that no, there are no fertility risks.
Yeah.
Well, it's, I mean, honestly, anything that's a definitive statement about this vaccine is impossible to make.
You cannot really even today make any kind of if you do you make any definitive comment about safety, you'd have to say it's dangerous.
You cannot possibly make a definitive comment about safety because even now they haven't done.
At least the number of things they were supposed to do.
And I'm like you, I find it so irritating.
It's so misrepresentative and you're tricking people into doing this thing.
I mean, it's just, it is a trick.
So who can we demonstrate to have been lying?
Obviously it's a given that the pharmaceutical companies have been lying because you have that evidence of their research.
But beyond that, which people could not honestly say they didn't see this information?
Which people in the medical industry, in government and so on?
Yeah, I think on that particular piece of the rats, I mean that you can say has only been seen by the pharma companies and by the regulators.
But I think what everybody, yeah, but what everybody has seen was the gap in the trials because there was one article by Peter Doshi from But the British Medical Journal, it's been read more than 1 million times.
And that described in detail the massive, massive gaps in those trials.
So, I mean, everybody knew that.
So this is one of my key things where they're playing all surprised in 2022 or 2023, or we had no idea.
It's absolute rubbish, because of course everybody knew about these gaps in the trials right from the beginning, from October 2020.
So everybody should know the gaps in the trial data.
Meaning what?
For idiots like me, what does it mean if there are gaps in the trial data?
Well, I mean, essentially it takes 15 years to put a vaccine through all of its different phases of testing and clinical trials.
We did it in, you know, six months of Very limited data points.
So, there was only PCR positive at the end.
So, we didn't look for hospitalization, didn't look for severe COVID.
There's a whole bunch of other things that weren't looked at.
And then, of course, it's only six weeks from the end of that trial to saying, okay, here's your emergency use authorization.
Six weeks instead of 15 years.
So, I mean, it's not like we're cutting corners.
It's just whole volumes of things weren't done.
So everyone, everyone in authority who used the phrase safe and effective is dishonest.
Yes, I would say so, because you're hinting that you've got definitive evidence to be pretty certain to make that statement, and you absolutely haven't.
And this is, this is one of the things we do with Professor Bharti.
He said, I asked him, what is known about this vaccine?
He said, nothing is known about this vaccine.
Yes.
Yeah.
Exactly.
So anyone that said it's safe is, I mean, the best you can say is they're winging it.
But you can't do that with a medical product you're sort of encouraging people to take that's potentially fatal.
You can't wing it.
You need to know.
And if you don't know, you need to say, we don't know.
Yeah, yeah.
I went on Loz's show, Loz's GB News show, and we were talking about this and that, and he said, well what's in these vaccines that is so dangerous?
And it kind of floored me, because there's lots of different things that might be in the vaccine, things like lipid nanoparticles, There's even the theory that there is some kind of offshoot of Cobra venom.
Yeah.
What I should have said was, we don't know and that is the whole problem.
And it's not our job to know.
It's their job to make sure that there is nothing in there that's potentially dangerous.
It's not our job to tell you what it might be.
I mean, we just can't.
I mean, it's completely turning the tables.
But there's a slight offshoot that we do now know that there is DNA in the vaccine.
And there's an article on Doctors for Covid Ethics.
It's a long story how that DNA got in there, but it's meant to be 0.033% is the tolerance, and a credible person has done some experiments.
These are not these crazy conspiracy theory things.
He found up to 35% by volume of DNA in the vaccines, and that creates a whole set of unknowns.
Where does that DNA go?
What happens to it?
So that's a big issue out there right now.
What sort of DNA?
I mean, banana DNA?
Well, no, I mean, I've just looked at it, and this is quite heavy-duty technical things that I'm not qualified to talk about.
As far as I know from that paper, it's bacteria DNA, whatever that means, but I couldn't tell you much more You need the DNA to make the RNA, and you're supposed to then take all the DNA out and leave only the RNA.
But there's a lot of DNA left in the vaccines, it looks like.
Right.
We shouldn't call them vaccines, should we really?
We should call them... Not really, it's a gene therapy.
It is a gene therapy product.
Okay.
So, my Segway, you've got to now roll with my Segway.
Yeah, okay.
Yeah, so you're right about controlled opposition.
And I mean, the big picture for me of controlled opposition is, you know, we saw the way people behaved towards the care home workers and the unvaccinated.
And I think they displayed their true characters there at that point.
And I'm talking not about one individual, like the whole lot of them, to be honest.
All the guys on talk TV and talk radio that were quite happy to see more than half a million care home workers coerced into this injection.
They displayed their true character and this is why I'm not into buying these half-baked apologies because a lot of them, sorry, are half-baked.
They're based on, like we were saying, a limited hangout that here's a new piece of information that we couldn't possibly have known before and therefore we're absolved of our actions like forcing care home workers to take the vaccine and that's what I'm very much against.
I mean, the obvious example of that is Piers Morgan.
Exactly, exactly.
His non-apology apology on the Trigonometry Show, where he said, the science changed.
But Morgan is an egregious figure.
I don't think there's anybody who's awake who thinks that Morgan might be an honest broker who's just trying to find out the truth.
By the way, is his Twitter traffic No, I've looked at a few of his tweets and they've come up with bots.
As I said before, more or less everybody has bots, so if you ever see a tweet with a thousand plus likes quite regularly, you're looking at bots.
So all of these people are bot infested, which is why I ended up with such a high percentage of bots in my analysis.
The big traffic's almost all fake.
I can't imagine I have.
No, I haven't seen you.
I mean, so if we, you know, if we'll get like four or five hundred likes on a tweet, that's a big deal.
You know, that's like, but these people are tweeting out isn't the weather great and getting four thousand likes on it.
That's that's just bot traffic.
Yes.
Well, you mentioned, I think last time you mentioned some examples of people, prominent figures on Twitter, who haven't nearly the following that you would imagine from their retweets and likes.
Gary Lineker was one of them, which was very refreshing to know that.
Well, it's also refreshing to see that he's friends with Piers Morgan, which immediately, you know, that makes sense as well.
Oh, well, yeah, I mean, of course, like, sharks are going to hang out together, aren't they?
Exactly, yeah.
I can't dignify them with the title shark.
Bacteria.
Bacteria stick together.
Yeah, yeah.
So, give me some other names.
Well, a new one I found now, which again we would all suspect was this Ash, I don't know her surname, the sort of left Sarkar, that's the one.
Yeah, they run a separate bot farm or bot operation that I hadn't seen before, and that's doing her, Owen Jones, and a couple of other guys who are big in Far left circle, I don't even remember their names to be honest, but if you look at that, every tweet will be 3,000 plus likes.
And then they're provided by accounts with a quarter of a million tweets, 100% of those are retweets.
So it's just bots essentially, there's no obvious bots.
Where are these?
Where do these bots, are they called bot farms?
How does it work?
Explain.
Well, I mean, I don't know the, I don't exactly know how they work.
I mean, I know that they produce, you know, there are individual accounts, which obviously pretending to be a person who are not people, they're a program.
I can't remember the names of the programs now, but you can buy them off the shelf and you just program them, you know, like these people and retweet these people and you can buy a thousand at a time.
And if you look at then the activity of one of those thousand, you'll just see huge volumes of retweets and likes, but no followers, no original content.
So that's, you know, you can sort of come at it from both ways.
You come at it from, you can find a bot that will have those characteristics.
So the one I found on Ash, whatever her surname is, is an account with quarter of a million tweets with 100% retweets and no follows.
So that's a bot.
But you can sort of find it the other way.
Who's the recipient?
So you see, you know, Ash would write something, Neo-Marxism is great, and that's got 5,000 likes.
You think, okay, that's... and then you just put them together.
Yes.
She'd probably say fully automated luxury communism is great.
I think that's one of her phrases.
Provided I'm wealthy.
Communism for everybody else is great.
Well, it's like Susan Mickey, isn't it?
Yeah, yeah.
Whose family sold their family Picasso.
Picasso, yeah.
And came away with, what, 50 million, I think?
I don't remember the number.
She's advocating communism for the rest of us, because she can.
She can afford it.
Yeah, yeah.
Okay, so if I want to move to the next level...
I need to get me some bot farms.
You can buy followers.
I don't remember the prices now, but they're relatively not expensive.
I can't remember now the name of the program.
There's a Chinese program.
It's all there.
You can buy followers.
You can buy retweets.
You can buy likes.
It's all there on the price list.
I could be Gary Lineker and Piers Morgan rolled into one.
I know, I know.
But then it wouldn't be genuine, and we know that you're genuine, so you'd never do that, right?
Yeah, but now I know how easy it is.
If you could ask me to send you the link now.
How sad would that be?
It is sad, it is.
It's like the guy who pretends to be Paul McCartney.
I kind of think, what kind of life is it?
You want to know that you're real, and you want your fans to be real, and you want that relationship with real people.
You don't want this AI-generated... That's what they want.
That's what the enemy wants, isn't it?
And I think, as we've said before, that I think they actually buy their own propaganda at some stage.
I think at some stage they really convince themselves that they are this popular, and it's fake.
I have to say, on my Telegram chat channel, which people are always asking how do they get onto it, and I don't really know.
I try and keep it private, just to ward off some of the 77th infiltrators, but also because I don't want it to be too big, and I'm always chucking people out for being annoying.
But the thing that causes the bitterest rouse every single sodding time, almost to the point where I don't want to mention it because it's almost not worth the upset that it generates, is when you declare somebody to be controlled opposition, stroke, a gatekeeper, stroke, limited hangout, and there's been bitter division over Andrew Bridgen,
Has he got bot traffic or not?
Have you looked into it?
I haven't, but he will have by default really.
I think there's then another element which is algorithms that I think amplify things.
I think that's just a Twitter operation that's not nefarious and it's not under the control of the people getting that traffic.
I just think, I don't know how those algorithms work, but I think there are a bunch of bots that then just sort of push things that are already popular.
So he may have some of that, but that's not...
At the moment, Alex, I am still Team Britain.
I occasionally have a chat with him, and sometimes even a cigarette IRL.
And the impression I get with him, genuinely, is although he was a complete dick early on, that he supported government policy which should never have been supported, and if he'd been thinking for a moment he'd have realised that, but I don't think he was thinking.
I think a lot of these MPs are just like cattle, they just go and do their thing.
This is the subject that causes the bitterest dissent because there are those who, well, who put their trust in princes.
They have these characters that they think are goodies and they're very emotionally invested in them and when you come along and say, you know, well hang on a second, this person is actually There's something about them that doesn't pass the sniff test.
And then they go, well, yeah, that's just you.
I think that this person is saying, yeah, it goes on.
So what I was congratulating you on doing was providing some sort of mathematical, is that the right word?
Some sort of rigor to the process whereby we can tell Which people are being artificially promoted.
But I think we should talk about Dr. John Campbell.
Because lots of people, and he's got an enormous following on YouTube, and lots of people have come to trust him.
He's got a kind of slightly avuncular manner, and he takes you Painstakingly slowly through these various papers and documents that he's got and it all looks very thorough.
But you have your doubts about him, don't you?
Yeah, I think I caught that.
I lost a fair bit of it.
Just one thing generally about this fifth column, because I gave you a little list this morning that I thought you could use.
For myself, I basically have three, as well as the bots, which I think is the killer evidence.
I was thinking about three tests you could ask your colleagues on Telegram which would resolve these bitter debates.
The one is, has the person had a successful career which has been damaged by speaking out?
That's sort of test number one.
Test number two, have they ever been censored on any big tech platform?
And test number three is, is their position based on logic?
And I've been using that and it's quite a good way of sort of sifting the wheat from the chaff because Certainly the guys that have done all three of those are genuine sort of real dissidents and then once you get into one out of three or two out of three it becomes much much less clear-cut and for a lot of the guys I have trouble with all three of those tests don't work and that leads me on to this Dr. John Campbell.
And it also leads me a bit into this whole idea, I don't like the fifth column idea, because that suggests that these guys are somehow controlled and they're meeting with raincoats in sort of dark alleys, switching notes across, but what it really... On park benches with... And roller hats and... Fake stones.
Yeah, fake stones as well.
That's quite an interesting and sort of romantic vision.
But I think the reality is quite simple, that what I call the system sets the incentives up for those people to operate themselves.
And that's one of the things I did with John Campbell.
I said, look, this guy has relentlessly pushed the vaccine, including making Untrue, actually.
I'm going to say untrue statements about efficacy.
And as a result of that, he's then got a huge YouTube following, which has increased massively from when he started doing that, and now has over a million pounds in cash.
in his company that he recently set up.
So you don't need to be instructed.
You just go with the system.
And of course, on the other side of the fence, the people that speak out and raise questions about the vaccine get shut down.
So, you know, the incentives are there to pursue the agenda and to punish the people that don't pursue the agenda.
So I interrupted you because your internet is so rubbish that I can't I'm quite pleased that your internet's rubbish, by the way, because normally it's my internet that's rubbish, but yours is really bad.
Wait, it could be yours, but I think it's mine actually today.
I'm using Starlink.
I've got Elon Musk.
He's the second richest man in the world, so he'd know what he was doing.
So don't give me any of your, it's your internet rubbish.
Sorry.
Okay, it's mine.
I don't know how this is going to work out when people listen to this.
What I wanted to say was, You can presumably go into more detail about that £1,000,000 that he's got.
Now, I've been bumped off YouTube more or less.
And do you know why YouTube bumped me off?
I went through this... I took great care to keep my nose clean.
Because it's a useful audience and I want people to watch my stuff.
And so I was very, very careful.
When they started censoring us for saying things critical of vaccines and so on, I was ultra careful.
And so what they did was they trawled through all my old podcasts, including podcasts I really didn't care for.
I would very happily if they just disappeared into the ether forever.
And they found a few things critical of, oh, I don't know, Neil Ferguson or any of this.
And they just They just bumped me off so that I could no longer, you know, it was the three strikes and you're out thing.
So I would agree with you that the presence of John, because it's quite a useful monetizing tool that if you get big traffic on YouTube, you can make a lot.
And Campbell's ongoing presence is definitely a clue, I think, a tell.
One more point.
I have no objection to people who are honest brokers making money, even lots of money, from doing this.
I mean, if I made a million pounds, I would see nothing wrong with it because I'm great, I'm lovely, I deserve it, I'm brave.
I tell it like it is.
Ten million?
Why not?
Why just one?
You get this sometimes from people on our side of the argument.
This kind of whiny bitterness.
Like, ooh, you're making money out of... Yeah, hello.
It's my job.
It's what I do.
And I'm really good at it.
So if you don't like it, go and watch Trigonometry.
That's what I always say.
Trigonometry would love to have a twat like you in the audience.
They really would.
So go and... Don't waste any more time watching me, because clearly you don't think I'm worth the money.
But I'm not making a million pounds.
I haven't got a million pounds in the air.
Nothing like that.
I know some people on our side do better.
I mean, I remember being... Nothing remotely like that?
No.
My wife grumbling in the background.
Nothing remotely like that.
I know that some people on our side do a lot better.
I got rebuked, chastised.
By one of us, I'm not going to mention his name, saying, is that all you make?
Oh, oh, ouch!
But anyway, go back, now I've made that point, I think it's really important.
I don't like this word grifter that is used for people earning an honest living.
However, I do think perhaps that word might apply to people who are selling themselves on a false perspective.
So tell me more about your suspicions.
Yeah, I mean, I can tell you the start because it could be useful to know the start and then to rewind.
The start for me was when he made a very theatrical announcement of finding some data in Australia that proved that the vaccine was traveling around the body and it was ending up in the ovaries.
And he made a very big deal of this as a new reveal just a couple of weeks ago in March 2023.
Now, as he was doing that, I could see the data on the screen, and I knew I'd done that exact thing in June 2021, almost two years ago, using exactly that data with Professor Bhakti.
So I knew that it was completely wrong, the theatrics of this great reveal.
And then there's others, not only me, that did this in June 2021.
Yeah, so it's like, oh, you know, this guy is pulling a fast one here.
And I look back and lots of people had... No, no, his PhD is something to do with nursing, yeah.
So then I start going back Sorry?
Or maybe My Little Pony Studies.
He's a doctorate in My Little Pony Studies.
Who knows?
Who knows?
I mean, he certainly knows something about medical terms more than I do.
So then you start rewinding, like, well, what else is going on?
And now I've seen that as a very common pattern in the things that he does.
He did another one recently with this, like, October 2022, a massive theatrical reveal that transmission never formed part of the trials.
And, you know, this was this whole scandal around the speed of science when the Pfizer lady said, well, we're working at the speed of science and therefore we didn't include the study of the transmission, the effective vaccine on transmission.
And then Dr. Campbell's doing this amazingly theatrical, we've been tricked, you know, how on earth could this happen?
These Bastards, basically.
They've tricked us all.
You and me, we've both been robbed.
Of course, we all knew from the British Medical Journal article that transmission never formed part of the trial.
So this is unknown in December 2020, all of us.
And that article has been viewed a million times that Peter Doshi wrote.
So anyone now claiming, oh my God, we've been tricked, they're lying.
And not only are they lying, but they're giving them the excuse for all of the vaccine pushers to say, hey, we were lied to as well.
Therefore, we're not responsible for all our disgraceful vaccine pushing and coercion that we forced on you over the last couple of years.
So he's creating the excuse that everyone gets to walk away scot-free because we were all lied to.
Yes.
Well, um, so the reason I'm not picking you up instantly is because I can't tell when you stopped because your internet's so rubbish.
Sorry, mate.
But, um, yes, this is the thing, isn't it?
That I'm not a medical expert, nor are you, and yet you and I both knew this information.
Hang on, let me, sorry, I just lost you there for a bit.
before they'd even brought out the, started pushing the vaccines.
So it doesn't really watch this excuse that we just couldn't have known they lied to us.
- Yeah, hang on, let me, sorry, I just lost you there for a bit.
Okay, that's it. - I made a really pretty point.
- Yeah, okay, I'm back.
It was completely lost on you because of the internet.
Okay.
So, yeah. - Okay. - So what, okay.
Apart from, I mean, where did he come from?
That's the thing.
How did somebody like that establish such a big platform?
I know you're saying there's nothing nefarious in this, but at the same time, who was this guy?
You can't get a million quid a year platform on YouTube just by reading out, in a laborious fashion, papers.
Can you?
Yeah.
No, but it gets better than that because he is now, and I'm going to say this knowing that I have consequences for saying this, that he was fabricating efficacy data for the AstraZeneca vaccine.
He was actually making things up.
And in one case, you could roughly argue that he was just pushing the envelope when he said it's 100% effective against hospitalization and severe COVID, which is a claim that nobody
In any of the pharma companies ever made, he made that claim himself because one of the outcomes of the trial was that a small number, it was quite a lot of detail, but basically 10 people who were unvaccinated ended up in hospital with COVID, not necessarily for COVID, and none from the vaccinated side.
So he's extrapolated that, and that's very bad from a mathematical point of view.
He's making claims that are not valid, and no big pharma company ever made those claims.
But the really bad one is he claimed that Astra had a 70% to 80% efficacy, and actually the real number was 62%.
So he's just making that up.
I know why it happened, there's been a little bit of detail on there, but the main point is, I say making it up because he's misleading his audience.
You can cherry-pick a number from a subgroup somewhere and try and justify that, but ultimately you're misleading people and therefore not telling the truth.
Right, so he could just have been Overinflating.
Overstating, rather than deliberately, cynically lying.
Not really because in that same presentation, well firstly he's referencing the trial data so he knows where it's from and he's quoting the single-dose efficacy number was 64% which was correct and that number is buried quite deep in an appendix but the headline number 62% for the two-dose program is literally on the front cover so you can't You can't get one right and the other one wrong by accident.
You know, the headline one, he just ignored the 62% and put in 70 to 80% instead.
Yes, he does have this plodding, reassuring manner.
And I would imagine that plodding, reassuring manner, together with his referring to these official looking studies, Would have swayed a number of people into thinking that actually these jabs are okay.
Yeah.
I would think a very high number of people with two and a half million subscribers to his channel.
Who knows how many would have been influenced to take the vaccine?
Yeah.
I'd say.
I suppose, yeah, I was going to ask, how on earth could you get a million A year.
Isn't it?
It's not a year, it's...
Yeah, it's over two years.
So I estimated before I found this other data that he would have earned not less than 750,000.
And that's just an estimate based on about three to four pounds per thousand views.
And he's regularly getting half a million views per episode.
And I've heard unofficially that some of the episodes were grossing 15,000 pounds.
So that was my estimate.
And then luckily, One of my followers on the Telegram channel sent me some accounts for a company and said, look at this.
And it is him and he incorporated this entity in June 2020 with his wife.
And then in June 2022, so two years later, it's got 1.1 million in cash.
So, I mean, that's cash.
It's just the money left over.
So who knows how much money actually came in?
But, you know, I can say that it's more than a million pounds within two years of incorporation, which is pretty remarkable.
And as I'm with you, making money is not a problem.
You know, it's that everyone should want to make money.
But within reason and doing things that are reasonable and I don't think this is reasonable to misrepresent the efficacy of the vaccine and not mention big holes in the trials or even really say that much about adverse events until much, much later on down the line.
Yes, I'm clearly doing this wrong.
What I should have been doing is pushing the jabs pretty hard through the rollout phase when it was popular with the authorities.
And then I should be now just going, hang on a second.
Hang on a sec.
It's really dangerous.
That would put another nought, a couple of noughts on my income.
So, yeah.
I know.
But isn't it amazing that people buy this?
You know, it's like if I was one of those people listening to the advice, I would flick that channel off and never ever want to hear this guy ever again in my life.
But he's now been reinvented as a hero because he is the prodigal scientist who got everything wrong.
Then said, oh, I've got everything wrong.
So that makes him, you know, triply more credible than the person who's been right all the way along.
And I found it completely insane, quite frankly.
Do you know about purple-pilled?
I read a piece about this the other day on my sub-stack.
That purple-pilled are people who are red-pilled, but can't resist taking the odd blue pill because they want to keep one foot in the world of normality.
And the Purple Pill, particularly on my Telegram channel, places like that, are going to be gutted because they want John Campbell to be somebody who's seen the light.
He's been a good guy.
I can see why.
You really want to believe that these figures can change, that they can see what you see, that they've gone through this Damascene conversion process and that now they're on your team.
And what an asset he would be, this guy with this two and a half million following.
Yeah.
But what would you say to those who would maintain that no, look, Campbell's just changed, that's all.
He's just an innocent guy.
What evidence can you use to show that no, this is not honest brokerage?
I think it was two things.
I think one is the theatrics, like we discussed, of these reveals that are coming out now.
That, for me, was the killer blow.
The, oh my God, look at this data just come out about lipid nanoparticles in the ovaries.
And it's all the theatre around that.
And you know that data's almost two years old.
And you know it's a show.
It's either total incompetence, because you really don't know that, which means incompetence, or it's pure theatre to create the excuse as to why you pushed this vaccine for so long.
Because, oh, I was tricked and I didn't know these things.
Well, actually, these things have been out there footfall Couple of years in some cases.
So I think that makes them a not honest broker.
But for the other guys that they also say to me, you know, just let bygones be bygones.
The guys on board, you know, I have an ethical trouble with being on board with a platform that's been built up essentially on Misrepresentation is the best, you could say, platform that's been built on convincing people to take this gene therapy.
And I don't think he's really flipped.
If I listen to his trigonometry thing, he's still singing the praises of lockdown.
So is this guy really on your side?
You know, what happens when there's another crisis?
Where's he going to be then?
That's why I don't buy the let bygones be bygones rule on the same side.
I imagine if he's been on the trigger pod, he would have had a really tough grilling from those boys.
Well, exactly.
This is part of the whole narrative.
He had a totally softball, weren't we all tricked?
That's the narrative they're building.
Oh, of course I was tricked.
Were you guys tricked?
Oh, we were tricked as well.
So everything we got wrong for all of 2021, it's all now excused away and we just hug and make up.
And the nameless tricksters out there are the guilty party.
You're reversing the victim and the sort of perpetrator roles.
It's bizarre.
It's exactly the same as they did with Piers Morgan, exactly the same.
Just like a hose down, hose off some of the crap, spray some perfume and you're good to go.
Yes, but the argument I hear from the last ditch defenders of people like John Campbell is that you've got to understand with an audience like his, and I know you say it's built on the bodies of lots of Lots of vaccine victims.
But nevertheless, they'll say, yeah, but he's got such reach.
I've got these people who were still convinced that vaccines were great.
And now, because he's changed his point of view, he's bringing them on board to our side.
What do you say to that?
Well, I think that's a great philosophical question because the question is, what is our side?
And if our side is, sort of, integrity and then liberty, then you can't have allegiances where there isn't that integrity, basically.
I can't really explain it better than that.
There has to be a level of integrity.
Now if this guy has acted without integrity, it doesn't matter how useful his platform is.
You can't be closely associated with that because your position is sort of integrity, individual liberty, sort of Judeo-Christian ethics and all that.
So I sort of struggle with that argument that there's a utility to having anybody and everybody involved.
And therefore you just have to let bygones be bygones.
So I think there's a limit.
And for me, that's the limit.
I like your ideological purity.
I'd put it more, I mean, you made that point well, but I would put it more in terms of this is a controlled release.
It's clear it's happening.
It's happening in the newspapers.
It's happening on Faux-alternative websites like John Campbell's which are actually part of the narrative.
You even see it with people like my good friend Toby Young at his Daily Skeptic.
Toby's problem is that he only wants to go as fast as the official agenda will allow us to go.
And the official agenda is currently, yes, we're starting to admit that maybe there was something a teeny A tiny bit wrong with some of these vaccines.
Some people might have dropped dead and maybe something slightly amiss.
And I think going back to where did Campbell get all his evidence?
He always referred to documents which were being produced by the establishment.
He never started looking at edgy papers like the one on the cruise ship, the Diamond Princess, did he?
Or he would never be talking about the alternative information coming out from all the kind of sceptical doctors.
He'd never do that.
That was, I thought, one of the big ones.
That's a big giveaway because yeah you can pick and choose your sources and if you only choose what the narrative then of course that's all you're going to ever broadcast on your channel.
Yeah exactly.
And I think the reason the nanoparticles in the ovaries is a good one is because that data was also from a Freedom of Information request from Japan.
So it's no more or less official than the data he's now claiming is brand new, because that's also a Freedom of Information release from Australia.
So the sort of reliability and acceptability of those two sets of data, which are roughly the same, There's no difference between them so you can't claim.
Oh, I can do this now, but I couldn't have done it then because Because the actual freedom of information release has the same legitimacy then as this one has now So there is no argument to say while it was too edgy back then I Think if ever we could have access to the information which we probably never will but I think you can probably agree with me that a shocking number of
So-called influences, sort of people on the fringes of the mainstream, people with websites, podcasters, people like that.
A lot of them were given significant chunks of money to shill for the vaccines in the early days and they've never diverged from their mission, their paid mission.
Would you agree with me on that?
Yeah.
I would agree with you on that.
I think there's so many of these.
I've seen some articles now that they even go down to micro bloggers, which is, I don't remember the numbers, but they were really using very low level.
I think there's a deputy mayor in some small place in America that admits getting $1,000 for something.
That's the level of, you know, money was going down to that level to influence, and I think you're right.
It's just a huge network that will never... we can only guess at, really.
I suppose if you're going to do a PSYOPT, you may as well go big.
And if you've got all the money in the world, and you've got the richest, most evil people in the world backing you, then why?
You go big, of course you go big, and of course you would also have people on the other side, you know, I mean, I said not to use the term fifth column, but essentially that is the fifth column.
Of course, you're going to spend, you know, 100 billion on a full frontal assault, you'll spend 20 million on doing some, you know, behind the enemy lines stuff as well.
Oh, totally!
So I'm sure they do that.
I'm not necessarily accusing any of the people that I'm about to name of having been bought and paid for.
But there were certain institutions, figures, which I found really shocking, their failure to acknowledge vaccine injuries, vaccine risks, vaccine concerns in the early days, but also were just really lame in Dealing with the lockdown and questioning it until it suddenly became acceptable to do so.
I'm thinking, for example, of Spiked.
Spiked, I thought of that lot as fellow warriors, albeit from a kind of sort of supposed neo-Marxist perspective, but they were supposed to be questioning authority.
I thought some of the IEA people who were supposed to be speaking up for liberty and free markets, again, that was really suspect.
It was amazing how many... This is why I think that we are right to be a little paranoid in that there are so many people who ought to be on our side who are not on our side or who are rather too late on our side.
Yeah, and that's because it's a very uncomfortable place to be.
As we've discussed before, the guy sticking his head above the parapet and standing away from the herd is in the crosshairs.
I've done it before, but it's a very uncomfortable place to be.
And of course, nobody sensible wants to be there.
So yeah, that's why there was no opposition.
You could literally count on one hand from You know, 55 million odd people, you'd count on one hand, who really stuck their necks above the parapet and said, this is wrong.
It was literally one hand.
Yeah, yeah.
And by the way, I don't know about you, some people on our side are really purist and they'll reject anyone at this point who changes, even if they have a A road to Damascus moment that you don't want to accept them.
My view is I'm anyone even if even if Piers Morgan even Piers Morgan if he came on on his knees like that scene with the Pope at Canossa that
The Holy Roman Empire Emperor they like groveling I would be more than happy to to say bless you Piers Morgan You you were a scumbag, but now you've seen the light and I bless you my son Obviously The deal would have to be that he would have to show genuine contrition like not like what he said on the trigger good luck and also the It was somebody else's fault, yeah.
It was the science's fault.
The pesky science changed.
Scientists, they trick me.
They con me into being an arsehole.
But what I'm saying is, even if Alberto Bourla, I'm trying to think of the worst people in the world, Alberto Bourla, Susan Michie, Anthony Fauci and Neil Ferguson, if they all came in their clown car, And came round to my house and said, James, James, we've changed our mind.
We want to be on your side now.
Yeah.
I wouldn't, I wouldn't say, go away in your clown car.
Because you were said wrong before.
I'd say, yeah, okay, tell me, tell me why you think you were wrong.
Yeah.
That sounds interesting.
Yeah.
Okay.
So there were, there were, there were death shots and yeah.
Interesting.
Yeah.
And it was all, it was all planned.
And then, then it'd be all okay.
That's all I want.
Yeah.
Yeah, yeah.
I agree with you 100%, but I personally know from my own experience that I would find it hard to ever trust them.
I mean, especially some of these guys who have a history.
I mean, Piers Morgan, this is not the first time he's done weird things.
Piers, trust me.
There's just no way.
You know, anything that was said, however many tears were flowing, however many sort of, you know, it's just, it's never going to happen.
I couldn't take it.
I think we can put money on peers not changing any time soon.
I think, yeah, most of the ones we've named, but it would be nice.
It would be really nice if some of these people, but I think We're in agreement, and I hope that you've been persuasive on that score, that John Campbell should not be numbered among those who've seen the light, because it just seemed to me that he's just playing the game at best.
At worst, he's working for... Well, Alex, will you please tell us where we can find your stuff?
Sure.
We are now, because it's a bigger group on Thinking Coalition, so the thinkingcoalition.org, I think it is, so you can go on there and sign up.
We are doing a fundraising now on Patreon, which is Patreon, and that's thinkbackslashthinkingslow, and that for us is quite important because the amount of work we've put into the sort of cause for liberty has been pretty Phenomenal over the last couple of years.
And we've also made a decision, look, if we can't get the audience to participate, then it's not worth doing.
We're not going to individually go bust whilst trying to defend sort of liberty.
So we have set ourselves a target to let's see where we can get to in the next couple of months.
If it's, you know, 50 quid a month, then we're just going to shut it down because it's not worth the cost and effort of sharing all the information if there's no reciprocation from that.
So, Patreon/ThinkingSlow is something now.
And we have the YouTube channel was deleted, it's been reinstated.
We have Rumble and also Telegram, Thinking Slow.
Alex, can I make a personal plea that you don't stop doing what you're doing?
I think it's really important.
I try and give you as much promo as I can.
You've done a fantastic job.
We wouldn't be anywhere without your help.
I know that loads of really important, powerful people listen to this podcast, and I would urge everyone to look at Alex's work.
Look at him.
He's a man of integrity.
He's a physicist, for God's sake.
He's much cleverer than you, probably, because no one can do a physics.
You've got a postgraduate degree or just a No, it's just a graduate degree.
A graduate degree.
Well, an MBA as well.
He's got an MBA.
But I have actually in the group two, I have two other physicists in the group who are both Oxbridge and they are proper, like, top flight.
This is the real deal.
This is the thing.
I would say that you are on the right hand of the shield wall, you lot.
So I would hope Really hope that people can support your stuff.
I really like what you're doing.
I think it's great.
So thank you, and thank you for being so tolerant when I had to dash off to take my daughter to the airport.
It only remains for me to say, do please everyone, keep supporting me on Subscribestar, on Patreon, on Substack, on Locals.
Buy me a coffee.
Lots of you like buying me a coffee, and that's good.
I really like having lots of coffee.
I'm a bit wired now from all the coffees you've been buying, but that's in a good way.
Have I mentioned them all?
Patreon, Subscribestar, Substack, Locals, yeah.
Keep listening, keep viewing, and keep helping me fight the fight.
Look, I'm not making a million a year, or even five hundred thousand a year, and I do think I need more support, because you don't want tossers.
You do not want tossers making more than me.
You really don't, actually.
If you want to strike a blow against the forces of darkness, give me more money.
OK?
Thank you.
That's my message for the day.
Give me money.
You know you want to.
Actually, you do.
You do.
You'll feel better about it.
You seriously do.
It's like, you know, giving money in church, in the collection box.
You know, you feel better.
The church roof's going to be restored.
Thank you very much.
Alex, bye-bye.
Thanks, James.
▲
Export Selection