All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 10, 2023 - Stay Free - Russel Brand
01:06:57
Dr John Campbell: You Were Right! - #078 - Stay Free With Russell Brand
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
So, so
so so
so so
In this video, you're going to see the future.
you you
Hello and welcome to a very special edition of Stay Free with Russell Brand.
Every week I have an in-depth conversation with free thinkers, radicals, academics, thought leaders and influencers to access truths that we wouldn't find anywhere else.
Today I'm joined by Dr. John Campbell.
Dr. John came to prominence on YouTube during the pandemic, sharing his incredible insights to a unique global situation, presenting complex medical data, usually data that hadn't been credibly addressed by the mainstream media, often with his unique John Campbell shot from above signature shots, where he would talk us through data, occasionally giving something a tick Or maybe a thoughtful sigh or a, hmm, that doesn't seem quite right.
We are honored and excited to have Dr. John with us in our studio today, as well as that particular and gloriously iconic piece of apparatus.
For the first 10 minutes, you can watch us wherever you're watching this right now.
But after that, we're going to click over onto Rumble so we can speak openly and freely about complex ideas.
And sometimes those ideas may be at odds with the interest of centralized Dr. John, thank you so much for joining us today.
Therefore we're on a platform that guarantees us free speech and it is our intention to ensure that that free
speech brings people together That justifies community collective power and democracy
against centralized elite interest wherever we find it So, please welcome our special guest to stay free. It's dr.
John Campbell Stay free with Russell Brand see it first on rumble. Dr.
John. Thank you so much for joining us today And thank you for this gift
What is it?
It's a physiology book, Russell.
You gave me it in a very offhand manner.
Yeah, yeah.
It's called Physiology Notes, so it's all the sort of basic systems of the body.
Because what's important is there's a lot of people putting forward ideas.
And if those ideas are inconsistent with fundamental science, with things we know to be correct, then the idea is probably not correct itself.
That's part of the evidence base, you know, we know the background of the science and we like to be consistent with that.
Can you give me a clear example?
Doctor, of how that evidence-based science is being compromised or contradicted in a mainstream space currently?
There's a really interesting one that I'm actually quite worried about.
So, at the moment, the British government have decided to produce, in cooperation with Moderna, a plan to produce 250 million messenger ribonucleic acid vaccines a year.
Similar plant planned for Canada, 100 million doses a year, similar plant for Australia.
And of course, they're already producing it in the United States.
But the thing about that is, with the mRNA vaccines, it actually goes into the circulatory system.
It's supposed to stay in the arm, but it actually circulates to quite some degree.
And these lipid nanoparticles that the mRNA is in goes into the cells, and it's the cells themselves that produce the antigen, the thing the immune system recognises as being foreign.
Now, if that's in your arm, that's kind of okay, because the mRNA will go into the muscle cells in your arm, produce this antigen, it will go onto the surface of the cells in your arm, and that will give you a bit of a sore arm because of the inflammatory reaction.
But if we're getting systemic absorption, if we understand the way the circulatory system works, we know that from the arm there's some systemic absorption of these mRNA particles around the body.
Of course, it circulates around the body.
Of course, the blood from your arm drains back through the heart.
goes out to the lungs, goes back to the heart, but then it's going through the heart.
Now the cell membranes in the heart are very similar to the cell membranes in your arm.
So if there's systemic absorption and these things are floating around the body, there's nothing in theory to stop these lipid nanoparticles absorbing into the myocardial muscle cells, the heart muscle cells producing the antigen.
And then the immune system recognising that and generating an inflammatory response, potentially in the heart.
Now if that's in the myocardium, we call that myocarditis.
If that's in the pericardium, we call that pericarditis.
And they're both really potential serious conditions.
So we've got a fundamental scientific question here, based on the axioms of science that we've known about for hundreds of years, that really haven't been answered.
And yet people are ploughing ahead with this massive cooperation between Moderna in this case and our
governments to produce huge amounts of vaccine for which there may be a potentially fundamental problem
that means they can't be used.
So there you've got an interesting conflict really or certainly a paradox at the moment
where science is saying one thing and potential interest or even potential vested interest,
who knows, is saying something else and the two don't quite marry up.
So we have to keep going back to the original science to see where reality lies.
Obviously, Dr John, as a prolific YouTuber, I'm relying on you to demark whether WHO's, stroke YouTube's, guidelines suggest this conversation should be curtailed and directed.
And what seems to me to be interesting, of course we can speak more freely after 10 minutes when we'll exclusively be streaming on Rumble, what's of enormous interest to me, is precisely this point of contra-interest and vested interest where we find that there are economic and financial outcomes that are favourable that perhaps mean that science and clinical research in particular becomes a subset of those interests and that there's such a will for particular outcomes
The facts are often neglected, negated or ignored.
And also the media reporting on these facts and the whole phenomena of the pandemic.
One of the things you did so expertly, if I may say, is that you focused forensically, solely and modestly on data.
And also it seemed to me that you went on An interesting journey, as I suppose scientists must, as data alters, the narrative alters, and the scientists, and indeed science is, perspective must alter.
We started, one of the key examples I think, is the way that, just to take one example, is the way that the story around vitamin D, relatively uncontroversial, and now I Yes, empirically demonstrable fact that can be sort of represented.
Can you talk us through a little bit what happened with vitamin D?
Because I remember 18 months ago saying, oh vitamin D might be helpful in fighting this virus.
That was like saying there are people living at the centre of the earth and they're reptiles and they're against us.
Yeah.
Vitamin D is a fascinating one because we don't really get enough vitamin D from our diet.
Most of it has to come from the sun.
And of course, if we live in England, as we do, this time of year, you're not getting any sun exposure, so we're not making much vitamin D. Now, vitamin D is one of the fat-soluble vitamins.
They're A, D, E, and K. And we used to think that these vitamins can be stored for quite a long period of time.
But it appears if you go on your holiday, or you get some nice sun in August and September in England, That by the time Christmas comes around, you've basically got very low levels of vitamin D in your blood.
So it drops off quite quickly.
So throughout winter we're not making enough vitamin D. So pretty well everyone in the UK, and we know it's also true in the northern states, especially of course people with darker coloured skins, who make it much more slowly, they're chronically short of vitamin D.
Now we used to think that vitamin D was important for bone and teeth health and of course it still is.
If you haven't got enough vitamin D you can get rickets and you can get bendy bones in children.
It's still a problem in some parts of the world.
But we now know there's vitamin D receptors in a lot of different cells in the body.
And vitamin D is necessary for the activation of hundreds if not thousands of genes.
So there are vitamin D receptors in all of the immune cells.
The white cells that deal with immunity, the variety of white cells.
If you haven't got enough vitamin D and these receptors are not stimulated, then the enzymic systems in those cells are not going to work properly and you're going to have a suboptimal immune system.
So we have lots of people with suboptimal immune systems, purely because they're not getting enough vitamin D.
And because we don't get it in the diet, we're not getting it in the sunshine, the only way is to supplement it.
Now normally we don't recommend too many supplements, but vitamin D is one that's important.
And just as an aside, people that are taking vitamin D should also take some vitamin K2 with it.
Again, it sounds like I'm just recommending another supplement, which in a sense I am.
But the vitamin K2 comes from fermented foods, it comes from bacterial fermentation.
Now, like you, you like fermented tea, so that's great.
You're probably getting some.
I worked with Koreans in Cambodia once, and they eat kimchi with breakfast, lunch, and dinner.
That's no exaggeration.
So they're getting plenty.
It's bacterial fermented products.
But a lot of people in England, the traditional diet, we're not eating fermented food, so we need to take some K2 in addition to that.
And that means that any liberated calcium goes into your bones to give you strong bones and teeth, rather than going into the tissues of the body where it can cause problems.
But vitamin D receptors in all of these immune cells, and if you haven't got enough vitamin D, the immune system is probably not working as well.
But to take data, because we like to be fairly specific, there's a meta-analysis just studied on this recently, which looks at pre-diabetes.
So at the moment in the United Kingdom, I don't know if you want to have a guess Russell, what proportion of the percentage of people in the United States have got diabetes or pre-diabetes?
In the United States, whole population, what percentage?
Have a guess.
10 to 15.
Good.
Well done.
It's 11.1.
Excellent.
That's very good.
Very, very good.
In the UK, it's a bit less.
It's about 7% of people that are diabetic at the moment.
For other countries, like Cambodia, for example, where there's been a lot of malnutrition in the past and now there's a better diet, it can be 20 or 30% of the population.
It's an absolute pandemic of diabetes.
So there was a three-year study carried out in the States where they gave vitamin D supplements to people that were pre-diabetic.
That is people that weren't quite diabetic yet, but they were struggling and would become diabetics in the next few years.
And of course, if you're diabetic, that predisposes to a whole range of possible medical problems, heart disease, circulatory problems, problems to the peripheral circulation resulting in black feet, kidney disease, diabetic blindness.
There's a whole range of problems that can be associated with that.
But what they found is giving these people vitamin D, reduced by quite a significant percentage the number of people that went on to be diabetic.
And it was around about a 78% relative risk reduction by giving vitamin D. The doses that were given were normally about 4,000 units a day, a relatively small supplement.
Sometimes it was 20,000 units a week.
You can give it either way.
Preferably, I would give it every day.
And that dramatically reduced the amount of people that are pre-diabetic going on to develop diabetes.
Now it is true, as the British Diabetic Association says, that obesity is the main single factor in the development of type 2 diabetes.
But people that are obese are even more likely to be vitamin D deficient, because vitamin D is a fat-soluble vitamin.
And if you take some vitamin D and you're obese, it's going to fill up your fatty reserves first.
So you'd have to give someone with obesity 10 times as much vitamin D to get it into their blood as you would to someone who's got a low amount of adiposity, a low amount of fatty tissue in the body.
So the two go together.
So why on earth don't we reduce the amount of people getting Pre-diabetes developing into diabetes by 78% with a relatively simple evidence-based intervention.
And if we treated 30 people in this way, every 30 people we treated would prevent one case of people becoming diabetic.
And that's actually a really quite a good ratio.
Compared to some of the ratios I've heard lately, that seems like a very effective way of treating... I think everyone should have to take Vitamin, whether they want to or not.
Not just for themselves, but for everybody else.
It's astonishing listening to you, Doctor, to...
Even contemplate, given your obsession over details, data and facts, that you could ever be regarded as anything other than a diligent professional.
And yet you have had a YouTube strike which shows, this is obviously just my opinion, that there are areas where This kind of censorship, or at least these kind of measures, are undertaken not in order to protect people but for some other agenda.
Now also, Dr. John, most people will know that over the course of the pandemic, your perspective altered somewhat radically.
You're certainly not a person that could ever be described as an anti-vaxxer because I believe you advocate for vaccination in all sorts of instances.
I want to ask you, Doctor, about AstraZeneca in particular, yellow card events.
I want to ask you about the censorship that's taken place during this pandemic.
I want to ask you about your style, and by God am I keen to see that overhead camera.
But if you want to see the answer to these questions, then you'll have to join us over on Rumble.
If you are a member of our locals community, you can see these conversations take place live.
There are people watching us Right now on the stream, some of the questions coming through.
A question for Dr Kat, this is from Pawpaw7.
If you didn't take the jab and you get a blood transfusion from a vaccinated person, is that the same as being vaccinated?
These are the kind of questions we'll be answering those in a moment.
If you want to become a member of our locals community, there's a link in the description.
Telling you how to do that.
We've got a whole host of topics to cover.
Excess deaths, myocarditis, strokes in the elderly, Project Veritas, all sorts of things to discuss.
But we're going to do that where we're safe to speak freely, hopefully to bring people together in order to create consensus, a consensus which may be at odds with establishment and elitist thinking.
You decide what's best for you.
You decide which information to take on board.
See you soon.
Please click on the link and join us over on Rumble.
Doctor John, we can relax now.
Right, great.
We can kick up our heels a little bit.
I was relaxed before, but it's always good.
Actually, you were relaxed, a bit too relaxed.
Always good to relax a bit more.
Yeah, just relax so much that we start to drool.
Doctor, thank you so much for giving this.
I recognise I didn't say thank you for that.
That's very kind of you.
I will ask you to sign it.
These books are free, by the way, Russell.
We can give you a link to freely download the PDFs of that book and the You're like a radical you, aren't you?
Yeah, it's a radical.
This is merch!
It's what it is, it's dark.
No, it's free.
You could be rinsing that.
It's free.
Okay, so just before we went on air, you talked about AstraZeneca.
Now, like even someone like me who's just simply perusing the facts, and I think all of us went on a journey during the pandemic.
I was frightened initially, it seemed unprecedented.
You know, my perspective on various medicines and various measures, lockdowns, masks, etc, altered over the course of the pandemic.
Perhaps you're informed by my general mistrust of authority, corporations, government.
That's just my general setting.
Could you just, because we were discussing it before, can you tell me again about AstraZeneca and yellow card events?
Yeah, absolutely.
So the yellow card system is the way that we report adverse events to any medication or to vaccines in the UK.
And originally it was yellow cards at the bottom, the back of the British National Formula where you still get these yellow pieces of paper.
You can fill them out and send them in.
Of course, these days it's mostly done online.
Now the problem with the yellow card system is it depends on people actually getting around to and doing it.
So MHRA itself, Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency has recognized only about 10% of severe adverse reactions get reported.
So basically this yellow card system that the UK depends on, you could say is pretty well 90% useless.
Wow.
Because people simply don't get around to doing it.
And for the more, sort of, less serious side effects, they estimate only 2-4%.
reported but that's what we've actually got. Why is such a small percentage of
events reported? Why is that? Because it's across a population, people are dealing
with illness and death, loads of practical difficult to determine factors.
Well partly it's because when people take a medication they might get an
adverse event but they don't always recognize that that's caused by the
So that's part of it.
Part of it is they might not actually report that to a nurse or a doctor.
If they do report it to a nurse or a doctor, it's an extra job, isn't it?
You know, you've got to spend 10 minutes going through the form, doing it yourself.
But of course, any member of the public can report it.
I developed higher blood pressure than I'd ever had in my life after my third dose of the vaccine.
So at that point you were just taking vaccines, you were into it?
Well, I've been giving vaccines out all my life.
I've organised teaching programmes for people giving out vaccines for diseases like polio, which have been virtually eradicated with vaccination.
The only places we've still got polio now are parts of Africa and parts of Pakistan.
And a few areas in Asia where there is no security, where vaccine teams aren't free to go.
Apart from that, polio has been basically eradicated.
Now, you go into any village in Asia, Cambodia, India, anywhere like that, and you see terrible, still young people with polio-formed deformities.
Yes.
And that has basically been eradicated with vaccination.
Now, people debate smallpox, but there's no question in my mind that the main reason we don't have smallpox now is it was eradicated with vaccination.
And I've seen people with intensive care with tetanus.
The people we're getting with tetanus tend to be people in their 70s and 80s who were vaccinated as young children or young adults and the vaccine has worn off.
And tetanus is a terrible disease.
It can need ventilated for weeks.
So vaccines actually work.
And then these vaccines came along and the COVID vaccines came along as the mRNA vaccines and the adenovirus vector vaccine.
And they both kind of con the body into making its own antigen, the thing the immune system recognises being foreign.
They're not giving it themselves.
So because this was called a vaccine, I and many others thought, oh, this is another vaccine.
OK, vaccines are fine.
We want this.
And the initial data that was released to us showed that these vaccines were efficacious.
It showed they were preventing people getting the infection and it showed they were preventing severe hospitalisation and death.
That's the initial data.
So then not only were the initial releases around the vaccine efficacy potentially misleading, but also the very nature of the medicine was misleading.
Do you think that that was possibly deliberate?
That they didn't from the get-go say, oh by the way this is some crazy new thing we're all up to?
Yeah.
They said this is a thing like, so that even the first wave of medical professionals would recognise the terminology, the language, and the pathology that it was meant to address as something recognisable rather than old.
I mean, this is experimental.
Do you think that was deliberate?
They called it a vaccine when really it probably should have been called something else.
Why they went down this way, why they went down the adenovirus vector vaccine route and why they went down the mRNA vaccine route is a bit of a mystery because the Chinese didn't.
The Chinese went down the traditional vaccine route.
So what they did, they brewed up untold billions of these viruses.
You can do that.
You have a cell culture.
You put the virus in it.
The virus will multiply exponentially in this cell culture.
You then get all these dead viruses, you mush them up, and then you inject them.
That is a traditional type of vaccine.
But these mRNA vaccines and this adenovirus vector vaccine People have been developing for a while, and you can kind of see that it could be a very flexible approach to vaccination.
And I get the feeling that because this technology was there, people were kind of chomping at the bit to use it.
Right.
So because I've got this, I'm flipping well going to use it.
You know, whether it's the, in retrospect, was it the right thing?
I think it wasn't the right thing, but it was called a vaccine.
Now we know vaccines have very minimal side effects, most of them.
Okay, there's recognisable side effects.
There are vaccine injuries.
But you know, vaccines have saved untold billions of lives.
So because it was called a vaccine, we went with it and the initial data indicated it was efficacious.
But looking back, and I really don't see why this wasn't clear in my mind at the time.
This is a problem for me personally.
I didn't recognize this earlier.
This is getting the body to produce the antigen.
And as we've said, it's not just produced in the arm, it can be produced anywhere in the body, causing an inflammatory reaction, potentially anywhere in the body.
Not only that, the way we give the injections.
So I've taught for 40 years.
When I was 18, my charge nurse taught me how to give intramuscular injections.
You stick the needle in, in the right place, then you draw back.
And when you draw back, if blood comes into that syringe, you're in a vessel, you don't inject.
This is the way we've done intramuscular injections for a hundred years since they've been invented.
But then the WHO changed the criteria for vaccinating children because they thought it was less painful.
And with the traditional vaccines, if you're given an inadvertent intravascular injection, if you stick it in and by chance you just happen to hit a blood vessel, with an ordinary vaccine that probably doesn't matter too much.
It probably just means that it wouldn't be as effective.
With this new vaccine, these new vaccines, in vaccines in inverted commas I think we'd have to say now, if you give that in a blood vessel then you're going to get immediate systemic absorption of that.
It's going to go all around the body.
These lipid nanoparticles or the adenoviruses, whichever vaccine it is, are going to go into the cells.
The cells are going to produce that and you can get this inflammatory response.
That's the bit I hadn't quite realised.
Yes.
And that's what I I just wish I'd realised that earlier on Russell.
You should have done.
I know I should.
And this inflammation, notably, as you've already explained, and it's the first time I've understood it actually, can take place in the heart and that's what myocarditis is.
With AstraZeneca, it was quite quickly and quietly withdrawn.
Yeah, it was.
Why?
Right, the AstraZeneca vaccine can be systemically absorbed, so there is a degree of myocarditis, pericarditis and other inflammatory conditions.
Even in the original trial, there was a problem with the spinal cord called transverse myelitis, but they managed to write that off as an artifact, but there has been more cases.
Also, the AstraZeneca vaccine caused thromboembolic events.
So, when you cut yourself, you want your bleeding to stop, you want the blood to clot.
It's a hemostatic mechanism.
What you don't want is intravascular thrombosis.
You do not want blood clotting.
You do not want blood clotting in your blood vessels.
If you get that, it's called thrombosis.
If that moves around, it's called an embolism.
We call it thromboembolic disease.
And that will block off the blood supply to any part of the body, potentially the brain, the heart, absolute kidneys, anywhere.
So, AstraZeneca was associated with an increased degree of that, as well as the other complications.
So, yellow card data started going in on the AstraZeneca vaccine in early 2021, and it was realized quite quickly that this was causing really quite a high rate of complications.
Now, the British Heart Foundation, on their guidelines, and the British Heart Foundation are very much promoting vaccination, they actually say that we now no longer recommend AstraZeneca in the UK because we're now producing the Pfizer and the Moderna mRNA vaccines, and you know what?
They work better.
They're not saying that this AstraZeneca vaccine kills people, which over 1,400 fatalities on the yellow card scheme have been associated with the AstraZeneca vaccine.
1,400 deaths?
You can't say it's definitely, but they've been associated with it.
Fatalities associated with the yellow card reports, yes.
And it could be as many as 10 times that.
I mean, is it likely in the case of fatalities that that wouldn't get reported?
Well, the data we have still says that most cases aren't reported because the correlation may not have been made.
Yes.
So if someone has the vaccine and six weeks later they have a myocardial infarction, a blockage to the heart muscle, is it related or not?
Also, John, one of the things that has defined this pandemic, there seemed to be an absolute reluctance to report the information accurately, the whole with COVID, from COVID scenario, It's one of your videos in which I learned that previously vaccines have been withdrawn if there's one event in 100,000, one event in 10,000, and this currently stands at one in 800.
So the reporting of this was biased from the beginning.
It seems like there was an incredible appetite, a serious set of convergent interests that wanted this medication to be understood in a particular way and that wanted this pandemic to be interpreted and regulated in a very particular way.
And I suppose we're still dealing with that.
Do you think that excess deaths is one of the areas that's most revealing currently about the missteps that were taken during this crisis?
You know, during the pandemic years, of course, 2020, we would expect excess deaths because there's no question about it.
SARS-CoV-2, in the original form, in an immunologically naive population, was a dangerous disease, did kill people.
So people did die from COVID, SARS-CoV-2 infection, from the original Wuhan wave, the Alpha wave, the Delta wave, and to a much smaller extent in the Omicron wave.
So definitely associated with fatalities.
And there has been an excess fatalities.
Now the excess fatalities aren't quite as high as the number of people that were officially thought to have died of COVID.
Because the people that died of COVID are just people that happen to die within 28 days of a positive diagnosis.
But that doesn't necessarily tell you whether it's of or with COVID.
But what you wouldn't expect is when Omicron came along, Omicron came along basically the end of 2021, beginning of 2022.
Now Omicron is almost like a supernatural event, it really was.
So we had the delta wave, that was killing people and was very transmissible.
Then Omicron came along, which was much more transmissible than the Delta.
So it replaced Delta because it was out-competing it.
But amazingly, brilliantly, Omicron is so much less pathogenic than the Delta wave.
It kills so many fewer people.
I was talking to a mate of mine who works on intensive care last week, and originally in these first waves, we had this acute respiratory distress syndrome caused by the Wuhan wave, the alpha variant and the delta variant, where the alveoli basically fill up with fluid and people drown.
It's basically a COVID pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome.
He hasn't seen a case of that for 18 months.
in a relatively large intensive care unit, because with the Omicron, we don't get it.
So the Omicron has saved us from so many deaths that were associated with the Delta in the previous waves.
It really is just, in many ways, you could just say it's a great gift to humanity that the Omicron came along.
My friends in Uganda, for example, they were doing an interview on this and they said, look, what you've got to realise is Omicron is the vaccine we failed to produce.
Oh wow, it produced itself.
Well, where it came from, we still don't know.
We still don't know.
Omicron could have come from someone who was immunocompromised and was infected for a long period of time, developing partial immunity and then more rapid evolution.
But another line of thought actually thinks that Omicron could have been a reverse zoonosis from mice.
Because there's things about the Omicron virus that fit very well into a mouse ACE2 receptor.
that don't fit in so well into a human ACE2 receptor.
But it's very transmissible.
It doesn't cause a lot of disease in humans.
So we still don't know.
No definitive research on that.
But whatever, if we hadn't had Omicron, if we still had Delta-type pathogenicity, then a lot more people would have died.
That is for sure.
So we had this high death rate throughout 2021, which we kind of would expect.
With Omicron in 2022, we would expect that to go down.
And it did go down quite dramatically.
But the excess deaths for the UK at the moment is around about 9% higher all of 2022 than we would expect.
Now, they're not COVID-related deaths.
There's a great excess of deaths that are not COVID-related deaths.
And we're probably talking about 65,000 excess deaths in 2022 in the UK.
Those kind of numbers.
So the 65,000 deaths that aren't really explained.
Now, we know that most of them aren't COVID.
They're not COVID related.
Some will be related to flu.
Some will be related to other diseases.
And in fact, this was asked, Esther McVeigh asked this in Parliament just a few weeks ago.
Why have we got all these excess deaths?
And the minister responsible actually says, well, these excess deaths are partly COVID, partly flu and other conditions.
Well imagine that.
Partly Covid, partly flu and people are actually partly dying of other conditions.
Get away.
That's what the minister actually says.
People are dying of diseases is what she said.
But she said it's not really a problem because this is happening everywhere.
So there's excess deaths in the UK, Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia.
It's actually quite high.
We've got these excess deaths everywhere.
So we've got some happening in Australia, some happening in the States, some in Canada, some in the UK, some in Europe.
All these excess deaths everywhere.
Does that not give you the impression there's some common cause of these excess deaths because they're occurring everywhere?
We know they're not attributable to COVID.
Yes, a big chunk of them are caused by delays in healthcare during the pandemic.
But we know that Chris Whitty actually said a few weeks ago in his technical report that the reason more people are dying is because less people took statins and less people took high blood pressure medicines during the pandemic.
But we actually looked at the evidence from Oxford University's data centre on that, and you know what?
It's not true.
Statin use actually went up a little bit during the pandemic, and high blood pressure medication stayed the same during the pandemic.
So we know it's not people getting access to medications.
Is it delayed diagnosis?
Is it the ambulance problems?
Is it the NE crisis?
Yes, to some extent.
But there's also another factor that are causing these.
So if 65,000 people died in a terrorist attack in the UK, I think that might make the news.
Don't you think that would make the news?
It would be an unprecedented attack.
It would be all over the news.
As you know, terrorism has disappeared in the last couple of years altogether anyway.
But that would be a significant attack.
And Doctor, what This mostly helps me to appreciate is that during the pandemic period there has been an extraordinary amount of censorship, there has been a lot of exerted control over public discourse and a concomitant loss of trust in public institutions, big pharma, and I wonder when in particular did you change from being a
committed and, I'm trying to say this in the right way, sort of conventional medical professional,
when did you start to have doubts and start to think this is not being reported on and relayed in an accurate
way and there are anomalies that are worthy of discussion?
What personally made you start to doubt what we'll call for simplicity's sake,
the mainstream narrative?
At the start, we did think it was a bit of an emergency because this was a new virus and there was a lot of
unknowns.
So at the start of the pandemic, we had the prime minister, Chief Medical Advisor Chris Whitty and the Chief Scientific
Officer Patrick Valance.
They were all on TV.
And my wife says, look, you've got the Prime Minister, you've got the boss doctor, you've got the boss scientist.
That's about what you want, isn't it?
You know, this is the response we would expect.
Then as time went on, some of the stuff they were saying just didn't start, stopped really making sense.
They had a particular narrative.
They had this particular idea.
But times changed.
So they had this particular idea, let's say the vaccine idea.
So that was an initial idea.
But then as time changed, especially when we came on to Omicron, the risks went down dramatically, and yet people were still advising these vaccines.
So I started realizing the risk-benefit analysis had dramatically changed roughly at the end of 2021.
So for me personally, I had the first two vaccines and then I was offered a booster in November 2021.
And I thought, well, I'm denied about it.
I thought, but it's a vaccine.
That's OK.
So I got the booster in 2021, in November.
But it was about just in the days and weeks after that, I realized that people were getting Omicron.
Omicron was developing huge amounts of natural immunity.
So when you breathe in the Omicron virus, it's going into your nose, your respiratory passages, and it's generating immunity there.
So you've got specialist white cells in your nose, in your respiratory passages, in your mucus.
that generate a special type of antibody that protect your mucosal compartment.
They're called immunoglobulin type A's.
The sort of policemen there.
And they actually stop the virus getting into the body.
And if the virus does get into the body, you've got this natural immune system that produces the virus protection throughout the body.
So we've got this mucosal compartment immunity.
We've got this whole body immunity from exposure to the virus.
And I realized that this was just not being talked about.
Why weren't they talking about this wonderful natural immune system that we've all been blessed with, that recognises 9 billion different types of foreign particle in the body, and that's a literal number from the scientific data.
And this was being ignored and the vaccines were being pushed, and I thought, just a minute, this doesn't make sense.
The risks now from Covid are way less than they were, especially for young people.
No question, the risks for young people are, you can't, well, negligible.
You can't say there's no risk.
Of course, there's always a level of risk, but it's absolutely tiny.
And yet they were carrying on with these same vaccination programmes.
So earlier on, you know, earlier on in the pandemic, yes, you've got some risks.
You need to take a bit of a risk, arguably, to treat it.
But once the risk has gone way down, why would you carry on with the intervention, which itself is associated with a risk?
So my mind started really changing quite dramatically at the end of 2021.
Yes, as I heard you say, nine billion cells.
Nine billion foreign agents are recognised by the immune system.
Nine billion foreign agents are recognised.
As soon as I hear billion in relation to this pandemic, I just think Pfizer profits.
Dr. John, one of the reasons perhaps that vitamin D, healthy diet, healthy lifestyle, natural immunity may not have been discussed, and this is obviously reductive in particular compared to the vast, deep and varied knowledge that you bring to this conversation, is that these are areas of response that are not monetizable.
this also seems to make sense when compared to the ongoing suggestion that different demographics
continue to take medication when there is negligible risk.
We've talked about young people that a booster program continues to be augmented and
implemented even after the risk benefit analysis starts to shift dramatically.
Therefore, it seems like a natural point for us to do two things. One, to consider how finance and
economics affects research and the distribution of medicine. And two, to introduce your
famous, iconic and frankly wonderful overhead camera because I would love you to talk
us through the economic connotations implications around clinical research using this device
that we are, if you are Doctor Who, that is canine.
This is very much a sidekick, we're very excited to have Join us, the R2-D2 of YouTube Conspiracy Theorists or Dr. John's Ovaired Camera.
If we agree we can give it a nice big tick.
If I don't agree I'll give it a cross.
So, alright then, Dr. Scott.
On that basis, can you talk us through what you actually have to watch on the telly if you put it up on my screen?
Yeah, you can watch it on telly.
Then I'll watch it with the viewers.
We're in the electronic age, Russell.
We can do it.
You have the technology.
This is amazing.
So, this is from the Food and Drug Administration to the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency.
Are drug regulators for hire?
Now, this is not me speaking.
This is an article directly from the British Medical Journal.
So that's the reference there.
So check it out for yourself.
Do not take my word for it.
That's had a tick.
Check it out with the British Medical Journal.
The oldest medical journal in the world, Russell, started from memory in about 1840.
This reported things like smoking causes lung cancer.
And I think that has been proven.
Yes.
Yes, that has been proven by Richard Doll and Sir Austin Bradford Hill.
What about cigars though?
You don't inhale.
I'd have to ask them about that.
I suspect they probably are carcinogenic.
All tobacco products, I'm afraid, are carcinogenic, whether you chew them, smoke them.
I wouldn't even have them in the same room.
Right, now the proportion of the budget derived from industry of various agencies.
So proportion of the COVID-19 Vaccine, so this is the portion of the budget derived from industry and in brackets we've got the proportion of COVID-19 vaccine committee members that declare a financial conflict of interest.
So let's start off to begin with our very own, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency.
Now the figure there Russell is 86%.
So let's be clear, 86% of the funding For the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency that regulate what medicines you can take, 86% of that funding comes from industry.
Now we're not talking about industry that makes beer here or tractors.
No.
This is industry with an interest.
Of the members of this committee, the Members in Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, 32% of those members reported, this is the ones that have reported, a potential financial conflict of interest.
So you'll be pleased to hear that the people on our Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, with a potential conflict of interest, is under a third.
Under a third.
Just under a third of them with a reported conflict of interest.
86% of their funding.
That's the funding.
Now, of course, the fact that it's 86% industry funding in no way influences their objective decision making.
I don't think there's any proven relationship between giving people money and getting a desired outcome.
For example, when you go into a shop and say Here's 15 quid, can I have some fags please, or cigarettes?
Usually it's hit or miss whether you'll get some cigarettes in return.
This is different.
Here there's no influence on the decision-making whatsoever, whereas in the rest of the world there is.
Here is the money, do what you will.
It appears this is the only exception.
Trust your gut.
But there's a serious point here, Russell.
The reason that I've had to do all this silly, sarcasm, double-talk, tongue-in-cheek, pulling expressions at the camera... Thank God you're British.
Yeah.
But all that shouldn't be necessary.
I should just be able to say it straight.
Go on, do it now.
What do I want to do?
Well, it was saying that there's a clear potential conflict of interest, aren't we?
Yeah, but that's not going to get a tick for that.
This needs to be explained.
This 32%, why are they still on that committee?
Why should it be zero?
It should be zero.
So that 32%, in my view, should resign from the committee.
I agree.
In fact, I wish I had my red pen with me, because I'd give that a red cross.
All I can do now is give it a blue cross.
If I really don't like something, I'll give it a red cross.
Well, can we bring a red pen in for Dr John, please?
It's the least we can do, otherwise I'm going to have to use my own blood, simply for aesthetics.
US Food and Drug Administration, 65% industry funded, less than 10%.
But here, that sounds like a lot less, but their budget is so massive.
Right.
We're still talking about enough money to organise huge, huge research Also, Doctor, my understanding is that when it shifted to that figure, there was a radical increase in drugs being approved first time round.
When their funding model altered, the number of drugs that got passed after their first round of clinical trials increased.
So it seems that there's a relationship between funding a regulatory body and that regulatory body giving you favourable results for your product.
The problem is that this is hidden behind layers of complexity.
You know, it really is hard to tell, but this is something that should be squeaky clean.
I mean, if you take another government agency, we've been doing some work lately locally with the Environment Agency.
about an incineration project, which is really a bad idea because they're producing dioxins.
And it turns out that the people that are actually building this incineration plant have actually paid the Environment Agency consultancy fees.
Now, the fact that this company has paid the Environment Agency, which we think is working for you and me, the fact that it's paid that consultancy fees, of course, In no way, they would say, represent, influences their decision making.
You know, I just think this stinks.
Yeah.
It sort of shows us that the institutional machinery is organised to create certain results that you may as well call systemic at this point.
And it seems that this unique global event, the pandemic, brought together so many convergent interests, a desire for the increased ability to surveil, the desire for more control in populations that are increasingly harder to control when there are counter-narratives, the ability to censor more, the ability for big pharma to make profits.
It seemed like so many things came together simultaneously that the facts were being lost Massage.
Manipulated.
Neglected.
Negated.
And that clearly happens in the pharmaceutical industry anyway.
That is my limited understanding of how drugs are trialled.
They can do numerous tests until they get the results that they want.
They can white label products.
There's all sorts of ways around it.
It doesn't seem... One of the things I think that's made you so appealing and successful is that it seems that at the heart of what you're doing is, what is best for people's health?
And that that should be the pulse, the beating heart of medicine, or be wellness.
A sort of a Hippocratic interest in serving people and helping people, and of course not harming people.
And it seems that as much as interests have coalesced around this, controversy has.
And because of the nature of media now, because of the ability of independent voices, even in the face of some censorship, to communicate openly, the kind of questions that are being raised, it seems to me, are now unignorable.
It seems to me The narrative and understanding of the pandemic is shifting.
Do you sense that with all of the adverse events, with the excess deaths, with the information coming out about clinical trials, with the Pfizer profits, with Moderna pushing a 4000% markup on prices?
Are you starting to think that people have changed their opinion?
And also, this is psychologically so it's somewhat abstract, how do you think people are going to adjust Oh, there certainly is.
that this was a period in history that was very badly handled and that there's almost,
I would say at this point, a requirement for a reckoning, an investigation at very least.
Oh, there certainly is. Now, I mean, we would expect vested interests from the pharmaceutical
industry. They are there absolutely at the end of the day to make money. That's what
you would expect. But we're talking about our regulatory authorities. Now, we used to
trust these regulatory authorities. We thought they had our best interests at heart. But
it appears that they have these conflicts of interest that just are, to my mind, is
not acceptable.
What I'm interested in doing is preventing disease if possible and treating it as cheaply as possible if we possibly can.
So the vitamin D example, you can go to the supermarket, you can buy vitamin D tablets and they're 1.50 for a tub.
So, you know, we're talking about a really cheap intervention here.
Whereas all the new pharmaceuticals that are coming along, the new ones are expensive.
And it very often is that you need to take a tablet a day for the rest of your life.
So there's kind of a long-term market strategy here.
They're going to be selling these for a long period of time is what they want to do.
But these people should be getting regulated.
And in my view, they're just not being adequately regulated.
But it's not just that, it's the knowledge as well, how we know things.
So, if you're in an argument with a doctor, what you'll often say is, well, have you got a randomised double blind control trial evidence of that?
Well, actually, a lot of the time, I'm afraid we don't, because randomised double blind control trials are conducted essentially entirely by the pharmaceutical industry.
It costs probably upwards of $10 million each.
So, who's going to bother doing a randomized double-blind control trial on vitamin D or ivermectin or other repurposed drugs that are probably very, very efficacious for various conditions because they're not underpaid anymore.
You can't make any money.
So, Santoshi Omura's institution in Japan, he discovered ivermectin.
His institution in Japan offered Merck their facilities to run a randomized double blind control trial at the start of the pandemic on ivermectin.
And of course, Merck didn't want to because there was no Well, I can't say why Merck didn't want to, but Merck didn't want to.
I might posit that it's because it's not a profitable medicine.
And the hysteria that surrounded that conversation was, I think, one of the moments where we came to recognise what was happening in that pandemic.
There was a form of media totalitarianism and the assertion of establishment control.
that if it was taking places under the guises of another ideology would be called out for what it was hysteria.
I was thinking that the way that you just described that double-blind trial process as being an expensive costly one and therefore necessarily under the auspices of a profit-driven model only undertaken in pursuit of profits.
That's not even a moral and ethical issue.
If something was so tightly bound for example by Sufism or some Christian sect You'd call it crazy.
We're not going to carry out that trial.
It doesn't prove that Sufism works.
It doesn't prove that supporting West Ham United is the only way to follow football.
You'd call it mad.
But because it's an economic ideology, no one's questioning it.
And in a sense, that's what is at the heart of this.
Power, dominion, finance.
And increasingly, we're seeing this modality mapped onto reporting.
Because of course what you're doing is reporting, essentially, from a firm platform and basis of medical understanding and with a demeanour that I imagine many people find appealing.
But it isn't presumptuous, it's not condescending, it's open and ethical, it seems to me at least.
But ultimately, this has become something that's difficult to achieve.
Both you and I, on some platforms, have experienced pushback and consequences.
Both of us have been called conspiracy theorists and crackpots.
And even legitimate voices like, well you tell me, are voices like that of Peter McCulloch and Dr Robert Malone, are these voices that in a genuine scientific discourse ought to have been included?
And was an early warning sign that something unusual was happening, the exclusion of certain data, and what's that thing, the Barraclough Report, or whatever it's called, the Barrington Report?
Oh, the Great Barrington Declaration.
Yeah, when that kind of stuff starts getting excluded from the conversation, and those revelations around Fauci's emails, the fact that there were three theories at the beginning, and then all of a sudden they just stopped talking about two of them, and the fact that Wuhan does have ties to the EcoHealth Alliance, all of this accumulative information, what does it suggest to us about the driving force behind the narrative, the driving force behind policy, and the exclusion of certain voices from media?
Yeah, there's no question that there's been a particular narrative.
We've been able to see that.
If we take the BBC, for example, they've had a particular line all the way through this pandemic.
And, you know, argument against that really hasn't been allowed.
And again, big tech have had a particular narrative, and you're not really allowed to argue with that big tech narrative.
Now even if these people are wrong, if they're putting forward science, if they're putting forward sensible ideas, then they should be allowed to do that.
They should be allowed to publish that.
Because a lot of medical publications now are controlled to quite a large extent.
A lot of peer-reviewed papers are actually ghostwritten by pharmaceutical industries.
The very trials that are done Of course, trials, the pharmaceutical industry can do some trials and choose not to do other trials.
So the data that we get out from this is only what they've decided to put into the system in the first place.
But we've got people like those scientists you mentioned, our mutual friend Dr. Haseem Malhotra, for example, who's actually in India advocating against the use of mass vaccination in India as we speak.
When people like that are putting forward ideas, they've earned the right to be heard.
And they're putting forward scientific ideas and they're putting forward scientific data.
So for potential scientific data to be rejected out of hand, before it's been analysed, before it's been critiqued, because it doesn't fit with a particular narrative, is a form of intellectual fascism.
It's saying who can speak and who can't speak.
And that's a fundamental issue.
Anyone putting forward a legitimate scientific argument should be able to publish that, should be able to debate it, and should be able to do so freely.
And the argument should be based on the content of the argument, not on the man.
So play the ball.
not the man.
Very often people, I mean people have a go at me all the time of course, it doesn't bother me too much, but really it would be much better if they focused on my arguments.
Your data says this, this other data says this, how do you reconcile those two?
It's a completely legitimate thing to say.
But we've got all these people, I mean I talked at the start of this pandemic to the leading physician in the state, one of the leading respiratory physicians in the state, Dr Pierre Corrie, He testified to Senate about the use of steroids in COVID.
That was taken on.
I did a video with Dr Pierre Couric on steroids.
It's still on YouTube now.
You can see it.
The use of steroids has saved millions of lives in the pandemic.
He then testified to Senate about ivermectin.
That got immediately 10 million views on YouTube.
Then it was taken down.
He did a video with me.
And his arguments were eloquent.
They were consistent with his many years of medical expertise.
He cited other medical experts.
Of course, that video was taken down because it didn't quite fit the narrative.
You've got people of the caliber of Dr. Tess Lorry, who I interviewed as well.
She did the original Cochrane data review on ivermectin, found it was efficacious, sent it in, it was rejected.
She couldn't quite work out why it was being rejected.
It's because it didn't fit this narrative.
So we've got We've got Professor Norman Fenton, again a statistician of international renown, putting forward data, but the data is being rejected because it doesn't fit the narrative and that's not acceptable.
If we're going to deny the nature of scientific reality, then why do we bother having scientists we're not going to listen to?
We might as well go back to the Stone Age.
And that's what we're doing.
Scientific information, you know, the axioms of science like we talked about in the basic physiology The data, it's all being ignored or suppressed if it doesn't fit a particular narrative, rather than an open dialectic debate, which is what we need.
In fact, there are still videos up from much earlier in the pandemic where you can see people say, like, you know, not just people, presidents, prominent newscasters saying, take this vaccine, you won't get this thing and you won't be able to spread it, it stops with you.
Transmission seems to be another area where there was a degree of opacity that seems irresponsible, and a lot of the social leverage that was offered was around a kind of a public duty, which for me was a very effective method of communication, because if you believe, as obviously you do, in the sort of sanctity, significance and beauty of human life, then protecting other people, protecting the more vulnerable, is a significant push to take a medication not for your own health, but for somebody else's health.
And yet it seems that even that assertion is not one that can be made on a scientific basis.
Certainly not now.
Again, in the earlier stages of the pandemic, there was some evidence of that.
But what's been really disappointing in the pandemic is how quickly any protection has waned.
Now, the idea that you have the vaccine and the infection stops with you, that was always nonsense.
That was always nonsense?
Yeah, nothing is 100% effective in medicine.
You know, the only thing that's sure in life is death and taxes, isn't it?
It was never 100%.
But as time has gone on, it's become patently clear that that is not the case.
So now, if you are vaccinated, you probably are going to spread the disease a little less for a short period of time.
But only for a very short period of time, probably only about 10 or 15%.
It's essentially a negligible effect.
So this emotional blackmail that you should have your shot to protect your granny, really, why did people say that when it was patently untrue?
After the first few months, we knew that wasn't true.
And that's another problem with the pandemic.
As time has gone on, the data that was collected is no longer being collected.
So the Office for National Statistics, for example, every two months, absolutely religiously, published deaths by vaccination status.
So how many people are dying?
Were they vaccinated or not?
So that was published every two months, sometimes every six weeks, up until the 31st of May 2022.
They stopped publishing it then.
Now the data before then was showing that the vaccine effect was waning quite dramatically.
But for eight months now, having published it religiously every two months, but for eight months now we've had no data at all.
So we don't know who is dying in the UK by vaccination status.
They stopped publishing that data.
Now, Why did they stop publishing that data?
We don't know.
It does seem a bit strange that they were meticulous about it every two months.
We know that the ONS is still being funded by the government, to the tune of several million pounds a month, but they're not producing that data.
We need to know deaths by vaccination status because we know the efficacy of the vaccine wanes with time.
We know that it's not really preventing transmission in any serious way.
We know that the vaccine protection against severe illness, hospitalisation and death wanes with time.
But at the same time, we know that because there's such a high prevalence of Covid in the community, that you and I are constantly being reinfected.
We know that's boosting our mucosal immunity and we're getting this constant top up.
So we're still getting this narrative where the natural immunity is being ignored, the vaccine benefits are being talked up dramatically, but how many people are dying by their vaccination status?
has been ignored for the last eight months. If we had that data, it used to be published in even in
spreadsheet form, it was still published, then people like Professor Fenton are chomping at the
bit to analyse that data. But it hasn't been published, we simply don't know what it is.
Why has that not been published is a very interesting question.
On the spectrum of how this pandemic could have been conveyed to the public, the evolving story,
where between it would have been better if they'd just done nothing at all,
not had vaccines, not done lockdowns, not done masks, and certain portions of the population,
people with respiratory conditions, people that were vulnerable, comorbidities, whatever.
Where do you feel that you are?
Or is that too complex?
Like sometimes the part of me that is just radical in my sort of, I don't know, my sort of My MO.
So if it was like, would this have been better if they'd just not done anything?
Or would this have been better if they'd have sort of, from the beginning, been explicit?
Like, if you're like, it seems now, like... And also, isn't that kind of discourse impossible when you have the kind of interests at play?
The kind of funding that's at play?
The kind of agenda to introduce further surveillance, further ability to control digital passports?
These are not conspiracy theories.
It's sort of well-published, well-understood information.
Where do you sort of fall on that?
You know, in the early stages of the pandemic, Boris Johnson said it's necessary to flatten the sombrero.
So we're having this big spike in cases.
And I think we did need to get it down because at the time there was a lot of unknowns.
And if it had turned out that this disease had something like a 5% mortality rate, we really didn't know at the time because the data coming out of China was completely useless.
We knew that at the time.
If it had turned out to have a high mortality rate and had done nothing, then, of course, that would have been negligent.
So we did need to prevent the transmission of the SARS coronavirus in the early stages of the pandemic, during the Wuhan wave and arguably during the alpha wave, in the earlier waves.
I think that was necessary to do that to some extent.
Now, of course, it's utterly changed.
So were some measures necessary in the first early stages of the pandemic?
Yes.
Did the hand hygiene work?
Probably not, not at all.
Did the mask wearing work?
Well, pretty minimal really.
But the social isolation did.
That did prevent the transmission.
Now there was a time when a lot of people were being admitted to hospital all at the same time.
And if we'd had a situation where people were queuing up ill outside hospitals, that would have not been good for the people and it would have been politically embarrassing.
And if we'd let the disease just run rip in the early stages of the pandemic, that could have happened And more people, I think, would have died.
But there's no question now that, of course, the lockdown measures, that's completely passed, of course.
We need to promote natural immunity now because we're entering this period of endemicity.
The risk-benefit analysis, as you've rightly said, if 1 in 800, 1 in 1,000 people get severe adverse events of special interest to the vaccine, and we need to vaccinate tens of thousands to prevent hospitalisation, the risk-benefit analysis has clearly changed.
I believe we should absolutely stop the vaccine now, stop the restriction measures now.
Quite when that changed over is a bit of a trickier question.
It changed over earlier than I recognise, which I quite honestly regret now.
So, as I said, I had my last vaccine at the end of 2021.
I should have realised more in autumn 2021.
But when it became absolutely clear was in the Omicron era.
When the Omicron was giving us the natural immunity, the risks were way less, but the risks from vaccination and lockdown measures remained the same.
What I would offer there is that when you have lobbying as a sort of just a normalized component of conventional US politics and politics elsewhere, when you have bodies like the WHO that are funded by organizations that appear to have a vested interest in particular outcomes, and to be less cryptic, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation heavily invest in the WHO, similarly they invest in numerous vaccine programs, and similarly There are organisations that they fund that fund the WHO, so their impact and influence cannot be overstated.
It's difficult when there is a pivotal moment, even if you don't take a sort of an adverse or an inverse and proportional reaction of like, never trust anyone, never do anything, like, you know, which is sort of almost my pathology, Doctor.
It seems that much earlier, as you have just explained, during the Omicron phase, with true objectivity, what could have happened then is, listen, we can radically re-evaluate this.
Also because of what's happening culturally, it became sort of unduly politicised and attached to ideological ideas that have absolutely nothing to do with medicine at all!
So to do with liberalism and conservatism, both of which are ultimately framed within such a narrow economic framing anyway, though they amount to pretty muted and muted ideologies when it comes to what's required to change the world.
So it's been an extraordinary period for learning for our species.
I suppose because it is a pandemic, it was an opportunity to look at the planet As a whole, and to look at human nature, and to look at our institutions, and to look at power dynamics.
And I think that your role in helping reason, rationale, medicine, duty, stay central to that, I think, is incredibly significant and important.
Thank you for that, Doctor.
Thanks for your diligence and your duty.
I actually feel a bit better in some ways because I feel like now I'm more in contact with the reality.
Two years ago I would have said I'm now more cynical but I actually now do think there is a lot of vested interest at government level, at corporate level, at what you might call the philanthropy level, at the whole control level and that doesn't always, in fact you could argue that most of the time, that doesn't operate in the interest of the ordinary people because healthcare should be of the people for the people by the people.
That's what it should be.
Yes, it should be.
And it shows you that sometimes we lose heart, I think, because there's so much cynicism and so much suspicion and sometimes anger towards the institutions.
But actually, institutions, whilst there is a sort of a systemic, almost algorithmic consciousness that takes place within these institutions, they are ultimately human beings as well.
And if there are human beings that are corrupted, then that situation can be uncorrupted.
Uncorrupted, but we can reassess the type of institutions and the type of individuals we endow with power.
If we can envisage for a moment an Anthony Fauci that was as devoted to data and research as you are, then the public response to the pandemic in the United States would have been in keeping with the narrative that you've described.
Oh, it seems like a sensible thing to do initially.
Hold on, we've got more data.
We need to address this.
No, not young people.
Hey, let's look at these adverse events.
But that's simply not what happened, because the truth was too bloody inconvenient to be addressed, and so many factors came together.
So, thanks so much.
Hey, while I've got you here, we should probably say that Joe Rogan, in a way, was quite right to talk about ivermectin and alternative therapies at the time that he did, and that CNN gave him a bit of a rough ride unduly.
They certainly did.
Joe Rogan has a fundamental right to bring on experts and ask questions and the experts in authority should answer those questions, not ban him and not say you can't talk about that area.
Fortunately, they failed.
Brian Stelzer in his over-campaign failed.
So damn you, Jill Rogan!
We can make sure that he gets that, specially and specifically.
I want to see him in a couple of weeks.
Dr. John, thank you so much for joining me on this special episode of Stay Free, and thanks again for the incredible work you've done during the pandemic, and presumably up to that point, because I can tell that this isn't a hobby for you.
And for yours, Russell.
We need a free and independent voice.
to act against these elite agencies that are not acting in our interest.
Thanks very much.
Thanks, Dr. John.
I hope we get to talk more.
Join me next week for special guests including Tim Poole, investigative journalist, Michael Tracy, transcendental meditation teacher, doctor, no he's not a doctor, Bob Roth.
He's my friend.
He's an early devotee.
Not everyone's a doctor, are they?
Some people just are not doctors like Bob Roth, but he's a bloody good meditation teacher.
If you want to be able to watch these conversations live as they happen and be the first to see my new stand-up special, join us on local.
Stay connected.
Our weekly show where we tell you how we make these shows and answer your questions is available once a week and there's one coming out tomorrow.
And I also do a weekly meditation with a special guest in response to their inquiry.
Sometimes it's Deepak Chopra, sometimes it's my friend Mick the Ferret, specifically Mick the Ferret, who just had a heart operation and is in the process of recovering from that.
Please join me next week on Monday, not for more of the same, but for more of the different.
▲
Export Selection