All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 25, 2023 - Stay Free - Russel Brand
01:10:06
“I No Longer TRUST Authority” - Dr John Campbell on Moderna, Myocarditis and mRNA! - Stay Free #198
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
So, we're going to go ahead and get started. We're going to go ahead and get started. We're
going to go ahead and get started.
We're going to go ahead and get started. We're going to go ahead and get started.
We're going to go ahead and get started.
Bye, bye, Joe.
So I'm looking for In this video, you're going to see the team first.
We've got a live shot there.
Hello, you awakening wonders.
Thanks for joining me for Stay Free with Russell Brand.
We've got a fantastic show for you today.
We're going to be talking, sadly, about the COVID comeback, which neatly lines up with the emergence of new booster shots available now.
Plus, our special guest will be Dr. John Campbell.
We'll be talking about Moderna's $400 million NIH payout, and then we'll be transferring elegantly to that sweet home of free speech where we can discuss It's a pleasure to be back, Russell.
as controversies, where we can talk about whether or not the vaccine affects your DNA, where we'll take questions
from our community.
We're also gonna talk about Dr. John's journey more broadly.
Has the pandemic period represented for him a personal odyssey from trust in authority to mistrust?
Joining me now is Dr. John.
Dr. John, thank you so much for joining us today.
It's a pleasure to be back, Russell.
Thanks for having me.
Should we start off by talking about the $400 million payment from Moderna to the NIH
and the concerns around conflicts of interest, which should be called convergence of interest,
if you ask me, because there isn't any conflict.
Well, what do you make of it, Doc?
Very interesting, isn't it?
I just discovered this about a week or two back, and this was the interview between Senator Rand Paul and Stephan Banshell, who's the Chief Executive Officer of Moderna.
It turned out that Rand Paul said Moderna recently gave $400 million to the National Institutes of Health in the United States.
I thought that the Chief Executive Officer might question this, but he said, oh yeah, that's right, we gave $400 million just before Christmas.
So as far as we know, $400 million went from Moderna to the National Institutes of Health in around about December 2022, as far as we know.
Of course, Rand Paul said, well, do you think This could create any conflicts of interest.
After all, you're the guys making the decisions about how we use these products, how we use Moderna products.
And yet you've just been given $400 million.
Could this create a conflict of interest?
Now, a cynic might think it would create conflicts of interest.
It did cross my mind, may have crossed your mind, that there could be a conflict of interest here.
But the CEO of Pfizer did not admit to that.
He basically remained silent and didn't say one way or the other.
So we've got this situation where there's huge amounts of money Going from Big Pharma into regulatory authorities.
It's not just that direct payment.
We already know that Big Pharma pays a lot of money into regulatory authorities around the world, and yet no one seems to really to be prepared to talk about conflicts of interest, which is is unfortunate.
You said the payment was made in December.
I just assume it's the season of goodwill to all people, and these probably should mind your own business, Dr John.
Yeah, like the more we look at Moderna's funding, for those of us that are British, we know that the hedge fund that heavily funded them was founded by Rishi Sunak, who's the Prime Minister of our country now, who was able to take his experience running a hedge fund right into being Chancellor.
And again, no conflicts of interest there.
Extraordinary.
I wonder what you feel, also, a UK-centric story, but that surely interests anybody, because the Moderna phenomenon, by nature of pandemics, is one that traverses the globe.
The conversation between that Australian hearing and members of Moderna revealing that they
had no money put aside for liability in the event of vaccine injury, that's one aspect
of this. I know that in Canada they're building a lot of Moderna facilities, they're building
Moderna facilities here in the UK and they have more than enough of them one might suppose
in the United States. And now the UK former medical officer Jonathan Van Tam, with a name
this dangerously close to an action.
and a mentality that's dangerously close to a charlatan has taken a role at Moderna.
What do you feel about that, particularly in relation to what we've just discussed with that $400 million payment,
Dr John?
Absolutely. So this trust group, Thelima, I believe it's called, 2013,
they put, we believe, according to The Guardian, half a billion, that's $500 million,
into Moderna, which at the time was a completely unknown company.
But now, fortunately for them, Moderna's come good and is now turning a profit.
So a pretty good half a billion dollar investment there back in 2013, you might think.
Now, you're quite right.
The British government had basically got into bed with Moderna.
They've got this joint agreement.
The British government, as far as we know, have put £1 billion into this plant that's being developed near Oxford.
As we were just talking about, it's probably being built at the moment.
A billion pounds have gone into that.
This plant is scheduled to make 250 million doses of Moderna vaccines, mRNA-based technologies, every year.
There's a very similar plant near Melbourne in Australia that's going to produce a mere 100 million doses per year.
And there's a very similar plant in Canada that's going to produce another 100 million doses of Moderna products per year.
Now this is going to include mRNA vaccines, for example, for COVID, but they're also developing mRNA vaccines for influenza, mRNA vaccines for a respiratory infection called respiratory syncytial virus.
So they're rolling this mRNA technology out.
Whereas basically we have very little information on it, and the information we do have on it, we're actually somewhat uncomfortable about, and yet we're going on and on developing these in the British government.
I've actually committed to buy these products for the next 10 years.
Now, they're not tried.
They're not tested.
We don't know about the efficacy.
We don't know about the adverse reactions.
But hey, we're going to buy them anyway.
You know, would you buy a car like that?
You know, this car may exist.
It may work.
It may not work.
It may have spikes instead of steering wheels, but you're going to buy it anyway.
You know, we've just gone into this full steam ahead, really on quite a blind basis.
The only way people find that surprising, I suppose if I was buying that car with someone else's money, if I was buying it with taxpayer money, I'd say what the hell, you know, when you have people in government that just had a hunch that Moderna, we're going to make a lot of money in the forthcoming years and set up a $500 million hedge fund, which as you say, due to ingenuity, and now's Moxie and Insight did come good.
You know, when you have those people involved, you've got to guess that ultimately this £1 billion investment in the Moderna facility in the UK I'm referring to now is going to pay off.
But it does sound like a commitment that no matter what the doses and the extraordinary number of doses that you described, both in Australia and the UK, one way or another are going to get used.
It's 450 million doses between the factors and, of course, the massive production capacity that's already in the United States.
Now, the thing is, one thing that's concerning here is the traditional vaccines where you give basically a mushed up dead virus, you give an antigen to produce an antibody response, an immune response.
These have been tried and tested.
We know how safe they are, we know how dangerous they are, and overall they are pretty safe.
Why on earth would you take an established safe product, chuck it out and replace it with a completely unknown product?
It just doesn't seem to make any medical sense.
I like medical decisions to be conservative, to err on the safe side, only to go into the new areas where there's a significant risk of harm.
And to be fair, these mRNA vaccines, some of them are going to be acting against particular cancers.
But these are going to be given to people that have cancer already.
And of course, people that have cancer already have got severe risk of getting a lot sicker.
They've got severe risk of dying.
In that situation, you'd be quite happy taking a risk.
But when you're talking about a healthy person who hasn't got cancer and hasn't got a disease, and you're talking about intervening in their lives, then that actually takes quite a lot of audacity to intervene in a perfectly healthy person.
And another thing you alluded to there, Russell, was the revolving door.
So we had Professor Sir, Dr Jonathan Van Tam, Quite a few of these people have done well for knighthoods, Russell.
So we've got Chris Whitty with a knighthood, and we've got Patrick Vallance with a knighthood, and Jonathan Van Tan with a knighthood.
So far, I've escaped without physical abuse.
I don't think you've had a knighthood yet, have you?
Well, the phone call to be fair, have you checked the mail yet?
Is it come through yet?
I'll tell you what, they better get this night.
I don't think the people are going to stand for this much longer.
I think that if I don't get my gong, if I don't get my knighthood, I could see there being a pretty popular uprising.
But you are right, as you often are, Doctor, my knighthood has not yet been forthcoming.
But you know, the day, we await the day for the alighting of the sword and the bestowing of the honour.
As indeed, as indeed do I. I'm at the palace's disposal.
But Jonathan Van Tam has gone from being the Deputy Chief Medical Officer to a post in Moderna.
So he's actually now working for Moderna.
Now, he's going to keep his university job at Nottingham University, it is, I think, but also going to be working for Moderna.
Now, of course, no one's saying there's conflict of interest there.
But what would be interesting is how far ahead of this appointment did he think, oh, you know what?
I quite fancy a job at Moderna.
Now, if that was a week ago or a month ago, fine.
If it was two years ago when he was deputy chief medical officer, Would that be at the back of his mind?
Could that have potentially influenced any of the decisions he took?
We're not saying it did.
But this revolving door thing, if you think that I might be working, if I think, you know, I think I've got a good chance of a job with Stay Free Media here, I think, I think I'll maybe work towards that.
Well, I'm not going to start slagging off Russell Brand, because, you know, I don't want to Upsetting.
I would rather ingratiate myself with them and kind of work towards a job with Stay Free Media.
You know, this has got to be in people's minds.
People are in the public eye, in these senior positions, just for a year or two.
What are they going to do next?
They go around the revolving door and they get a job at a... They go from being a regulator to getting a job in one of these companies.
They go from gamekeeper to poacher.
And this is not just a problem in the UK.
Although it is a problem in the UK.
Patrick Vallance, for example, who was the chief scientific advisor, had previously worked for GlaxoSmithKline and made quite a lot of money doing that.
Good luck to him, but let's hope that didn't affect any decisions he made when he was actually in office.
In the United States, it's a problem.
British Medical Journal has done quite a lot of good articles on this, actually, Russell.
You can actually learn about some of the really quite specific revolving door issues.
We would, may I say, Doctor, we would like to offer you a job at Stay Free Media as our in-house doctor.
Now, I should warn you in advance, I do require what may seem like an unusually high number of rectal exams.
I like to have one every afternoon after lunch.
I mean, it's straight to the palace gates to wait for the knighthood.
I think you're possibly overqualified for the role.
The offer's there.
I'll bear it in mind, thank you.
I'm only a nurse lecturer, anyway, and an academic.
But I can do some quite invasive clinical procedures if I need to.
They're almost required on a daily basis.
Did Jonathan Van Tam, if I may ask, while we're still on YouTube, of course, because we do our first 15 minutes on YouTube, then we disappear, ascend, one might argue, into the reified free speech strewn air full of pathogens of freedom over there at the other
place that I sometimes don't name in case the algorithm picks it up. But while we're
still here on YouTube before moving on to the other place and talking about myocarditis and
talking about WHO's regulations, do you think to assess whether or not Jonathan Van Tam, while
chief medical officer for the UK during the COVID period, could have made decisions that
were beneficial to Moderna, what type of decisions was he involved in?
Thank you.
Well, from memory, I think we bought over 70 million doses of Moderna vaccine, and the Moderna vaccine was actually the most expensive.
So the Moderna was the most expensive, then the Pfizer, and then the AstraZeneca was quite a lot cheaper.
So he was involved really in a fairly direct way in the committee, member of the committee that supervised purchasing of tens of millions of very expensive vaccine doses.
Now, obviously, he did that purely on clinical grounds because that was his medical professional opinion that that was the right thing to do for the country.
But cynics might think it was potentially a conflict of interest, given the job he actually transpired to take last week.
And he was actually appointed to this job, I think it was on the 2nd of May.
But it was only announced, as far as I'm aware, last week, and it was announced rather strangely on LinkedIn.
It was a bit of a funny way to do it, and certainly a big delay in the announcement.
Almost as if he was trying to put it off, but of course we can't possibly know that.
I wonder what Frenzy's got over there at LinkedIn.
Maybe Rishi Sunak.
It'll be an interesting rogues gallery eye, Warrenshire.
But as for the pricing of Moderna, it was an expensive but fantastic product.
And sometimes you pay a bit extra for quality.
If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys.
If you pay cheese, you get mice.
Eight mice is how many some of the Moderna vaccines were tested on.
So you know you are getting real quality over there at Moderna.
Now, we've got to leave YouTube because, as you know, YouTube used WHO guidelines to regulate conversations of this nature, which is one of the topics I'll be talking with Dr. John about, as well as the ongoing debate about the risk of myocarditis between young men compared to older folk, where traditionally old people normally die more quickly than young people.
I mean, if the Lion King's to be believed, that's part of the circle of life, but we'll be talking about that over on Rumble freely, so there's a link in the description.
If you're watching this on YouTube, join us over there.
If you're watching this on Rumble, give us a rumble, subscribe to our channel, and indeed, consider pressing that red button on your screen right now and joining us on Locals.
That's where we participate in the ongoing conversation, and you even get to join us Live in the event that we pre-record our content to secure high-profile, reliable, and may I say, sexy guests who could soon be on the staff here, like Dr. John.
Hilani's here, Artbo Wendy-Klein's here, blessed old bird.
There's lots of people watching it now and I'll be taking some of your questions later in the conversation.
But first up, Dr. John, I wanted to talk about the debate about the risks of myocarditis.
Is it higher for vaccinated individuals in the 16 to 24 age group compared to those who contract the disease.
Can you explain to me what's going on in this complex medical area?
So again, this came out of that poor Rand interchange with the chief executive officer from Moderna.
And Rand Paul said, in these young adolescent males and young men,
is the risk of myocarditis from vaccination higher than the risk from natural infection?
And the chief executive officer said the risk is greater from natural infection.
And Rand Paul simply said, that's not true.
And I formally submit six peer-reviewed papers that actually indicate or show that the risk of myocarditis in young men is actually higher from vaccination than it is if they get the natural COVID infection.
But there's another factor here, Russell, as well.
A lot of this early COVID data on how dangerous COVID was, was from the original Wuhan strain.
Or from the alpha strain, or from the delta strain.
And we know that they were relatively dangerous viruses.
in populations which were completely unexposed to this type of virus before, were naive to it and people could get sick from that.
But then when 2022 started and Omicron came along, the situation really changed completely because Omicron is way less pathogenic, causes way less severe disease.
Omicron affects mostly the upper airways and causes common cold, chorizal type symptoms.
Whereas these other, earlier viruses could affect the lungs.
So to use data that was generated in the Wuhan time, the Alpha time, the Delta time, and to use that to argue that we still need protection from this disease, which in that form essentially no longer exists, because there is no Delta variant now, there is no Alpha variant now, it's all been completely replaced.
By the Omicron variant, it just seems disingenuous to me to talk about risks from two, three years ago and compare those with the risks for the very minimal risks that are associated with the Omicron infection now, especially in the young, healthy age group.
So that's where that came from.
And Rand Paul submitted those six papers to the Senate hearing, and it was unambiguous the way he made that claim.
It's confusing yet convenient that many of the vaccine injuries appear to correlate with symptoms of coronavirus, particularly, as you say, earlier strains.
Many people were saying at the commencement of the pandemic that over time it would become less deadly, that there would be a kind of entropy.
These were some of the ideas that were discussed by lunatic epidemiologists I wonder, Dr John, do you think it is possible for us to discuss, with the benefit of hindsight, your experience and analysis, what can we now say has been the benefit of the medical interventions such as vaccines?
What were the benefits of lockdowns and how might we have approached this differently?
Can we say that perhaps when it came to the original outbreak that you described, the Wuhan, Alpha and Delta variants, that the vaccines did some good, even in preventing spread and preventing death?
And subsequent to that, They were not quick enough to amend policy or can we make like I'm not suggesting you do this because you have responsibilities I don't have though we all have responsibilities to truth and authenticity.
Is there an argument for saying that had we intervened a lot less had we been more circumspect in our regulating around lockdowns and in the near mandating particularly for certain type of workers of vaccines if we'd have done a lot less would the results have been similar or even Better?
Yeah, actually quite hard to answer that question because to an extent we're still treated like mushrooms in terms of the data that we're given.
We're kept in the dark and fed an unpleasant material.
So for example, just going back to the idea of the side effects, the myocarditis, there's actually a study from Switzerland that show that actually 2.8% of people can get a degree of myocarditis.
Now it's largely a question is of when is myocarditis myocarditis?
So the Swiss study takes it as being elevated troponin levels.
Now troponins are markers that are released from damaged myocardium and go into the blood.
Whereas the Therapeutic Goods Administration and the regulatory authorities in the UK say it's about 1 or 2 per 100,000 people get myocarditis.
So we've got 0.0002% four zeros after the decimal point,
four or five, compared to 2.0.
I mean, the differences here are just massive.
It's how you measure it.
So we've got one type of study that showing that this is absolutely minimal because we're measuring this in a very in a way which only merits takes into account very severe disease.
We've got other studies which are showing well.
No, these are my these myocardial myocardial markers are significant and I think I think they are significant.
So we're slightly short of data, really, to judge this fully.
But look, taking your initial question, things were done that needed to be done, things were done that were done too much, and things that should have been done were not done.
So first of all, the things that were done probably about right, we did need a vaccine for this type of infection, this new infection.
Why we went for the mRNA type vaccine and not for a traditional antigen based vaccine, I don't think anyone's ever answered that question.
So if I was trying to do this, I'd say, well, we've got this tried and tested technology.
Basically, we take the virus, we brew the virus up in huge culture vats, we mush up this virus, and then we inject that into people.
That's what the Chinese did.
Why did we take the mRNA approach, which had never been done before?
So we had the biggest pandemic that the planet has seen since the 1918-1919 influenza pandemic.
And we introduced a completely new untested technology to try and treat that.
That's really quite strange that we would have done that.
Really would have made more sense, you would have thought, to go for a tried and trusted technology.
Did the vaccine do some good in the early stages?
Yes, it did.
I'm quite convinced it did.
I had colleagues working in intensive care and they were seeing people come in with this acute respiratory distress syndrome.
And the vaccine did offer protection against people getting very ill.
Did the vaccine offer protection against spread?
Well, it did a little bit to begin with.
The protection against spread did go down as time went on as the variants moved away from the original Wuhan type of virus that the original vaccine was designed for.
But as well as that, we now know that the vaccine only works for a very short period of time, so the coverage actually declines really quite quickly.
So that wasn't taken fully into account.
Were the lockdowns necessary?
Well, there was a stage, if you think back to early 2020, when there was a risk that the NHS could be overwhelmed.
That would have been politically very embarrassing.
It would have been bad if we'd had relatives dying in the street.
So to have some degree of social control and some degree of lockdown in the early stages was probably necessary.
Did that go on for too long?
Absolutely certain in my mind that it did.
Did the vaccine strategy carry on as before when Omicron came along, when the risk completely changed?
Yeah, the vaccine strategy just basically carried on, whereas in my mind it should have changed dramatically when Omicron came along.
Also, why weren't our chief medical officers standing up there next to the Prime Minister with a scientific officer saying, look, Everyone in the country should really optimise your immune system.
Because if you get this disease, we want to prevent you getting it, and we want to stop you getting sick.
So therefore, make sure you get fresh air, make sure you get plenty of exercise, make sure you eat nutritious food, make sure your vitamin D level is up to standard.
Doctors should have been taking vitamin D levels and titrating vitamin D levels up to make sure that people were getting adequate levels.
Make sure you're getting enough zinc.
And again, there's evidence for zinc.
Make sure you're getting enough vitamin C. And again, there's evidence that deficiencies in all these things, which are actually quite common in our country, predispose to infection.
Why was none of that done?
Why weren't people optimised?
So there was things done that were right.
There was things that were done for too long.
But there are such obvious things that, I mean, Chris Whitty, for example, is a physician, the chief medical officer and the chief scientific officer is also a distinguished physician.
Surely they should have been talking about optimising the immune system.
Why weren't they talking about that?
All these things that could have been done that basically don't cost anything.
Why was it that all the interventions, apart from the lockdowns which were massively expensive in terms of government lost revenue, but why were the interventions like the vaccines and the antiviral drugs all really expensive when we could have had things that were dirt cheap that could have given us potentially massive benefit?
That's such a comprehensive, fair and at points very conservative argument, I would say, Dr John, and I think it's a sort of a responsible and appropriate answer and in a sense demonstrates the type of discourse we could be having.
There are points and were points during the pandemic when I thought That whilst this is a unique situation, what it reveals isn't unique.
It demonstrates and makes visible a certain type of systemic inertia and certain sets of relationships, in particular relationships between the state and private entities, new and emergent globalist models which are perhaps easier to track now we're able to discuss Moderna factories that are to one degree or another government
funded in Canada, Australia, the United States, the United Kingdom. When people talk about
the threat of globalism, perhaps this is in part what they're talking about. Of course, this
being the radical space that it is, there are people talking about RFK, Robert F.
Kennedy's book, and some of the more serious allegations that he's made there. And indeed
on this show, the pandemic was event that was, gosh, if not planned to a degree, pre-empted.
These are pretty out there theories.
You know, RFK has talked about the funding of the research in the United States and has said that it was Pentagon funded and I believe there is some significant and alarming evidence that what RFK is saying there...
Is true.
We've also got in our chat some pretty interesting questions.
I'd love, you know, given this is the place that, you know, where we can speak freely.
Unicornplug asked this very bespoke and COVID-related inquiry, and there were certainly some of the ideas that sprung up in this type of space over the last couple of years.
Is there any evidence at all, Dr. John, that mRNA vaccines alter your DNA?
Is that true or is that tin hat stuff?
You know, that is a remarkably good question.
In biology, there's something called the central dogma of genetics.
And that central dogma says DNA makes RNA makes protein.
So normally what happens is the DNA codes for RNA, and it's the RNA that makes the protein.
Now in this situation, RNA is actually being given.
We're actually giving RNA.
So now there is enzymes found in some cells of the body called reverse transcriptomes.
So transcription would be the DNA giving information to the RNA.
If there is reverse transcription, that would be the RNA giving information back to the DNA.
Now, there is a lot of precedent for this in human physiology, so I don't know what the percentage is offhand.
I think it's around about 9% of your genetic material, Russell, actually comes from viruses.
So you and I are probably about 9% virus, and that's because our grandfathers and grandfathers and grandmothers and great grandmothers way back through hundreds of millions of years had viral infections.
Those viral infections underwent reverse transcriptase and the RNA from those viruses went into the DNA, and that's partly why we are as we are.
So this idea that there is reverse transcriptase in a wide variety of cells, there is evidence for that, and I'm convinced by the evidence for that.
Therefore, giving RNA, artificial RNA, could theoretically produce DNA that goes into the cells.
That is a theoretical possibility.
Now there's two ways that could work.
One is somatically and the other is germline.
So if it was somatic, what that would mean is that the RNA that is given could form new DNA in your body cells.
Now if that was the case, if this new DNA was in your body cells, it probably wouldn't do any harm and it would die with you.
But Another theoretical possibility is new RNA could code for DNA that got into the ovaries and the testes and therefore was incorporated into the next generation.
That would be a germline change.
Now, there's no evidence for that.
It's highly theoretical.
But I've actually talked to leading scientists who believe it's possible that giving RNA into cells could lead to some reverse transcription and could have genetic changes to DNA.
There's no evidence for it that I'm aware of yet, but it is a theoretical possibility that is not ludicrous in terms of the fundamental biology.
It's an interesting answer, particularly when we consider that earlier in our conversation, you pointed out that a decision was made not to go with a conventional vaccine, but this unprecedented type of vaccine.
And it's a question that's never been answered.
It seems extraordinary that that's not something that's been subject to some scrutiny, given the plausible potential for significant intervention, change and I wonder then, Dr John, if you have any thoughts on Australia ceasing to report on vaccine-related myocarditis despite rising concerns.
I suppose I ask this in relation to the fact that it seems that even with your very fair and reasonable assessment of the entire Covid arc, that if you run a parallel track Where you're continually observing the government's ability to regulate, pharmaceutical companies' opportunities to profit, globalist organisations' ability to impose regulation at a previously unprecedented level, media organisations getting more views, more influence.
This control of the narrative and ongoing expressions of that, such as this story, appears to suggest are certainly worthy of consideration, aren't they?
I wonder what your thoughts are on it, Doc.
Absolutely.
Before you mention there, Russell, that some people believe that all this was planned, it's called the plandemic.
Let me make it clear, I do not believe that this was planned.
However, the virus, in my view, did escape from a lab.
I don't think there's really any debate about that.
The Animal that could have potentially transmitted the virus to humans is being looked for now intensely for three years and has never been found.
And the virus, the SARS-CoV-2, is really quite dissimilar from other viruses found in nature being found in bats.
But it's close enough to bats, some bat viruses, that you could manipulate that bat virus and come up with the SARS coronavirus 2.
And it just so happens that coronaviruses were being studied from bats at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and the next closest ancestor to SARS coronavirus 2 was being studied there.
We know that that was being paid for partly by money from these various organisations in the United States that we know about.
So I believe that the virus actually did come from a lab.
I believe it was man-made.
I don't believe it was planned.
I believe it was a mistake.
It was an accidental leak.
But When that happened, a lot of people took advantage of that situation.
Now, what we're seeing at the moment, for example, is the World Health Organization have said, look, we've had this terrible pandemic.
We really don't want another one.
Therefore, we need to have all these new regulations, these international health regulations.
It will allow the World Health Organization to use national governments, use the power of law to enforce World Health Organization dictates onto individual people.
It's almost like they've taken an advantage of this situation, and I believe that other groupings have used the pandemic as a kind of power grab, because strangely what's happened here, Russell, is people have taken what has happened and optimized that to their own advantage.
Rather strange thing that this has happened.
Human nature can do that sometimes, of course.
But they're actually taking advantage of the situation as it is.
So I don't believe it was planned.
I believe it was a mistake, but I believe that people are completely optimizing that for their own advantage, which is a problem.
Now, to take that specific question, the Therapeutics Goods Administration in the United States What it said is that the amount of myocarditis, and they put it as about 2 per 100,000 injections.
Now, we know that that's a ludicrously small estimate, but that's what they give.
But what they've said is because the amount of myocarditis after COVID vaccines is stable, then you know what?
We don't need to report that anymore.
We can just ignore that as if this is somehow acceptable.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, we know when you give our mRNA vaccines, there's going to be some myocarditis.
Yeah, yeah, of course, of course there is.
But I tell you what, we won't bother talking about that anymore.
We won't bother reporting on that.
This is just completely outrageous.
If there's myocarditis that's caused by a medical treatment, we should be doing absolutely going flat out to get through the research and work out why this is happening, not brush under the carpet, not ignore it.
And the estimates for myocarditis in the United Kingdom are equally low, or around about the same.
Again, it's been grossly Underreported in these various areas, but the idea that you say it's stable, therefore will just ignore it.
That is utterly preposterous.
Let's hope the people of Australia don't put up with that, and we've on my channel.
I've interviewed people like Senator Gerard Rennick in Australia and other senators are actually questioning this dogma and are questioning this decision now as we speak.
And we wish them success with that because we can't just say that this is acceptable.
The amount of adverse reactions that we're getting.
I mean, the study that reanalyzed the original data from the Pfizer-Moderna trials worked out it was around about 1 in 800 had a significant adverse reaction.
And that is basically too high.
We shouldn't accept that much.
But to say there's a whole class of adverse reactions and we're just going to ignore it and not report it is just beggars' credulity, really.
I don't know quite how they would get to that.
I would like to ask the TGA what the reasoning for that is, but that's what they've actually said.
Quite surprising. Certainly vaccines that are significantly less injurious have been ceased
on the, you know, for less damage than that. And the idea that doing consistent damage is somehow
not a problem, that suggests that all Saddam Hussein had to do to avoid censure is maintain
a certain number of Kurds per month.
We kill a thousand Kurds every month.
Carry on or Pol Pot is licensed to the world's genocidalists.
I have another great question from our locals chat.
Remember, press the red button, join us in the locals chat to get your questions asked and indeed to get early access to some of the interviews we do live.
Imagination asks, is it true in your view doctor or is there any credibility to the theory that the mRNA vaccines were developed in connection to HIV as Dr. Montagnier has alleged?
Yeah, there is sort of chemical similarities here, but I don't actually know of any firm evidence that would say that the Covid vaccines have got HIV components in them.
I think that's probably taking it a bit far.
If we wanted to start making those sort of claims, the evidence would need to be pretty Pretty absolute, but of course there is a problem here as well that the people that are paying for the evidence to be generated of those that have a vested interest in it.
So if that were to be the case, which I personally don't think it is, but if it is, it's very unlikely that such research would be paid for.
Therefore, the research is not paid for.
Very unlikely that that research would be done, but we'll give that a no for the time being.
Part of the problem that I alluded to earlier in particular that the pandemic, whilst it was and is unique in many ways, what it exposed are consistent problems.
One of the, I think, outliers there is only clinical trials that might lead to profitable
outcomes are undertaken. No one's doing clinical trials, or at least not significantly or
early enough, to about the benefits of vitamin D, exercise, etc. Of course these things are done sort of
broadly, but who's going to pay for the trials that show that these vaccine injuries are as serious
or as profligate as some people have suggested.
One of the reasons that it's difficult even to, let alone find reliable evidence, even have speculative conversations is because YouTube's medical misinformation policy has expanded from Covid to all diseases and the WHO Of course have a sort of a pretty unique funding model as well as you know I know they do take taxpayer money but significantly they're funded privately.
What kind of exposure does YouTube taking on this policy present and I wonder this is a bit broader if you don't mind going into this after.
How over the pandemic period has your Skepticism and open-heartedness changed towards these kind of institutions, whether they're private pharmacological ones or state ones.
Because I feel like you are, generally speaking, a very open-hearted person, not a sort of conspiratorial cynic looking for problems.
I wonder how your views have changed accumulatively over this period.
But if you'd start by talking about the WHO's impact on YouTube guidelines, that would be fascinating.
Yeah, absolutely.
So the YouTube guidelines were pretty well identical for, I guess, two or three years throughout the period of the pandemic.
And then they just seem to have changed.
I became aware of the change just in the last few days.
And when you look at them now, they're not so pandemic specific.
They're more talking about things in general.
So, for example, they're talking about keeping people safe.
I actually made a note of a couple of things here.
You're not allowed to say that turpentine is effective.
You're not allowed to say that petrol and diesel are effective.
So there are things that are reasonable for keeping people safe.
The wording that YouTube actually use now is interesting.
So the risk, the wording they're using now is we can't have medical misinformation or disinformation where there is a risk of egregious harm.
And that actually sounds pretty reasonable till you look at the detail.
But yeah, to prevent, say, people from egregious harm is fair because you do get people who don't understand these things.
You get someone who appears authoritative is saying, do something absurd.
I won't even give an example because it's probably too dangerous.
And there are some people, to be quite crude about it, stupid enough just to do it.
So there is a level of protection that is required there, but then they go on to give an awful lot of details on the new regulation about vaccines.
So, for example, they list all these things like ozone, petrol, diesel, miracle mineral solution, but in the same list they actually say that you can't say hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin prevents COVID-19, so it does seem a bit a bit strange what they have chosen to write down there, but they still have this clause that you can't say things on YouTube that are contrary to World Health Organization.
Principles or World Health Organization doctrines, teachings, whatever you want to call them, and local health authority teachings.
Now, of course, they sometimes do contradict.
But basically they're saying you've still got to toe the line.
Don't disagree with the World Health Organization.
Don't disagree with local health authorities or you can be sanctioned on YouTube.
But there's a few strange anomalies to this.
Now, I don't know if you've noticed this Russell, but in the past week or two, And this is what sent me back to looking at the YouTube guidelines.
I've noticed that quite a few channels on YouTube have been speaking the drug which dare not speak its name.
You probably know what I mean, Russell.
It's hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin.
Oh, ivermectin.
Are there four sweeter syllables in the English language?
The Dark Lady herself, as sweet Dame Horse Paste, ivermectin, is trotting into the conversation.
Is it true that the FDA has given doctors permission to prescribe ivermectin, Doctor?
We've got a chart there, Russell, I think, have we?
Can that chart go on the screen?
Of when ivermectin was first Disband on there, there we go, yeah.
So the 8th of August 2023, now this purple line here shows the vaccines that have been given in the United States, all the billions of dollars worth of vaccine.
And then on the 8th of August, when the vaccine campaign is essentially over in the States and the pandemic is essentially over, 2023 the FDA explicitly recognises that doctors do have the authority To prescribe Ivermectin to treat COVID-19.
So it might come a bit late.
Thanks for that slide.
That's enough.
We can leave that now.
Now, the background here is that there are three doctors.
For example, Dr. Merrick was actually sacked from his position for wanting to prescribe ivermectin.
Dr. Merrick is a very leading doctor in the States, very highly published, ran an intensive care unit, wanted to prescribe ivermectin, wasn't allowed to.
The hospital said you can't, largely based on what the FDA was saying.
Now, he and a couple of the doctors took this to court.
It was rejected.
There was an appeal.
And at this appeal hearing, that's where that...
Those words came out.
So the FDA has not said that we want to use ivermectin to treat COVID-19.
What it has said is doctors are now free to prescribe ivermectin for COVID-19.
So the idea is that this should have happened all along.
So if you go to your doctor with an infected toe, He might say, well you've got bacteria in your toe, therefore I think you need antibiotics.
And you have one way of thinking, the doctor has another way of thinking, you come to agreement.
So when you walk out, you say, well, I've got these antibiotics for my infected toe.
This is going to help me.
There's a concordance is what we call concordance between the prescriber and the person receiving the drug.
But this wasn't really allowed with ivermectin.
Doctors weren't allowed to prescribe it, or at least they believe they weren't allowed to prescribe it.
And doctors were disciplined for prescribing it.
So we had a situation where adults, consenting adults and their doctors, were not allowed to discuss a particular drug for a particular indication and weren't allowed to do it.
Now the FDA, the Food and Drug Administration, has now said that doctors and their patients or nurse prescribers and their patients can come to a concordance, come to agreement, And if they want to take ivermectin for Covid-19, they are completely free to do so.
That is a radical change.
Consenting adults are now allowed to come to agreements with their doctors, but only happened on the 8th of August after an appeal.
And actually, the judge there said, was actually questioning the council for the FDA.
Ms.
Honnold, who was representing the FDA.
And the judge said, well, why did you say no?
You might remember that advert.
You're not a horse.
You're not a cow.
Come on, you all.
Don't do it.
Don't take.
Don't take ivermectin.
And by the way, we are not advising people take veterinary preparations.
Only take a drug that is prescribed by your doctor, as indeed the FDA now allow.
So she said, well, when you said no, surely that meant no.
And then the lawyer for the FDA said, no, they were merely quips.
Merely quips.
In other words, no didn't mean no, but now it's obvious it doesn't mean no.
So, you know, having basically banned ivermectin for these two or three years, it now turns out that these were merely quips and it was allowed all the time.
So why Dr Merrick was sacked remains a bit of a mystery.
But now doctors can agree with their patients.
If the patient says, yeah, you know what, I'd like to try ivermectin for my Covid infection, then that is now allowed.
Concordance is now allowed, which is a major step forward.
I can almost taste the freedom.
I don't like that they're using quips over the FDA and people are like, what is that?
Dr. Merrick is losing his job.
A prank?
We only did that for a laugh.
What about those 34,000 key workers in New York?
What was that?
A sort of a mass art exhibit?
It's extraordinary.
An installation of unemployment.
That's the kind of radical reframing that invites cynicism and doubt.
An earlier question.
I offered you earlier, John, the question, how has your trust in medical institutions and the media and indeed the state been affected?
Where were you, you know, I mean mentally and spiritually in late 2019 and where do you find yourself now?
What has this journey taught you and shown you?
Yeah, the background here is that I've worked for the Health Service all my working life and I worked in academia all my working life and you always got to do what the senior people tell you.
So if the consultant says, John, go and give a particular treatment, you might say, well, are you aware of this factor or that factor?
And if he says he or she says yes, but still give that treatment, then you do it.
You do what you're told.
There's a hierarchy in healthcare and we have to be obedient.
And throughout all my teaching career, what you teach has got to be what is the official guidelines.
So the resuscitation counsellor, for example, would update their guidelines and we'd have to change our lessons in according with those guidelines.
So we've always been in this hierarchy, which is good because we've got senior people who should know best telling us what to do.
And we've got the guidelines that are written by the government and various other people telling us what to do.
The National Institutes for Health and Care Excellence, for example, we follow their guidelines.
So at the start of the pandemic, we had the chief medical officer, we had the chief scientific officer, we had the prime minister standing there saying, do this.
This is the right thing to do.
And they were national guidelines.
So, of course, we had to follow the national guidelines, assuming that they were correct.
But then as more and more information came to light, it appeared that, well, no, actually quite a few of these guidelines aren't correct.
Actually, quite a few of these guidelines are written as they are because people want it to be that way.
People want to make a particular amount of money out of this particular preparation.
People want to suppress that other preparation because there's no money in that preparation.
And all these other things came to light.
So I have moved from a position of basically trusting authority because for all my working career, That has worked well and it's been appropriate and it's been based on the best available evidence for the most part.
But then things seem to have changed quite dramatically over the past few years where now I'm afraid I no longer trust authority because There's too much vested interest, such as revolving doors that we talked about before.
And as well as that, the principles of evidence-based medicine are now very hard to put into practice.
So I started as a full-time nurse lecturer in about 1990, late 1989, 1990, and about that time, David Sackett became the Chair of Evidence-Based Medicine at Oxford University and we had this Evidence-Based Medicine programme which we followed throughout all my career.
And really there's three components to that.
What is the best evidence based on empirical data and science?
What is the expert opinion on this and what are patient preferences?
And we've followed that really religiously throughout all my career and we could do that, but now it's very hard to follow all these.
So if you take what is the best available evidence?
Well, the point is the best available available evidence comes from randomized peer reviewed journal trials.
But who pays for those trials?
So drugs which might work are not getting researched because people actually aren't prepared to pay for them.
So the evidence that we're getting is the evidence for drugs and treatments that people can make money out of.
That is one problem.
Take expert opinion.
Well, we've just seen that Paul Merrick, Dr. Paul Merrick, was one of the leading experts in the United States, but he wasn't allowed to give his opinion.
He was being controlled by external forces.
So the autonomy of the individual practitioners has now been reduced.
So we can't get the data we want, the doctors can't make the decisions that they want, and the patient preferences can only be taken into account if you have informed consent.
And we can't have informed consent because information is largely being controlled.
So all of those principles of evidence-based medicine that I've fought for all my life, that the best available evidence on the topic, expert opinion, patient preferences, you could argue quite strongly that none of those are now possible.
So you could argue that evidence-based medicine is now basically an impossibility.
So what we need to do about that is to make sure the right things are studied, return authority to the experts to make the decisions, and give patients informed consent so that they can make the decisions for themselves.
That's the way we need to go.
Wow, not only did you give us insights, you actually gave us some guidance on what the solution might be.
How like you, Dr. John Campbell, to provide a sheen of optimism over a two, three year period that's presented us with some pretty difficult facts to consume.
And against which there is no inoculation other than self-education.
Thanks, Dr. John.
That's a fantastic conversation.
You're getting so much love out of our locals community.
And if you're serious about the job offer, we can discuss terms and perks, because they're basically the same thing.
Right, okay.
I'm pretty busy at the moment, but thanks, Russell, anyway.
I see you're busy.
I see you're busy.
Thanks, Doc.
Thanks for joining us.
Thanks again, Dr. John.
If it were possible to love you in a more physical way, I'd do it.
You can see Dr. John Campbell on his YouTube channel and follow him on X. Next week, we've got a little break from Rumble, where I'll be spending some time with old Sonny Boy, but don't worry about that.
We'll be providing you with regular content.
In the meantime, every single day, there'll be something for you, and we will be back with a vengeance, with a bang, with some incredible guests, including Sam Harris, Candace Owens, Eckhart Tolle, Yanis Varoufakis, and Ben Shapiro.
To join our locals community, which means you can join some of the pre-recorded conversations and even post questions, press the red button on your screen.
Remember, subscribe to our Rumble channel.
Give us a rumble!
Rumble us till it hurts, baby!
If you're a member of our Awakening Wonders community, you get meditations, behind-the-scenes access, the opportunity to join our editorial meetings, and even direct the show yourself!
Now, helpful for it is to say that they are tracking the spread of three new sexy little variants.
Joe Biden, of course, is doing his bit by encouraging Americans to once more get boosted till it hurts.
Here's the news.
No, here's the effing news.
Stay free.
Thank you for choosing Fox News.
Good day.
No.
Here's the fucking news.
Guess who's back?
Back again!
Covid's back!
Tell your friends!
Also, new boosters available!
But can we trust the authorities that are recommending them?
The answer's no.
Let me explain how.
We demand decentralised democracy while they try to make the world one conglomerate of elitist power.
And how do they do it?
By justifying authority.
If there's a constant wave after new wave of pandemic, then of course, You need to submit to centralised authority and COVID is back again.
We've only just got rid of COVID, it's back!
And in other news, new boosters are available.
I wonder if there's some connection between these new scary waves of COVID and these new brilliantly effective boosters.
Let's have a look.
COVID is making a comeback this summer.
It's not ABBA!
So many of us would like to leave it in the past, but cases are once again on the rise.
So when will new booster shots roll out?
The news is literally propaganda.
Okay, oh no, COVID is back again.
So when will booster shots be available?
And why should you do exactly as you're told by the media?
And how is this Donald Trump's fault somehow?
Ann Thompson asked the CDC director.
This summer, most Americans left COVID in the past.
Goodbye, COVID!
But who's this?
It's new COVID!
Gathering together once again, mask-free.
Which, some suggest, they could have done anyway and in the first place throughout the entire damn debacle.
But tonight, signs of a COVID resurgence.
What's behind this uptick in COVID that we're seeing?
The main driver of this is a variant that's relatively newer to the scene, EG5.
It's easier to give and get.
Another catchphrase, it's easier to give and get.
New COVID, EG5!
So that makes it kind of easier to pass along.
It's been almost a year since the last COVID booster came out.
CDC Director Dr. Mandy Cohen.
The new COVID booster is expected to be approved by the FDA.
Yeah, I'd imagine so.
I mean, if I had to put money on it, I would say it will be approved by the FDA.
Will it protect against this new strain?
Yes, the booster is tailored to what we are seeing circulating now.
When have I heard this before?
Oh yeah, for the last couple of years, all the time.
And then what did we subsequently learn?
Hmm.
We likely will see this as an annual COVID shot, just like the flu shot.
Spring break!
Halloween!
Christmas!
Thanksgiving!
And, of course, lots of Moderna money!
Just in time for fall, when we'll also face RSV.
Can you take the flu shot, the COVID booster, and the RSV vaccine all at once?
Can we get all of these things into one convenient, profitable package?
I've not seen this before, but my guess is that Mandy's going to say that we can.
So for flu and COVID, yes.
RSV, again, is only available for older adults.
That's one where I'd say, talk to your doctor about what's right for you.
That's an interesting pivot.
It didn't used to be, ask your doctor.
It used to be, we'll tell your doctor what your doctor can say to you.
Otherwise, your doctor will be fired.
Remember that?
So until the new COVID booster comes, get prepared.
Stock up on at-home tests.
They do cover that new strain.
Keep a mask handy in case you're in a crowded place.
And most of all, get your shots.
COVID, flu, and RSV all by Halloween.
That's actual news.
That's actual news.
That's not an advert.
I would accept and respect that counsel.
If they were being responsible around the clinical trials, the errors in clinical trials, the vaccine injury stories, the evolution of the understanding around the efficacy and lack thereof around lockdown, same for masks, same for social distancing, same for every single policy, and the fact that the general inertia of this narrative are towards Costly solutions that permit the government to regulate and control.
I no longer think it's a coincidence.
I do believe it's a convergence of interest rather than a deliberate conspiracy.
But the results are the same.
When all interests converge, conspiracy is unnecessary.
Governments want to regulate.
Big Pharma wants to profit.
There is no need for centralized authority now that we have the ability to communicate, regulate, and govern ourselves using brilliant, amazing, advanced technology such as we're using right now.
And in order to counter that, the instantiation of new centralized authority has to be brought about by raising levels of fear and institutionalizing fear.
It's something that never goes away.
We don't know much about Mandy Cohen, the new head of the CDC.
Let's see how she arrived in her previous incarnation at the expert decisions to introduce lockdowns, probably on the basis of clinical trials and, as all science must surely be, evidence.
Empirical evidence.
So I would call, probably the person I called most was the Secretary of Health and Human Services in Massachusetts.
She worked for a Republican governor just to, um, but, you know, when she was like, are you, are you going to let them have professional, um, uh, football?
And I was like, nope.
And she's like, okay, neither are we, neither are we.
Or you could just chat to your mates on the phone and make those decisions on the fly based on a consensus of government rather than the consensus of science.
So, you know, it was conversations like that.
Or I'd be like, so when are you going to think about lightening up a mess?
They were like, next Monday.
I'm like, OK, next Monday.
Follow the science.
When did you become a doctor?
People that were making those decisions.
We've now seen we're just having conversations with their friends or their peers and just forming a consensus in order to give the appearance of a scientific consensus when all that was really achieved was an alliance of friends.
When you bear in mind that people are making those kind of decisions and recommendations in our country, the UK, are now working for, oh, what was it?
They're working for that charity where they help children.
Sorry, not charity where they help children.
Moderna!
that make vaccines. It makes you realise that some of these alliances have an economic component and
it's not entirely about the service of the public. And indeed when you watch Mandy Cohen saying that,
it doesn't seem like someone that's just trying to do what's best for people, it's someone that's
trying to present a unified front for arbitrary authority.
After reports of Mandy Cohen's appointment surfaced, posts on social media showed her gloating about
implementing Covid lockdowns, inconsistently following her own mitigation guidelines and
forcing public schools to have students masked indoors regardless of vaccination
status.
North Carolina's former health secretary recalled at one point advising Massachusetts health secretary Mary Lou Sudders to shut her football stadiums to fall in line with North Carolina's COVID mandates.
She was like, are you going to let them have professional football?
And I was like, no.
And she's like, OK, neither are we, Cohen said with a chuckle.
This is like something that happens in Grease the Musical or Valley Girls.
There's not like two scientists and public officials making a decision for the health of a nation.
There's a couple of people giggling their way through a pillow fight.
Well, I really fancy Danny Fauci.
Oh, he's such a dreamboat.
We oughtn't be surprised that human beings introduce arbitrary guidelines on the basis of alliances with their friends, rather than on the basis of empirical scientific evidence.
But what we should be is mindful and observant that that's how this authority is achieved.
Not by, look, we've looked at this data set versus this data set and We would like to invite you to consider what's best for you.
We now know really that when it comes to these pandemics and the regulations, don't assume that they're doing what's best for you just because that's what they're telling you, because now we know that other motivations could include, well that's what we did because our friends were doing it, Well, that's what we did because I was hoping to get a job at Moderna after the pandemic.
There's a whole host of other motivations that are demonstrably true and have to be taken into consideration before blindly obeying authority, I believe.
Let me know in the comments what you believe.
With all this new COVID around, it makes you wonder if there will be available medicines to mitigate it.
There are.
What a coincidence.
The Biden administration plans to urge all Americans to get a booster shot for the coronavirus this autumn to counter a new wave of infections, a White House official said on Sunday.
On Thursday, Moderna said initial data showed its updated COVID-19 vaccine is effective against the ARIS and Fornax subvariants in humans.
New Lord of the Rings coronavirus with these elves and trolls about us.
Moderna and other Covid-19 vaccine makers, Novavax, Pfizer and German partner BioNTech have created versions of their shots aimed at the XBB.1.5 sub-variant.
I've heard the names now, Moderna, Pfizer, Novavax and BioNTech in so many negative contexts that it's difficult for me to regard them as the harbingers of salvation, rather than profiteering organisations funded by you, the taxpayer, that use that revenue to generate huge profits, appoint government officials, have favourable relationships.
I don't see those brand names anymore as cause for optimism or inspiration for a new tattoo.
Pending approval from health regulators in the United States and Europe, the companies expected the updated shots to be available in the coming weeks for the autumn vaccination season.
It's literally spoken about like a fashion now.
No, it's vaccination season!
Only on NBC, our Thursday night vaccination season special.
Which isn't as ridiculous as it sounds, because I feel like there was one bit where the Avengers got vaccines and Sesame Street got vaccines, and in retrospect what they should have had is Bert and Ernie having a reasonable conversation about the cost-benefit analysis of lockdowns when it comes to cancer, diabetes, heart disease, mental health, economics, but they didn't cover that, did they?
Here's friend of the show, YouTuber Dr. John, talking about Moderna's new boosters.
And the UK government's just struck a 10-year deal, partnership with Moderna, to build a new factory.
Now, this is near Oxford.
I believe it's being built at the moment.
So the British government is in bed with Moderna, to the tune of a billion pounds, as far as we know.
That's a ten year program.
Ten years.
So you might anticipate that over the next ten years, the government and Moderna have a literal investment in there being a requirement for Moderna's products.
And that one billion that the government invested has come from you.
Of course they have to create a favourable cultural environment for those kind of investments.
Can't allow us to have free conversations about whether or not you want your money going to Moderna factories.
I don't remember being asked.
I don't remember voting for it.
I remember being told I'm in a democracy.
I remember being told it's my responsibility to take certain medications because of other people.
And then I remember learning that there was no clinical evidence to suggest that it was in any way beneficial To anyone other than myself.
Then I remember learning that there were vaccine injuries that weren't being openly discussed.
Then I remember learning that Moderna had appointed the government official that was saying I should take Moderna vaccines.
And now we're learning that there's a 10-year plan and a billion pound investment that no one asked for and no one voted for.
And this new facility will build mRNA vaccines for COVID, influenza and respiratory syncytial virus, as far as we know.
And the UK government is tied in for 10 years with this group.
and committed to buy vaccines for 10 years into the future.
Quite incredible we've committed a billion pounds to buy these vaccines into the future with no evidence of safety or efficacy of the RSV and the influenza vaccine for sure and very questionable safety of the Covid vaccines and yet, have a billion pounds,
if it doesn't work out then we'll still buy the vaccines anyway.
That's an incredible commitment and an incredible deal to have been offered without due scrutiny
and with plain evidence that there's a revolving door between the government and Moderna in
your country and mine.
Right up to the Prime Minister of this country being an investor in Moderna who is unwilling to explicitly tell us how much or whether he profited from the Moderna vaccine.
It's astonishing.
What is going on here?
You know, this is just very, very, very, very strange.
Committed to buy Moderna's vaccines for the next decade from this new factory.
Now, if you're sitting in Australia, don't be smug about it, because I think it's just outside Melbourne.
I'm pretty sure it's Melbourne.
Certainly in Australia, there's a Moderna plant being built to produce, I can't remember, 100 million doses of vaccine a year, I think it was.
That's what globalism looks like.
It doesn't matter if you're in Australia, the United States of America, or the UK.
There are consistent relationships between the state and global corporations that are able to bypass democracy.
And the various unelected officials in the various agencies that facilitated those profits continues unabated, unaddressed.
I think the Oxford plant is scheduled to build 250 million doses a year.
The Australia plant, 100 million doses.
I assume that that means that they're going to quite heavily promote those products, right?
Because the government are invested in it.
There are all sorts of ways to spend your tax dollars, and you're not invited to consider any of them.
Just go and build a Moderna factory.
There's also a plant in Canada, a new Moderna plant, to build a... to construct a hundred million doses of Moderna vaccine in Canada, and of course that's on top of the huge capacity already in the United States.
So this is...
Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, the United States all seem to be putting a lot of eggs, shall we say, in the Moderna messenger ribonucleic acid vaccine basket.
Let's carry on.
Oh, dear old Dr. John there, having an on-camera mental breakdown from the sheer weight of corruption that he is trying to unveil, analyse, and not get banned from YouTube while explaining.
Moderna has paid the National Institutes of Health $400 million in licensing fees for a chemical technique developed by federal researchers that was used to create his COVID-19 vaccine.
Moderna received nearly $10 billion in taxpayer funding to develop and test the vaccine.
Moderna has sold roughly $36 billion worth of coronavirus vaccines worldwide.
The company has forecast COVID vaccine sales of $5 billion for 2023.
More and more Julian Assange's maxim, the function of government is to funnel public money into private hands, makes sense.
It can also be mapped onto the military industrial complex war model, their health industries pandemic model, and perhaps various other seams of what's appeared to me to be corruption that I've not Yet being exposed.
The pandemic is back, perhaps because it's necessary for the pandemic to be back, because the pandemic has been invested in.
Moderna factories are being built in Canada, Australia and the UK.
Boosters are readily available, government officials are making their decision on the phone to one another while chatting, and people that work for the government during the pandemic are now working at No, he's the fucking news!
▲
Export Selection