Dr John Campbell - On Vaccines, Big Pharma & WHO Treaty
Russell chats to Dr John Campbell, a retired nurse educator who holds a Master of Science in health science and Ph.D. in nursing. He came to prominence on YouTube during the pandemic, presenting medical data that went unaddressed in mainstream media. In this episode, they talk about the truth behind the WHO’s Pandemic Treaty, will AI be used for control? And concern over elites dominating our food sources.Support this channel directly here: https://rb.rumble.com/Watch Dr John Campbell's channel: https://www.youtube.com/@Campbellteaching
Hello there, you awakened wonder wherever you are.
Well done for transcending the fear.
Well done for not allowing the machine to reduce you to the status of an automaton.
Well done for remaining connected to your essence.
Well done for questioning and interrogating mainstream narratives that will mean one day we will have alternatives.
The alternative has already been born.
We are it.
We are the movement that's going to change the world together.
click the red button and become a member of our AwakendWonder community and you are going to want
to because Dr. John Campbell, great denizen and cenotaph living memorial of truth on YouTube,
but I feel perhaps may end up elsewhere one day, is joining us. So click the link and join us for
this conversation. Dr. John, thanks for joining us today.
If only all those things were true, Russell.
Thank you for having me.
There is certainly a degree of truth in the fact that I believe that you are a man who believes in transparency, openness, communication and genuine science.
And throughout the pandemic period, you were certainly one of the voices that I leant into.
Thank you.
Mate, so let's just start off broadly.
We've got a lot of subjects to cover in our conversation and I'm reminded continually now that the point of what we do is to ensure that the agenda of the establishment and the legacy media does not go unchallenged.
That is the function of what we're doing.
Of course, you came to prominence during the pandemic period and During that time, the public trust in various government institutions, in particular in the United States, you might say that the CDC, FDA, but in our country too and across the world, trust in media and trust in government institutions is failing and falling apart.
I wonder what you think about the latest round of COVID vaccines in the US, and I wonder what you think about the management and manipulation of that myocarditis information between males, the sort of use of those studies.
So perhaps you can start with a couple of examples there.
The new monetization and charges for the Pfizer and Moderna shot.
So I wonder what you feel about that, Doc.
Yeah, so I think the new shots are going to be, I think it's $120 each, Russell, per shot or slightly more.
And yet the advice in the United States is still to vaccinate with the updated vaccines everyone that's over the age of six months.
And that's really concerning because You know, the risk-benefit analyses that I've often quoted are those from really early on in the pandemic when COVID was, you know, still a dangerous disease to some people.
But now the situation's really changed quite dramatically.
You know, vaccines can have some effect, did have some effect early in the pandemic.
Now, everyone's been exposed to COVID multiple times.
And we have this wonderful thing called the immune system and it learns to recognize these infections.
It learns to fight these infections.
And for the vast majority of people now, the vast majority, COVID is a very mild irritation.
I guess pretty well everyone watching who's bothered to test will have had COVID in the last year or two or have a partner or a child or someone who's had COVID in the last year or two, and they found it to be a somewhat irritating but pretty mild disease, which is for the vast majority of people.
So quite why there's this discrepancy between the vaccination protocols in the United States, everyone over six months of age, and the United Kingdom, where it's just I think it's over 65 and people with high risk.
I mean, you know, this is like a 64 and a half year difference in the recommendations.
And, you know, if both of these authorizing bodies are working on the same data, why are they coming to such different conclusions?
It really is quite hard to explain where the evidence is coming from.
Yeah, it is.
And it makes you wonder if the evidence can be interpreted so differently.
What type of evidence is it?
And what kind of agenda is ultimately driving it?
Increasingly as well, many of the Measures that were taken for granted as necessary and were quite rigorously enforced as time passes.
And again, one needn't be conspiratorial to inquire about these things, nor assume mendacity where ineptitude will do.
But it seems that social distancing, surface cleaning, face covering, there wasn't a great deal of evidence for much of that.
And it makes me obviously wonder what on earth was motivating all of that conduct.
Those things, it doesn't cost too much to wash your hands when you come in the house.
And if that didn't do any good, it's not such a big deal.
But this includes the non-pharmaceutical interventions.
And of course, that includes lockdowns.
That includes quarantine hotels, isolation.
That includes the, remember this term we had, the pingdemic, when people were pinged on their phones and couldn't couldn't do things.
It includes all of these things, but particularly the lockdown strategies.
And we've actually had data just published a week or so ago by the UK Health Security Agency.
And to be fair here, the UK Health Security Agency are going through what they did really quite systematically.
And what they're doing is they're looking at thousands of pieces of literature to try and work out what the evidence base is for what they did.
But this latest publication from the UK Health Security Agency had 151 studies.
So they narrowed it down to that, looking at studies where there was only one thing being studied at a time.
And they reviewed 151 studies and they plotted what they call an evidence gap map.
And you can download this as a spreadsheet, and there's loads of places where the evidence is limited, highly limited.
So only 19 of the 151 studies reported effective measures to reduce infection at the individual level.
And most of those were to do with mask wearing.
And two thirds of the evidence was based on modeling studies.
So 100 out of 151 of these studies were based on modeling.
My recollection of this, when the first lockdown started, is the government were hoping to get away with it.
But then we had these modelling predictions that showed tremendous amounts of death and everything from Covid.
But it turns out these were based on models which have been, well, I think the least we can say is they've been disputed since then.
So, so much of the evidence was based on modelling rather than based on what we would call empiricism.
Real world collecting data.
And that's what science is.
Science is not someone sitting on a computer thinking, oh, I wonder what would happen if.
No, science is what happens in the real world.
And to their credit, I just want to give you a couple of quotes actually, Russell, here.
To the credit, the UK Health Security Agency.
I've said the evidence available for this category is therefore likely to be weak.
This is evidence to reduce infections, both in terms of study design and potential bias.
Studies reporting on travel and border restrictions, they say, a weak evidence base in terms of study design.
Overall, they say, the body of evidence available on effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions in the UK provides weak Evidence in terms of study design.
So they have acknowledged this, which is good to see, because if you acknowledge the mistakes, the public are pretty forgiven.
Okay, it was a pandemic.
We didn't know quite what was going on for a while.
But they now acknowledge that it was weak, and they do say if there is a future pandemic, which there will be, how I won't go into that one at the moment, but they say that there should be a method for collecting feedback empirically as we go along, which is certainly true.
But looking back, you know, we're these huge lockdowns, this massive financial cost, this social cost, this psychiatric cost.
Looking back, it was based primarily on mathematical models.
And people understand those better than me, but they're not the best way to conduct national policy.
In addition to this sort of, if not pseudoscience, then modelling that you have explained is flawed, plainly is flawed, based on the emergent evidence.
And you're right, it is to the credit of that agency that they're at least willing to communicate that.
Plainly there was a degree of hysteria and it's sort of harder to speculate on the impact of something as abstract as fear and the use of fear and the use of hysteria and certainly it's encouraging to hear that in the event of a let's call it inevitable future pandemic the data would be Compiled as the event unfolded.
What my concern is, and this is again sort of rather more difficult to talk about, particularly with someone as committed to using evidence as you are, which is perhaps one of the most laudable aspects of the work that you do, is the potential that in a way we were, and I'm not suggesting this was deliberate, Primed for authoritarian measures that prior to the pandemic would have been unacceptable.
The idea that you could shut down the economy.
I remember when I first heard that football was being cancelled thinking, what?
Nah, that can't happen.
And the normalization of individual incarceration, the normalization of massive medical programs that are mandated or near mandated, and we've touched already on the sort of questions that that's left in its wake, suggests to me that with forthcoming potential issues of scale, and you can pick your issue really, whether it's climate change, Food shortages, water shortages, necessity to regulate agriculture as a result of fertilizers, the need to shut down individual farming practices.
There are so many issues and ideas that appear to be Being defined by a top-down ideology i.e.
you hear from the WEF or the WHO or some sort of unelected but somehow publicly funded as well as privately funded in the case the WHO entity coming up with some ideas that sort of find their way into government.
Increasingly this seems common and like an event of the scale of the pandemic doesn't it leave us open to the possibility that a kind of If not social engineering, a sort of piloting may have taken place.
I don't mean that from a conspiracy theory perspective per se, Doctor.
I just mean a convergence of interest that led to those measures that evidently were not scientifically undergirded could be repeated in other circumstances.
I mean, there was certainly a lot of fear going on, wasn't there?
And I think the reason that people were compliant because there was fear, and to be fair, there was genuine unknowns, although I think facts became available much earlier than they were often shared with the hoi polloi like you and me.
And I think we can rest assured, Russell, that people that are interested in Organizing, interested in administration, interested in controlling populations, will have taken a fairly thick set of notes from the pandemic.
They will have noticed what works, what doesn't work, and I think they'll have learned a lot of control.
Control of social media being one example.
That started on pretty early in the pandemic.
Control of news.
The influence of regulatory bodies and the way that they interact with political bodies.
Vested interest that would like to control populations in a more detailed way, I think, will have learned one heck of a lot from what worked and what didn't work in the pandemic.
Now, the UK Health Security Agency are rightly trying to take that knowledge to apply it to improving health in the future, which of course, everyone would applaud.
But, you know, have people who have slightly questionable motives and throughout history, people with questionable motives have arisen in the past.
I think we can assume that they've learned quite a lot from this as well.
Yes and perhaps again less tangentially the recent, relatively recent, or proposed WHO pandemic treaty that could grant legislative powers to a non-sovereign transnational body.
I see that it's been, I don't know, in Canada there's some opposition to it but it feels like the sort of thing that could During the pandemic period, the WHO were granted incredible authority.
The platform that we've been recently demonetized, I'll speak for myself.
YouTube still uses WHO guidelines to govern its own community or to form its own community for guidelines.
I wonder what your views are or if you have concerns about a potential WHO pandemic treaty and how that could become biased or exploited?
Yeah, so this is based on the amendment of the, I'm pretty sure it was 2005, International Health Regulations.
So health regulations were put in in 2005, updating previous regulations.
And they were fairly reasonable.
They said things like, I'm not giving direct quotes here, but quite often they said this will not be mandatory in nation states, it will be advisory.
But if you read these international health regulations amendments, very often in a sentence all they've done is taken out one word like not.
So if you go from, these will not be mandatory, and you take out the word not, what are you left with?
These become mandatory.
And there's a whole load of these.
I have read through them all, and they really are quite concerning.
My interpretation of it is...
is that the World Health Organization can define in the future when these are probably
going to be adopted and we haven't got much time to reject these.
Because what seems to be happening is that these are going to be accepted unless the
head of state of a country, unless Mr. Sunak actually writes to the WHO invoking a particular
section and saying, "No, this won't apply to the UK."
So if Mr. Sunak's watching, I would ask him to do that or to certainly consider that.
But it's almost that these are just going to click into place.
And my understanding is that the World Health Organization can define a public health emergency, which could be a pandemic, or it could be a nuclear leak.
Or it could be a food shortage.
Or it could be basically, however they want to define it.
They can then make rules passing these down to the member states.
But my concern is that these would then have the power of law in the member states.
So I have made videos about these IHRs in the past and people say, well, I'm not going to do that.
I won't be complying with that.
Well, actually, you're flipping well-willed if the police are forcing you to.
This is the whole point.
You know, the state has powers to enforce things.
You have no choice.
So fortunately, you're right, in Canada there's opposition, and we have interviewed people opposing that in Canada.
But in the United Kingdom, as you know, we have this idea where you can get 100,000 signatures for a particular topic, and Tess Lorry, God bless her, Dr Tess Lorry, she opened this petition quite a few months ago now.
It closed, I think, a couple of days ago, but it was well over the 100,000, I think 115,000.
So we should have a debate in Parliament now on whether these should be accepted or rejected, so at least it's got to that stage.
But why Did it necessitate a public petition for that?
You know, you would hope that the civil servants and things will be saying to the Prime Minister, oh, by the way, Prime Minister, you know, you've only got so long if you want to reject this.
It seemed like this process was just sort of carrying on inevitably, which was concerning.
So we should be getting that debate.
And as well as that, another slightly encouraging thing on debates is Andrew Bridgen has been awarded a German debate.
On the 20th of October, to debate excess deaths.
Now, when we say debate, I would imagine there's probably going to be as many people in the chamber as there were for this last statement on vaccine dangers, which was, I think, about two MPs stayed, I think.
But the minister has to give a response.
But the point is, once you've got the debate, once it's an official government debate, whether it's on the international health regulations, which we'll get, or whether it's on excess deaths, that means it's in Hansard.
It's official.
And once it's officially documented, maybe that will encourage others to take more action on this, because people won't be able to say, well, we didn't know about that.
Well, yeah, you do kind of, because it's in Hansard.
It's actually possible to see the ghost of democracy inhabiting its institutions.
You know, the momentum inertia, as you suggest, of power is continually carrying us towards centralised, unelected, globalised power, often supported by billionaires under the guise of philanthropy.
But in our echoey, dusty old chambers of democracy, like a mouse fart, you can almost just detect So you have to have a debate on that, you know, that a
couple of people might go to or attend.
And if you get 100,000 people's signatories on a petition, they will have to consider that.
But it's almost like the institutions themselves and the principles themselves already exist.
And I suppose for you, someone who's dedicated their life to public service prior to this
incarnation as an online truth teller, you must have a greater connection to when something like
the National Health Service, our publicly funded, formerly at least, health service in the country
of the UK, was sort of a proud monument to unity and togetherness. And God, it went through the
various slurs and slams of, "Oh, it's a waste of money and everything should be privatised," and
slowly sort of vampired from the outside to sort of piece by piece, it's ultimately privatised.
then.
I wonder sometimes, John, how you feel about the potential of meeting these poly-crises, like that, you know, like one minute it's like the WHO are just about to pass this bill, we've only got a minute, this new online legislation has just been passed that means that platforms that host people that dissent will be able to be, have their, you know, their owners arrested, you know, like I've been talking to, you know, Rumble, About this.
Rumble is something that could become illegalized.
And of course they'll say hate speech is the problem, but when it comes... it's sort of comparable to the claim that Ukraine is a humanitarian war.
What about the US imperialist projects in North Africa and the Middle East have led you to believe that when they get involved in a conflict it's with a humanitarian motivation?
It's very difficult to maintain that.
How do you feel, John, about the small victories, like a debate being held in front of a couple of people or some signatories, when there is these poly-crises of legislature simultaneously passing all around the world, and what appears to be a mass centralising of power and the introduction of new means and measures, whether they are legislative or technological, that appear to be about, as you said earlier, the induction of control?
It does all seem to be in one direction, doesn't it?
It does seem to be more towards centralized control.
One of the things that just really grieves me is all the things that we're missing out on.
We could talk about the administrative things and the political things, but if you just take some things as simple as talking about pharmacy, talking about therapeutic molecules.
You know, things that actually do you good.
So if you go to your doctor, he can prescribe something as long as it's in this book.
Well, the electronic version of it now, the British National Formula.
And it seems to me that this only represents a very small subset of the therapeutic molecules that are potentially available.
I want to give you just a couple of examples, if you don't mind.
There's a fungus called lion's mane.
And it's called Lion's Mane because it looks like a lion's mane, it's all straggly.
I hasten to add this is 100% legal, 100% not hallucinogenic.
But you know, I've talked to a couple of people who've, one guy who had quite bad post-concussive disorder, the brain fibres in his brain were affected.
And he took this lion's mane for about a week and he started to feel better.
And he took it for a month and he felt a lot better.
Now, of course, we're not prescribing on this channel.
We're not telling people to go out and take lion's mane.
But the point is, that's interesting.
That's interesting.
There's almost certainly molecules in there which can promote the healing of nerve cells to some extent.
That's like a holy grail.
For 40 years, I taught nerve cells do not regenerate.
Well, it appears they may be stimulated to be generating, but of course, that's a natural molecule, so it'd probably be difficult to patent that.
Are we missing out on this whole class of potentially useful drugs?
So many things in nature.
If you look at two of the most successful drugs in history, we've got antibiotics, Everyone knows they come from mould.
Moulds make them to protect themselves against bacterial infection.
And ivermectin, even ignoring the most recent debate, has just revolutionized the treatment of parasitic diseases around the world.
Pretty well eradicated river blindness and elephantiasis in Africa.
And that comes, the bacteria actually make that to protect themselves against other things in the environment.
So how many of these molecules are we missing out on?
And isn't that just so sad that people could be dying of things, that molecules are selected for their ability to go through a trial process to make money rather than go through some form of evidence gathering process in order to help people.
It just seems so sad to me that this is happening.
And this is because it's facilitated because we have this centralized authorities and you can understand that doctors nurse practitioners, whatever, are afraid to go against the
guidelines because if they do and something goes wrong, you know, the first
question the judge is going to ask is, "Well, did you follow the guidelines? Did you follow the
national guidelines?"
So people are frightened to go outside the guidelines.
And then there's this whole other issue that could be a revolution in psychiatry about the mushrooms that we can't use because they are illegal, the psilocybin type mushrooms.
But trials going on those now, for example, with microdosing, is remarkably promising for various forms of mental distress, such as anxiety and depression.
And for those of us that have had anxiety and depression, it's awful.
We're missing out on alleviations of this.
It's just very, very sad that all these molecules have been provided.
We're only allowed a very small subset of these molecules.
Sad situation.
Yes, and it seems that it's carefully curated what is permissive and it appears, as you've said, that profitability and control continue to be important criteria in which avenues of research are conducted and which are left unignored.
I suppose there's an optimism in that that I often find in the kind of jaws of this deadly apocalypse that They even went talking about recently the likelihood that
were a Republican candidate to win in 2024, they would immediately shift their focus
from exacerbating conditions and tensions between Russia to provoking China.
And I'm just struck that there isn't a presidential candidate or a political movement that says
we won't have a war with anybody.
I mean, of course, there is Bobby Kennedy and Cornel West, and there are, you know, sort of blessedly great independents.
But when you talk about institutional thinking, whether it's in the field of medicine, whether it's in the field of administration of medicine and the sort of terrifying WHO treaty that we just mentioned, geopolitics, there's always a kind of a systemic unconsciousness.
And I suppose systems have to be unconscious by their nature, because they require sets of decisions that are Not going to be able to respond to plasticity and mutability.
What it makes me continue to think, John, is that decentralization is an absolute necessity and I know that some areas of concerns that you and I share are around ecology and agriculture and the potential that these areas are being mishandled and that even something like climate change, which one might imagine is a significant conversation for all of us, Yeah, I've been thinking about this quite a lot recently.
It was actually as a result of something that RFK, Bobby Kennedy Jr.
said a few weeks ago.
I started looking at it and I'm actually concerned.
I mean, we've talked about the problems with control and vested interest in pharmacy and drugs, which is tragic, but I'm actually quite concerned about agriculture and food supply.
And quite a few things come into this.
We hear a lot of emphasis at the moment about fossil fuel burning, global warming, and there is good science behind that.
But what people just seem to ignore, and I've just checked out recently, is the amount of carbon in the soil now on the surface of the Earth is greater than all of the carbon in the atmosphere.
And greater than all the carbon in all the organisms.
That's all the trees and the bushes and the cabbages and the human beings on the surface of the planet.
And yet we hear nothing about this.
We hear nothing about this.
And as well as that, when you add nitrogen-based fertilizers to the soil, if there's too much nitrogen-based fertilizer in the soil, that produces a substance called nitrous oxide.
Now, if you've ever been to Glastonbury in the past ten years, you may have heard of nitrous oxide.
It's laughing gas.
It's produced if there's too much nitrogen.
And by the way, we think that's a really bad idea to take recreational substances of any form, that goes without saying.
Nitrous oxide, of course, is a wonder drug.
In A&E, you can give someone a few whiffs of nitrous oxide and the pain goes away.
It's a wonderful, wonderful drug.
But if you put in huge amounts of expensive nitrogen-based fertilizers on the soil, You're not putting enough organic matter in.
Now, if you put in plenty of organic matter, the bugs, the bacteria, will feed on the organic matter, and you'll greatly improve the quality of the microbiome of the soil.
This is the way it's supposed to be.
You'll get good quality soil storing huge amounts of organic matter, and we can change agricultural techniques really quite quickly.
It's called conservation tilling.
keep more of that in the soil.
But we hear nothing about this.
So instead of using the organic matter, we put on nitrogen-based fertilizers.
When you put on too much of those, we get the production of nitrous oxide.
Now, nitrous oxide can go into the atmosphere.
And the amounts of this have been increasing year on year for some time now.
And it hangs around in the atmosphere for over 100 years.
And it is three times stronger, a greenhouse gas, than carbon dioxide.
Three times stronger.
But you don't hear anything about this and it just makes you wonder if, you know, because fertilizers are purchased, they have to be bought, they're paid for, you know, often made by pretty big scale companies that people just don't want to talk about this, this greenhouse gas.
And the nitric oxide also reduces high up stratospheric ozone as well.
It's really not a good idea.
So why don't we put in more carbon into the soil, reducing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, reducing the greenhouse gases, preventing... We've got more carbon in the soil, so it needs less nitrogen-based fertilizers.
That means less nitric oxide.
And again, herbicides and pesticides, huge amounts of these are used.
And again, these are all marketed products.
You know, let's control things that are for the good of the ecology and the future of the human race rather than people making money in a relatively short-term period of time.
Again, it just seems so sad that these common-sense ecological things that are well-known aren't adequately practiced or talked about.
It seems like a curious anomaly of our time that during war, military industrial complex benefit from that type of crisis.
During an energy crisis, energy companies benefit from that type of crisis.
During a health pandemic, Pharmacological company benefit from that crisis.
That if you have a strata of society that benefit from crisis,
it's likely that you find yourself in a state of perpetual crisis
because for what is crisis for people that are not powerful is opportunity for the most powerful interests in the world.
When you mention and describe the problem with carbon and nitrous oxide in the soil,
what comes to mind is that even something as immersive, prominent and well publicized as the climate change
and anthropomorphic climate change, et cetera, it seems that the information that we're given is selective.
And this total lack of institutions is something that I think exploded during the pandemic because there was this new capacity for control.
There was this new imposition of control and it seems that many of the claims that were made were not legitimate.
And this was exposed due to independent media in particular.
This is where that conversation moved forward.
There were people, as you are well aware because you were one of them, in the very advent of the pandemic had one perspective and were watching the information as it changed and were able with a degree of objectivity and certainly in good faith To chart what was happening.
There were people like Robert Malone right at the beginning saying, well I don't think you should be vaccinating at the height of a pandemic.
All sorts of information that was available was shut down and I feel that we have now a total crisis of trust.
I don't think that many people actually, and thank God they don't, trust the legacy media.
A significant number of people do not trust the media.
A significant number of people think that whoever they vote for, they're going to end up with a political party that ultimately works for a set of financial interests that would preclude meaningful democratic change.
I think that extends to the judiciary in some course, medicine, doctors.
I mean, the name, the institutions of our planet are rightly regarded with considerable mistrust.
And when you were earlier on talking about Oh, the possibility that they could somehow be mobilised again into utility, into service, into principles that are actually sort of rather old-fashioned and quite so simple I blush to mention them.
It appears to me, John, and I think about it a lot, that Independent media has to become politicised.
It can no longer just be, oh, here we go, have you noticed this?
In the end, even if you didn't have an intention to be political, you are politicised.
You'll get strikes, you'll get bans, you'll get attacks.
The more traction you get, the more likely those attacks are to come.
And the extent of those attacks, as far as I can see, has the capacity to be almost limitless.
There's plainly an appetite.
Government's getting involved in demonetising channels that they're not Yeah, I think we have to distinguish between party politics and politics.
It makes me wonder, John, how you feel this may unfold for you personally and what you
see your role as a communicator like, how you see that evolving, and whether you feel
like it will become politicised or if indeed it already has been.
Yeah.
I think we have to distinguish between party politics and politics.
So I would like to steer clear from party politics, but inevitably, if you're talking
about things like land use, if you're talking about things like reducing food miles, if
you're talking about things like reducing pollution, reducing nitrates, reducing greenhouse
gases, then I think inevitably it does become political.
I mean, I've got a friend who's been campaigning against incineration.
And one of the things he's pointed out is that, incinerating plastics particularly, you get release of a certain amount of dioxins.
Now, you're far too young to remember, Russell, and I can just about remember the substance in Vietnam called Agent Orange.
that a certain world government sprayed on another country.
I've actually worked in Cambodia and seen birth defects related to that after all those decades. It
had dioxins in it, and the dioxins hang around. They stay in the soil for long
periods of time.
So if we have legitimate concerns that we want to stop incineration to reduce dioxins, we can put forward the science of that.
But to actually get these decisions changed and to actually influence these decisions, I guess that does become political.
So, you know, I would like to provide evidence as much as I can, and what I do more and more these days because I'm increasingly out of my depth in a lot of these fields.
For some strange reason, absolutely leading experts from around the world have come on my channel and they've shared their expertise in ways that people can understand, which we're very grateful for.
So the expertise is there.
We can put it together.
We can put this into forms that people can understand, but it is difficult.
I've only mentioned this once or twice, but I've had personal threats that are really quite significant.
I've had the police round twice with threats to my life, basically, that are credible.
These were kicked up to an intelligence unit who couldn't work out where they came from.
They probably didn't have to look very far.
Was that your desk?
Apparently it went up to, I won't mention which intelligence agency it was, but it went quite high up and they couldn't work out where the threat came from.
In other words, it was done in quite a sophisticated way.
It's quite difficult, but there are genuine threats.
I'm not saying I'm in the same category as someone like RFK, but he says he gets up in the morning and thinks, well, how can I behave ethically today?
If we do see the threat, there's an Old Testament account of the watchman.
It's in the 33rd chapter of Ezekiel.
And it says, if the watchman sees the sword coming against the city, and cries the alarm, and the people get out the way, then that's fine.
But if the watchman says the sword is coming against the city, and the people do nothing, if they ignore the watchman, then their blood is on their own heads.
So it's the role of the watchman to say, look, this danger is coming.
This danger is coming.
And we could talk about heroes, great heroes from the 1920s and 1930s.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, for example.
And, you know, he warned about the danger that was coming.
Many did.
But many didn't listen.
And likewise now, I'm not saying it's the same situation, I'm not comparing it in any way, but we have leading scientists from around the world who are telling me things that concern them.
Leading analysts, people that do really significant analysis around the world, telling me they have concerns.
And if we've got these world-leading analysts, often professors, often doctors, People that do this really quite seriously.
If we don't at least say, well, just a minute, you've raised the question there.
Let's think about that.
Then I think that that's tantamount to ignoring the watchman.
We have to think about it because there are threats coming and I really think we have to take these threats seriously or they could overwhelm us.
Yeah it's pretty heavy and I mean I also think you're right and even with my personal situation which I can't go into too much depth about for reasons that will be obvious to anyone who understands such matters it's apparent to me that I've just found myself in a position not entirely inadvertently because I've been very deliberate about sort of attacking what I believe to be establishment interests and I've Being deliberately provocative, but what I have seen in terms of the coordination and ability of power, you know, we had a conversation with a guy called Dr. Robert Epstein, who you'd enjoy actually, John.
He uses monitoring systems to observe the way that Google behaves and relays information, particularly news media, and by his reckoning are able to create almost in impenetrable spheres of data. When it's pointed out to
them, they alter it. That's the nature of their work. They go, "Hey, hang on a minute.
In Georgia, all of your news stories are going this direction. All of your news stories
are going this direction. Look at the biases." They're able to measure bias in reporting.
For example, political bias is one obvious way.
When you talk about the impending crises, whether they're of an ecological, ideological,
or pharmacological nature, there are so many ways now. It's very difficult to envisage
a world where...
(sighs)
I mean, this is what I sort of feel broadly, this is a conversation, I wouldn't say this to everybody.
I feel like that is a type of, 'cause of what you were alluding to, I suppose, is fascism.
And I feel like our template of fascism, our manner of recognizing it,
our swatch of the livery, pageantry, and paraphernalia of fascism
is based on the militarism of a century ago.
That's a sort of a late industrial, early modern version of fascism.
Now what we have is a much more Huxleyan, sanitized, rational, logical,
oriented towards safety and convenience, managerial version of foreclosure
of all other possibilities.
And when you look at, every time I read about, these new protest laws mean you won't be able to do this.
And this new suggestion means that everyone will have to register in this way
and we will all carry this ID.
This new currency means that everyone will have a centralized currency.
I can sort of just feel.
The formulation of it.
I feel it like a kind of binary fog enclosing.
And as you say, I mean, yeah, are we Watchmen or do we have to become avenging angels, John, with swords of fire?
No, I think I'll stick with the Watchmen for now.
We'll leave the...
We'll leave that to someone else.
But you're right.
Fascism to me is about controlling other people.
It is me imposing my will on you.
Yeah.
To me, a fascist says, you will think as I think, you will do as I do, or I will punish you.
Yeah.
That to me is what fascism is.
It's control.
Now, does it make too much difference whether that's on the point of a bayonet Or at the risk of losing your livelihood, losing your occupation.
The end result is that the person doing the controlling has people controlled as he wants them controlled.
And the modality of that probably doesn't matter too much.
If you'd said to previous fascists, maybe Genghis Khan, for example, are you happy to rule the world And have absolute authority and absolute power everywhere just by using persuasion.
I'm sure if that was quick enough, he'd say, well, yeah, that's okay.
You know, it was just the warfare was quicker.
The modality through which the control is achieved It's perhaps less important.
It's the control itself that matters.
Yes.
And you mentioned AI there, Russell.
I didn't take this seriously until about a year ago.
I had people warning me about it 10 years ago, and I thought, oh, no, I don't really get that.
But now, I think we can rest assured that the bad guys, whoever they are, are working on AI.
Because it is a way to control and understand and that's another modality that will be used to facilitate people's power.
Because unfortunately you get a small subset of the population of the earth that are interested in money and control and power.
Most people aren't.
Most people just maybe want to go to work and come home and have the tea and have a nice family life, or go to the football on a Saturday, or go walking on the hills on a Sunday afternoon.
But you do get some people, for some strange reason that I don't understand, and yet I do witness that this is true, are interested in controlling other people.
I used to be a psychiatric nurse.
You see it in psychiatric hospitals where you get People with particular conditions, particular personality disorders, and they just want to control other people because that's the way that they are wired up.
I don't understand it because it doesn't affect me, but it is a problem.
And when these people get into power, they have to be seen for what they are and hopefully identified at an earlier stage, as early a stage as is possible.
Because once power becomes entrenched, it often becomes self-perpetuating.
I mean, I just can't believe that the North Korean situation is still going on since I was a child.
You know, that self-perpetuating, evil, idolatrous country.
The power is somehow perpetuated down through the generations.
Let's just take that as a warning for how badly wrong things can go.
That a people can be so oppressed in that way for so long is possible.
We've been raised in a pretty good time.
Let's not take that for granted.
You're right. The aesthetics can't distract us, or the modality, to use your words.
If the endgame is controlled...
The way it's done. The way it's done.
Yeah. Yeah. It's...
Thanks, Jon. It's always fantastic to talk to you.
It always makes me feel more optimistic, then terrified, then a bit more optimistic, then charmed.
So it's a giddy roller coaster ride, much like the famous image of the country wall roaming off across a pastoral and bucolic wonder.
The conversations with you provide a boundary across a still yet lush space that might provide freedoms for us all, John.
It could go either way, Russell.
I know that.
I know that, John.
I know that, man.
But we're in it now.
We're in it now, Dr. John.
Thank you so much for joining me today.
It's a pleasure always to just be in the radiance of your sweet kindness.
Thanks for having me, Russell.
Let's get the message out.
Get it out there!
Is that a cat or a dog that's by you there that you just stroked?
Oh, that's my son's dog.
What's that doing there?
Oh, he's... Cos my son's at work.
You seem to have gone all carmaginally about the dog.
Well, he's my grand dog.
So I have...
I have two grandchildren and one grand dog that I'll get to look after, so... It's pretty lovely.
Thank you, you wonderful man.
You can watch Dr John Campbell over on his YouTube channel for now.
If he can earn a single penny out of it, the mad old fleece-wearing radical, please support Dr John and his...
Necessary and important voice and his fleet of grand dogs.
We've got a fantastic week next week.
We've got Dave DeCamp coming on the show talking about potential ubiquitous Armageddon.
Each party has its own superpower war lined up.
Michael Schellenberg, a friend of the show, friend of truth, will be on here talking about freedom of speech, legacy media and its ridiculous power.
Kim Iverson, fellow Rumble host, truth teller And a charming human being will be on the show as well.
And I'd like to thank those of you that have supported us.
Thank you.
It's more important now than ever.
When the government asks Big Tech to shut you down and Big Tech comply, you know you need a movement.
You know you need a collective awakening.
And I'm so grateful to you for being part of it.
People like Kevin Icke and Paul McMurray, Sarah Penelope, Lagbag Brian Fennell, Thank you for awakening with us.
And if you want to awaken with us, press the red button.
You get access to all sorts of extra content, live Q&As with me, guided meditations, readings, and more important than any of that, we get to cultivate this new space together.
There is optimism.
There is hope.
You must become a part of this movement.
I mean you.
It's you that will change the world.
Join us next week, not for more of the same, but for more of the different.
