Interesting long form interview with Neil Oliver

there was, they knew who to go to and fix it there was one person who did all the placements and supervised all the nursing education, uh, in terms of nursing, there were There were charge nurses or award sisters and nursing officers and a senior nursing office who then she became a midwife but everyone knew where this was, whereas now it's partly my fault because I don't really understand the systems very well. great level of complexity and there are other limitations as well, so you don't really know anymore what opinions you can have, if you can have individual opinions, probably more so in higher education than in clinical nursing, but it's a much more confusing world and you certainly see a lot of people around and you're not quite sure what work they do.

Everything you seem to hear now is happening right now as we speak. in terms of the strike and everything else, it is dissatisfaction in the nursing profession and in all areas, also with the doctors, the hospital doctors and the general practitioners and the rest, it seems that some of the or a large part of Job satisfaction has somewhat been eroded by all the systems, as you say you don't really understand the systems, but all the systems that have been put in place seem like I don't know, taking the joy out of caring I think. I think you're right, I mean the interpersonal relationship between a nurse and a doctor and their patients, it can still be, it's quite valuable, so I had patients that I took care of for days, weeks, sometimes even months. and you establish a relationship with those patients and, also, we still have this symbolic idea of ​​a nurse or a doctor with a name, but very often it doesn't work very well these days, so you don't really get to know it. his patients and my medical practice, for example, is quite good given the limitations we have, but every time he goes, he tends to see a different doctor, he no

long

er has a family doctor, he no

long

er has continuity and that is absolutely vital to understand, to be able to evaluate your patients, you can't really evaluate a patient with a telephone triage, you're not looking at the clinical characteristics, you don't know the history of that patient and each consultation becomes more of a kind of algorithm of flow chart instead of an interpersonal reaction.

I think what we really need is more personalized attention and introducing more interest in the individual. Put what you might call a little love back into patient care. It is a great sadness that surely it must be that in Heart Nursing or it is clear it is an interpersonal relationship that is between one human being and another and and to take that to alter that to the point where it feels like we are looking after the NHS Now I am always worried about this incessant use of the expression our NHS. It's become a bit like it's the institution itself that has to be looked after by the population now, and not the other way around, where the NHS should be a population of people looking after people, um, but I always think that's the Gettysburg Address.

Healthcare should be of the people, for the people, by the people, that's how it should be um and it should I think I think. It should also be more localized. In fact, one of the best places I worked at was a local Cottage Hospital and the staff there knew everyone in town pretty well and people come at different stages of life and very often they come. in the last stage of life and it was open and it was just a thriving natural part of the community, it wasn't like an Ivory Tower that you visited, it was just a part of the community that was sometimes needed and the staff there were integrated.

In the community I have often wondered why the Health Service is so under pressure now. I mean we have a larger population, that's certainly true, but also what we're doing now is offering a lot more treatments, so even when I was a young nurse a lot of terminal care would be giving painkillers taking care of people. at home where I was now because there are more treatment options available. People often seem to feel that because a treatment option is available, it should be used. Therefore, we tend to use many more treatment options and have many more specialists who will work in these areas.

I think part of the strain in healthcare is that we're just trying to do a lot more than we used to do now very often, that's a good thing because there are more advanced treatments and you can cure people who, honestly, in the past would have dead, but in the same way you have to consider that just because a treatment is available does not always mean it is desirable, so I think we need a more individualized approach, for example, two people can have the same cancer, one can decide to continue the chemotherapy route, another may decide not to go the chemotherapy route, but because because sophisticated treatments exist in sophisticated specialist surgeries, much more is done, so it seems that a much range is now carried out. of interventions and, for the most part, that is good, but it needs to be done with a more individualized approach. discernment I think now, fundamentally, he doesn't strike me as someone who has sought the spotlight as such.

I am referring, obviously, to his teachers, that image in front of groups of people, but it never seems to me that he would easily accept being one. a very recognizable figure, so how do you feel having emerged as a key figure? Watched online by millions of people every week, how has that affected your own psychology? Yes, it's really quite strange and was not anticipated. I mean, I think I think the teachers. to a certain extent you have to be a little selfish to be a teacher, you're like walking into a class and saying, no, listen to me now I'm going to teach you things even if you do it if even if you're doing a lot more of what we call an approach andragogical, it's still the teacher who is in charge even though it could be student-centered learning, so I think teachers, to some extent, like to hear the sound of their own voice and that could be in Part of the reason I did all the recordings, but I think the main motivation for doing all the recordings and recording all the basic physiology and pathophysiology was when I did lessons.

Sometimes you would think it went pretty well and Other times when he gave lessons you think, oh that wasn't so good, but when you had a lesson that went well you thought I really wish I could bottle it so I could take it out at any time. So in a lot of the things that I figured out, I found ways to teach them ways to do it and that's what you do in teaching, you have complex material and physiology is complex, it's a very conceptual topic so you have to have. You have found a way to teach this material.

I just wanted to condense it into one video and then it would be there forever, so that was the main wish, the fact that I was in front of it. I didn't really feel one way or the other, it's just what I do. I didn't particularly look for Limelight. I wasn't particularly trying to avoid it, it comes, it was quite natural, so now, what I try and What you do is just analyze the data to make sense of it and communicate it, so that it remains the main, the main Pride, really the main challenge is communication.

Do you still feel like you are teaching? Is it your underlying philosophy? in

form

ation acquired and that you can educate or because much of your content, especially more recently, has felt much more personal and I can see in your face the extent to which the in

form

ation you have collected has affected you internally. Yeah, actually, when the pandemic started, I started covering the pandemic hoping to make sense of it, so it's been an interpretation of the pandemic really and of course that's become subjective and I have to say I agree with your evaluation. It has become a much more emotional exercise because when I started covering the pandemic, looking back, I tended to believe what the Prime Minister's chief scientific officer's chief medical officer said: surely they have our best interests at heart and you I think I believe in official government notifications and I think their intentions were pretty good to begin with, but then other vested interests crept into that pretty quickly, we know we had scandals about personal protective equipment and how those contracts were awarded.

As time has passed and more evidence has accumulated, we now, for example, know that the risk of dying from Covid-19 is enormously lower than it was and we know that there are more side effects. vaccines than previously thought so this has changed the risk-benefit analysis and the problem is that the government guidelines don't seem to have changed with the risk-benefit analysis so I really feel like I've moved on from just believing what the government says now. It's really hard to believe a lot of what the government says because it seems like they've been stuck in this sort of rut that they can't get out of without admitting that they've been wrong in the past.

And since I have spent my entire life working with patients, we know that this is about men and women, boys and girls. You know, this is really personal for me, for my family, for you, your family and all the people we represent. I live within the community and there has been a lot of disappointment really about my loss of trust in the official narrative and that has been quite, to be honest, it has been quite traumatic. I've gone from a position of believing that our leaders have our best interest at heart and at heart to really asking where the hell some of these decisions come from because when I look at the current evidence, I often come to very different conclusions than the ones that the Official Guidelines say if you look at the official guidelines now in the NHS they still save covert vaccines are safe and effective I mean well basically we know that's not true we know we know that vaccines are essentially there's a very small in reducing the transmissibility that We know that there are particular dangers in administering vaccines, particularly for certain members of the population.

The idea that we are giving mRNA vaccines right now to young men, to me, is completely unacceptable because we know that they have pretty significant side effect risks and we know. that your risks of contracting a serious illness are almost negligible because to me health care has always focused on the individual we evaluate we plan Implement and evaluate care on the individual Health care does not treat communities, it treats the individual and if you I am treating you, Neil, as an individual so I will do what is best for you. I'm not going to vaccinate you to prevent you from making someone else sick because healthcare is about helping the health of the individual and it seems like we've completely lost sight of that and that's apart from the fact that science is saying that vaccines now they don't significantly reduce transmissibility anyway, the official sources just seem to have lost their way somehow and I find that very very disappointing, yes I mean there have been guidelines established since the end of the second world war that an individual, any given individual should not be treated for the betterment of the population in general, that should not be the governing party, they should be treated like that individual and that it was an atrocious error to contemplate. to do something to one individual to make things better for everyone else and that seems to have been completely left out in this push for, you know, mass vaccination.

I was going to say I think there are two things there, but first, now that we know. The vaccines are not having any significant effect on transmission and even if they did, it is a small effect over a short period of time, so scientifically it is now invalid to say get vaccinated to protect the people around you in the future. peak of the pandemic, there really was uncertainty about what was happening looking back, I think the government should have had a lot more certainty than they did. I think the news they gave us was selective. I think the mainstream media followed a particular narrative and didn't really give us a choice. so we were channeled to think in a particular way, but I still agree with you that the idea that you would give a treatment for the benefit of another person is not basically what we do in healthcare.

I mean, there are, there are, there are exceptions, of course, I mean there are very noble people who donate bone marrow, for example, for transplant, which is a medical procedure for them to help another person, but that is a choice that They do as individuals and the key is that they are making that decision based on fully informed consent, so if you are noble enough to perform a bone marrow transplant, I will tell you that this is a minor operation, it will really involve some discomfort for you. , let's take a sample. of your bone marrow, but this could save someone else's life and you can say you know what you know what I do, I'm happy to go through that discomfort, I'm happy to take that level of risk to save someone's life.another person. life, but you're doing it as an informed autonomous adult individual based on complete information, so I think people could make that decision, but it has to be based on complete information, so if you say to a young person, well, you have a grandfather sick at home, if I give him this particular vaccine, this could reduce the chance of him passing the disease on to his grandfather for maybe a 10-week period and it could reduce that chance by about 10 percent now if he says, well , yeah, I think that's acceptable, so okay, that's a risk he could take if he knows the possible adverse effects of the vaccine, but the point is that we've had this kind of one-size-fits-all approach to this and this means that everyone They are treated the same way.

The current guidelines for vaccination, for example, do not differentiate in terms of age, basically. I advise everyone to get it and it is fine if it is based on completely open data, but the point is that the data is not free and it is not open, for So, it's pretty much impossible, it's pretty impossible for me to give a full risk-benefit analysis after having followed this all the way through, um, to provide enough information for anyone to be able to make a fully informed decision at this point. I don't think it's possible because we don't have the information to take that, maybe I don't have enough information. to give them the information that allows them to make a free and informed decision.

I can't imagine there are many people who have as exhaustively cross-checked the data, especially official, official government data, as you have, you must be right. up there in the upper range of those who are paying attention at all times. Was there a moment? Was there a weak or particular ad or something you noticed that told you where you thought I no longer trust you? that everyone has my best interests in mind and now I have to contemplate a completely different reality or was it just a process of was just a gradual accumulation of doubts. I mean, I think there are people who are much better with data than I, I mean, I talked to Professor Norman Fenton, for example, who is actually a popper, a real statistician, but I think the question marks in my Mind they started to emerge maybe in late 2021, so personally.

I had the first two vaccines in 2020, but my last vaccine was about 14 months ago, so we come back at the end of 2021 and by then the data was starting to accumulate, but then I decided on balance. then I would receive the third dose of the vaccine, but it was only a few weeks later, in early 2022. I think there were major questions at that time that that was when the data started coming in. that the vaccines were probably more dangerous than we had been told that some of the side effects were not being discussed openly, I mean the side effects.

The reporting system that we have in this country, the yellow card system, for example, there are many. of vaccine injuries in some vaccine deaths reported on that, but it is estimated that it is only between and this is actually the agency itself, they acknowledge this, but between two and four percent of less serious side effects are reported and only about 10 percent of serious side effects are reported This comes from the health care product regulatory authorities' own mentions and information, so we are getting a lot of underreporting of the data and furthermore, especially when Omicron came out and I used to have a sign behind me that said stop cover 19.

I realized quite a while ago that it was not possible to stop it, this virus would become endemic and that means, as I understand it, everyone will be exposed, everyone will be exposed and the best thing about Omicron is that Omicron caused less more serious illness than previous waves now, if Omicron had not appeared and the Delta wave had continued, the pandemic could have been much worse than it was, but when Omicron arrived everyone was infected, it really started to worry me that all the releases from the government and the mainstream media practically none of them, in fact, I can't think of any government release that talks about natural immunity, so the human immune system is able to recognize nine billion different foreign agents from the outside and this virus is just one of them and also like if you breathe this virus because it is a respiratory virus that is going to stimulate immunity in your nose, your pharynx, your mouth, your trachea, it is what we call the mucosal compartment, you get mucosal or compartmental immunity and because everyone in the country is exposed to this. respiratory virus we can assume that essentially everyone in the country now has a level of natural immunity and just because of the kind of basic philosophical idea, the idea that immunity induced by injections that, by the way, will not generate immunity in the mucosal compartment, the idea that That is better than the natural physiological immune system.

He really seems a bit arrogant to me. We do not have natural immunity to hundreds of thousands of viruses and bacteria. Why should this be any different because it is becoming endemic? and we can't continue even if the vaccines worked, which there is good evidence that they certainly do. I guess we could say there is diminishing returns for vaccines, why were we ignoring natural immunity now? So some people who write to me for My channel are a little cynical about this that they say you can't make money with natural immunity knowing what you know now, you know the journey you've been on if you had your time again would you take that first dose?

I know I've often thought about this, which is a very good question at the time I received my third first dose for my age group, that the chance of death, uh, we thought from the information was about a one and half a percent. From Covid looking back, I don't think it was that high now, but given the information we had then about the risk of concealment because we believe the vaccine would prevent transmission, given the information I had at the time, I think it was probably the decision right to get that first dose of vaccine and possibly the second if you knew then but if you knew then what you don't know but if you did know then what you know no what would be your what would be your choice yes I've often thought about that and um, really I can't be definitive about this because there was a risk in those days when we were in the alpha wave, people were dying from cover-ups at that time, um yeah Then I knew exactly what I knew now.

Overall, you probably would not have received any of the vaccine doses. I'm skeptical about this, well a lot of people are skeptical about the PCR test, but the way the PCR tests were done. used during the coveted pandemic, when you look back, do you think the numbers were correct? Do you think all the people who got positive results from the PCR tests they were doing and submitting and like me? At first, I mean, I had to do PCR tests to get into a building that I needed to get into to work. Do you have faith in those numbers if you take the PCR tests first?

Neil, um, that the PCR test takes some of the RNA, the ribonucleic acid of the virus, duplicates it and multiplies it now. I don't quite remember the numbers, but if you use about 20 cycles of the PCR test to multiply the amount of freezing about 20 times that is probably accurate, but if you go ahead and use multiples of 30 or 40 then it can give false positives, there is no doubt about it, so to answer your question definitely I think we would need to know exactly how many PCR cycles they were using to get those results and I don't think we would have that information if they had been using a very high number of cycles in the PCR test, so you are absolutely right, that would give false positives, but I don't know if we have that information and this is part of the problem.

There's a lot of information. There is so much information available that it is difficult for anyone to keep track of it all, of course, but there is also a lot of information that we would like. that's just not in the public domain, so just to give you an example of that, in the original Pfizer and modern trials, the participant-level data gives the age, sex, and comorbidities of the people who participated in the trial of that participant. Tier level data is not in the public domain, if it were in the public domain people like Professor Fenton could frequently go and analyze it and give us a lot more information, so we need a lot more of it to be in the public domain I'm sure. that is true, so to answer the question about PCR we would need to know the cycle thresholds at various times and in various places, which would then allow us to judge how many of these tests were false positives.

If there were false positives due to the high levels of the cycle, then certainly there were do you think we'll ever get that information? I mean, is she lost in the fog of war, so to speak, or do you think not? I suspect someone has it. I don't know where it would be, but I suspect the information on how many PCR cycles the government used. I'm sure the information on how many PCR cycles the government labs used at certain points in the pandemic is available from the government labs that were set up. I sure believe it was the lighthouse lab.

It is configured by heart. I'm sure the information is there so it would be nice to have it. I was going to say in terms of people dying from covid um I wasn't working clinically during the height of the pandemic but of course I have a lot of friends who were and um with the original Wuhan wave and the alpha wave and the Delta wave in which this virus entered. We now believe that the lower parts of the respiratory tract probably got there through systemic absorption, but that caused characteristic clinical findings that were not seen in other infections, so one of the classic ones that we have seen, for example, is what is called frosted glass. opacity so when someone has pneumonia you look at the x-ray and then where they have pneumonia it turns white it's called white because the x-rays are absorbed so in VOC in people with covid acute respiratory distress syndrome um.

They were experiencing these severe clinical reactions and their blood oxygen levels were decreasing, then when you looked at the significantly that inflammation. and help my colleague save many lives, so there are particular pathologies that are associated with the coronavirus disease and there is no doubt that it killed people. Now we could argue about how many people because we have always got this argument whether they died with covid or covertly because at that time of course there was a large number of covid and we know that the main risk factors now are increasing age, It was the older people who died and yet Dying from complications?

But of course, old people die anyway. That's the nature of the life cycle, so it was killing older people and also people with comorbidities, particularly obesity. We now know that people with obesity are more than twice as likely. dying from hidden diseases, so I really believe that and that's why I found your question about would I really get vaccinated again? It's quite difficult to answer because I'm convinced that people were dying from covert-related diseases. and now in China, the degree to which that interacted with comorbidities in a sense is kind of a red herring because the covert very often was what actually facilitated death, accelerated death, so the reason why really came.

I hunkered down and said no, I wouldn't get vaccinated again because I think I was probably already covered in 2020. I just never got tested, we didn't have the testing back then, so I think I already had some natural immunity. What do you do with the drastic measures that were taken on early treatment? Know? I've spent a lot of time talking to people like Tess Laurie Pierre Corey Jackie Stone in South Africa about using elite drugs repurposed from scratch. before you preferred to send people home, you know they turn blue, you know, before you bring them back and put them on ventilators, etc., what was your reaction now to the way early treatment with repurposed drugs is applied? ? it was banned, yes, if people mentioned that, of course, Pierre Cory, the top respiratory doctor in the United States, Jackie Stone, a doctor in Zimbabwe, worked at the height of the pandemic in Zimbabwe, and Tess, of course, herself She is a doctor and researcher.

She did a pretty amazing job. I actually

interview

ed Pierre Corby early on and we did two

interview

s. The first interview I did with Pierre Cory was about prednisolone, steroid use and uh, that's still on YouTube, it's still available and hetestified, of course, before the Senate about the use of steroids and as a result of that they were greatly instigated throughout the United States and then, of course, he testified again before the Senate about the use of ivermectin, so when you have doctors from the caliber of Jackie Stone, Tess Lowry and Pierre Cory. saying wait, there's a treatment here and I think it might work, whether it works or not, it doesn't matter when people of that caliber say look, I've got a treatment here, I think we should look into it, so the mere fact that we're saying we think we should investigate it, it means that we should investigate it, not that all arguments should be closed or closed completely, so really whether it works or not is not the problem, the problem here is whether we can have it open and Honest debate: we used to have something called opinion medical in which doctors were allowed to give their opinion and it seems that Cory was not allowed to give us an opinion and the other thing about Ivan Mechan was that there are over 4 billion million. four billion out of four billion doses I think the number is a vivamectin that has been administered around the world and is known to be one of the safest drugs in the world so what I always want to know if someone asks me about any particular treatment is a good idea say well look what benefit you could get from this treatment and what are the risks now given that ivamectin may have some beneficial effect again, it's hard to say, I'm pretty convinced it does, but whether it does or not , the fact that it's safe means it's okay to try, so why not?

If there aren't many risks and there is a potential benefit, then let's do it, why wouldn't you be allowed to mention when you see an award-winning drug that has been administered billions of times and has incredibly good safety? Record the fact that you weren't allowed to talk about it. I can only describe it as sinister. I think Sinister is the right word for Neil to use because we're just not allowed to discuss it. I'm not allowed to debate it, so what I would like to do is give evidence that the diver mechanism is effective, give evidence that it might not be an argument and come to some kind of conclusion about that, but the fact that it doesn't we were.

I was allowed to discuss it on YouTube, Facebook and until recently, in fact, on Twitter, that has now completely changed of course, but not being able to discuss what is essentially a scientific matter, I actually agree, is quite sinister. One thing is that this is not open to public debate and the other thing about ivermectin, of course, is that if we take that as an example, I think once I found out that the price was about two or three cents per tablet, it's essentially free and It has a very low risk of side effects, so why not start some kind of clinical trial where we look at that now?

There is a trial underway in the UK that started with ivermectin a long time ago. I don't remember the details of it now, but it hasn't been reported yet, so again, it's a little strange that it hasn't been reported yet um and the institution of santoshi omoro in Japan uh at the beginning of the pandemic we are prepared for uh santoshi Moore was one of the scientists who won the Nobel Prize for the original discovery of ivermectin with William Campbell. They were willing to investigate this clinically but of course the pharmaceutical industry did not want to do this.

Now again, cynical people would say this is because they can. Don't be patient, you can't make money on drugs that have been around for over 15 years and who knows why the pharmaceutical industry didn't want to test them nor can you get emergency use authorization if there are alternatives. credible therapies for the disease in question, you know, there were monetary reasons for wanting to quash any suggestion that anything else that was available would have been safe and effective in relation to the covert emergency 19. use rote clearance that's true in the US I don't know how true that is in the UK um the fact that the pharmaceutical industry was not prepared to test a drug that they couldn't make money off of and they could conveniently say no it worked and they conveniently were able to ban it from the media, it just meant that the debate couldn't happen and that's really because we reused loads of drugs, um, you know.

I know that aspirin, for example, used to be a pain reliever, now we give it as a blood thinner. Repurposing medicines is absolutely normal in healthcare, John, when it comes to something you've obviously been talking about repeatedly recently is excess deaths, what do you do? How do you interpret the media and the government and the scientific silence around excess deaths? I mean, I've heard you quote numbers of two and a half thousand excess deaths per week, and at the height of the pandemic, you know the daily death. The toll was read, you know, like a tool bell, uh, and now no one is known in the mainstream and there are no government figures standing up and saying, wait, what's going on with all the excess deaths?

How do you read that? Yes, there is no doubt. Last week, during Christmas week, there were 20.01 more deaths than we would expect for the same week in England and Wales. The equivalent figure in Australia is about 16 per cent. Most European countries have had more deaths than they would expect. In the United States, it is more difficult. judge, but it seems like they have this problem too, so more people are dying than we would expect, so the official government line and the BBC line in this other media outlet is to say, well, this is due to interruption in medical care. is because people cannot access healthcare, this is due to organizational issues and I have no doubt that there is some truth to that but there are other factors as well so one factor I would like to answer is that we need complete data on excess deaths broken down by people who have been vaccinated and not vaccinated against covid with the mRNA and adenovirus vector vaccines and the degree to which one, two, three more doses of vaccine are associated with a excess deaths and that data is very, very difficult to I understand one of the reasons why I would really like this information Neil is that there was a study of people who died, often young people who died in Germany, I suppose it would cause spontaneous deaths and in Germany they did a post-mortem series on these and they actually looked at the heart muscle, the myocardium, and they found focal areas of damage in the myocardium and they were actually able to look at these areas of damage in detail and they found residues of the protein.

Spike there, but not the other proteins. of the virus, not the envelope protein or the nucleocapsid protein, indicating that it was probably the vaccines that caused this myocardial injury. Now the authors of the paper were not definitive about this, we need to do a larger series of this, but to the extent possible I know this work is not being replicated, so when something scientific like this comes up, the goal of publishing it is not That is to say that it is a failure, now we know that the goal is for people around the world to be able to say that it is really

interesting

. better to see if I can reproduce these findings and given that in my mind there are young people dying from spontaneous cardiac deaths, this should always have been an emergency, we should be investigating this, the pathologist should be investigating this, there should be investigations. then at the end of these investigations we can say: do you know what those provisional findings are in Germany?

We have not substantiated that with our research, do you know what those original findings in Germany are? Well, they seem to be backing up the water. Therefore, evidence is accumulating. We will take measures to prevent more cases from increasing, but, you know, it just doesn't seem to have stimulated the necessary interest in the scientific communities, as they are supported by governments. The worst thing for me is that we know that all the people are dying. age groups and it seems like you know, heart attacks and you think things to do with the cardiovascular system, yes, let's see in this story and the government and the media have come together to see well, it's probably because people were not able of accessing health services for a couple of years and there is and that's pretty much it and there's an end instead of saying however, really because of the nature of this emergency because we have thousands of people dying a week who shouldn't .

Not dying and not having died like that before, we really should be covering all the bases but we're not, it's like okay, people couldn't go to their GP for two years, that'll be it and now we'll just move on. new. That seems sinister to me, why can't they just open up and have a conversation that looks at all the options? Yeah, I mean, it's something between simplistic and sinister, isn't it to say that we already know the cause before we arrive? I've done the research with this simplistic nonsense, of course, you don't know the reason for these things until you actually do the research, the mere fact that we have had difficulty getting healthcare in some parts of society over a period of time. and now we are seeing excess deaths, that is what we will call a temporal correlation.

We need to decide the degree to which that is caused and some of it is probably causal, but I also think there are a number of other factors and the fact that we have Now, if we take here in Australia, for example, with both mRNA vaccination programs instigated, could this be a factor in the excess deaths? Well, I don't pretend to know that which is why we should investigate the fact that there is a reasonable risk of this happening. What the German data indicates means that the government should be investigating this, they should provide funding for research because we have a lot of people who can study this, it should be investigated as a possible cause and then we will know for sure, but we just don't know. we have that truck, we don't have that trust in the government that can do that, basically I don't trust the government to take care of that right now because there seems to be a lot of interest in not saying that.

They have been wrong in recent years and some people think they are also a little worried about disrupting various components of the corporate world. I'm one of those people, John, I'm one of those people who think that when it comes to change, the whole point about the scientific, I mean, there's a scientific process, you know, someone says, if this is the case, then you get them, you collect more data, you reanalyze that data, and then you come to firm conclusions on the spot. My conclusion right now, based on the data I have, is that vaccines are explaining some of the excess deaths we are seeing.

The mere fact that this is a possibility means it needs to be investigated and, as you say, Neil. Last week, excess deaths were about 1,500 in the UK, give or take, a week before that it was about two and a half thousand excess deaths in the week leading up to December 23rd. Imagine there was a terrorist attack and two thousand people died. Well, we don't need to imagine that we've had that, right? We've had that in the 911 situation and look at the response, but the fact that people are dying in diffuse parts of the country and it's not all rolled into one. place means that in some ways it is being ignored, but we have this huge excess of deaths and we don't see the chief scientific officer, the Prime Minister and the chief medical officer standing on television like we saw in the pandemic saying, well, we have a bit of Here's a crisis, but we are addressing it and we are resolving what is happening.

It's the silence that is deafening when it comes to Big Pharma, obviously someone who works as a nurse and throughout his career you know he will. you've been inhabiting, you know the same ecosystem as big pharma, what did you think of big pharma before all this and what do you think of that entity now? um I've always done it for some time and I've taught this for some time ago I realized that the pharmaceutical industry is interested in selling us their drugs, so one of the classic cases in this was an Australian doctor called Barry Marshall. back in the '90s, late '80s, around 1990.

I think he discovered that stomach ulcers were caused. by a helicobacter bacteria by Laurie and discovered that this was curable, we could actually cure, eradicate this helix back to pylori, now what that means is, instead of something, having someone have chronic gastritis for their entire life and having to take medication every day for that, you could take medication for a week or two and eradicate it and that didn't go over very well in the pharmaceutical industry to begin with and Michael Mosley made a video over the horizon about this called um ulcer Wars where we highlighted this and Barry Marshall actually to prove his case he actually drank some Helicobi helicobacter pyloric he got sick and then he got cured and it was only after that that this started to gain more acceptance soback in the 90s I realized that the pharmaceutical industry is not that interested in curative treatments instead of selling a drug every day for the rest of your life, they are going to make more money from that, so that always made me a little cynical about them, since the covid pandemic arrived.

I have become more cynical, for example, the original documents on the vaccines, we still don't have the data at the participant level, one of the other things that are worrying and to tell you the truth, they took me to a certain point, I feel a little fooled by this, they gave their results in terms of relative risk rather than absolute risk and the articles are written in a way that makes the products look good rather than what a scientific article should do, which is analyze, analyze the product, so I got the feeling that the articles were written in a way that was particularly sympathetic to the pharmaceutical industry and not analytical enough or confrontational enough and that means that I think we run the risk of what you would call a bias of publication, so organizations around the world like the night.

A good institute in the UK, for example, would look at the evidence, but that evidence comes from peer-reviewed literature and peer-reviewed literature. The best peer-reviewed literature is double-blind, randomized controlled trials, which are good, but triple the cost is about $10 million. each to carry out who can afford to carry out these like those from now on it is the pharmaceutical industry that can afford to carry out those trials. I can't afford to do a trial for 10 million dollars any more than you can, um, so they're selecting what gets studied and has an influence. I think we can say that, at least in the way it is published, the journals are being, in my opinion, selective in what they publish, so, for example, they were very happy to publish on the efficacy of a vaccine.

They weren't. happy to publish about the potential effectiveness of, as we've said in Ivermectin Hydrohydroxychloride, whether they work or not, let's look at that, so we have this publication bias and that means that a lot of the evidence that we have to turn to is already selective, so that rather Instead of being able to look at the whole world of creation, the whole world of nature, we can actually look at the part of the world where money has been spent doing these tests to give these high quality inadvertent commas. High-quality publications for so many of our public health decisions are based on, and that to me is a possibly incestuous thing rather than having a completely free range of scientists to research what they consider appropriate and find things that are beneficial even if those things turn out to be low. cost, there's talk of, no, you know, you'll be very aware of um, moving vaccination completely into the mRNA realm, you know, so before there has been a different way in which vaccination was acquired and how it was introduced into the people's bodies.

There is no talk of it being mRNA with that and also with what has happened in the last two years. What do you think is the state of vaccination culture here in this country and around the world? Do you know where I got it from? You know my kids are all teenagers now, but you know we gave them all the Mr MMR vaccines and all the childhood vaccines, everything that was going on, uh, our kids got, I mean, how much damage or what impact do you think that faith ? on vaccination has been slow, yeah, I think just to validate what you've said there, Neil um recently, the British government has recently announced a collaboration with a modern and the construction of a plant to produce 250 million vaccines of mRNA products uh per year in the In the United Kingdom there is a similar plant to generate 100 million doses per year in Australia and a similar plant to generate 100 million doses per year in Canada.

Now I think we have to really distinguish between traditional vaccines and mRNA vaccines, so what are traditional vaccines? What we normally do is we take the virus or bacteria, sometimes you kill it, attenuate it or mix it in various ways, so you're actually giving dead viruses or bacteria, what we call antigens, the immune system then recognizes it and it produces antibodies and stimulates immune cells to fight that and because it's foreign material, it will be eradicated by the body's immune system fairly quickly, it won't stay in the immune system. I mean, the word vaccine comes from cows for cow because the original vaccine, Edward Jenner's vaccine, was against cowpox and he gave it to a boy named James Phipps, who was the first person to receive it and it protected him against smallpox, that's where everything came from after that, we developed a lot of antigens that give to protect us against the live version of that antigen, whereas mRNA vaccines are completely different, in fact some people think they shouldn't even be called vaccines, actually They are delivering this messenger RNA and it is delivered in a small lipid nanoparticle and that will go into ourselves because the lipid envelope that surrounds the mRNA vaccine will dissolve into the lipids around us, it will go into the cells and then it is the genetic information itself. the cell that actually produces the antigen and will export it to the cell surface.

So what we're doing here is actually tricking the body into producing an antigen that the immune system will recognize, and in the case of MRI, there are no vaccines that are part of the spike protein. Now my current thoughts on this. is that if systemic absorption of the mRNA vaccine is what is supposed to happen, you inject it into your arm and if it stays in your arm it will cause pain in your arm, but the cells in your arm and the immune system will absorb this mRNA . and it will produce the antigen, that antigen will then be expressed on the surface of our cells and the immune system will recognize it, but if the systemic absorption of the mRNA nanoparticles means that they will go everywhere and to every cell in the body has these cell membranes of fatty phospholipids, so I don't see any reason.

This is my thinking right now why these lipid nanoparticles cannot enter any cells in the body, for example, if systemic absorption of the vaccine dose could pass through the heart. absorbed into the myocardium and I see no reason why, just as your arm cells can absorb the messenger RNA and produce an antigen that should not occur in the myocardial cells, and again my thought is that the myocardial cell, the myocardial cells would then produce this antigen and place it on the surface of the myocardial cell, which would then be recognized by the immune system, generating an immune response, but with the immune response we also get an inflammatory response when we have an immune response. in medicine we call it that, if that were the case Inflammation of the myocardium myocarditis and myocarditis can cause irregular electrical activity in the heart, which can lead to life-threatening cardiac arrest situations, so I don't see why this would happen.

This doesn't happen with any mRNA vaccines because the goal of mRNA vaccines is to stimulate the body to produce an antigen and that antigen, by definition, is going to cause an immune and inflammatory response, so for me, I'm going ahead with factories to build 250 million doses. in the UK 100 million doses in Canada 100 million doses a year in Australia before this vaccine has been thoroughly tested. I just can't understand why they would want to do that, why they would risk so much money for a vaccine technology that is essentially improved and there are good theoretical reasons, as we just discussed, to suggest that it could cause systemic inflammation.

The other point that you have made is that people are confusing mRNA vaccines with other vaccines and they are completely different, so the vaccines that you administered. I gave my children a tetanus booster shot before I went to Africa a few months ago um these are giving things that are associated with bacteria viruses uh I just give them as generally as a dead product, although some Vaccines are like yellow fever for example, the antigen is essentially live, but it is usually dead or attenuated, therefore the body will get rid of it quickly, it is not using the body's own genetic apparatus to produce it, it is something completely different with a completely risk-benefit.

Analysis that that was part of the problem. We know that there are very small risks associated with traditional vaccines and we also know that childhood vaccination has saved. Now I have no doubt about it, so millions of lives all over the planet, I mean smallpox, for example. was eradicated by vaccination smallpox was a terrible disease so there is no doubt that these traditional vaccines have saved millions and millions of lives and continued to do so measles facts about measles measles is a terrible disease measles kills many children in everyone and vaccinate against that with an attenuated measles virus, I still think it's a remarkably good idea, so since we know that these vaccines are quite safe, when the MRI showed no vaccines we thought, well, this is a vaccine and we know that vaccines are pretty safe, but this is a completely different kind of vaccine because we're stimulating the body to make the antigen instead of giving the antigen, it's a completely different thing, so I see again, John, what do you think?

How much damage do you think has been done to vaccination? As you know, it is a procedure that we previously took for granted, especially in relation to our children, but as you also mentioned, for always, for vacations and to go to different parts of the world, how much do you think it hurt caused? It has been done to the trust that was built over 100 years, yes, again, two things. I think trust has been substantially damaged. No doubt about it. The word vaccination has been tarnished, but also because the World Health Organization has focused so much on it. a lot about covert procedures, the other vaccines are particularly in poorer countries, like the measles vaccine and the tetanus vaccine that we mentioned, many children have not been vaccinated against that and there will be many more diseases around the world as a result of that. but the question of trust is important now.

I think most people, most parents, for example, can differentiate between modern mRNA vaccines and traditional vaccines, but I'm pretty sure we have the idea that there are more and more vaccines, for example. United States right now than producing an mRNA flu vaccine and, again, to me, the risks of systemic absorption would be the same as with any other potential mRNA vaccine, why would people want to move to an unproven technology? before there has been very extensive use in animals? and the clinical work done on it, so right now most of our vaccines are not native MRI actions, other than the covert ones, but as more and more of our vaccines become mrno, I find that it is a Really alarming prospect and I am very sorry. the damage that has been done to the beneficial aspects of our vaccination program in the UK, which has been very good, damage has been done yes, yes, I can tell you, John, if I were in another time of life and had three.

I know young children or younger babies now and I was faced knowing what I know now or suspecting what I suspect now with having to treat them with mRNA vaccines for everything, for the whole set of childhood ailments. I wouldn't, no, no, I would. I wouldn't put them under the needle, no, if we are going to use mRNA vaccines for the production of other antigens, there must be overwhelming, transparent and complete evidence of safety and right now we don't have that. So I wouldn't even consider it, as far as I understand, all the other vaccines have a recognized safety record and the data is more transparent, but I think most people know not to combine the mRNA vaccines with the other ones. vaccines.

I think the level of education in the public is quite good, but you're right, it makes you question and it's this whole thing we've been talking about about the feeling of betrayal and the lack of trust means it's more difficult. trust anything from the government the facts have come to light like we know that regulators receive substantial amounts of money from the corporate world for example that just doesn't add up at all um and yet we are told that all the The decisions they make are objective and based on science, that may be true, but it is not a good look, it is not a good look at everything we have, I think, as you say, a crisis of confidence in many areas of the medical attention with that John.

He has been very generous with his time. I just asked you one last question before we wrap up and it's been a real pleasure talking to you. The NHS isobviously a problematic and problematic entity at the moment and has been for a long time, if you ruled the world how would you start to change the fortunes of healthcare in Britain? How would you start to fix the NHS? That's really difficult. One of the things we must do is get the right thing. people in the right jobs, so I think we need substantial changes in our approach to nursing education doctor of education physiotherapist education pharmacist education the people we take to those trainings need to have the ability to do it academically, of course, but also We need to make sure that they are the right, nurturing personality types for that, so I think there needs to be a lot more emphasis on getting the right personality type to have the right amount of nurturing, and as long as the basic intelligence is there, it's hope that as Educators we can do the rest and that is going to take time to feed the idea that in this country we cannot train enough dentists, doctors, nurses, pharmacists, from the young people of the United Kingdom to me, the fact that we cannot getting it together and producing enough of these people to me is just baffling.

We have the academics. We have the institution. We have the clinical experience. Why the hell can't we train our own nurses and doctors? That is completely It is absolutely baffling in terms of the big organizational problems of the Health Service. I think one aspect could be to make it much more local by introducing a sort of local Pride, even when I was a young nurse we had pride in our local hospital. We respected our Consultants because that local thing was there and people would come voluntarily and support their own Hospital, support their own Institution, whereas now we have this kind of one-size-fits-all national agenda, but beyond that, "I think that we have to be honest: there are a lot of treatments available now, a lot of specialized treatments available that often require specialized personnel and that often require quite sophisticated treatment and at the moment who gets these sophisticated treatments is somewhat arbitrary.

I mean, certainly, if If you live in Africa, we're not going to get them or parts of Uganda, you know, where we've been working with Community Health recently, we're not going to get them, so I think we need to be very honest about what treatments we can afford and also what What treatments are appropriate if we take surgery, for example? To me, surgery should be for people who have diseases, people who are sick, the idea that certain forms of surgery could be available for people who are not sick, it is questionable whether there is aspects of health care that perhaps was provided under Health Care Now, which perhaps should be under a different category because as a nation, no nation can afford all the possible health interventions that are available to all people, so we need honesty and debate about which interventions can be carried out and which, to be honest, we cannot and sometimes cannot afford.

Obviously it's not always appropriate, that should always be done through negotiation with the individual to the extent possible, but I think we have to be humble about it and realize that there are limitations and at the end of the day we have to realize That you and I are mortal, what about the many levels of management? there are simply too many suits and not enough nurse and doctor uniforms, certainly there are publicized cases, aren't there completely strange, completely strange job titles in the Health Service, um, that reflect the current um, let's say Zeitgeist, the current uh politician with a small climate that seems quite absurd.

I think we need to consolidate aspects of management. um, we need to look at the way things are done. From the top officials who organized these things to the lowest levels, we need to prioritize clinical care, but we also have to do administration, but the point is that I don't pretend to understand these structures because they are very complicated, but I know from personal experience that many people Those who carry out complex activities understand that in reality it is only people who generate complexity to become indispensable in some aspects. and we need to have someone who has the authority to overcome that, sometimes to be quite draconian in that sense, but people tend to build their own little empires, their own little power base and they can be very good at seeming indispensable, while that we need someone who has the authority to say no, I actually think that you are expendable, while this group here is not expendable, so we need someone who knows very well the system that these management organizations have and the Potential for cost savings and rationalization is significant. and there is no doubt about that and it needs to be done.

I think it's a matter of urgency, John, it's been an absolute eye-opener and a privilege to talk to you. I'd just say you, of all the people I'm with. I have been listening for the last two or three years, your journey has been so instructive, the way you have always called, you have seen it so refreshing and so reassuring, and apart from anything else, I look at you. and I consider you someone I simply trust. I trust that you will tell me what you understand to be the truth. John Campbell, it has been a privilege to speak with you.

Thank you very much, foreigner.