what no one has explained
is why we went cooked lion and singer
Lock Stock and Barrel into these new
viral vector and mRNA vaccines rather
than using the more traditional approach
to vaccination why did we get the
message that if you get the vaccine
transmission stops with you why were
they saying that I think they had this
belief that vaccination was the only way
to go to stop this pandemic and any
little bits of inconvenient information
that might happen to be true but could
interfere with a vaccine rollout you
didn't need to shout about though you
know I actually think the Public's more
intelligent and more interested very
often than that they know to me just
simply doesn't add up and in fact if you
look at the risk benefit analysis
assuming that the risks of
Adverse Events is around about one in a
thousand it basically doesn't add up for
anyone anymore so we've got this
phenomena
of excess deaths that's occurring Europe
UK United States probably Canada
Australia New Zealand
all of these countries so what we should
be looking at
is what do all these countries have in
common
hello and welcome to trigonometry I'm
Francis Foster I'm Constantine kitchen
and this is a show for you if you want
honest conversations with Fascinating
People our brilliant guest today is a
doctor and a very successful YouTuber
not least thanks to covert and the
lockdowns which he has been covering in
great detail Dr John Campbell welcome to
trigonometry welcome and uh thank you
I've been looking forward to uh talking
to you guys have a weird conversation
and as have our audience they've been
clamoring and demanding that we get you
in as soon as possible
um before we talk about all the juicy
stuff that we want to talk to you about
yeah John just tell us who are you how
are you where you are what has been the
journey through life that leads you to
be sitting here talking to us and by the
way you know we're sort of thinking
where these hip cool uh young-ish
YouTubers you're Crossing it you've got
nearly 3 million subscribers mate oh
yeah the subscribers have picked up over
time basically I'm a bit of a strange
eccentric guy from Carlisle in the north
of England but for a long time I was
actually a nurse so when I was 18 I
trained as a psychiatric nurse and then
as a general nurse did quite a few
academic courses after that and then
when I was there I must have been water
but 30 31 I went into full-time nurse
education and uh I put together what I
knew about science the 10 years
experience I had as a clinical nurse and
put that into educating student nurses
and that blossomed out into teaching
nurse practitioners and basically anyone
who would listen and I did that for 27
years and then what actually happened
was there was this strange guy called
Tony Blair you're probably too young to
remember but sadly not yeah
now that's a Pity noted for quite a few
notable uh notable achievements which we
don't need to go into but in the 1990s
he decided he wanted 50
of young people in higher education for
some bizarre reason he tried to make
everyone an academic as if there's
something wrong with being a practical
nurse or a bricklayer of a plumber he
wanted to go into the academic route so
the lifted nurse education Lock Stock
and Barrel and plonked us into higher
education so I found myself in a higher
education environment and that was it
was good in some ways it meant I could
become more of an academic so I did a
couple of high degrees I did I did a PhD
and that that's why I'm a doctor this
has caused quite a bit of confusion
really because I talk about health care
related material because that's what I
do I've I've learned biology and uh
research methods in in healthcare
written books on pathophysiology and
Physiology and all that kind of stuff
but I actually trained mostly nurses and
then actually after tired I did some
work with the nurse practitioners
training registered nurses up to be
nurse practitioners to to diagnose in
their own right
so I'm basically an academic but I talk
all my expertise is in healthcare
related material that I've done pretty
well well I've done it all my life
really since I was 18. so that's where I
am now I'm now I now consider myself to
be semi-retired so um I don't actually
do much clinical work anymore I did
clinical work for three years part-time
after I finished academic work I worked
in the local a e Department which was
absolutely brilliant it was actually
great going back to being a staff nurse
again because I was actually giving out
medicines and giving people injections
and putting on bandages and I wasn't
doing any emails I wasn't doing any
Administration I wasn't having to manage
any people or all the stuff from a
previously senior role that I had in as
a senior lecturer all that was replaced
for just doing the actual honest job
again
and then I've been making actually
videos I started making my videos back
in the days of svhs tapes
so you might just about remember those
but these huge things so I used to used
to make those
and then we went on to a DVDs and when
we started making DVDs the the this sort
of um making lectures recording lectures
really that kind of took off
quite quite well and we um we're able to
um we sold we sold lots and lots of DVDs
we sold them at five dollars each so
more or less just covering costs and we
sold thousands of these and that was
going quite well they were using them in
various university courses around the
world and then of course YouTube took
off so my technician said to me in 2017
he said John there's this new thing
called YouTube I think you should be
putting videos on it oh I said I've
never heard of that but let's go for it
so I had the YouTube channel from um uh
to 2007 sorry 2007 was the first YouTube
videos and then it's gradually built up
since then when covert came along I was
getting about maybe 20 30 000 views uh a
day something like that I think I got to
around about a hundred thousand
subscribers but then covert came along
and uh
we were talking about covert we were
talking about the principles and things
that were going on and and then the
YouTube views kind of accelerated so now
I'm mostly doing mostly doing video work
now
fascinating talking to people like
yourselves of course and but I also for
some strange reasons some of the world's
leading doctors and academics come on my
channel and talk to me about things so
I'm doing a series on the moment at the
moment on the history of Immunology with
Professor Robert Clancy who's basically
the founder of the whole school of
clinical Immunology in uh in Australia
and I've talked to other fascinating
doctors and scientists around the world
so trying to take what they're saying
really and and put it into the public
domain because we want this information
to be available for everyone we don't
want some esoteric group we've got all
the knowledge you know this there's this
sort of holy priesthood who've got the
knowledge and they condescend to give us
some information we want everyone to
have the knowledge everyone who takes an
interest be able to work things out for
themselves and basically Empower people
to make their own decisions so that's
kind of what I'm doing now and that's
pretty well full time at the moment
really I imagine it is I imagine it is
and and the posters behind you say
follow the evidence wherever it leads
yeah and this is something that we want
to get into with you because before we
get into the details of the questions
about covet and vaccines and lock that
and all of that
um how a lot of people found themselves
in a position during that whole last few
years where they changed their mind
about things as time evolved there's new
things emerged Etc we've just had uh the
the evil Pierce Morgan on the show who
admitted that he'd made some mistakes uh
and everybody is going crazy about that
um what about you how did your thinking
evolve what we what was your initial
take when this new disease was emerging
we saw the scenes from Italy Boris
Johnson announces the first lockdown
three weeks to flatten the curve and
then quickly we did find that maybe some
of the things we were initially told
weren't quite what we saw how did your
thinking evolve over the over that
period initially I mean I I first
thought about making these videos in
December uh 2019 and actually made the
first one I think it was on the 26th of
January
2020. so this was very near the start of
the pandemic now at that time we did
know about other coronavirus diseases so
for example there was um what's called
SARS severe acute respiratory syndrome
there was an outbreak of that in China
and Taiwan and various areas in the in
the Far East
uh
2002-2003 and that did make people
pretty sick so that was a little bit
frightening but that then that died out
the reason that died out is it wasn't
very transmissible it was nothing like
as transmissible as the SARS coronavirus
too and as well as that the biggie with
SARS coronavirus too was people become
infectious before they become
symptomatic so with SARS coronavirus one
people would get sick and then there
would be that then they would be
transmissible so when people were sick
you knew if you isolated them you were
probably going to be okay that's why it
died out and then there's another one
called MERS the Middle East Respiratory
Syndrome now we still get a few cases of
this every year I'm not quite sure how
many probably about 100 cases a year
very often in Saudi Arabia because it's
a zoonotic spillover from Camels
but the thing about the Middle East
Respiratory Syndrome it's got a
horrendously High fake case fatality
rate it's probably about 40 percent of
people actually die from this disease
are quite horrendous it's kind of up
there with the ebola's and the really
nasty viruses
but again this doesn't really spread
much away from camel areas where people
keep camels because
um again the transmissibility of the
disease occurs when people are sick so
you know how to isolate them in fact
tragically quite a few of the deaths
from the Middle East Respiratory
Syndrome have been in healthcare workers
who've contracted it from quarantined
from quarantine patients
but High death rates so the probability
that there was a new coronavirus disease
with a high death rate was not absurd
not by any means
and then we had people like the World
Health Organization saying the death
rate might be one or two percent well
you know if you think about that if you
think about the the United Kingdom and
and one or two percent of us die then
that that's a pretty big chunk
out of the country and at the early days
as well it wasn't clear who was who was
being primarily affected so we didn't
know when issue whether it was young
people being affected and if we take
previous pandemics if you take the
1918-1919 influenza pandemic
what actually happened there
is um there was two uh
spikes in death across the age range so
all people of course died more as you
would expect because they have comorbid
is another complications
but the other people that died in 1918
1919 were teenagers very often 17 18 19
year olds
the reason being they have a very active
immune system they're able to generate a
vigorous immune response but with the
immune response goes inflammation and
the lungs became inflamed and they
filled up with fluid and there was
something similar actually in in with
SARS coronavirus too
so there was a few frightening things
and we didn't really know so at the
beginning
the only information we had apart from
this background science that we could
learn fairly quickly was What official
organizations like governments around
the world were telling us and then of
course enter organizations like the BBC
now what the BBC do on their reports
very often is they'll be talking about
something in general so for I remember I
remember during the Andrew Wakefield
year so he was the guy the pediatrician
that said there's a link between MMR
vaccine and autism which of course we
now know there isn't
but the BBC actually showed someone who
had the MMR vaccine and then and then
they say that this this is little baby
so and so a little boy so-and-so he had
the MMR vaccine last week and now he's
got autism now on a population scale
that that will happen
so what they do is they they home into
individual cases
and that can give a completely distorted
view of the nature of reality
because the these cases are newsworthy
they don't look at the other
990 900 000 cases where the chart did
not develop
or Autism after the MMR vaccine
so the BBC started showing pictures of
people
understandably who were getting sick in
Italy and uh
we never really quite knew what was
going on in China they were giving
figures but we knew that the Chinese
Figures were inaccurate um so quite what
was going on on China we didn't know
there was leaked videos of people having
fixed and things in the street which
obviously looking back were were
fraudulent but we had mainstream media
picking on the people that were getting
sick
and that gave a bit of a distorted
picture
and the other problem in the early
stages was the differentiation between
the case fatality rate and the infection
fatality rate
so the case fatality rate we did work it
out and it was around about one or two
percent of people that were being
officially diagnosed with dying
but of course for every one person that
was officially diagnosed there was
hundreds or probably thousands that got
the infection that were never diagnosed
I suspect for example I don't know but I
suspect I had it in early 2020
and I've talked to hundreds of people
who think that even people who think
they had it in 2019 but of course it was
never officially diagnosed
and as well as that in the UK what we
didn't do in the early stages that we
could have done okay the antigen studies
the antigen tests weren't readily
available there was government PCR
testing but the lateral flow tests
weren't there for Mass testing
but um what we should have done at an
earlier stage is do antibody testing to
see who had had the infection in the
past and that was another bit of a a gap
really in the government strategy
so we're given this information who
government mainstream media we had to
try and put this together as best as we
could with these potential alarm Bells
from previous infections and previous
pandemics
and it did look like we had a pretty
serious uh pandemic on our hands and in
many ways it was serious but nothing
like as serious or deadly as the early
intimations
indicated and then as time went on
um it became clear that it was becoming
the infection fatality rate and the
number of people getting seriously ill
weren't as as many as we thought it was
and then and then of course this
wonderful natural evolutionary process
comes in because viruses want to survive
so it's kind of natural that viruses
would become less virulent and less
likely to kill their hosts as time goes
on and that happened so we had the
original Wuhan variant in this country
then we had the alpha variant that you
might remember then we had the Delta
variant
and then something really quite um
almost Supernatural happened we had
Omicron Omicron came along
way more infectious way less pathogenic
way less people getting sick with
Omicron now the fact that it's more
infectious You could argue very strongly
that that's a really good thing
because it's infecting lots of people
really quickly and that's generating a
natural immune response in those people
and as well as that if you give vaccine
that's just generating immunity in the
body it's what we call systemic immunity
but if you breathe the virus in then you
get immunity in your nose and your mouth
and your pharynx and you
mucosal compartment immunity and and
that can stop the virus getting into the
systemic parts of the body that's why in
the Omicron days it became much more
like common cold type features
so we had all of these changes making
the condition less severe and that meant
the risk benefit analysis for
interventions changed dramatically
because the risks went down
but the problem I think was that
government thinking didn't change
quickly I'm not sure mainstream media
thinking has changed that quickly yet
um and so we have we have a less serious
condition amazing I'm not saying it's
negligible it's not by any means it's
exacerbating people with previous
conditions at the moment
but the risk benefit analysis of
Everything Has Changed really quite
dramatically over the last few years and
we really have to wonder the extent to
which government policies have kept up
with this
I mean John before Francis jumps in can
I just ask you one question because I
was curious how your thoughts changed
yeah did you did you support the first
lockdown for example
absolutely yes that appeared to be what
was necessary at the time given the
information that we had looking back was
I over Reliant and over trusting on
governments and the World Health
Organization at the time looking back
clearly clearly I was but at the time
given the information that we had it
looked like there would be queues of
people with severe illness outside of
hospitals waiting to get in who couldn't
because those hospitals were full that
looked like a possibility at the time
and to be fair during the early waves
during the um the Wuhan wave and during
the alpha wave there were a lot of
people getting really quite sick and if
we hadn't had those lockdown measures a
lot more people would have got sick all
at the same time you know this flattened
the Curve flattened the sombrero idea
that there is some I believe there is
some reality to that so many people
would have got sick all at the same time
the Health Service would have been
essentially overwhelmed by that and that
means that people that could have been
saved with relatively simple
interventions such as giving oxygen or
giving antibiotics or giving uh these uh
steroid drugs these dexamethasone type
drugs some of those could well have died
that that is that is still possible so
in the early stages lockdowns were
Draconian but there was a good rationale
for them in the later stages of course
when you're talking about restrictions
in the time of Omicron it became
patently absurd
but specifically in those early stages
yeah I could see where they were coming
from
and John do you still support the first
lockdown or do you think it was an
overreaction with the benefit of
hindsight I think with the benefit of
hindsight knowing everything that we do
now it was necessary to reduce the rate
at which people were getting sick
now whether that's a lockdown measure
yes that that was that that did do it
you know our intensive care units were
not overwhelmed they were remarkably
busy for quite some time but they
weren't overwhelmed or whether you could
have taken the alternative strategy the
sort of Great Barrington declaration
type strategy where you just uh took
strenuous measures to protect those that
were most at risk so those with
comorbidities those with obesity
hypertension diabetes uh
immunosuppression the elderly could we
have protected those effectively
um it would have been difficult but it
probably could have been done
but given the uncertainties at the time
that the very first lockdown it's still
possible to make a case for it
later on uh certainly not but but in the
early stages
it's still possible that it saved lives
hey Francis do you like locals I live in
London Mike so obviously not the only
pleasure I get from the locals is when
we share an intimate moment as we watch
a Japanese tourist get trapped in a tube
door
that is good but I wasn't talking about
their locals I was talking about our
community on locals you mean the one
where you get phenomenal behind the
scenes content when you yeah
when you get wasp incredible guests like
Jordan Peterson Brett Weinstein Bill
Burr Sam Harris Adam Carolla Heather
Hein and others your questions not just
that you can get supporter only benefits
like trigonometry mugs monthly calls
with our other top supporters and even a
regular meal with me and Francis you
also get phenomenal behind the scenes
footage of our trip to America where we
met a whole host of incredible guests
and gave ourselves terminal indigestion
we're also starting to do monthly
giveaways for locals only the first one
will be signed copies of Andrew door's
new book plus you get access to an
incredible community of like-minded
people who share means have fun
conversations and most importantly you
get to make new friends you can support
us with as little as seven dollars or
about five pounds a month or give us
more for the higher tier benefits go to
trigonometry.locals.com go to
trigonometry.locals.com and support the
show
and of course we're going to move on to
the most controversial part of the whole
covert debate which is of course the
vaccine now I I listened uh to some of
your uh interviews and you were saying
that you had the vaccine you had uh two
vaccines and then you had the third
vaccine which you hesitated over yeah so
talk to us about your journey with the
vaccine your thinking and the way it
evolved
I mean vaccination is such a fundamental
part of healthcare you know we we've
eradicated smallpox you know I I've
personally conducted vaccination
programs in in poor parts of the world
to prevent polio
um
um you know vaccination measles measles
is a terrible disease you know you know
um measles still kills thousands and
thousands of children a year uh that
aren't vaccinated in poorer crunches
particularly especially if it's combined
with malnutrition so so vaccination is
an absolutely essential part of
healthcare
so when we had a new viral disease it
made perfect sense that we would develop
a vaccine that made perfect sense and
when the vaccines came along I believe
that these vaccines would protect us
against severe severe disease which in
the early stages they they did I believe
they did protect us against severe
disease in the early stages now how much
someone at me was at risk from severe
disease of course is open to is is open
to some question and debate what I'm
curious about what I'm really curious
about is what we've always done with
vaccines in the past
is you brew up lots of virus and you can
easily do that we used to do it in the
old days in eggs well my predecessors
did it on X now we have uh cell cultures
and you can Brew up any amount of virus
this is the approach the Chinese took
for example with their cyanovac vaccine
so you brew up Untold billions of back
to of viral particles uh you kill them
you kill them and mush them up and then
you inject them so what you're injecting
is an attenuated or a dead rival
particle the immune system then learns
to recognize that dead viral particle
that antigen but that dead viral
particle can't cause disease because
it's dead or so attenuated it can't
reproduce it's just parts of the virus
what I don't understand and no one's
ever explained this to me
is people had invented these adenovirus
Vector vaccines
and people had invented these messenger
ribonucleic acid these mRNA vaccines
what no one has explained
is why we went Hook Line and Sinker Lock
Stock and Barrel into these new viral
vector and mRNA vaccines rather than
using the more traditional approach to
vaccination
because given that we had what looked
like a really potentially quite
dangerous pandemic I would have thought
that the safest thing to do
is do that which is tried and tested and
we know works
and we we know these vaccines have some
level of efficacy the Chinese the
Chinese vaccine did I think they made a
few in Cuba as well in virtually no time
at all just from Brewing up huge amounts
of the virus why was it we went for the
MRNA vaccine
which is not giving the antigen it's not
giving the dead virus it's giving the
genetic instruction to make the virus
and the adenovirus vector vaccines are
also giving the genetic instruction to
make the virus it's just that getting
into the cells of the body via in in the
case of the Oxford vaccine and an
attenuated uh chimpanzee adenovirus
uh whereas the MRNA vaccines were giving
the MRNA and these lipid nanoparticles
why did we do that rather than going
down the traditional route
that's the big question that hasn't
really been answered
John I suppose a pushback would be and
look if I make if I I'm just a comedian
on the internet so I You could argue
you're absolutely entitled to have an
opinion about covered that's how it
works now we're both experts
I got my PhD from the University of life
now
um cyanovax uh the example that you just
used is incredibly ineffective when
compared to the other vaccines is it not
which I think uses a technology you you
were talked about was then withdrawn
because of the effects of myocarditis
yeah who who told you who told you that
Francis who told you who told you
cyanovacs incredibly ineffective
um I read it in uh the mainstream media
yeah it's pretty hard to get a good data
from China the data we have got from
China is largely filtered through the
World Health Organization and what that
seems to show with the synovac vaccine
is it's not particularly good at
preventing infection in the first place
but when you actually compare it and and
but you know who really care who do you
want to prevent infection in the first
place you know if you get a bit of a
sniffle that doesn't matter too much
plus if you get the infection you're
going to produce what we said before
this mucosal compartment immunity
so you could argue that that is a good
thing but when you actually look at the
data that the reason I I took these
vaccines is I thought there was a chance
of me dying ever got this infection so
that would be bad or getting very ill
that will be a bad thing
um so you you don't you don't want that
but when you look at the actual data for
the cyanovac vaccine and the what we
would call the sophisticated Western
vaccines
in actually preventing death the
difference between the two is not is not
that great
so if you want to stop people getting
seriously ill and dying there's a good
argument to be made that the cyanovac
probably would have been just about as
good as the MRNA vaccines and of course
remember that the initial trials on on
the MRNA vaccines were on on preventing
infection preventing infection now I
used to have a sign behind me that said
uh stop stop covid-19 because we thought
we could stop it we thought we could
eradicate this
and pretty well for all of 2020 I
thought we could eradicate this virus
but now no we can't stop it you can't
stop it we are going to be endemic
we we are you and me us three are going
to and everyone watching is going to be
re-exposed to this virus in numerable
times over the next who knows decade two
decades you know probably the probably
for the rest of you guys lives you're
going to be continuously re-exposed so
we can't get rid of it we have to learn
to live with it so preventing infection
really is a bit of a red herring it's
not what we wanted to do we wanted to
stop getting people people stop getting
people really sick
now if you look at the British Heart
Foundation guidelines they actually say
that the reason that we've stopped using
the AstraZeneca adenovirus Vector
vaccine in the UK is because we have
better ones mRNA vaccines
to tell you the truth I am not that
convinced I'm not that convinced by that
argument
because as you as you correctly say
Francis the the AstraZeneca vaccine can
cause myocarditis and pericarditis but
actually not that much mostly what it
caused was blood clotting
so we had this what we call
thromboembolic problems we have blood
clots in the blood vessels and it was
the thromboembolic complications of the
AstraZeneca vaccine that were
particularly
problematic so I I'm just wondering if
the reason that the British government
stopped using the AstraZeneca vaccine
were because they thought it was causing
too many side effects
um if the if the if if that's why they
stopped using it because they thought it
was causing too many adverse reactions
I'd quite like to hear them say that
the official guideline now is that we're
using the MRI no vaccines because
they're better
but of course we've gradually gone away
from it so initially in the in this in
these where are now in the spring 2023
uh campaign basically we're only uh
we're only vaccinating those over the
age of 75 now and those with
comorbidities
uh in the Autumn 2022 campaign basically
it was over over 55s that were
vaccinating so it does sound to me like
the government is sort of quietly moving
quietly moved away from the AstraZeneca
to the mrnas now I kind of get the
impression
it's actually moving away from the mrnas
now so um you know even at my great age
I don't qualify I don't qualify for a
spring booster now
um because it seems like the government
are moving away quietly so I don't think
we can expect any any great Mia Cooper
or no we picked the wrong vaccines
uh which they may or may not have done
from the government I think we'll
gradually move away and uh I suppose
there could be a dramatic change in
politicians where they all stand up and
say sorry got it wrong completely wrong
got it wrong
um we may get that from Parliament I'd
be surprised
I think we'll just sort of gradually
move on to a new way of living with the
virus a new sort of uh acceptance of
endemicity and I gradually waning down
of the vaccination campaigns
and John how safe was the technology in
uh the uh the I can't remember the names
of the other vaccines now not the
AstraZeneca but the ones that use this
novel mRNA technology the Pfizer and
moderna used the messenger RNA
technology yeah well first of all it's
strange why they do that
um and and let me tell you what we
normally do is so that there was
clinical trials done on this and it did
show that there were some risks
now when when there's been a paper uh
published a few months ago which
actually re-analyzed the risks from
these vaccines
and actually found out that the risk of
serious Adverse Events from this
re-analysis paper were probably about
one in 800. so perhaps more than we've
been given the impression of up to this
point so these vaccines are probably
causing more issues
and what we always have to do in
healthcare is look at the risk benefit
for the individual now we know that
these vaccines aren't transmitting
aren't preventing the transmission of
disease effectively so we had famous
figures in the United States who we
won't mention but you know heads of
various this that and the other in the
United States
and indeed in this country we're saying
look if you get the vaccine
the infection stops with you it's going
to stop transmission now
to be quite honest I can't see that that
was ever going to happen
because if you give the vaccine as we
said before that can prevent systemic
infection to the degree what it does
that it does for a limited amount of
time but it's never going to prevent the
mucosal compartment infection and that's
how this is spread so the idea that
giving a systemic vaccine was going to
stop dead the spread and therefore young
children had to be vaccinated to protect
the grandmother
I don't think that was ever based on
sound science and yet just let me
interrupt you there apology to
interrupting but I let me ask you a very
unfair question go for it but if you as
a medical expert have the opinion that
he was never going to be the case yeah
presumably government has plenty of
people like you advising them who are
also medical experts who would also have
been telling them this so why did we get
the message that if you get the vaccine
transmission stops with you why were
they saying that in your opinion I think
and you'll have to ask the politicians
and the chief medical officers but
um I I I think they didn't want to do
anything that was going to inhibit the
vaccine roll out I think they had this
belief that vaccination was the only way
to go to stop this pandemic and any
little bits of inconvenient information
that might happen to be true but could
interfere with the vaccine roll out you
didn't need to shout about those let's
let's just point out the good bits and
any complications let's just
maybe keep those quieter because they
saw vaccination is the only way to stop
the to stop the pandemic now it looks
like they've turned out to be uh less
than accurate in that
but I suspect that's what it was they
were just trying to make it look good
and not confuse the issue this is one of
the things that really gets on my nerves
actually with governments and chief
medical this that and chief scientific
this that and the other is they don't
always give us the full information they
kind of give us the edited highlights
you know I actually think the Public's
more intelligent and more interested
very often than they know they have to
give us this very simplified message
not give us a foreign against that we
can somehow evaluate because they think
if they do that we'll become confused
this simplified message so we'll all
comply with this and just say to them
thank you sir thank you oh great one
very kind of you to give me this vaccine
very kind of you to allow me to do this
thank you that you've saved me from
bothering to think for myself and uh
let's just let's just toe the line and
conform so I suspect that's what it was
well so come back to to what you were
talking about before which is they uh
they were saying the the transmission uh
will not occur if you're vaccinated and
that was part of part of the way they
approached this yeah so it it it will
reduce transmission
for a very short period of time a little
bit so I'm not saying it doesn't do that
at all
but um basically it is not it is not
reducing transmission what we're giving
the vaccine for is to produce reduce
severe illness and death but we now we
now know that it doesn't last for
anything like as long as we hoped it
would it actually wanes fairly quickly
how do these vaccines compare and I keep
interrupting but there's so many things
you're touching on that I think people
would want to go for it go for it how
how do these vaccines the Pfizer and the
moderna in particular that we've used so
extensively here yeah how do they
compare in terms of that in terms of how
quickly they stop working in terms of
how uh ineffective they are after a
period of time to a typical normal
vaccine that you would encourage anyone
watching this to take or to give to
their children yeah yeah so it depends
on the type of vaccine that we're
talking about so for for example
influenza uh vaccine that quite a few of
us still still take I didn't get one
this year but we take that quite
regularly that that's only actually
generates immunity that's going to last
for a few months
partly because the virus is always
changing and you can get a new virus but
partly because the nature of the antigen
only stimulates the immune system to be
protective for a relatively short period
of time and that's the same that's so
that's the same with influenza covered
vaccines they only work for a short
period of time because of the way that
the vaccine interacts with the immune
system whereas other other viruses which
are stable over long periods of time
people will remain immune for decades
so for example I I was vaccinated
against hepatitis uh Hepatitis B when
the vaccine first came out and I checked
my levels about 20 30 years later and I
still had good protection from it
smallpox measles all these vaccines can
last for a long time tetanus is another
good example so tetanus toxoid I've seen
a few people with tetanus in intensive
care in the UK but they've all been
elderly and they've all not had their
childhood vaccines bumped up not renewed
not boosted so they were probably
protected for 10 20 years
but then eventually the the immunity
while off so a lot of vaccines that we
give are going to give us very long-term
protection
whereas these ones for the transient
respiratory viruses it's not surprising
that the protection is not as long term
so I don't think that's a product of the
technology as such of the way that the
antigen gets into the body
I think that's more nature the the
nature of the antigen interacting with
the immune system and the fact that the
viruses are always changing
yeah if you get a vaccine now you know
that's a vaccine against a virus that
was here 18 months ago or whatever it
was you know the vaccines are still the
the part of the vaccine is still the um
the virus that was the original Wuhan
virus the bivalent ones have added a bit
of Omicron ba2 and ba4 I think it is but
it's still out of date viruses so
they're always they're always kind of
chasing the tails with these sort of
fast evolving uh fast-changing viruses
does that make sense John so let me ask
you this about the MRNA technology
because you you've clearly made a point
of it you've emphasized the fact that no
one's ever answered why we chose this
approach over the more conventional
approach why is that significant
to put it in a very superficial blunt
idiot comedian in the internet way or
what's wrong with mRNA technology
well the main thing is that because we
haven't used it on a mass scale before
there's lots of uh no things we don't
know about remember Donald Rumsfeld he
said well we've got uh we've got known
unknowns and we've got unknown unknowns
so there's things that we knew we didn't
know about it but then there's things
that we didn't know we didn't know
so what what's actually happening with
these vaccines is you inject you inject
it now what's supposed to happen is it
supposed to stay in your arm maybe a bit
go into your lymph nodes under your arm
and generate a localized immune response
there but that has a an effect on the
whole body
but what we now know is happening for
example with these mRNA vaccines is
there actually
um they're actually being systemically
absorbed to a degree they're going
everywhere
so what happens is you've got one of
these lipid nanoparticles with this mRNA
recipe inside for the for the antigen if
that goes into a cell in your arm
that goes into your arm the cell in your
arm makes some of the antigen some of
the spike protein the immune system
recognizes that Spike protein as being
foreign and generates the immune
response and that's good and because
this inflammation associated with the
immune response you're going to get a
sore arm well big big deal you know I
can live with a sore arm
but if the systemic absorption of this
and this is what hasn't been fully
answered at the moment but there is data
that's showing that these are
systemically absorbed
um if the systemically absorbed then
suppose that that mRNA lipid
nanoparticle one of billions
is going through a blood vessel in your
heart for example
then that lipid nanoparticle can come
into contact with a vascular endothelium
inside your heart vessels inside the
blood vessels in your heart
and because the lipid Nano particle has
got a fatty wall and the cells in your
heart have got a fatty wall they will
absorb into each other just let you just
you know when you have two Bubbles and
they just absorb into each other when
you're playing with bubbles it's just
like that the membranes kind of merge
together and that would let the MRNA
into the cells now but not in your arm
now the cells that the MRNA is going
into it could be in your heart
but the same thing will happen the MRNA
is the recipe to make the protein then
the heart cells will make the protein
and the Heart cells will export this
protein onto the surface of the cell
and it will stick onto proteins on the
surface of the cell it's called
presentation so all all cells can be
what we call antigen presenting cells to
some degree then the immune system will
come by and say oh that on this heart
cell there's a bit of a foreign material
a bit of Spike Protein that's not
supposed to be there because that's what
the immune system does it recognize the
difference between itself and what's not
itself
and so what it does is it mounts an
immunological reaction to that foreign
Spike protein
but it happens to be in the heart and
when you get the immunity you also get
inflammation going with it
and if you get inflammation in the heart
muscle that's called myocarditis
if you get inflammation in the
pericardium that's called pericarditis
which we of course we we don't we don't
want these things
so the problem seems to be that the
there is systemic absorption of these
lipid nanoparticles and as well as that
this is another one of my big themes
it's my belief that we're giving the
injections wrong
so what you're supposed to do when you
stick a needle in so I've got might have
someone somewhere you stick a needle at
you stick a needle into someone like
that so you stick it in and then what
you're supposed to do is draw back on
the plunger
and then if you're in a blood vessel
you'll get blood going into the syringe
about to see it and then you know not to
inject because the injection that we're
giving for vaccines is supposed to be
intramuscular into the muscle
whereas if you hit a blood vessel
it goes into a blood vessel that would
become an intravascular injection
could be a vein could be an artery more
likely to be a vein and that means it
would be systemically absorbed really
quickly it could go all around the body
and we don't want that so I I think what
we should do is change the guidelines to
say
nurses and doctors vaccine givers stick
the needle in draw back when you're
satisfied you're not in a vessel then
inject it because I think the proportion
of the injections that we're giving are
going straight into a vein and then
we're getting even more systemic
um systemic distribution and John the
obvious question therefore is this uh
what's the data on the concerns that you
have about myocarditis and pericarditis
yeah so so that there is definitely an
admission now if we take the MRNA
vaccines that they uh it is a risk of
myocarditis and pericarditis now you can
argue about the the levels of these the
problem is that most of the data that we
get after the release of a drug in the
UK comes from what we call the Yellow
Card scheme of course now it's all on a
computer
um but we're still we still have these
yellow cards in the back of the old uh
in the in the back of the books in fact
um if you look in the back of these
the these are the books here with all
the uh all the drugs that you can
prescribe in and still at the back
there's some yellow pages
that you can fill out any uh any any
Adverse Events in
although it's mostly done on a computer
now but the British national the British
medical journal actually published an
article
saying that only about 10 percent of
Severus are serious adverse reactions
are reported
and for less serious Adverse Events it's
probably only two or three percent that
are actually reported so the question is
to what degree is there Under reporting
of these side effects
because very often
um
there seems to be a bit of a pressure
on doctors and nurses not to say
anything bad about vaccines
and as well as that
um as well as that if someone gets
myocarditis or pericarditis
maybe people never thought to ask how
long ago it was since they they had a
vaccine the the connection might not
have been
made so we have Under reporting so we
know we know it causes some myocarditis
some pericarditis we're even allowed to
say that on YouTube now because that
that is known
um the question is is is the amount is
is there significant Under reporting and
what is the risk benefit analysis for
the individual so in hell if I was
treating either of you guys for anything
I wouldn't say well what what is good
you know if a treating constantly I
wouldn't say what's good for Francis and
I'm treating Francis I wouldn't say
what's good for Constantine you treat
the individual
this is the whole point so it's all
about risk benefit analysis for the
individual so the idea that you would
give a young man an mRNA vaccine
for a disease which for them is very
very likely to be trivial never
guaranteed but very very likely that a
fit 18 year old is not going to get very
sick from covert especially especially a
young fit man who are more prone to the
these conditions
the idea that you would expose them to
that risk of pericarditis or myocarditis
the risk benefit analysis for them
to me just simply doesn't add up and in
fact if you look at the risk benefit
analysis assuming that the risks of um
Adverse Events is around about one in a
thousand it basically doesn't add up for
anyone anymore
from a much serious from a much less
serious Omicron infection
so basically times have changed risk
benefit analysis has changed and I I
don't like this idea where everyone's
treated the same so I think every
intervention now especially as we're not
in a crisis situation now
every intervention whether it's a
vaccine or giving a paracetamol or
giving an ibuprofen tablet should be
what is the potential benefit for you as
an individual human being
what is the potential risk for you as an
individual human being
and we know that young men for example
are more prone to myocarditis and
pericarditis and mRNA vaccines with
essentially no risk at all
from uh severe covert especially now
there's a lot of natural immunity around
so the risk benefit analysis should be
calculated on that individualized basis
John moving on because there's one thing
that I think we don't talk about as much
as we should and that is the effects of
long covered now there's quite a lot of
people in this country so even numbers
have got up to something like half a
million who say that they have long
coverage yeah could you explain to the
viewers and listeners what long covid is
what do we know about it and what are
the effects on the human body
yeah that's a good one I think the
levels are even higher than that if you
look at the office of national
statistics there's a huge amount of
people so normally uh long cover will be
defined as symptoms for more than
probably more than 12 weeks would be a
common definition
but of course there's a substantial
number of people who've still got uh
sequelae complications after a year or
two years after the infection
so the first thing I'd like
clarification on
is how many of these people with these
long-term conditions
uh have got it as a result of covid-19
infection
SARS coronavirus 2 infection and are a
proportion of people that have these
long covered symptoms is this vaccine
related or is it covered related because
the two can present in a similar way so
I would like to see some pretty good
official research to to tease out the
difference between those two yes this
person's got long-term complications
is it caused by the vaccines or is it
caused by the natural infection which is
which let's try and get some
quantification of that
but whenever someone gets ill if
someone's very ill so you've never got
one of you guys and I was in a bad mood
and to put you in intensive care and
intubated you and put you on all sorts
of lines and drugs like we do in
intensive care units if you went in with
nothing wrong with you
then you would still be there would
still be a risk of dying as a result of
those those procedures we only do this
to very sick people for those reasons
but people that have been in intensive
care because of the treatments and
because of the severity of the disease
it can take them a long time to recover
regardless of the cause of it so anyone
who's been very sick can be have these
uh post-infection sequel like for a long
period of time anyway but added to that
with with
um SARS coronavirus 2 infection you've
got the additional problem of
potentially the virus damaging tissues
and potentially the virus causing
ongoing immunological problems so for
example if the virus has damaged the
heart then you could have long-term
chronic fatigue because the heart's not
pumping blood out properly if the virus
has damaged the part of the brain then
you could get long-term neurological
sequelae if it's caused by physical
damage
so that that's one possibility we need
to know how much of this is caused by
physical damage to the organs
but there's interesting research now
that's showing that the actual virus
can persist for quite a period of time
so Spike protein could still be being
produced in people with long covered
months or even potentially up to a year
after the infection now the reason that
we suspect this is true is that when you
have an acute infection you produce a
particular immune response it's called
the immediate to immunoglobulins or the
igms and some people with long covet
have those weeks and months after the
infection where you should only have
them for a week or two after the
infection so um damage to the organs
ongoing effects of the illness and the
treatments or potentially as new
research is showing now ongoing
Persistence of the virus albeit at a low
level is what's causing it typically you
get a chronic fatigue type syndrome some
people get specific pain some people get
neurological effects
um but you can get these things as well
as we've said as a complication or
potentially as a complication of vaccine
injury so we're reading to tease out
which is which
um but could there be ongoing problems
with this into the future yet yes that
there could be again after the 1918-19
pandemic there was people ill for you
know 10 20 years after that
uh with various conditions that they
developed as a result of that viral
infection
um after measles we get people with
brain injuries for example that is one
of the problems after measles any virus
can be associated with sequelae so most
times thankfully for most of us we get
an illness we're sick for a week or two
then we get better
but some people there's ongoing effects
um and if you get and as we have we have
basically I think we could pretty well
say everyone in the UK has been exposed
to SARS coronavirus too now so a
proportion of those people
unfortunately are going to get ongoing
sequelae and that's what we're dealing
with we have got clinics that we're
starting to treat these people
but we really need
um
good research to optimize the treatment
strategies that we're going to use
because at the moment there are still a
lot of people suffering post-vaccine
effects post-infection effects and we
need to help these people as much as we
can
indeed and what is going on with the
excess deaths in this country John what
is happening with it because it's
something that we don't talk about I
read a stat the other day that Scotland
had the highest rate of excess deaths a
few weeks back since
1952. yeah
so um the figures on that offers for
National statistics figures clearly show
there's an excess an excess of deaths in
the UK in 2022 it was probably around
about 65 000 excess deaths
so what the office for National
statistics do is they've taken the data
from 2019 to five years before that
taken the average from that and then
compared it now during the pandemic
years of course you would expect access
deaths because people were dying of uh
some people were dying of covid and
covid was causing exacerbation of
existing conditions and more people were
dying and vulnerable people had died
but now we're over the acute part of the
uh pandemic
um
because more vulnerable people had died
you would expect them uh then after the
pandemic the death rate to be less
because the most vulnerable older people
had died so you'd actually expect the
death rate to go down but that's not
what we saw uh I think nine or ten
months in in 2022 the death rate was
above average more people dying than we
would expect now as you say Scotland
England the UK this is the case
um United States it's almost certainly
the case
um where the data is good like Australia
it's been definitely the case in 2022
New Zealand Canada the data is not very
good but the European Union have this
database called eurostat which is
absolutely spot-on that they collect
really really good stats and they've
showed excess deaths through most months
of 2022 for virtually All European
countries
so we've got this phenomena
of excess deaths that's occurring Europe
UK United States probably Canada
Australia New Zealand
all of these countries so what we should
be looking at
is what do all these countries have in
common
what could be causing
because if the excess deaths are high in
Australia in here is that just
coincidence that the higher or is the
some common cause to this
now what the governments are saying is
that a lot of these are caused by delays
in healthcare now that is certainly true
but we've got excess deaths throughout
European countries and the delays in
healthcare in some European countries
have been quite severe like like the UK
other countries uh the delays in
healthcare haven't been too bad at all
and yet we have these excess deaths
everywhere
so I don't think that's enough to
account for it
um is is are the increased deaths caused
by uh long-term sequelae of uh
complications of covert that that's
another possibility that people are of a
dying from that at a higher numbers or
is there some of the independent
variable so something else that is
causing these these excess deaths
uh if there is we should be open to it
now the key thing is
we have to be open to all possibilities
so if you take a in 1948 a guy called
Austin Bradford Hill and Sir Richard
Dahl they wanted to know why so many
people were dying of lung cancer
they suspected it might be caused by air
pollution and motor cars
but when they actually drill down into
the data they found out that the people
that were dying of lung cancer were
smokers
so they actually were open to that
possibility
and then what they actually tried to do
after that was they tried to disprove
their data and they examined I think it
was about 40 000 British doctors over a
20-year period to try and disprove
the idea that smoking was caused by lung
cancer and of course then it became
completely obvious that that it was so
what we had there was honest open
investigation everything was taken into
account was it tar Rhodes was it
pollution in the cities was it Motorcars
was it smoking was it something else it
took everything on board so what we need
to do is look at the years 2000 and say
2014 to 2019 what was going on then
then look at the year say 2020 2021 2022
when the rxs deaths there's definitely
excess deaths what's changed in that
period of time
what are the independent variables that
could be accounting for this dependent
variable of increased deaths and we have
to be completely free to analyze all of
the possibilities
all of those possibilities
and the problem is at the moment the
certain possibilities that we're not
allowed to freely analyze and discuss
this is the problem especially on
YouTube especially on you especially I
think I think we all know what you're
referring to a question actually
actually let me come back on that
constant I'm actually not referring to
anything in particular I am referring to
what you're talking about but it has
let's just look at everything people are
dying here for goodness sake well this
is what I was going to say I mean let's
check out everything I couldn't agree
with you more and I think that's really
important and I understand the the thing
that uh one of the things you're talking
about but another thing is that
frustrated me incredibly during the
entire pandemic period is when the
decisions were made to lock down and as
we've already discussed you supported
the first lockdown and Francis and I did
and then our opinion changed as as the
situation evolved the journalists who
were egging the government on for more
lockdowns more Public Health measures
Etc the question that they never asked
that I would have asked if I had been in
the room is you were saying we need to
lock down right yeah that means
presumably you have done an analysis on
the negative impact of lockdown yeah and
you believe that they are outweighed by
the number of lives that will be saved
yeah so my question to you is do we have
any idea whatsoever how many people
lockdowns killed yeah
um
I don't know that we can actually put
that into numbers but as a principle I
agree completely what you said so so we
had a lot of the Neil Ferguson data for
example that the government based the
the early lockdowns on and and he
pointed out the potential adverse
effects of of not locking down
now okay that data turned out to be
pretty spurious in the light of more
recent data
but
that was looking at what would happen if
we didn't
I agree with you completely there was
nothing like enough emphasis on what
would happen if we did
so we were looking at the harmful
effects of not locking down not looking
at the harmful effects of lockdown to
try and quantify how many people of uh
died as a result of lockdowns would be
remarkably difficult because you're
dealing with multiple variables
variables you're dealing with mental
health you're dealing with economic
health
you're dealing with macroeconomic
effects you're dealing with delayed
Health Care there's an awful lot of
variables there
um at the moment
could we say that lockdown was awfully
bad for an awful lot of people and for
society in general yes
absolutely to try and quantify that at
the moment I haven't read anyone who's
actually tried to put figures on that
but that was the problem failing to look
at the risk benefit analysis I think
um we looked at what could go wrong as a
result of the infection not so much what
could go wrong as a side effect of the
interventions that were has to be said
pretty rapidly introduced on pretty
tenuous evidence right and I suppose the
reason that we're having this
conversation John is look I'll be honest
with you personally I've sort of moved
on from covid it's not really a big
issue in my life right now and I hope
that that's the case for many people I
think we all have but what I'm
interested in because of the way that
this whole thing was approached because
I think as you allude to Public Health
became almost on certain occasions sort
of a a public health became in conflict
with truth it became in conflict with
medical evidence and in the pursuit of
trying to get people to cry and quite do
the right thing the government's often
as you alluded to again told us things
that weren't entirely true encouraged us
to do things that may may have been in
their eyes to the benefit of the
population but would not to the Ben NFL
of us as individuals these are all
problems to me that that I hope we
address going forward and so I suppose
the real question that would both
Francis and I are trying to get out with
you is
let's say we're in in Spring of 2023
yeah let's say towards the winter of
this year or perhaps the the early
months of next year we get SARS Co V3
which is very similar in profile to
covid that we've just been through what
should we do as a society in that
eventuality going forward and what
should we not do
you know you've actually hit on one of
the things that's been worrying me for
some time that they're Constantine
because there will be another pandemic
yeah it's inevitable now everyone at the
moment is cynical of vaccines
understandably
cynical of lockdowns understandably
cynical of government understandably
cynical of chief medical offices Chief
scientific officers understandably
cynical of academics and professors
completely understandably
but it's quite possible that there is
another virus comes along
that's got a 10 mortality rate right
that is possible that is more than
possible
it's potentially potentially possible
um
you know various scenarios you can
imagine uh such as a lab leak scenario
which you could imagine that a Vibes
could come along with a with a fatality
rate of
I hate to pick a number 50 or more
um you know the the volume we've got a
situation where no one trusts the
government or medically yeah yeah yeah
so so that September 2023 there could be
a situation where we need vaccines in an
emergency where we need lockdowns
where we need all these emergency
measures because we could be dealing
with a virus this is an existential
threat to the existence of humanity now
God willing this not going to happen you
know but in in the word there will be
other pandemics the question is how bad
are they so if there was a really bad
pandemic that was killing say 10 of
people that got it or or just think of
another I don't even like to think about
it but you know let's suppose we're in a
1980 1919.
situation
where okay losing old people is tragic
no I've lost a parent recently it's it's
part of life but it's still still
difficult
but but I've also lost a brother who is
younger than me and that is devastating
it's totally tragic
um just imagine we had a virus that was
selectively killing children
because of their immune naivety that
that is possible that is medically
possible
um if that happened
then all of these measures could be
completely Justified and would be in a
sort of a crying wolf situation oh well
last time it was complete waste of time
wasn't it I'm not going to bother this
time I'm going to you know we could be
in a situation where these things are
actually
completely necessary
so to answer your question it would
depend completely on the nature of the
virus
um in terms of covert itself I'm
remarkably optimistic about it because
Omicron is so infectious so contagious
everyone's had it
and whenever you get one type of SARS
coronavirus too you get some cross
immunity for the other types as well so
I'm optimistic we're not going to get
any really nasty mutations we're not
going to go back to the dark days of
people going to Intensive Care Unit with
as it was in the in the alpha variant of
SARS coronavirus too I mean I could be
wrong but I don't think that's going to
happen
but there could be another virus
um influenza viruses of course there's
always pandemics of those
um you know
Untold billions of birds have died over
the past year
from uh Avon influenza
now there's been cases of this avine
invaluative cleanser and I think it's
it's uh it might be H5 I can't remember
the H's and the M's anyway there's a
standard one that's all over the world
and people that handle poultry get this
so Cambodia China and the people that
get it the death rate is is remarkably
high it's around about 40 50 percent
but thankfully that virus has not been
transmitted human to Human
but it's possible because what could
happen if there's a co-infection
situation so you could have say a
poultry worker in Cambodia who's
infected with this uh very very virulent
Avion virus who has a normal influenza
at the same time which is very
transmissible
and you could get a re-jigging of the
viral RNA inside an individual cell so
you could end up with a virus which is
very pathogenic with a high death rate
and transmissible
it's but that's possible
that that will be called genetic uh
shift and and that could cause another
pandemic like the 1918-19 and that could
have a high death rate
and these things could be necessary
um
and and to what degree would the
population comply because I think if
wolf was being cried once we're probably
a bit reluctant to run the next time
so that that's a concern and I really
just hope
uh that biosecurity around that people
stop this
academic
largely pointless gain of function
research on viruses that this has been
being done we know it's being done it
has been done
we could argue about whether it was
getting a function research funded by
the National Institutes of Health that
funded the Wuhan Institute of virology I
mean that that's all vague but we know
for sure that gain of function research
has been done and that sometimes these
viruses leak out
and really there just needs to be
someone needs to get a grip on this now
how you do that is difficult because the
technology exists
and whenever a technology exists people
are going to make sure they're going to
use it you know it's like a well I've
got my motorbike outside I'm blinking so
I'm going to ride it you know I can do
gain a function therefore I'm going to
do it um
we we need something to control the
funding or some audit processes on that
uh because the next Lab leak could be
dramatically more pathogenic and even
more transmissible than covert it's
possible
that that risk is there
and John what is the likelihood that
we're going to be in another pandemic is
it heightened because of certain factors
that there are people who say because
the world is warming up that means that
we're more likely to get uh another
another pandemic as some people say the
way that we treat livestock and poultry
means that we've increased the chances
of getting another pandemic higher
population density all sorts of things
yeah yeah
um um I think that I think this the
three there's three main factors there
the first is are are people going to be
jiggling around with these things in in
labs
so um you know
put put port and down do this you know
we we know that people are doing are
doing biological research having said
that the biosecurity in the UK is pretty
good
um
the the United States in the United
States is also pretty good the trouble
problems in the United States
um sometimes they uh offshore research
that can't be done in the United States
other parts of the world which um can
lead to awkward uh consequences
so um what one is
people jiggling around with viruses
that's probably the biggest risk
the the set the second the second
biggest risk
is probably
um Mass uh animal monoculture
so we grow up thousands of cows and
thousands of sheep and thousands of pigs
thousands of poultry keep them in
conditions which are nothing like the
natural condition so a virus could
spread amongst them really quite quickly
we had this situation actually in in
ferrets if you remember that there was
lots of ferrets called in Denmark
Netherlands I think
um where the virus spurn amongst amongst
ferrets and they had to be killed in
large amounts largely because that they
were genetically the similar types of
ferret they were they didn't have the
natural variation that you get in Wild
populations
so there's there's the way we do farming
so so there's lab leak the way we do
farming the third one is is zoonotic
spillover from
um wild wild animals
so you've got the way that wild animals
are marketed and kept and treated as
food sources in parts of Africa Asia
China Vietnam you know a lot a lot of
countries where wild animals are still
exploited uh for for food and the
interaction there with wild animals is
going to greatly increase
the risk of viral infection in terms of
a warming environment probably less so
um the mate the main risk would be it's
the main risk would be the environmental
change degrades animal habitat
and when you degrade animal habitat the
animals have to look for new habitats
and then the animals are more likely to
come into contact with humans
because viruses I mean viruses there's
probably about roughly in the woods
outside my house here there's probably
about 10 to the 22 different types of
viruses that's 10 with 22 knots on the
end a one with 22 knots on the end this
incalculable incalculable amounts of
viruses out there
and and viruses are weird so humans have
viruses dogs have their own viruses
poultry have their own viruses every
animal has got their own viruses
millions of them in fact every bacterial
cell has got its own viruses these are
called bacterial phages
so every bacteria has got many types of
virus that can affect that so there's
just huge amounts of viruses no one
knows where they came from
that they're probably vital for the
ecosystem but there's absolutely
billions of different viruses out there
so um all we need is one that can jump
species
so there may be viruses living in
species in the middle of a Woods or
jungle somewhere that actually would
transmit in humans really quite nicely
so the Omicron for example and this
isn't absurd the Omicron
probably Came From Mice it could have
been what we call a reverse zoonosis
from from African mice that could have
been where it came from
um it could have been from a partly
immunosuppressed person that's also
possible but it's got some features in
common with
with a mice mouse macro molecules Mouse
histology
um so
different animals as we interact with
those inappropriately it has to be said
um could result in another pandemic so
no shortage of viruses out there they're
not going to go away we probably
couldn't survive without them but it's
like bacteria we can't survive without
those but we like them to be in the
right place
so we like lots of nice bacteria in our
colon but in the bloodstream of course
we like absolutely zero bacteria it's a
matter of keeping these things in the
correct ecological environment where
they're supposed to be rather than human
interference with them
all right well John thank you very much
and what an optimistic note to end on
with billions of viruses waiting to kill
us all but uh we're going to ask you
some questions from our supporters on
locals and actually I want to get into
some of the stuff there that maybe we
haven't been able to get into go for it
here but before we go off YouTube and on
to locals uh we always ask the same
final question which is of course what
is the one thing that we're not talking
about as a society that you think we
really should be let me give you one
um the sanctity of human life
when does Life Begin
when should life end
and to what degree should we be
interfering with these processes
because if there's anything important
about being human if there's anything
Noble about being human if there's
anything important about civilization it
is how it treats the weakest members of
that Civilization
you know sometimes I get sick and I'm
weak
and thankfully so far my wife has not
taken that as an opportunity to come and
kill me because I'm in a weakened
situation
you know the the essence of humanity is
that we look after each other
you know we could call that love if you
want to
we look after each other
and
my main condition we could argue about
all the the political correct things and
I think there's issues there I think
there is probably issues with
Mass Insanity for various things going
around the world I think that's there
but the prime thing is are we losing
sight of how important human beings are
that we are somehow unique and special
and we need to refocus on the sanctity
of human life deciding when it begins
and when it ends that it's not something
to Chuck around at my convenience or
your convenience it has intrinsic
infinite value
you're talking about abortion and
euthanasia there are you whatever you
however you wanted to interpret it yes
yes yes
abortion is an issue yes absolutely it
is yeah yeah absolutely that makes sense
euthanasia absolutely you see when does
human life begin answer the questions
the question when does it begin well it
obviously it begins a conception there's
no argument yeah so in fact you know
um I can say that's when my life began I
self-identified as a human being when I
was when I was when I was a zygote you
know no one can argue with that
um
and
it's not just it's not just those
factors it's the way that it's the way
that economic considerations yes it's
abortion yet yes it's the way we treat
children yes it's it's euthanasia but
it's also the fact that whole economic
systems are manipulated for economic
ends
rather than for human ends
so just just take a silly example it's
not silly I've been I've been doing some
study lately on a type of fungus called
lion's mane mushroom
it's not hallucinogenic it's 100 legal
I've grown it myself
and the evidence that that causes can
lead to neuro regeneration in some
people is is pretty good you know we can
actually regenerate some damaged nervous
systems
um that's not being taken up as far as
I'm aware by the pharmaceutical industry
because you can't patent mushrooms
you know uh or
and I again I'm not making political
points about about the current war or
anything like that but
um whole economic systems are geared to
make money
rather than help populations
and if we just put the importance and
the sanctity of human life at the center
and made our
macroeconomic and microeconomic
decisions
based on that fundamental Axiom
then would we be
organizing the world organizing
economies
organizing societies on the grounds that
we are and the answer to that question
clearly in my mind is no we wouldn't we
would be changing things dramatically
now that is a very good note to end on
Dr John Campbell thank you so much for
coming on we're going to go over to
locals but before we do we obviously
recommend everybody head over to your
YouTube channel and check that out thank
you for being with us and thank you guys
for watching and listening we'll see you
very soon on locals with some bonus
questions or if you're not joining us
there we'll see you another brilliant
interview like this one or all show all
of them go out at 7 pm UK time and for
those of you who like your trigonometry
on the go it's also available as a
podcast take care and see you soon guys
was there anything you didn't feel
comfortable saying on YouTube that you
think needs to be said about this entire
conversation
foreign
[Music]