TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @c_plushie
reSee.it AI Summary
Threads presents a harrowing portrayal of nuclear war and its devastating impact on Sheffield, England. The story follows two families as tensions between the U.S. and the Soviet Union escalate into a nuclear exchange. The film explores the medical, economic, social, and environmental fallout of such a catastrophe. Made on a modest budget of £400,000, it is notable for being one of the first to depict a nuclear winter, capturing the profound horror and cultural ramifications of nuclear conflict.
@c_plushie - Coronavirus Plushie
Threads (1984) Threads is a dramatic account of nuclear war and its effects in Britain, specifically on the city of Sheffield in Northern England. The plot centres on two families as a confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union erupts. As the nuclear exchange between NATO and the Warsaw Pact begins, the film depicts the medical, economic, social and environmental consequences of nuclear war. Shot on a budget of £400,000, the film was the first of its kind to depict a nuclear winter. It has been called "A film which comes closest to representing the full horror of nuclear war and its aftermath, as well as the catastrophic impact that the event would have on human culture."
@c_plushie - Coronavirus Plushie
Get the jab, get the treats WAS NOT informed consent https://t.co/tqmSJqnjis
Video Transcript AI Summary
Aotearoa is called to arms to get vaccinated against COVID-19. People are encouraged to get vaccinated for their friends, family, and New Zealand. The goal was to get 100,000 doses, but now the goal is to smash that target, focusing on first doses in Auckland to get past 90%.
Incentives are offered to get vaccinated, including the chance to be an extra on Taika Waititi's next film shoot in New Zealand. At one location, people receive hangi. One person says they are getting vaccinated so they can see their kids. Over 450 hangis were distributed.
The vaccination total reached 100,019. Some people won $500 cash or $1000 from JB Hi-Fi after getting vaccinated. If you get vaccinated at the remakery, you get a tomato plant. The Maori total is getting up to 25,000 vaccinations. The target was moved to 150,000 vaccinations. One person got vaccinated so they can get back to work. The vaccination total has surpassed 130,000.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Roll up your sleeves, Aotearoa. This is a call to arms. Your arms, my arms, everyone's arms. So if you haven't done it already, get your arms down to your nearest COVID vaccination center and get your double shot against COVID.
Speaker 1: Roll up your sleeve,
Speaker 2: Roll up your sleeves, New Zealand.
Speaker 3: Roll up your sleeves,
Speaker 4: New Zealand. Roll up your sleeves,
Speaker 0: New Zealand. The more kenmies who are protected, the better our future will be. Follow the vaccination tracker at NZHerald.co.nz.
Speaker 2: Thanks, Sunny. It is great to be here, and it's great to have you with us for a very important cause, that is to get as many people vaccinated today as possible. So do it for your friends, do it for your whanau, do it for Aotearoa, and today, well, you do it for the freestyle, don't you?
Speaker 5: And hundreds of people are here getting the vaxxed because what is it all about? Get the jab, get the treats. Get the jab, get the treats. Let's see how many people we can get doing that today. But look, there is free coffee.
There is free ice cream. What do you want to send today? A message out there to everyone getting their vaccinations today because we need a hundred thousand doses, don't we?
Speaker 3: Let's get it done New Zealand. Hundred Thousand Doses today.
Speaker 5: I love it.
Speaker 3: Go go go.
Speaker 5: Love it. And can you guys please copy my dance? Will you do it with me?
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 5: Alright. This is how it goes. Get the jab, get the treats. Get the jab. Get the treats.
Go. Get the jab. Get the treats. The jab. Get the treats.
Come down. Get the jab. And then you can get the treats as well. Back to you guys in the studio.
Speaker 6: Yeah. Happy to share the latest numbers and fantastic having been out in the community today to see so many people joining us, and that is why we now have 76,378 vaccinations delivered today. So doing really, really well. Of those twenty one thousand nine hundred and forty five first doses and those first doses are just so critical. Fantastic to see those numbers.
Speaker 3: Come on down, get vaccinated, and you get free food as well.
Speaker 4: Air two Pacifica one seven three Montreal. See you soon? Yeah? Maybe? Come on.
Speaker 1: And you said you've been out in the community this morning. What's the feel? How are our people going?
Speaker 6: Awesome. Really good first rush at a lot of sites. So down at Sky Stadium in Wellington. If you're in Wellington and you wanna grab a vaccine today, Sky Stadium drive through, really easy. And then I was out in Porirua, Kennan's Creek.
They're doing an awesome job there as well. Lots of giveaways, lots of treats, as Aziz said.
Speaker 5: Get the jab, get the treats.
Speaker 6: So get on down there as well.
Speaker 2: And I know you originally said earlier this week, the target was one hundred thousand doses today. Are you changing that given
Speaker 3: the numbers? No, no,
Speaker 6: Well, actually, look, now the goal is just to smash that target really. And of course, we want Auckland to keep driving for those first doses. We want to get past ninety percent, but a work to be
Speaker 7: done
Speaker 6: there. We've got close to five thousand first doses there. We want to get closer to thirty thousand. So come on Auckland. If you haven't had your first dose yet and you're Tamaki Makoto, head out.
The number one focus for all of us right now is just keeping people safe and that's what this is all about.
Speaker 8: Well, Kia ora, we've been spinning this wheel on the project for the last couple of weeks and we had heaps of prizes left over so we didn't really ask the boss. We just brought the wheel down here and thought we'd spit up some people getting their vaccination for the first time. I've got Nonna and Charlene in the car there and I've just told them they don't
Speaker 4: know what's on the wheel so I'm hoping we can
Speaker 8: get them something really good. It's the wheel of immunity and I'm spitting now. They were totally stoked when they found out they could win anything and right now they've won $500. The cash.
Speaker 1: Oh, I've got this girl in
Speaker 2: tears. KFC.
Speaker 8: Both of them are first time. First time vaccinations today. They're gonna presumably split it two ways, $250 each.
Speaker 3: And spend it on KFC apparently. So here we are. We're going to welcome
Speaker 2: in another member of our team today, Taika Waititi. Taika, thanks so much for joining us again. Have you heard the latest Get
Speaker 5: the jab, get the treats.
Speaker 9: Get the jab, get the treats. Stephen, I'm doing it.
Speaker 6: Oh, you just made Azeez's day.
Speaker 2: A number of New Zealand businesses have put forward incentives to get people out and get vaccine. Do you want to offer anything up?
Speaker 9: Like to just invite you to the next time I shoot something back on New Zealand.
Speaker 7: Done. And
Speaker 9: come to my set in Lego.
Speaker 4: Can we
Speaker 1: get a role?
Speaker 6: So if you want to be an extra or spend some time on set with Taika Waitiri, go out and get vaccinated. We'll figure out how we draw something like that.
Speaker 9: How we do this? Yeah. You can
Speaker 5: do it. We'll figure it out.
Speaker 9: This big promise that we've just made, we'll figure out how to make that actually a reality. Here
Speaker 4: we are at Te Whanau. We've seen the whanau. They made the hangi while this is us handing them out. Come. Come.
Come. Three people in the waka.
Speaker 10: Handing out all the hangi.
Speaker 11: Thank you for the much, guys.
Speaker 3: Take care. Bye bye. Yep.
Speaker 4: I'm fine. Before you fellas, go. Come around. Come around. How was that, Ehorma?
Speaker 7: That was mean.
Speaker 10: That was awesome.
Speaker 4: Why did you fellas come today?
Speaker 7: I can't see my kids unless I get vaccines.
Speaker 4: Oh, yeah? Yeah.
Speaker 7: My son's a bit mamoy. He had he was he's got a lot of complications. Oh, yeah. So we gotta keep all the bugs away from him.
Speaker 4: Would you recommend other whanau coming through, getting vaccinated?
Speaker 1: We're gonna bring
Speaker 7: cow loads in tomorrow.
Speaker 4: That's cow loads worth of hangies for you fellows, Thank
Speaker 1: you very much.
Speaker 4: And then there you have it. So they come through, they drive through there, they go over there, they get the vaccinations over there. They have their time. And then they come through, Sorry, my mask is playing up. They come through and collect all of these hangis.
Mato, how many hangis you reckon you gave out today?
Speaker 11: Oh, jeez. Mostly, over four fifty?
Speaker 12: Four fifty?
Speaker 11: Yeah. Yeah. We had a real good turnout. People just keep coming and going. It's bloody awesome.
Speaker 4: Now we were just saying, like, over 400 hangis or something distributed, but you you're you're not prejudice. If there's other Tamariki, other whanau in the waka, you feed everyone?
Speaker 11: No. Look. It's the the whole idea of the hangi is is is about manaki. Is is to manaki those who wanna come,
Speaker 5: and
Speaker 11: and if you do come, here is a here available. And while we're saying one vaccination equals one that's really only our basis for us to start. So certainly, children don't miss out at all.
Speaker 12: Prime minister, we would actually like to hand it over to you to make this announcement to the people of Aotearoa New Zealand.
Speaker 6: Amazing news. So Aotearoa, we have now hit 100,019 vaccinations today,
Speaker 5: which is awesome.
Speaker 12: Yes, baby.
Speaker 8: It's been so much fun here in Otara this afternoon. Man, the cars just keep on coming, and one of the people who arrived recently was Red Thonga, who just had his first dose of the vaccine. Congratulations. How did it go?
Speaker 7: Thank you. It went very well. It was very quick. I didn't ever feel it.
Speaker 8: And I've got some nice news for you actually. We're gonna spin the wheel of immunity for you now. So you might actually well, you are gonna walk away a winner in more ways than one today.
Speaker 7: Yes. Yes. Let's do it.
Speaker 3: Let's get you something good. What's it gonna be? $500 cash.
Speaker 1: All yours.
Speaker 12: Get vaccinated. You get $500.
Speaker 6: I've been out at vaccination sites all around the Wellington region. So started in the city, then headed to Porirua. And I've just been in the hut. And it's just been amazing. The vibe's great.
If you're in the hut and you head to the remakery, they'll give you a tomato plant when you get vaccinated.
Speaker 5: Oh, wow.
Speaker 6: So amazing. Something different everywhere.
Speaker 8: Totally. Get vaccinated. Save lives. Be kind.
Speaker 12: Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah.
Woah. Welcome back to Super Shot Saturday, and we have got some Super Shot news coming to you. Some great numbers, from around the row here. These numbers are just growing and growing and growing and going up and up and up and up and up and up and we're looking and looking and looking for big big numbers and here
Speaker 5: they are.
Speaker 2: Here they are. I know you're
Speaker 3: gonna be pressing a keyword. Do you wanna give a give your leash goal another go?
Speaker 12: My leash goal Bay Of Plenty with 5,096 vaccinations today out in the Bay. Plenty of vaccinations out in the bay. The Bay Of Hawk. I don't call it Hawk's Bay. I've never known why that's there.
5,133 in the Bay Of Hawk. Mid Central, Pame North, and all around 4664. That includes the Hauropanua. You beauty.
Speaker 4: And they're gonna be you're gonna be in the right place because we've got a bit of a an activity for our rangatahi.
Speaker 3: We do. We do. We're giving away free rugby and soccer balls. You get to keep it if you catch it just like this.
Speaker 5: Ready? Here we go. Here we go. Here Here we go. That guy missed out.
Oh, here we go. This one. Dang it. Yes. You see?
That it's simple. Free. So many reasons for you to come on down and see us.
Speaker 3: Come down to Otara. You can have a spin at the wheel, but if you don't get the chance to spin, South Seas have some bangers in the background. You'll be dancing in your car and get a free sausage.
Speaker 2: Historic day for New Zealand. Go out and get your COVID nineteen vaccination. And let's have a quick look at the updated numbers from all you people through Aotearo going out and getting your jab. Nearly 120,000 total vaccinations for today. That was at 04:30, so that could have creaked up as well.
But, Jules, I'm looking at the Maori total. 20,000. It's getting up there.
Speaker 9: It's getting up to 25,000. Sorry. I was just getting down with it. So, yeah, you're right. A really good number there.
We're almost at the 25,000. And, again, those updated Pacific Island numbers as well. The vax counts are really getting up there. Remember, we moved our target to one fifty. And just a reminder reminder, I said one fifty, didn't I?
Thank you very much.
Speaker 5: I
Speaker 8: did. I found Nicholas and Lisa. Give us a wave, guys. They just had their second jab, and they don't know what they're about to win because I'm gonna spin for them. So wish me luck.
We've got cash on the wheel. We've got all sorts. And Nicholas and Lisa, I believe in you. You've won a thousand bucks from JB Hi Fi. A thousand bucks from JB Hi Fi.
Very cool. Easy as that. And we'll keep spinning it. So if you haven't if you're new nearby, come and get your vaccination here with us today and say hi to me and Laura. Kia ora.
Speaker 3: Kia ora. I'm here at the hub in Hornby, standing outside the Maui clinic where you can get your COVID vaccine. It is open until late 8PM. So, you know, come along now. It's still open.
You've still got plenty of time. What amazing staff and their incredible outfits over here. They've still got lots of freebies to give away also. So if you haven't yet, come on down. We're open late until 8PM.
Speaker 8: Ketamine, why did you decide to get vaccinated?
Speaker 1: Well, it's important. You know? We're doing it for our community. We're doing it so we can thrive as a country, and, I'm, you know, doing it for myself and my friends and family and everyone around us. We don't life has to keep going.
You know? So
Speaker 8: You look beautiful. Now you're safe, and I'm gonna hand over to Laura Thupo to spin the wheel of immunity.
Speaker 3: Right. I'm spinning for Lemmy. He's got his first vaccination today. I asked him why. He said because he just wants to get back to work.
Great reason. Let's give the wheel a spin. What's it gonna win?
Speaker 2: A thousand bucks. A thousand.
Speaker 8: A thousand dollars. That is so cool.
Speaker 5: I also gotta welcome my best friend back to the stage, doctor Bloomfield. Woah.
Speaker 12: Hey, bro. Breaking news. Farno, breaking news. We've just gone past a 30,000. Come on up.
Come on up. Come on up, Come on up.
Speaker 9: Here's the vaccination telephone song. Thank you so much for your vaccinations today. DJ Shed, split the world.
@c_plushie - Coronavirus Plushie
Every so often I get notified that someone has liked an old video that I'd completely forgotten about. Then I see the video. That's what just with happened this one from Nov 2022
@c_plushie - Coronavirus Plushie
I was asked if I had the clip of Sean Plunket @theplatform_nz telling Aly Cook that her vax-inured son "took one for the team". Here it is (at the end of the video) https://t.co/9RPgG7ZKsc
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 states that one of their three children experienced health issues, including heart inflammation, after receiving the vaccine and subsequently lost their job for refusing further vaccination. This adverse reaction is officially registered. The speaker recounts a doctor advising their son against further vaccination outside a hospital setting, but later denying having said so. Speaker 1 says there is a good system for reporting side effects in New Zealand and finds no clear evidence of suppression of medical side effects of the Pfizer vaccine. Speaker 0 questions why the vaccine is still in use given the side effects. Speaker 1 responds that society decided to tolerate a certain number of adverse effects for the greater good, characterizing the speaker's family member's reaction as "taking one for the team."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I've got I've got three children who were done. So one's done in Wellington. He's had both under juries. He's been crook ever since. One had a four hours later, he was driving down State Highway 1, and Healthline called an ambulance for him.
He was taken to emergency, and four days and four more emergency visits after that with heart inflammation. And then he lost his job for refusing to do it to himself again.
Speaker 1: Have any of your children been entered on the official register of adverse side effects to the vaccine?
Speaker 0: Absolutely. Okay. My son has.
Speaker 1: The one was injured. So one of them has?
Speaker 0: One of them has.
Speaker 1: One of them has been officially recognised. Okay. On the official register, does keep an eye on My
Speaker 0: son, for an example. This is the only example I've got because I've actually had a family member go through it. He's at A and E. The doctor says to him, you should never get another vaccine outside of a hospital setting. Right?
Yeah. His girlfriend is there. She's witness to the conversation.
Speaker 1: That doesn't mean he's not getting help. He's getting medical advice there in a hospital. Wait.
Speaker 0: We go back to get that in writing. Okay? Yeah. And the doctor denies he ever says it.
Speaker 1: Alrighty. What was the doctor's name?
Speaker 0: I haven't got it right in front of me,
Speaker 1: but I can see too. Kept it because it seems you kept everything out about the story. Yeah. I found no clear evidence of suppression of medical, you know, of side effects of the Pfizer vaccine. We got a very good way of reporting that in New Zealand, and it would seem to me that the side effects as officially
Speaker 0: So why are we why are we still using it then, Sean, when there's been some
Speaker 1: side out reactions? We made we made a decision as a society that we would be tolerant of a certain number of adverse effects because of the greater good.
Speaker 0: Yep. That's right. But when you're the person that's actually got a family member that's reacting
Speaker 1: us Well, I'm sorry. That's tough. You're taking one for the team. You're taking one for the team.
Speaker 0: Okay. That's your view. Okay. I accept that.
Speaker 1: Alright. Alright. Okay.
@c_plushie - Coronavirus Plushie
Chris Hipkins, 6 July 2021: "Chasing up", "Go out and look for", "Go out and find". Re the unvaccinated. https://t.co/tG5N9ozXtu
Video Transcript AI Summary
Everyone in New Zealand will have the opportunity to get vaccinated by the end of the year. However, some people may be hesitant or may not come forward, requiring a targeted effort to find them, potentially extending into early next year. The commitment is that everyone will have the opportunity to get the vaccine by the end of the year.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Because it's been slow for the first six months, does that therefore mean that we will be vaccinating people into next year and that goal of getting everyone done this year won't be met?
Speaker 1: I think early next year we'll be in the phase of chasing up people who haven't come forward to get their vaccination or have missed their bookings and so on. So everyone will be able to get a vaccine between now and the end of the year. But of course and I want every New Zealander to come forward, but human behavior suggests that there will be some people that we have to actually really go out and look for, and some of that may spill into next year. But our commitment is everyone will have the opportunity to get the vaccine by the end of the year. Everyone will.
But I can't say that we're not going to have some hesitant people or some people who just haven't come forward that we don't have to go out and find next year.
reSee.it AI Summary
I shared my thoughts on a recent incident involving Shane Christie, who, out of genuine concern, asked Efeso Collins’ wife to consider the potential link between her husband's death and the COVID vaccine. His inquiry reflects a concern many New Zealanders have, but it was quickly dismissed by Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson. Scientific studies have indicated a connection between the vaccine and heart issues, and the Medsafe CARM Safety Report shows significant reported cases, though actual numbers may be much higher due to underreporting.
@c_plushie - Coronavirus Plushie
Still the Elephant in the Room, and You Still Can’t Talk About It When former Māori All Black player Shane Christie, sincerely motivated by a desire to help Efeso Collins’ wife uncover the truth about her husband’s passing, respectfully asked her to consider whether the COVID shot, received by millions across New Zealand, might have contributed to his death, he gave voice to a concern quietly shared by many in the country. Yet Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson quickly stepped in to shut him down. Scientific studies have linked the COVID shot to heart damage, including myocarditis and pericarditis. According to the last publicly available Medsafe CARM Safety Report from December 2022, 104 heart attacks and 974 cases of myocarditis/pericarditis were reported following the shot. Medsafe itself estimates that only about 5% of adverse reactions are reported to the CARM database, suggesting the true numbers could be far higher. Please retweet
Video Transcript AI Summary
Following the sudden death of Green MP Fa'anana Efessel Collins, a discussion ensued regarding potential causes, specifically the COVID-19 vaccine. One speaker claimed that young people taking the vaccines could experience worsening conditions, especially after the second shot, leading to enduring risks of death due to heart scarring and arrhythmias. They allege that authorities are "willfully blind" to the vaccines' cardiac toxicity.
It was stated that a small scar from the COVID-19 vaccine can cause ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation, potentially leading to death, especially during adrenaline surges, such as during sports or between 3-6 AM. The speaker cited a review by Dr. Flavio Catagiani explaining this. The mechanism involves lipid nanoparticles delivering mRNA, causing heart cells to produce spike protein, damaging adjacent cells and causing inflammation, similar to that seen at the injection site. They hypothesize that a sore arm after the shot could indicate heart damage.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Cool. Maybe one more and then May I ask a question, please? Sure.
Speaker 1: I
Speaker 0: guess, I just wanna ask you respectfully, but was there any word in the court hearing about the potential of the vaccine causing the husband's passing? The COVID nineteen vaccination? No. No. There wasn't.
I think doctor Peter McCullough from
Speaker 2: The United States has said
Speaker 0: seventy five percent of the heart attack
Speaker 3: I don't think these are appropriate questions for today. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Just honestly, that's okay. Looking for truth to your husband's party.
Speaker 3: You don't need to
Speaker 0: answer any of this. Thank
Speaker 3: you. Thanks, everybody. Coming. Appreciate it. Thank you very much.
Say love it. That is really unfortunate that you chose to do this on a painful day, So we'll just go now.
Speaker 4: Everything we're seeing right now is the tip of the iceberg. It's gonna get worse if more young people take the vaccines. It seems to be explosive after shot number two. And then the risks of death that can occur as the heart becomes scarred and the arrhythmias, ventricular tachycardia, ventricular fibrillation, those risks may be enduring over time. They are willfully blind to any cardiac toxicity of the vaccines.
And we are deep in trouble now because there is a clear recognition that this myocarditis in some people can lead to a scar. The scar is a small area of like a scar you see on your skin, but the electricity goes down and when it goes through the scar it just it depolarizes slowly then it loops up and it forms reentry. And when reentry occurs during a normal cardiac depolarization that's the night is for ventricular tachycardia or VT and that isn't a heart rhythm in me or you that can be well over 200 beats a minute. It starts to make us dizzy and if we don't do something it generates to ventricular fibrillation, and then we're gone, we're on the floor, and CPR has started.
Speaker 5: There's been an outpouring of emotion as tributes pour in following the sudden death of Green MP Fa'anana Efessel Collins. Parliament's been suspended as colleagues, friends, and family grieve. The longtime advocate, community leader, counselor, and mayoral candidate collapsed at a charity event in Auckland.
Speaker 4: And normally under the right conditions, and one of the conditions necessary is a surge of adrenaline. This can happen in sports, and interesting, another time where there's a surge of adrenaline is between 3AM and 6AM in the morning in the normal waking pattern of the human body. And so the two patterns of death are found dead at home, typically, you know, late, into the evening, early morning hours, and then on the athletic playing field or jogging.
Speaker 1: His final moments
Speaker 4: Here we go.
Speaker 1: Were of giving back, A charity drive for child fund, raising money for clean drinking water in The Pacific. Then suddenly, the unthinkable. Around 09:00, officer Collins collapsed. There was a major and swift response from emergency workers. For almost an hour, they tried and tried hard to save him.
He didn't make it.
Speaker 4: And then on the athletic playing field or jogging, doctor Flavio Catagiani from Brazil has published a wonderful mechanistic review of why this is the case. So it's a small amount of scar from the COVID nineteen vaccines that occur in the heart.
Speaker 3: So what causes this initial scar?
Speaker 4: What causes that is we know the lipid nanoparticles deliver its payload, the messenger RNA or the adenoviral DNA, and that installs the genetic code within cells in the heart called peri cells and that was shown in a paper by Arroglia and colleagues. And these periocytes, these support cells, start producing spike protein, and spike protein damages adjacent cardiomyocytes and other cells, and then then the white blood cells begin to move into the tissue and start causing inflammation. And in the paper by Schwab and colleagues that I've already cited, the interesting observation is that the inflammation in the heart muscle looked nearly identical to the inflammation in the arm where the shot was given in the deltoid muscle. So there's a side by side comparison of the deltoid muscle inflammation and the cardiac inflammation, and it looks identical. In fact, I made a figure of this on my Courageous Discourse Substack, and you can take a look at One of the hypotheses is if someone's got a sore arm after the shot, you know, that's in the time frame.
They may not feel it, but they may actually have a damaged heart.
Speaker 3: I don't think these are appropriate questions for today. Thank you.
reSee.it AI Summary
I want to clarify that it wasn't Dr. Sam Bailey who claimed the covid shot remained at the injection site and was quickly expelled. Those statements came from various sources, including the Ministry of Health and several medical professionals. Everything they said has proven to be untrue. Now, the cytotoxic spike protein produced by the vaccine is still detectable in individuals two years post-vaccination. If blame is to be assigned, it should be directed at the government-approved experts featured in the video, not Dr. Sam Bailey.
@c_plushie - Coronavirus Plushie
It wasn't Dr. Sam Bailey who said the covid shot stayed at the injection site, didn't diffuse throughout the body, and was quickly expelled from the body, it was these people: The Ministry of Health, IMAC (The Immunisation Advisory Centre) NZ Stuff, IMAC pharmacy vaccinator Sally Schnauer, Helen Petousis-Harris, Dr. Ian Town, Dr. Maia Brewerton, Dr. Jin Russell, David Seymour. Absolutely EVERYTHING they said turned out to be UNTRUE. And now, the cytotoxic spike protein that the "vaccine" produces is still being found in people TWO YEARS after vaccination. When it comes to killing people @Joe_Trinder, it's not Dr. Sam Bailey you should be accusing, it's the government-approved "experts" who feature in this video:
Video Transcript AI Summary
The mRNA COVID-19 vaccine delivers instructions for creating spike proteins, which then prompts an immune response. The vaccine components are said to break down and disappear from the body within days, leaving no trace and not affecting DNA.
However, some claim that the vaccine distributes throughout the body, not just the injection site, and that data on how quickly it degrades was lacking at the time of approval. Research indicates vaccine mRNA can be detected in some individuals for up to two weeks.
A rare post-vaccination syndrome (PVS) is described where individuals exhibit chronic conditions and elevated spike protein levels for extended periods, even up to 709 days. A hypothesis suggests that in some instances, vaccine mRNA may reverse transcribe and integrate into DNA, causing continuous spike protein production and potentially leading to T-cell exhaustion. The possibility of germline transfer and long-term health consequences is raised, though it is acknowledged as a hypothesis.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The vaccine is completely gone from your body within days, leaving your immune system stronger and ready for action if COVID nineteen comes near you.
Speaker 1: When the mRNA COVID nineteen vaccine enters your body, it provides a set of coded instructions to create copies of what are called spike proteins. As soon as the spike protein has been made, the vaccine breaks down and it disappears.
Speaker 2: The genetic code is like a recipe the body can use to make a version of the virus' spike protein. Once our cells make this protein, our immune system responds to it, learning how to fight the virus without us actually getting sick. The spike protein breaks down quickly and doesn't stay in our body. As soon as your cells are done with the vaccine, they destroy it. It does not stick around in your body.
Speaker 3: When the vaccine is administered into the muscle in your arm, it's fairly quickly metabolized, and and leaves your body.
Speaker 4: The vaccine's taken up at the injection site. It doesn't actually diffuse throughout the body.
Speaker 5: As soon as they've done their job and that antibody response has been generated, that fragment is excreted from the cell, and there's no way at all it can affect the body's normal DNA.
Speaker 4: And then once these things are taken up, they are they are they disintegrate. They recycle, for example. So after over a period of days, hours to days, actually, that what was injected really ceases to exist.
Speaker 6: Yeah.
Speaker 7: And as Helen was explaining, it's a single dose that's put in your arm, and then quickly your body clears it away.
Speaker 8: You know, when Helen was talking just before, went, okay, that's cool. So they inject the stuff into inject the RNA into your arm. They kind of wrap it up in a little thing to protect it, and basically, within hours to days, that thing is gone because it's like they just put something in your arm temporarily that makes your immune system go, hang on. Something going on over there, and then it starts making stuff to help us. So that like, I hadn't ever heard of it explained like that, and now I I now I kinda get it.
Like, okay. They put a thing in. It's wrapped in a thing. Your immune system
Speaker 2: is full. Water. There's a lot of a lot of it is actually water, isn't it, Helen? Yeah. Going in there.
And
Speaker 8: it and it makes stuff, and and then it and then it disappears.
Speaker 3: What happens is the vaccine itself, and this is the case with the Pfizer vaccine, the vaccine goes in, and then it's completely degraded in the body within a few days. It is not there anymore. You cannot find any trace of it anymore because your body has dealt with it and degraded it.
Speaker 0: Nothing is left behind from the vaccine. Our body breaks down the mRNA, and there is no possibility of the vaccine affecting our body's DNA. Find out more at covid19.g0vt.nz/vaccines.
Speaker 9: When that mRNA enters the cells of a human as it entered mine last Friday, the immune system of the human says, hello, hello, we've got something here like this. I'm going to generate a response to destroy it. The immune system learns to destroy those spike proteins. Now within a few days, all of the mRNA that came in the vaccine is gone. The spike proteins that your cells produced upon receiving the mRNA have been destroyed by your immune system.
The only thing that remains is a memory in one's immune system of what it's like to fight something that looks like COVID nineteen. And if COVID nineteen spike proteins do appear in your body, your immune system's ready to fight it. I actually think that's pretty cool. It also shows that you have absolutely nothing to fear because all you're left with is the memory of how to fight it. I just ask the good doctors on the other side of the house if that's roughly what happens.
And they say, yes, that's actually a pretty good description.
Speaker 6: Now we want to discuss this document here. This is from the TGA, the Therapeutic Goods Administration in Australia, which authorizes therapeutics. And I think it's clear to emphasize that the, the Therapeutics Goods Administration in Australia had all this information prior to authorizing the vaccines, the the COVID vaccines. This was known about. And we we do know that that the the the data shows here, I've got this page here, that the the systemic distribution is is quite stunning.
We were initially told that this just stays in the deltoid muscle. But but but here here we see that the vaccine's actually been found in adipose tissue, adrenal glands, bladder, bone, bone marrow, brain, eyes, heart, injection site, kidneys, large intestine, liver, lungs, basically all over the body. So they knew about this systemic distribution that that was there and and that was known about. And and the the the other thing we were told that the the vaccine would only the mRNA would only stay there for a short period of time, but then we read from page four that there was actually no degradation data.
Speaker 10: That's exactly right.
Speaker 6: We're told we're not told how quickly it would it would go away. Really quite incredible.
Speaker 10: Yeah. So so two big issues there. So some of the pushback I've had from the TGA in regards to that distribution is they're saying it's it's levels that's not toxic to the body, in the other cells, in the other body organs. Now that may be true after two days. But the question is why did they stop it after two days when the level of concentration in those organs was still increasing?
I would have thought you would run the trial long enough so that the actual lipids and the mRNA and the spike protein was actually had left the body.
Speaker 6: We were told that the the mRNA will break down in a short period of time, but here it's saying that that simply was not studied. So at the time this vaccine was approved, people simply didn't know how long it would last for.
Speaker 11: So, again, how long does this stay in the body? So we started to see some research, and here's one of the pieces of research early on. Blood distribution of SARS CoV to lipid nanoparticle mRNA vaccines in humans. So it looks at looks at what how long this lipid nanoparticle and the mRNA is in the blood. And it says both the vaccine mRNA and the I ionizable lipid peaked in the blood one to two days post vaccination.
The vaccine mRNA was detectable and quantifiable up to fourteen to fifteen days post vaccination, thirty seven percent of subjects. So, I mean, you're looking at clearly less than a month that they're saying this lipid nanoparticle mRNA, they're clearly found together. Without that lipid nanoparticle, the mRNA is not gonna survive. So where you find one, typically find the other. And it only stays in the body.
We found it thirty seven percent of people for about fourteen to fifteen days, and then the rest of it's over with. Well, now we now we get into the new research. And so we have what's called a rare syndrome. This is what is the title of this headline. Researchers describe rare syndrome after COVID vaccine.
What kind of rare sin syndrome? Well, we go to Yale researchers, and we'll go to the study that they're actually quoting here, it says immunological and antigenic signatures associated with chronic illnesses after COVID nineteen vaccination. So that's interesting because chronic illnesses, long COVID chronic illness Right. At some point, we're now we're seeing the official merge of this. It's maybe the same thing.
Some caused by maybe the the the illness, some caused by the vaccine, but very similar on the outcome on the back end. So we go into this study and it says a small fraction of the population reports a chronic debilitating condition after COVID nineteen vaccination often referred to as post vaccination syndrome, PVS. Serological evidence of recent Epstein Barr virus reactivation was observed more frequently in the post vaccination syndrome participants. So they're having a reactivation of these dormant illnesses. Further, individuals with PVS exhibited elevated levels of circulating spike protein compared to healthy controls.
That's a huge clue. Most notably, we found elevated levels of spike, S1 and full length spike, not just the fragments, the full length, in circulation up to seven hundred and nine days after vaccination among a subset with post vaccination syndrome even though even in those with no evidence of detectable SARS CoV two infection. Wow. This is bombshell.
Speaker 4: After, over a period of days, hours to days actually, that what was injected really ceases to exist.
Speaker 6: Yeah.
Speaker 12: So, yeah, now we're talking two years. At first, it was a month, and we kept saying, as we've been reporting on this, it looks like the spike protein is long lasting as long as the study that looks at it. Right? It was first Yeah. Three months.
Then we looked at a six month study, still here. A year one year study, still here. Now seven hundred and nine days in, I guess, still there, still producing spike protein. So this virus manufacturing plant or more specifically, a spike protein manufacturing plant, at least in those people that are fight finding, like, illness. This long COVID, you know, scenario that we're listening to, is just does anyone know how to shut it off?
I mean, it's terrifying, really.
Speaker 8: Right.
Speaker 12: And and until and you so brilliantly started out with these scientists going, well, we don't really know. We know we're getting an immune response or we we think it's just a couple of days. Well, what if it's not a couple days? And what happens now that you've done no long term safety trials and so everybody got this thing? And up, as it turns out, it's like years your body is making this really horrifying.
Speaker 3: The vaccine goes in, and then it's completely degraded in the body within a few days. It is not there anymore.
Speaker 11: Remember, the messenger RNA can't live in the body just free floating, so it has to be in that lipid nanoparticle. And once that lipid nanoparticle gets into the cell, it delivers a message, and that's it. The spike protein is produced, and its job's done. So all of that is is over. So what's producing these?
Because the spike protein is not gonna be floating around in the body just just hanging out because the immune system will find that. So why is there spike protein full length? What's going on here? And so we saw studies early on in 2020, '20 '20 '1 that's showing this. These are tabletop exercises, but this is 2021.
Reverse transcribed SARS CoV two RNA can integrate into the genome of cultured human cells and can be expressed in a patient derived tissues. So is this what's happening? Has this integrated into the DNA where we no longer need the vaccine now? Literally, DNA is telling our body to continually express and produce these proteins. I mean, there's a lot of evidence early on that that might have been the case.
And, you know, in this in this Yale study where that pro spike protein was hanging out for seven hundred nine days, they noticed that people that had that reactivated virus post vaccination syndrome had lower t cells. These are the signaling cells of your immune system. Well, there's also evidence of this. This is a study titled T cell exhaustion during persistent viral infections. So this is obviously a hypothesis, but is this spike proteins just being produced forevermore and the the immune system is just trying to grab it and grab it and grab it and you're now getting tired because it it can't stop fighting it because it's just continually coming.
Speaker 12: I mean, what you're saying there, and I wanna put out that this is just a hypothesis right now. What we're talking about is something that a lot of scientists are looking at. This is very troubling. But this hypothesis is that that what you're saying is that this beautiful little shell, this fatty lipid that protected the mRNA so it could get to the cell, We know that gets dissolved once it's entered the cells. So anything else out in the body should be being killed by the immune system and not continuing to recreate or or go to other cells because it can't get there without being attacked by the immune system unless somehow some of this mRNA reverse transcript say that word again?
Reverse transcriptase. It's a Reverse transcriptase writes itself into your DNA. Now, basically, the bible code of your body is telling cells, teaching cells, creating cells that make spike protein as a part of their existence. Is it possible that we have mutated the human beings that are experiencing this so that their bodies will create spike protein the rest of their existence? And then the big question is, what happens if they have kids?
Are they gonna pass that on germline transfer? Are you gonna see their kids? Did we just create an entire species that now just pumps out spike protein all day, every day, the rest of their lives for centuries to come?
Speaker 0: The vaccine is completely gone from your body within days.
Speaker 12: And what's gonna be the health of those people? Again, a, you know, hypothesis, but a terrifying one in a space where we don't have an explanation otherwise why you're seeing this last so long in in so many people. I mean, this is what happens when you and all I can say is this is what happens when you mess with nature. When you rush a product onto the market and giggle about how little you know about it and then tell everyone to get it. I hope to get to the bottom of this and someone's gonna have to figure out how do you pry, if it's possible, how do you pry something back out of your DNA if it's made a mistake?
If we even inserted a mistake into your DNA.
Speaker 5: There's no way at all it can affect the body's normal DNA.
@Joe_Trinder - Joe Trinder
Excellent conspiracy theorists should never be given an opportunity to kill people by fearmongering to create a condition of vaccine hesitancy. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/doctor-and-former-tvnz-presenter-samantha-bailey-has-medical-registration-cancelled/TBMJQZ7AY5FEPPWXJTEOUWEBP4/?utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=nzh_fb&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwY2xjawJIny9leHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHYpLu5lhql2ubYZEDarYiJKKBKG0ybLzfMDH_wLeNc2dYGFRQK3LB6fvNA_aem_6iqqGR4-OfQepicfDa9WPw#Echobox=1742448044
NZ Herald - Breaking news, latest news, business, sport and entertainment - NZ Herald
Latest breaking news articles, photos, video, blogs, reviews, analysis, opinion and reader comment from New Zealand and around the World - NZ Herald
nzherald.co.nz
reSee.it AI Summary
In my speech in Parliament, I shared my experience with the mRNA vaccine, explaining how it prompts the immune system to recognize and respond to spike proteins. After a few days, the mRNA is gone, but the immune system retains a memory of how to combat COVID-19. I find this process fascinating and reassuring, as it means there's nothing to fear—only the knowledge of how to fight the virus if it appears. I confirmed this explanation with doctors, who agreed it accurately describes what happens.
@c_plushie - Coronavirus Plushie
Act Party leader @dbseymour, speaking in Parliament in September 2021: "When that mRNA enters the cells of a human—as it entered mine last Friday—the immune system of the human says, 'Hello, hello, we’ve got something here like this; I’m going to generate a response to destroy it,' and the immune system learns to destroy those spike proteins. Now, within a few days, all of the mRNA that came in the vaccine is gone. The spike proteins that your cells produced upon receiving the mRNA have been destroyed by your immune system. The only thing that remains is a memory in one’s immune system of what it’s like to fight something that looks like COVID-19. And if COVID-19 spike proteins do appear in your body, your immune system is ready to fight them. And I actually think that’s pretty cool, but it also shows that you have absolutely nothing to fear, because all you’re left with is the memory of how to fight it. I just asked the good doctors on the other side of the house if that’s roughly what happens, and they said, 'Yes, that’s actually a pretty good description.'" At 3:07 👇
@c_plushie - Coronavirus Plushie
Michael Baker Goes Full COVID-1984. "The Only Freedom that Counts, is the Freedom to Get Vaccinated" I found this on the One News website on 4 Oct 2021, but shortly after it was published, it was deleted. I tried to find it elsewhere, but couldn't.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The most important freedom we have is the freedom to get vaccinated. Vaccination protects you from severe illness and death, and it protects your family and community. Slowing the spread of the virus is crucial right now so we can achieve high vaccination coverage. That remains the primary goal.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And lastly, what is your key message for those looking forward to some new freedoms in Auckland from Wednesday? Well, I think there's only one freedom that really counts with all of this, and that's the freedom to go and get vaccinated, the freedom to protect yourself from getting seriously ill and dying by being vaccinated, freedom that comes from vaccination to protect your whanau and people around you. And I think that is the main message from all of this. The reason we are slowing the spread of the virus is for one reason at the moment, and that is to get high vaccine coverage. So I think that's still the number one message.
Thank you so much for joining us now. Mihinui Epidemiologist Professor Michael Baker and Te Whanganui Atara.
reSee.it AI Summary
A new study reveals that the COVID spike protein can be found in blood years after vaccination. Meanwhile, the NIH has allocated $1.6 billion for Long COVID research, yet millions may be suffering from vaccine injuries. Back in 2021, various authorities, including the government's campaign and media figures, assured us that the spike protein would be quickly eliminated from the body. I urge everyone to retweet this information.
@c_plushie - Coronavirus Plushie
New study finds COVID spike protein in blood YEARS AFTER VACCINATION, NIH spends $1.6B on Long COVID but MILLIONS are likely VACCINE INJURED. And yet in 2021, EVERYONE, from the Government's 'Unite Against COVID-19' campaign, to mainstream media like Stuff NZ, to Helen Petousis-Harris, to David Seymour, ALL OF THEM said there was nothing to worry about because the spike protein is quickly cleared from the body. @TanyaUnkovichMP @HopeRising19 @dbseymour @actparty @nzlabour @NZNationalParty @SimeonBrownMP Please retweet.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The mRNA COVID vaccine gives your body instructions to create copies of spike proteins. As soon as the spike protein is made, the vaccine breaks down and disappears from your body, usually within a matter of days or even hours.
The vaccine is administered into your arm muscle, where it's quickly metabolized. The vaccine is taken up at the injection site and does not diffuse throughout the body. Your cells destroy the vaccine and recycle its components.
Your immune system recognizes the spike proteins and learns how to fight the virus, without you actually getting sick. After a few days, all the mRNA from the vaccine is gone and the spike proteins that your cells produced are destroyed by your immune system. The only thing that remains is the memory of how to fight COVID-19, so your immune system is ready if it encounters the virus again. There is nothing to fear from the vaccine.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The vaccine is completely gone from your body within days, leaving your immune system stronger and ready for action if COVID nineteen comes near you.
Speaker 1: When the mRNA COVID nineteen vaccine enters your body, it provides a set of coded instructions to create copies of what are called spike proteins. As soon as the spike protein has been made, the vaccine breaks down and it disappears.
Speaker 2: The genetic code is like a recipe the body can use to make a version of the virus' spike protein. Once our cells make this protein, our immune system responds to it, learning how to fight the virus without us actually getting sick. The spike protein breaks down quickly and doesn't stay in our body.
Speaker 3: As soon as your cells are done with the vaccine, they destroy it. It does not stick around in your body.
Speaker 4: When the vaccine is administered into the muscle in your arm, it's fairly quickly metabolized, and and leaves your body.
Speaker 5: The vaccine's taken up at the injection site. It doesn't actually diffuse throughout the body. And then once these things are taken up, they they are they disintegrate. They are recycled, for example. So after over a period of days hours to days, actually, that what was injected really ceases to exist.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 4: As Helen was explaining, it's a single dose that's put in your arm, and then quickly, your body clears it away.
Speaker 3: When that mRNA enters the cells of a human as it entered mine last Friday, the immune system of the human says, hello. Hello. We got something here, like this. I'm gonna generate a response to destroy it, and the immune system learns to destroy those spike proteins. Now, within a few days, all of the mRNA that came in the vaccine is gone.
It's very unstable. That's why it has to be refrigerated at minus 80 degrees. The spike proteins that your cells produced upon receiving the mRNA have been destroyed by your immune system. The only thing that remains is a memory in one's immune system of what it's like to fight something that looks like COVID nineteen. And if COVID nineteen spike proteins do appear in your body, your immune system's ready to fight it.
And I actually think that's pretty cool. But it also shows that you have absolutely nothing to fear because all you're left with is the memory of how to fight it. I just ask the good doctors on the other side of the house if that's roughly, what happens. And they say, yes. That's actually a pretty good description.
@thackerpd - Paul D. Thacker
1) New study find COVID spike protein in blood years after vaccination. NIH spends $1.6B on Long COVID but millions are likely vaccine injured. https://t.co/4h41KPKBBo
@c_plushie - Coronavirus Plushie
reSee.it AI Summary
I recently came across a rumor claiming that Covid-19 vaccines alter DNA, which I found concerning. However, I learned that vaccines never enter the nucleus of our cells, where DNA resides, so there's no need to worry about any changes. On the other hand, a peer-reviewed study raised alarms about BioNTech's RNA-based vaccines containing residual DNA, including a potentially harmful SV40 promoter/enhancer sequence. This study suggests that parts of the vaccine's nucleic acid might integrate into human chromosomes, which is quite alarming.
@c_plushie - Coronavirus Plushie
22 May 2021: Stuff NZ, The Whole Truth About the Covid Vaccine: "Well recently I've heard a pretty scary rumour doing the rounds - a claim that Covid-19 vaccines actually alter your DNA. So, is it true?" "And here's the important part, the vaccine never enters the nucleus of your cells, that is where your DNA lives." "So there you have it, if you were worried about the vaccine changing your DNA, fear not!" -------------------------------------------------------- 3 Nov 2024: Peer Reviewed Study: BioNTech RNA-Based COVID-19 Injections Contain Large Amounts Of Residual DNA Including An SV40 Promoter/Enhancer Sequence '"The SV40 element is the most dangerous for the integrity of the target cells since long before the development of RNA biologicals, it was shown that the 72 bp SV40 promoter/enhancer fragment facilitates maximal transport of plasmid-DNA into the nucleus of transfected cells." "In preliminary experiments, another lot of BNT162b2 (the Pfizer shot) was able to transfect ovarian cancer cells and here, parts of the transfected nucleic acid material were indeed found by whole genome sequencing to be integrated into chromosomes 9 and 12 of the cells." Please retweet this. @TanyaUnkovichMP @nzfirst @winstonpeters
Video Transcript AI Summary
When was the last time you saw a strand of DNA? It's the genetic code in almost every cell, defining who you are. Recently, there's been a rumor that COVID-19 vaccines alter your DNA.
The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines use messenger RNA (mRNA) technology. After injection, the vaccine instructs your cells to prepare for an incoming virus, prompting your immune system to create antibodies. Importantly, the vaccine never enters the nucleus where your DNA resides, and once your cells use the vaccine, they destroy it.
While these vaccines are new, mRNA technology has been in development for over a decade. So, if you're concerned about the vaccine changing your DNA, there's no need to worry. You remain unchanged.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: When was the last time you saw one of these? Probably not since high school, right? It's a strand of DNA, the genetic code found in almost every cell in your body containing the unique markers that make you you. Well, recently I've heard a pretty scary rumour doing the rounds. A claim that COVID 19 vaccines actually alter your DNA.
So is it true? Well, the vaccines created by Pfizer and Moderna are using brand new technology called messenger RNA or mRNA. After being injected, the vaccine delivers a message to your cells saying, hey, there's an enemy coming. Here's what it looks like. Your immune system responds creating antibodies to protect you.
And that means if you catch the real virus at a later date, your body will be ready to fight back. And here's the important part. The vaccine never enters the nucleus of your cells. That is where your DNA lives. What's more, as soon as your cells are done with the vaccine, they destroy it.
It does not stick around in your body. These vaccines are new, which makes them seem risky. But scientists have been working on this technology for more than a decade. So there you have it. If you were worried about the vaccine changing your DNA, fear not.
You are you, and you're here to stay. The whole truth about the COVID vaccine is a series from Stuff made in partnership with Maori Television and the Pacific Media Network. We received funding from the Google News Initiative. Learn more at stuff.co.nzforward/covid dashvaccine.
@McCulloughFund - McCullough Foundation
BREAKING - New Study Urges Immediate Halt to COVID-19 mRNA Injections Over Alarming Levels of DNA Contamination Researchers find DNA contamination in COVID-19 mRNA injections exceeding regulatory limits by over 300%, confirming findings from earlier studies by Kevin McKernan, Phillip Buckhaults, Brigitte König, David Speicher, and Didier Raoult. @Kevin_McKernan @DJSpeicher @P_J_Buckhaults @raoult_didier Calls for an immediate global moratorium on COVID-19 mRNA injections continue to intensify. Today, Kammerer et al published the study titled, BioNTech RNA-Based COVID-19 Injections Contain Large Amounts Of Residual DNA Including An SV40 Promoter/Enhancer Sequence, in the journal Science, Public Health Policy and the Law. https://publichealthpolicyjournal.com/biontech-rna-based-covid-19-injections-contain-large-amounts-of-residual-dna-including-an-sv40-promoter-enhancer-sequence/ #MFScholar
BioNTech RNA-Based COVID-19 Injections Contain Large Amounts Of Residual DNA Including An SV40 Promoter/Enhancer Sequence - Science, Public Health Policy and the Law
Background: BNT162b2 RNA-based COVID-19 injections are specified to transfect human cells to efficiently produce spike proteins for an immune response.
publichealthpolicyjournal.com
@c_plushie - Coronavirus Plushie
They Told Us It Was Safe For Pregnant & Breastfeeding Women, Then The Pfizer Docs Were Released
They all told us, and are still telling us, that the #Covid19 shots are safe and effective for pregnant and breastfeeding women, but Pfizer's own documents, which the FDA and #Pfizer wanted to remain
rumble.com
reSee.it AI Summary
On December 6, I asked Helen Petousis-Harris if she had received any funding from Pfizer, and she denied it. However, a post from @HopeRising19 shows she did receive payments from Pfizer prior to that date. Additionally, on November 13, Helen announced her departure from Twitter, expressing relief at leaving what she called a "toxic wasteland" and sharing her move to Bluesky. I didn’t tag Sean Plunket or The Platform in this post since they both blocked me, but you can share it with them if you wish.
@c_plushie - Coronavirus Plushie
On 6 Dec 2023 Sean Plunket asked Helen Petousis-Harris if she'd ever had funding or gratuities from Pfizer. Helen said she hadn't, but the attached post from @HopeRising19 reveals that she was indeed a recipient of payments from Pfizer. Note that the payments listed there were all before 6 Dec 2023, which is when she told Sean she hadn't received any funding. Also, on 13 Nov, @PetousisH announced that she was leaving X, posting the following: "After navigating the toxic wastelands of Twitter, I have officially escaped muskrat's hellhole and set up a peaceful little homestead over on Bluesky! Thank you to all those who have been supportive over the years, hope to see you on the other side." I didn't tag either Sean Plunket or The Platform in this because they both blocked me a long time ago, but feel free to share this post with them both.
Video Transcript AI Summary
This interview may seem unusual due to anticipated social media reactions, so let's clarify some key points upfront to avoid baseless accusations. Have you ever received funding or gratuities from Pfizer or any vaccine-producing drug company? No. It's important to address this since such claims often arise, regardless of their truth. Have you ever received funding or gratuities from Pfizer or any vaccine-producing drug company? No.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And, look, this is gonna be a slightly strange interview, Helen, because I know the comeback that is gonna come on this on social media. So I'm gonna cover off some very basic things so we don't have people throwing meaningless accusations against us. Do you mind that? Sure. Okay.
Let let's go. Have you ever had funding or gratuities from the Pfizer drug company or any drug company that makes vaccines? Pfizer? No. Because you know they're gonna come at us on that.
Oh, they always do whether it's true or not. Yeah. Yeah. Have you ever had funding or gratuities from the Pfizer drug company or any drug company that makes vaccines? Bob buys it?
No.
@HopeRising19 - NZ and the MRNA
NZ VACCINOLOGIST CLEAR CONFLICT OF INTEREST...PFIZER Helen Petousis Harris is a New Zealand vaccinologist. She is frequently used for press junkets to assure New Zealanders of the safety and efficacy of vaccines...in the past 3 years we have seen her most frequently assuring us of the immense benefits of the Pfizer mRNA Covid injectables. In particular she has been interviewed numerous times on New Zealand's legacy media platforms I wonder if any of these channels knew that Harris was on the Pfizer payroll at the same time she was being portrayed as an independent, trustworthy expert....and "influencer"? These things matter Not only does such evidence alert us to the possibility of "conflicts of interest" it also casts a pall over the trustworthiness of the media platforms hosting her. (link in comments) @PetousisH
reSee.it AI Summary
I shared a story about a planned partnership between Bill Gates and Fauci dating back to 2000, where Gates proposed working together to vaccinate the world. My book details this collaboration. I also referenced Joe Rogan's comment on Robert Kennedy Jr.'s book, "The Real Anthony Fauci," suggesting that if it were inaccurate, there would be legal repercussions.
@c_plushie - Coronavirus Plushie
This is what happened to us, it was all planned, it's not a conspiracy theory, it's a conspiracy! "Bill Gates called Fauci in 2000 to his $147 million home in Seattle. He sat Fauci down in his library and he said 'I want to propose to you a partnership, that you and I work together to vaccinate the world', and the story in my book tells exactly how they went through that." And as @joerogan says . . . "If The Real Anthony Fauci, the book by @RobertKennedyJr, is not accurate, he would be sued." #MAHA
Video Transcript AI Summary
The book "The Real Anthony Fauci" by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. raises concerns about Fauci's actions following the 9/11 anthrax attack, which was linked to U.S. military labs. It discusses simulations like Event 201, which prepared for pandemics but focused on censorship and control rather than public health measures. The narrative suggests that Fauci and Bill Gates collaborated to vaccinate the world, with extensive drills involving law enforcement and healthcare workers aimed at imposing control over the public. The speaker connects these events to past CIA mind control experiments, asserting that authority figures can manipulate public compliance. The discussion highlights funding for bioweapons research disguised as vaccine research, ultimately linking Fauci to the origins of COVID-19 and urging support for the book to raise awareness.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I mean, if the real Anthony Fauci, the book by Robert f Kennedy junior is not if if it's not accurate, he would be sued.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna try to talk to you a little bit about what Tony Fauci did and how this happened to our country. 3 weeks after 911, there was an anthrax attack. They blamed it blamed it on Saddam Hussein. He went to war with him because of that. It turned out that it came from 1 of 3 US military labs.
The lab that it almost certainly came from was by a vaccine maker who is partners with Tony Fauci. It's called Emergent. It's one of the COVID vaccine makers. And the the intelligence agencies, which were how many of you have heard of event 1 201? Yeah.
Yeah. Event 201 is a simulation that they did right before COVID hit. Actually, it was in October, so it was already circulating. And it was a drill for how to handle pandemics, but it didn't do the things you would think they would do. Like, how do we fix the VAERS system to make sure that we get good data?
How do we create isolation hospitals where older people who have COVID, we can send them there instead of sending them to nursing homes? How do we develop therapeutics like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, off the shelf therapeutics and do it very quickly? How do we get doctors together and to talk about what's working? How do we tell people how to bolster their immune system? How do we stockpile vitamin d and get it to every black person in this country because they're all vitamin d deficient?
How do we do these things? They didn't talk about any of that. What they talked about was how to turn America into a totalitarian state, how to impose censorship. In my book on Fauci, I've been able to find 22 of those simulations, and they have been practicing this for year and year. It's all sponsored by the CIA as I demonstrate.
Fauci and Bill Gates play key roles in them. Bill Gates called Fauci in 2000 to his home in Seattle, a $147,000,000 home, 40 acres on Lake Washington. He sat Fauci down in his library, and he said, I wanna propose to you a partnership that you and I work together to vaccinate the world.
Speaker 0: For the world at large, normalcy only returns when we've largely vaccinated the entire global population.
Speaker 1: The story in my book tells exactly how they went through that. And the story of these Samuel agents is critically important because it was the way that they prepare they didn't just have a few people involved. They had 100 of 1,000 cops who are these were all top secret. Police officers in every community in this country, health care workers, first responders were all drilled in this, how to censor, how to silence, how to impose tracking and tracing, how to do control. So they all went through these drills again and again, and it was a way of reeling and practicing a coup d'etat against American democracy.
All of the techniques they use I've spent a lot of time studying with the CIA because my family was in a 60 year fight with them, and I wrote a book about that battle called American Values. But I've read all their manuals, and they have techniques for going into indigenous countries and causing chaos, shattering the society, destroying the economy, creating social distance between peoples so that there's no unit cohesion. And and when everybody is demoralized and destroyed, coming in with a centralized control and imposing as they did with all of us, they locked down America in a hostage taking. And they imposed something that is part of their technique, which is called Stockholm Syndrome, where the captive becomes grateful to their captor and identifies with them and understands, comes to this belief that the only way that they can save their lives is through absolute obsequious obedience to their captors. And all of these drills were intended to to impose and to induce that condition in the entire public, and I'll tell you one other thing.
The CIA, which I show in my book, the CIA, it had a series of mind control experiments back in the 8 sixties seventies called MK Ultra and product artotope. And one of the famous experiments was called the Milgram experiment. And the Milgram experiment you guys look it up. Milgram experiment. What they did is they brought volunteers from every walk of life, college professors, construction workers, everybody.
They put them in a room with a doctor and a lab coat, a figure of authority, and he would tell them, turn up the electricity and shock the person who's in the next room. That person was an actor, and he'd it would turn it home, turn it up, turn it up higher, turn it up higher. It went into the death zone. 67% of the people put it into the death zone even though many of them were crying at the time. They were begging the doctor not to make them do it.
And what they found was that using authority, particularly doctors in white lab coats, 67 every 7 percent of the public will violate their own conscience and do what they're told. Oh, all of this was orchestrated. They put doctors in charge of America, speaking of authority, never showing us any science, but ordering us what to do. And if you as you read my book, you're gonna see all of the direct CIA involvement, and I named the person. I named the officers.
Year after year, they were directly involved, partnered with Bill Gates, partnered with Tony Fauci, creating these scenarios in anticipation. And then, of course, they're brewing up. I'll tell you a secret that I talk about on my book. I ain't gonna shut up. No.
Okay. You guys are the only people who know this. Okay? I'm gonna ask you to buy my book, which I all of my profits are going back to the CHD. It was with Wuhan lab, a in 2014, the reason that Tony Fauci was doing gain of function is because after the anthrax attack, 1,000,000,000 of dollars started pouring into bioweapons research, and Tony Fauci needed to get his share.
So he gets 6 point he gets $6,100,000,000 from us, the US taxpayer. He gets 1,600,000,000 every year from the military, from BARDA and DARPA and the Pentagon, and that is for doing bioweapons research disguised as vaccine research because they're the same thing. It's called dual use. In 2014, a bunch of its little creatures escaped. They didn't injure anybody, but they were real scares.
And people found out about it. And 300 top scientists in this country wrote a letter to president Obama saying, you gotta shut down Fauci. President Obama ordered Fauci to stop. Fauci stopped 21 of the experiments, but the worst ones by a psychopath called Ralph Barrick at the University of North Carolina, he kept going. And that is almost certainly the one that produced this COVID 19.
Plus, he moved his money offshore out of the nosy oversight of the White House to the Wuhan lab. The Wuhan lab was built by a French company called BioMiro. That company and this is something nobody knows, but it's in my book, and you guys are the only people who know it. That company was built by BioMiro, and BioMiro contracted with the Chinese to install what they call a negative airflow system, which is a critical piece of infrastructure for bio for lab. Because what it's you don't want air going out of that lab.
The air can only go in and nothing come out because those viruses are so tiny, you can't filter them. So they're gonna get out if you have any air coming out. So this this infrastructure piece is very complex and very important. Biomiro was contracted to put it in, but guess what? They never did.
And the CEO of BioMiro was a French man called Stefan Bansal. Stefan Bansal today is the CEO of Moderna, which is the company that has made 1,000,000,000 and bill they now have a net worth of $60,000,000,000 because of that escape. I wrote a letter to him and asked him about this sequence, and I never heard back from him. But I have a very well documented so what I wanna ask you to do, a lot of people wanna know how to help. One of the ways you can concretely help is by going on Amazon or we pass out little cards here and order my book tonight.
And the reason I'm saying that again, I don't make any money from it. All goes to CHA. But if we get up over 10,000, we have so we've sold presold 979,700. If we get up over 10,000, it has to go on all of the bestseller list. If we get to 20,000, New York Times needs to put us on there, and that will kill them.
And if we go to 10,000, which we could do tonight with your help. Yeah. Only 300 of you have to sign up tonight. We we stick it to Amazon Yeah. And Jeff Bezos.
So, but it it that it is an important book because it tells the the story in a way, not just republicans and people who wanna who are already awoke about this, gonna understand it, but it yes. Tell that story in a way that every American is gonna look at it and say, holy cow. This is what happened to us. It was all planned. It's not a conspiracy theory.
It's a conspiracy.
@c_plushie - Coronavirus Plushie
Here's the video I made in 2021, which actually does show people being forcibly vaxxed. https://t.co/MGkxNWXblw
Video Transcript AI Summary
The pandemic has been centered around the vaccine, with major stakeholders like Pfizer, Moderna, the CDC, and the WHO pushing for widespread vaccination. Normalcy is expected to return once a large portion of the global population is vaccinated. Efforts will soon focus on reaching those who haven't yet received their vaccine, potentially involving healthcare workers visiting homes. Some regions are already preparing for mandatory vaccinations. The commitment is to ensure everyone has access to the vaccine by the end of the year, although there may still be hesitant individuals who need to be encouraged to get vaccinated.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I think this whole pandemic from the beginning was about the vaccine. So I think all roads lead to the vaccine. Pfizer, Moderna, j and j, AstraZeneca, and any others that come forward, the CDC, the FDA, and the NIH, and the White House, massive vaccine stakeholders. You could throw in Gates Foundation, World Health Organization. You could throw those in as well.
Massive stakeholders, and they wanted everybody to be vaccinated without exception.
Speaker 1: Normalcy only returns when we've largely vaccinated the entire global population.
Speaker 2: Early next year, we'll be in the phase of chasing up people who haven't come forward to get their vaccination.
Speaker 1: If president Biden gets his way, health care workers may soon be knocking on your door asking you to roll up your sleeve and get vaccinated.
Speaker 0: Now we need to go to community by community, neighborhood by neighborhood, and off times, door to door, literally knocking on doors.
Speaker 3: Good morning, everybody, and, welcome to the, the war game the war game of the national campaign plan for the COVID vaccine rollout.
Speaker 0: There are already places in Southeast Asia and Europe. They're laying the groundwork for compulsory vaccination. I mean, compulsory. That means somebody pins you down to the ground and puts a needle in you.
Speaker 2: Our commitment is everyone will have the opportunity to get the vaccine by the end of the year. Everyone will. Everyone will. Everyone will.
Speaker 0: To the doctor. Everybody to be No one will at all costs. The world must be mass vaccinated.
Speaker 2: No. I I can't say that, you know, that we're not gonna have some hesitant people or some people who just haven't come forward that we don't have to go out
Speaker 0: and
Speaker 2: find
Speaker 3: next year.
reSee.it AI Summary
As a New Zealander familiar with tracking YouTube dislikes, I see Liz Gunn's perspective. Jacinda Ardern's 2019 UN speech received 6.4K likes and 438 dislikes. However, after her COVID-19 measures, including strict lockdowns, mask mandates, and the controversial vaccine rollout, her 2022 UN speech saw a drastic change, garnering only 1.1K likes and a staggering 11K dislikes. This shift reflects the public's response to her handling of the pandemic and related policies.
@c_plushie - Coronavirus Plushie
As a New Zealander who knows how to see the number of dislikes a you tube video gets, even though you tube started hiding them in Nov 2021, I can affirm that Liz Gunn has a point: Jacinda Ardern's 2019 UN speech got 6.4K likes and 438 dislikes in You Tube. But after covid, and her locking down the entire country for one positive PCR test result, and making healthy people wear face masks, and the MIQ debacle, and the Public Interest Journalism Fund, and the roll out of the "safe and effective" Pfizer shot that seriously injured and killed people, and the vaccine passes, and the 'no jab, no job' vaccine mandates, and the creation of two classes of people based on their vaccination status.... Her 2022 UN speech got 1.1K likes and a massive 11K dislikes.
@tukakimatt - Matthew Tukaki
As a nzer I can affirm that Liz Gunn is mocked in our country I affirm that she is a sad cooker https://t.co/9h8kKDPW1J
@c_plushie - Coronavirus Plushie
"They put a thing in, it's wrapped in a thing, a lot of it is actually water, yeah, and it makes stuff, and then it disappears."
@c_plushie - Coronavirus Plushie
Attached video of @AshBloomfield, who refused covid vax exemptions for people who'd been injured by their first shot, and who had been given exemptions by their own doctor, makes light of the "Cookers in X" who tell him that what he did ruined their lives. https://t.co/04gIgqQN23
reSee.it AI Summary
I compiled a timeline reflecting concerns about injuries and deaths linked to COVID vaccinations. Notable warnings began in December 2020 from Dr. Sucharit Bhakti, who described the vaccination effort as a dangerous experiment. Reports of adverse events surfaced early in 2021, including deaths in Norway shortly after vaccination. By May 2021, significant death tolls were reported in the U.S., while New Zealand authorities downplayed concerns despite similar incidents. By September 2023, data revealed thousands of adverse event reports in New Zealand, including deaths and serious conditions.
@c_plushie - Coronavirus Plushie
I was watching some old videos and thought I'd put together this brief timeline of injuries and deaths following the covid shots. 2 Dec 2020: Dr. Sucharit Bhakti warns, "I think it's downright dangerous and I warn you, if you go along these lines you are going to go to your doom." 18 Dec 2020: Again, Dr. Dr. Sucharit Bhakti, "This is the hugest experiment that has ever been done on people in the history of medicine." 11 Jan 2021: @delbigtree, "I've said that I believe there is going to be mass carnage, people are going to be injured, and this is what we've been watching in our news feeds, in our social media feeds as this vaccine has been rolled out across the nation and the world." We begin hearing about injuries and deaths. 18 Jan 2021: Norwegian Institute of Public Health cautions against vaccinating old people with serious underlying conditions, as 29 people die shortly after getting the Pfizer shot. 6 May 2021: Tucker Carlson reports, "Between late December of 2020 and last month, a total of 3,362 people apparently died after getting the covid vaccine in the United States." 9 May 2021: Here in New Zealand, @PetousisH on @1NewsNZ, says "There's nothing to suggest there's anything of concern here", following the deaths of two elderly people** shortly after the Pfizer shot. **Keep in mind what happened in Norway, see 18 Jan 2021 in this timeline. 15 May 2021: Del Bigtree again, on the increase in vaccine injuries and deaths being reported. Note: at this point, the Pfizer shot had yet to be rolled out to the wider public here in New Zealand. 23 Sep 2023: Lynda Wharton @HopeRising19 explains how by the end of November 2022, Medsafe (New Zealand's medicines regulator) had discontinued regular pharmacovigilance reports. At that time, these were the numbers: * 65,000 Adverse Event Reports. * 3,688 Serious Adverse Event Reports. * Nearly 6,000 Adverse Event Reports for 5-19 year olds. * 184 families reported the death of a loved one following the injection. * 974 Kiwis had myocarditis/pericarditis following the injection. @nzfirst @winstonpeters @TanyaUnkovichMP @actparty @dbseymour @ChrisPenknz @JudithCollinsMP @NZNationalParty @chrisluxonmp @P_McCulloughMD @stkirsch #NZCovidInquiry2
Video Transcript AI Summary
Dr. Sukhrit Bakadi, a retired microbiologist and co-author of the book "Corona False Alarm Facts and Figures," expresses concerns about the COVID vaccine, calling it dangerous and a massive experiment on humanity. Various individuals share their experiences and concerns about adverse reactions and deaths following vaccination. They question the safety and efficacy of the vaccines, citing instances of blood clots, seizures, paralysis, and even deaths. They highlight the high number of adverse event reports compared to previous vaccines and the lack of transparency in reporting. The video raises doubts about the necessity and safety of the COVID vaccine.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The controversial co author of this book, Corona False Alarm Facts and Figures joins us now. Award winning researcher, retired microbiologist, doctor Sukhrit Bakadi. Doctor, thank you for getting up early for all of us for all these policies, lockdown, social distancing. Which in your view has been the most injurious to the public and not suited to the science?
Speaker 1: The looming vaccination.
Speaker 0: Well, so you believe that the COVID vaccine is not necessary?
Speaker 1: I think it's downright dangerous. And I warn you, if you go along these lines, you are going to go to your doom. What what what is happening is that the world is being turned into an animal experiment. House. It's not even a house.
It's our world. And you and our children are being the animals that are being tested. The hugest experiment ever been done in the history of medicine is being performed on men, on people. This is the thing that is so scandalous, so scandalous and so horrifying that any politicians want to go for this, that any authorities, any medical people will will will will say this is the right way to go is such a frightening, horrifying thought to me as a doctor.
Speaker 2: I don't trust CNN. I don't trust m m s MSNBC or Fox or anybody that would promote a product that is still in an experimental use phase. Saying things like pregnant women should take it. Well, no, we didn't test on them, but they should take it. I said, and I've said in multiple talks, I believe there is going to be mass carnage.
I believe people will be injured. Everything we saw in these trials showed us injuries were taking place. I don't care that Pfizer and Moderna or AstraZeneca explain away and say, well, those weren't caused by the vaccine. That is a hope and a dream. That is not science.
And clearly, once this rolled out, I'm in one of those moments where it's sort of a thankless, I told you so, because this is what we have been watching in our news feed, in our social media feeds as this vaccine has rolled out across the nation and the world. Here is just a few of the problems that are glaringly obvious.
Speaker 3: In every corner of the country, Americans have been rolling up their sleeves today.
Speaker 4: Finally, there is light at the end of the tunnel.
Speaker 5: Britain's medicine regulator has advised that people with a history of significant allergies do not get Pfizer BioNTech's COVID 19 vaccine. This warning came after 2 national health service workers reported severe adverse reactions on the 1st day of vaccine rollout.
Speaker 6: A health care worker had an anaphylactic reaction during the 15 minute observation a severe allergic reaction, from a health care worker in Alaska after receiving the Pfizer BioNTech vaccine. Now, they report that this person is in stable condition, but the person had been hospitalized after, this allergic event. We're talking about the doctor who, is now the first known case of, an allergic reaction involving the Cambridge based company Moderna's new vaccine that he was taken to the emergency department after his first dose.
Speaker 7: I really would like to, Moderna and also Pfizer to, investigate this more to prevent things from happening.
Speaker 6: A second vaccine recipient in Alaska had a less serious allergic reaction. Eye puffiness, light headedness, and scratchy throat. He was treated with epinephrine, Benadryl, and Pepcid.
Speaker 8: 317 patients out of 32,000 reported fever and headaches.
Speaker 9: Mexican authorities over the weekend said they are studying the case of a 30 2 year old female doctor who was hospitalized after receiving the Pfizer BioNTech COVID 19 vaccine. The health ministry said in a statement released Friday night that the initial diagnosis is encephalomyelitis, an inflammation of the brain and spinal cord.
Speaker 0: Miami Gregory Michael died following a suspected catastrophic reaction to the Pfizer COVID 19 vaccine.
Speaker 3: A nurse is vaccinated. Just minutes later, this happened.
Speaker 10: I'm sorry. It's okay. What?
Speaker 3: Tiffany Dover fainted as she spoke to reporters at a hospital in Chattanooga, Tennessee.
Speaker 8: She had the COVID 19 vaccine. I don't know what happened. I just want answers. I wanna know what led to my daughter's death.
Speaker 9: Seizures, breathing difficulty, and a skin rash.
Speaker 8: After being released from an urgent care facility, fainted in his home.
Speaker 11: We have to assess whether the vaccine is the cause of death or if it is a coincidence that it happens soon after vaccination.
Speaker 4: These are the kind of things that happen when you implement large vaccine programs.
Speaker 12: And in a concerning development from Norway, the Norwegian Institute of Public Health has cautioned against vaccinating all people with serious underlying conditions against COVID 19. According to a report published by Bloomberg, 29 people have died days after receiving the Pfizer vaccine. Now this is one of the most alarming statements yet from a European health authority. Out of 29 deaths, 13 have undergone an autopsy and according to the Norwegian Medicines Agency, the results suggest suggest that common side effects may have contributed to severe reactions among the elderly. The elderly here refers to people above the age of 75.
Speaker 13: Between late December of 2020 last month, a total of 3,362 people apparently died after getting the COVID vaccine in the United States. 3,362. That's an average of roughly 30 people every day. In just the 1st 4 months of this year, the US government has recorded more deaths after COVID vaccinations than from all other vaccines administered in the United States between mid 1997 and the end of 2013. That is a period of 15 and a half years.
Again, more people, according to theirs, have died after getting the shot in 4 months during a single vaccination campaign than from all other vaccines combined over more than a decade and a half. Chart that out. It's a stunning picture.
Speaker 14: An Auckland University vaccinologist, Helen Petousas Harris, is with me. Helen, thanks for coming in. I imagine this could make some people feel quite nervous. Do we need to worry? Not
Speaker 15: at no. Not at all. We want to see events reported, enabled enables us to pick up things that are unexpected or of concern. And at the moment, there's nothing to suggest there's anything of concern here.
Speaker 2: I think the people that have made the choice to get the vaccine, many of them probably really regret it, especially these people.
Speaker 6: More than a 150,000,000 Americans have received at least one dose.
Speaker 13: 58% of adult Americans with at least one shot. And a 110,000,000 Americans fully vaccinated.
Speaker 16: On our way to hitting our goal of 200,000,000 shots by the 100th day in office.
Speaker 17: But a Virginia woman says she believes her mother died as a result of the vaccine.
Speaker 3: The woman passed away several days after getting her second Moderna vaccine. The death of an Ionia County wife and mother.
Speaker 18: They found her dead in her room.
Speaker 19: I was in full body convulsions.
Speaker 20: Blood clots.
Speaker 17: Flash pulmonary edema caused by anaphylaxis.
Speaker 11: Abnormal clotting or pulmonary emboli.
Speaker 8: Every bone and muscle in my body was shaking.
Speaker 21: Her platelet levels had fallen.
Speaker 11: She died. He died.
Speaker 21: Fell into a coma. Died Wednesday.
Speaker 22: 2 weeks after getting a first dose of a Pfizer COVID 19 vaccine, a 56 year old doctor in South Florida died this week. It's possibly the nation's first death linked to the vaccine.
Speaker 18: This Orange County son worries his mom died because of her second Moderna COVID 19 vaccine dose. The day after her second shot on April 14th at a CVS in Orange, Griselda complained of the expected side effects, chills, body aches, and a fever.
Speaker 7: She looked really pale, though. Really pale. Pale. And she just said she was tired, and she's gonna go home and sleep.
Speaker 18: 2 days after her second dose, Griselda's family says they found her dead in her room. A handful of deaths, including Griselda's, are under investigation because they happened 1 to 3 days after the person got a COVID 19 vaccine dose.
Speaker 21: The Facebook picture that captured Augusta Turiaco's delight at getting a COVID vaccine. The 55 year old Italian posting done on March 11th. Despite developing a headache and feeling unwell afterwards, she returned to her work as a music teacher. Her condition worsened. She fell into a coma and died 19 days after having the AstraZeneca injection.
Medical records seen by Sky News show blood clots had formed in Augusta Turiaco's body, including in her brain. Her platelet levels had fallen.
Speaker 17: Her 58 year old mother died less than an hour after receiving the Pfizer vaccine. Her mother had flash pulmonary edema caused by anaphylaxis. The medical examiner told Jones they would not be performing a full autopsy.
Speaker 23: And that ripped my heart out all over again because I when something like this happens unexpectedly, you want answers.
Speaker 11: Hamilton County coroner Lakshmi Samarco is investigating why the seemingly healthy college junior died suddenly. Samarco says Foley received the j and j COVID 19 vaccine Saturday afternoon, the day before he died.
Speaker 24: The wife, mom, and animal rescued developed a persistent headache a week after receiving the Johnson and Johnson vaccine. She died April 19th from an acute subarachnoid hemorrhage, essentially a brain bleed.
Speaker 25: Evans' obituary says she died Wednesday from a reaction to the COVID vaccine. In a statement, the Kansas State Health Department says a 60 8 year old started experiencing anaphylaxis.
Speaker 26: Little is known about the person who died in Placer County, their age, gender, what vaccine they received, and if they had any underlying health conditions. But the Placer County Sheriff's Office says the person tested positive for COVID 19 in late December and was vaccinated January 21st and died several hours later.
Speaker 20: Within a couple hours, he just couldn't breathe on his own. He had stomach problems. He was complaining that, he wasn't feeling good.
Speaker 27: That's the message tonight from Kyle Zook. His dad died 4 days after getting his second shot of Pfizer vaccine.
Speaker 20: And by the time he clocked out, he couldn't breathe at all.
Speaker 27: That was January 5th. Within hours, Tim Zook was admitted into the ER of the same hospital he was working at. 2 days later
Speaker 20: He was so bad, he voluntarily told them, put me on the ventilator. I wanna live. Those were his last words.
Speaker 6: The sudden death of a former Detroit anchor and media executive brought loved ones and colleagues together today.
Speaker 28: The Detroit media icon was found dead at her home last Tuesday by her husband just one day after taking the COVID 19 vaccine.
Speaker 6: And in Orange County, an X-ray technician has died after getting his second dose of the Pfizer vaccine. According to the OC register, 60 year old Tim Cook had an adverse reaction within just hours of getting that second shot, and he died within a matter of days.
Speaker 4: On Thursday, we learned of an Oregon woman in her fifties who developed a serious blood clot in combination with very low platelets and died.
Speaker 29: An Auburn woman posting a warning tonight. She saw her grandfather get the COVID vaccine at a senior living facility Thursday. She writes, 20 minutes later, he realized his legs felt tingly and he was having shortness of breath. He was wheeled out in an ambulance. 1 hour later, he was in ICU on a ventilator, and 3 hours later, he passed away.
Speaker 30: Brandy Parker McFadden sits in her Vanderbilt hospital bed unable to stand.
Speaker 31: You know, our youngest is like, are you ever gonna walk again? And so, you know, we just reassure him this is extremely rare.
Speaker 30: The mother of 3 received her second Pfizer COVID shot April 16th. Hours later, an unusual sensation started in her legs.
Speaker 16: That's what created the sense of urgency.
Speaker 30: James rushed Brandy to the emergency room at Vanderbilt
Speaker 32: to end then the unimaginable. I woke up and I was like, I can't move my arms. I can't move my legs.
Speaker 31: And so he's freaking out. The doctors are panicking.
Speaker 16: I'm holding her hand, and her hand is limp throughout the whole thing while she's screaming in pain. And, you know, and the test results are all coming back negative.
Speaker 30: 10 days later, Brandy is able to move her arms and wiggle her toes. She will now undergo intensive physical therapy, hoping to walk again.
Speaker 31: I'm gonna fight. I'm I'm a fighter.
Speaker 19: On January 4th, was very pressured by my employer to get the vaccine. My tongue was spazzing. The next day, I was in full body convulsions and stayed that way for 13 days.
Speaker 33: I took the vaccine on January 19th. I've had 6 ER visits. There was one day where I had 16 back to back convulsions. It's been a long road from there. When the convulsion started, I knew it had to be from the vaccine.
And I got up and I could not use either of my legs, followed by full body convulsions about 2 hours later. My husband took me to the ER, and from there I was transported over to the hospital. I was at Ochsner Hospital for 5 days, and I never got any treatment for convulsions.
Speaker 8: That is my daughter work at the Sands Place in Hopington, and she have a heart problem. She go doctor and they give her the COVID injection, and that's how we leave her.
Speaker 16: Yeah. That's why I'm not taking that shit.
Speaker 7: Oh my god, man.
Speaker 10: That's crazy.
Speaker 7: Wow. What did you pass about? Omega.
Speaker 8: 17 year old Everest Romney got his vaccine shot. A few days later, Everest couldn't even move his neck. And then the migraine started. His mother finally got him a CT scan. Then she got another one ordered on his head.
That is when doctors found out he had 2 blood clots inside his brain, another on the outside of his brain.
Speaker 34: The hardest thing was I let him get that shot. And he was healthy and well before. And I was doing my best and I I thought it was the right thing to do. And I don't wanna discourage any parents from not doing that. You know?
I but you you quest you can't you can't help but question it when it all goes wrong.
Speaker 35: Sorry about my appearance, but long story short, I got the Johnson and Johnson vaccine yesterday. Nobody knows if if this is the reason that all this stuff is going on, but started with chest pain, paralysis on my left side. I was rushed over via ambulance to Baylor Dallas, where I have had numerous scans done. I have had about 8 seizures in the last 2 days. Never had a seizure before.
They did find a 3 millimeter brain aneurysm. I am currently hooked up to my EEG so they can monitor my seizures. Thank you everyone for all the prayers, and you will bring the financials soon.
Speaker 10: I am currently in the ICU. About 2 weeks ago, I had the b a c c I n e. I'm currently in school to become a dental assistant. And on Thursday, I was driving home from school. My right arm fell off my skin.
And until I was able to get to the ER. And as I arrived, I realized I couldn't have the right side of my body at all. The emergency room I was in believed that I had suffered a stroke. They had run some tests and realized that I need more medical attention than they could offer. I was then transported by ambulance to the ICU where I began my journey of fighting for my life.
I had been going through a lot of tests, and a lot of stuff was happening, and doctors didn't have answers As to why I was suffering temporary paralysis, I ended up 5 nights on 3 different occasions. In a 24 hour period, I couldn't remember my friends. My family, myself, although I still cannot move this red leg. I have a walker now. My foot drags when I walk.
Tomorrow, I get transferred over the rehab center. I have to learn to walk again. I am a young, pretty healthy, and active female of my early twenties just this past weekend. I just went fishing, camping up north, enjoying time with my friends, scouting for elk season and dew season. I'm a huge outdoor advocate.
But due to this sad scene, I don't even know if I'll gain full movement in the leg back.
Speaker 36: All I know is that prior to my vaccine, I was healthy. I was cool. And then after my vaccine, I had complete paralysis of my body. I've regained the upper body strength, and I'm working towards both toes moving on left and right.
Speaker 6: On March 6th, Terrell received the Johnson and Johnson vaccine in Ashland. But 4 days later
Speaker 16: I began to feel a little discomfort in my armpit, and then I began, a few days later, began to get an itchy rash. And then after that, I began to swell, and my skin turned red.
Speaker 6: This red rash quickly spreading, covering Terrell's entire body. His legs and hands almost unrecognizable from swelling and discoloration. It's been getting worse and worse since Friday. Every morning, it's a little bit more worse. It's covering my entire body.
Speaker 10: It's also in the palm of my hands. I am a COVID nurse
Speaker 37: or have been for the past 3 months. I ended up taking the vaccine 3 weeks ago. So which now I've developed Bell's Palsy, right sided facial paralysis.
Speaker 10: I've been through hell and back ever since I took that shot.
Speaker 13: Go get vaccinated
Speaker 11: now. Now.
Speaker 38: By the end of November 2022, MedSafe discontinued regular pharmacovigilance reports. So that's nearly a year ago. Showing the number of New Zealanders who had reported adverse events following COVID injections. MedSafe themselves acknowledge that typical reporting captures no more than 5% of the actual number of adverse events. This is a passive voluntary reporting system and many New Zealanders including many doctors do not even know that it exists.
By November 2022, MedSafe had received 65,000 adverse event reports. By MedSafe's own standards, if these reports represent only 5% of the actual number of adverse events, They suggest that 1,300,000 New Zealanders experienced an adverse event following a COVID injection. By November 2022, there were 3,688 reports deemed serious, meaning a medically important event that requires hospitalization, causes persistent or significant disability or is life threatening or results in death. Nearly 6,000 adverse event reports were lodged for young people aged 5 to 19 years. 184 families reported the death of a loved one following their COVID injection.
974 New Zealanders had new onset myocarditis or pericarditis after their injection. Contrary to the Ministry of Health Assurance that these conditions are mild and self limiting, many of these people remain severely unwell 2 years on. Prior to the rollout of the COVID injections, an average cumulative total of adverse events for adverse event reports for all doses of every vaccine administered in a typical year in New Zealand was 1500 adverse event reports. That's every childhood vaccine, every travel vaccine, flu vaccine, shingles vaccine combined resulting in approximately 1500 reports a year. Compare that to the 64,000 to the end of November last year for COVID injections.
How many deaths are reported following vaccination in a typical year? 1 or less. Compare that with 184 reports in the 1st 21 months of COVID injections, 184 reported deaths. An official information application in April 2023 revealed that by March 2023 MedSafe held 11,289 reports deemed medically significant or serious. 1062 reports were listed as disabled, 118 were deemed life threatening, 184 were deaths.
reSee.it AI Summary
Dr. Francis Boyle, the Harvard law professor who drafted the Biological Weapons and Antiterrorism Act of 1989, claims that COVID-19 mRNA injections meet the criteria of biological weapons and weapons of mass destruction. This affidavit was presented in a Florida case aiming to ban the distribution of these injections in the state. #MFPolicy
@c_plushie - Coronavirus Plushie
So it turns out that "one of the safest vaccines you could possibly get", has been affirmed as a bio-weapon in an affidavit provided by Dr. Francis Boyle, the Harvard educated law professor who drafted the Biological Weapons and Antiterrorism Act of 1989 @chrishipkins @jacindaardern @AshBloomfield @patrickgowernz @nzdsos @HopeRising19 @P_McCulloughMD @JohnBoweActor @ABridgen @_FreeNZ @LizGunn18 @TheChiefNerd @VigilantFox
Video Transcript AI Summary
There is misinformation about mRNA vaccines, but they are safe. Professor Boyle believes mRNA vaccines are bioweapons, but experts say they are safe and protect loved ones. The Pentagon funded mRNA vaccine development, raising concerns. Despite this, the mRNA vaccine is safe and effective.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: There's a lot of misinformation out there about this sort of vaccine, the mRNA vaccine. Actually, the mRNA vaccine is one of the safest vaccines you could possibly get.
Speaker 1: Professor Francis Boyle was a Harvard University educated lawyer, and he drafted the US legislation for the bioweapons and anti terrorism act 1989. And what he's written is an affidavit to court, which you'll see if it was he was purging himself, he'd be serving a prison sentence. And he says that under the drafting of that act, which is is enacted, he would classify the mRNA vaccines, so called, as bioweapons because it's clear that their the intention of creating them was to cause death and harm.
Speaker 2: It's safe, and it's the best way that we can protect our loved ones, including children.
Speaker 3: What I would say is we've got a really good, really safe vaccine here. I did want to draw to the attention of your audience this press release, 2013, where these, messenger RNA, franken shots come from. DARPA awards Moderna Therapeutics a grant for up to $25,000,000 to develop messenger RNA therapeutics. So notice DARPA is the Pentagon. Let me repeat that.
DARPA is the Pentagon. The Pentagon bought, paid for, envisioned these MRNA Franken shots. Go. Get the jab. Get the treats.
Get the jab. Get the treats. And I should also point out for Dietrich was involved in the development of COVID 19, the offensive biological warfare weapon at the University of North Carolina BSL 3. So the Pentagon is both sides of the argument here. They're developing the the weapon and the, alleged vaccines, which is also a weapon.
$500 cash. Oh. Oh, yes.
Speaker 0: Give Max and edit. You get $500. The sweet taste of Pfizer BioNTech. Actually, the mRNA vaccine is one of the safest vaccines you could possibly get.
@c_plushie - Coronavirus Plushie
"It is my expert opinion that, 'COVID-19 nanoparticle injections' or 'mRNA nanoparticle injections' or 'COVID-19 injections' meet the criteria of biological weapons and weapons of mass destruction" https://t.co/fNSzmtV52U
@McCulloughFund - McCullough Foundation
JUST IN - Dr. Francis Boyle, the Harvard educated law professor that drafted the Biological Weapons and Antiterrorism Act of 1989, Provides Affidavit that COVID 19 mRNA injections are Biological Weapons and Weapons of Mass Destruction Dr. Boyle stated that the COVID-19 injections violate Biological Weapons 18 USC § 175 and Weapons and Firearms § 790.166 Fla. Stat. (2023). This affidavit was presented in a Florida case involving an Emergency Petition for a Writ of Mandamus, aiming to convince Governor DeSantis to ban the distribution of these injections in Florida. Additionally, it seeks to compel Attorney General Ashley Moody to confiscate the vials. #MFPolicy @PhdSansone
@c_plushie - Coronavirus Plushie
Yeah, what could the problem be @covidactionnz ? I'm dammed if I know 🤔 https://t.co/DNx9xi8gJo
Video Transcript AI Summary
A study from Cleveland on 51,000 healthcare workers showed a direct correlation between COVID vaccinations and infection rates. Unvaccinated individuals had the lowest COVID rates, while those with more doses had higher rates. The bivalent booster recipients had the highest infection rates. The study emphasized the importance of vaccination in preventing the spread of COVID.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So this is a very important study that came out a few months ago from Cleveland, Ohio. This was a study done on 51,000 health care workers that had had various numbers of COVID injections. And if you can see, there are five lines there. The bottom of the graph is the passage of time and they followed these people for 3 months to see who was getting COVID. And of course, the people that are getting COVID are the people who are spreading COVID.
The black line at the bottom is the people that were unvaccinated. Zero doses of the vaccine. They were getting less COVID than anyone else.
Speaker 1: The virus is literally finding unvaccinated people.
Speaker 0: The next line up, the red line, is those that had had one dose of the vaccine. The green line, 2 doses. The blue line, 3 doses.
Speaker 1: For anyone who is not vaccinated right now, unless you choose to be, you will not be able to enjoy the freedoms of other New Zealanders.
Speaker 0: And the top line, the brown one, were the people that had had the bivalent booster, the one that's supposed to you the safest. They were getting COVID more than anyone else.
Speaker 1: Please get a booster. Go and get boosted. Please do go out and get your booster today.
Speaker 0: There was an absolute direct linear correlation that the more shots you got, the more likely you would get COVID and the more likely you would spread COVID.
reSee.it AI Summary
The author expresses surprise upon finding an old video from July 2021. They mention various individuals and organizations, possibly related to the topic of mass vaccination.
@c_plushie - Coronavirus Plushie
MASS VACCINATION, AT ALL COSTS! Every now and then I find one of my old videos, and even I'm a little shocked by it. This one is from July 2021 @P_McCulloughMD @thecoastguy @JohnBoweActor @RealAlexJones @joerogan @jimmy_dore @chrishipkins @AshBloomfield @PetousisH @nzlabour @nzfirst @DrTedros @WHO @CDCgov @US_FDA @BillGates
Video Transcript AI Summary
Globalists are pushing for mandatory vaccination to mark people in a database for various purposes. Major stakeholders like Pfizer, Moderna, and government agencies are pushing for universal vaccination. Plans include door-to-door vaccination campaigns and compulsory vaccination in some regions. The goal is to vaccinate everyone by the end of the year, with no one escaping the needle. Some people may need to be chased up or persuaded to get vaccinated.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: This is what globalists have been waiting for. They've been waiting for a way of marking people that you get in a vaccine, you're marked in a database. And this can be used for, trade, for commerce, for behavior modification, all different purposes. I think this whole pandemic from the beginning was about the vaccine. So I think all roads lead to the vaccine.
Pfizer, Moderna, J and J, AstraZeneca, and any others that come forward, the CDC, the FDA, and the NIH, and the White House, massive vaccine stakeholders. You could throw in Gates Foundation, World Health Organization. You could throw those in as well. Massive stakeholders, and they wanted everybody to be vaccinated without exception.
Speaker 1: Normalcy only returns when we've largely vaccinated the entire global population.
Speaker 2: Early next year, we'll be in the phase of chasing up people who haven't come forward to get their vaccination.
Speaker 1: If president Biden gets his way, health care workers may soon be knocking on your door asking you to roll up your sleeve and get vaccinated.
Speaker 3: Now we need to go to community by community, neighborhood by neighborhood, and off times, door to door, literally knocking on doors.
Speaker 1: Good morning, everybody, and, welcome to the, the war game the war game of the national campaign plan for the COVID vaccine rollout.
Speaker 0: There are already places in Southeast Asia and Europe. They're laying the groundwork for compulsory vaccination. I mean, compulsory. That means somebody pins you down to the ground and puts a needle in you.
Speaker 2: Commitment is everyone will have the opportunity to get the vaccine by the end of the year. Everyone will. Everyone will. Everyone will. Everybody
Speaker 0: everybody to be vaccinated without exception. Good job, Shirley.
Speaker 4: It's okay, Shirley. It's gonna be okay. We'll go. Baby. It's okay, Shirley.
It's gonna be okay. We'll go. Baby. It's okay. It's okay, Shirley.
It's gonna be okay. We'll go. Baby. It's
Speaker 0: No one will escape the needle. We've actually never had this before. Ma'am, The world must be mass vaccinated.
Speaker 2: I can't say that, you know, that we're not gonna have some hesitant people or some people who just haven't come forward that we don't have to go out and find next year.
reSee.it AI Summary
The interview highlights the public's dissatisfaction with @nzlabour and the mainstream media after the police removed anti-mandate protesters. Grant Robertson's absence from politics and X is also mentioned. The @nzdsos doctors are briefly mentioned as well.
@c_plushie - Coronavirus Plushie
This interview, done the day after police trashed camp freedom and forcibly removed the anti mandate protesters from parliament grounds, perfectly exemplifies why both @nzlabour and the mainstream media massively lost favour with the New Zealand public. And as for Grant Robertson, I wanted to tag him, along with @JohnJCampbell, but it looks like Grant didn’t just retire from politics, he retired from X as well. Note: the @nzdsos doctors get a mention in this one too.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Wellington Central MP Grant Robinson discusses the recent events in Wellington, emphasizing the need to protect peaceful protests. He addresses the issue of misinformation and the importance of engaging with those who have been led astray. Robinson highlights the unity of New Zealanders during COVID-19 and calls for support for local businesses affected by the recent events. He condemns the violent actions of some individuals and urges for a collective effort to address the challenges faced by society.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We're joined now by, the deputy prime minister, but more importantly perhaps in this case, the MP for this area, Wellington Central MP Grant Robinson. Good morning. Tell me about what you think when you see this.
Speaker 1: Look, it's been an incredibly distressing time for Wellingtonians over the last 3 weeks. Not only have they been harassed and spat at and and bullied, but they've also seen the city that they love be trashed. And especially this area here, you know, this is where Wellingtonians come and have their lunch and kids come out and play, and it's just been so so
Speaker 0: sad. It's important to stress that this isn't about the right to protest. In fact, I'm sure in my youth I attended protests here on
Speaker 1: And and lead protests on to here, John, when I was the student president, and I've been part of many protests here. And I think that's actually one of the great things about New Zealand is you can come right to the seat of power to send your message, and we've got to protect the right to peaceful protest. That's not what this was. This was an unlawful process protest that had, malignant forces behind it, manipulating easily manipulated people into what was yesterday's events. So, no, this is not about peaceful protest.
We must protect that.
Speaker 0: Can I pick up on the phrase malignant people? They're still they're not here today, but they're still somewhere today. So how do we talk to them? Because they are still amongst us. They're still part of the story of us.
What do we do now?
Speaker 1: Yeah. And I think it's really important to almost distinguish there, isn't it? There are people who were out there who have, you know, fears and irrational fears sometimes that have been stoked in them, who one day might wake up and realize that they were misled and that the misinformation they heard wasn't real. And they're gonna be some really hard conversations for whanau to have with each other over the coming years as we work our way through that. But there are also forces here which, you know, we see internationally, which are about, you know, the right wing, the alt right, some like to call it, who want to drive divisions in society, and we can't let them do that in New Zealand.
So I think we do have to distinguish that. There are people here who've been severely led astray over the last couple of years, and and they'll come back many of them and we're gonna have to work hard to to bring them back into our whanau.
Speaker 0: I don't know how the hell we get this right. It's really hard. Do we need to engage with people better and earlier before the malignant forces turn this into something dark and angry and violent? Is it about and immediately I asked this question, people out there are gonna say, I just held up a brick with the police commissioner. 1 of the bricks that was thrown at their offices yesterday yesterday.
And people are gonna say, they were throwing bricks at police officers, threatening to hang politicians, presumably you amongst them, abusing so we on the record, some of these people were violent. But before we get to that stage, should we be better at engaging so that the conspiracy theorists, the cynical, the violent don't get to take control?
Speaker 1: Yeah. And and just to pick up on your introductory comment, this is what the prime minister said yesterday. We can never excuse what happened yesterday. It was appalling, and I I think the police and the emergency services for their bravery once again. But we also do need to look at those people who get swept and carried along in these movements.
And it is part of us making sure that as a society, we support strong public media, that we have in our schools, things like New Zealand history is being taught, that we actually do the basic bedrock building of our And that means disagreeing, but disagreeing in such a way that upholds those values that matter to New Zealand. There's no one answer. There's no one single thing here, but I do understand the point you're making. But again, nothing excuses what we saw yesterday.
Speaker 0: Strong public media. There's a sign down there on the ground. Actually, it's gone. Someone's removed it, but it said the media are the virus. So they're talking about me, presumably, and my colleagues.
I was up north and I chatted to a glorious woman who said, John Campbell, I'm not getting the vaccine. I said, why not? And she said, because spoon stick to you and it's really dangerous. I said, where did you see that? And she said, on Facebook.
And this is the issue, isn't it? This is the issue with the Trump crowd. We've left them to the predations of the Murdoch empire. We've lost these people. How hell do we get them back?
Speaker 1: And that's true, John. I mean, the algorithm manages what you see when you're on Facebook. And so we do need and we are working with those large social media companies about what their responsibilities are, and the prime minister began that work in the wake of March 15th with the Christchurch call. And people do need to find people in their communities that they trust, and when they hear misinformation from people they trust, then you've got a really big problem.
Speaker 0: That's your problem.
Speaker 1: And so we have to work our way through that, and everyone's got a responsibility. You know, we've had doctors in New Zealand tell other New Zealanders things about the vaccine that just aren't true and that the medical council's been going through and some of those people have been suspended. We have all got roles and responsibilities here, This is not easy and it's global. And John, we've experienced it here in New Zealand, and many of us maybe thought we never would, but we have. But I guess I do wanna make a point, it's not a massive division in New Zealand society.
The vast bulk of people have got together and supported one another to get through COVID. Now I reckon that's the legacy of COVID, not this, but actually that New Zealanders gave a damn about each other and worked hard to get through it together. So, yep, we've got some people who've splinted off, and we're gonna have to work hard with them. But most New Zealanders have got on board. Doesn't mean they also bought the government or anything like that, but they've got on board with looking after each other and I reckon today we need to remember that.
Sirens behind us. Always in Wellington, you know that.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I do. Yeah. Yeah. It's probably
Speaker 1: fire engines. You're being in a basin. What if we look at that? Just go around.
Speaker 0: Round and round and round. But if we look, we've got Casey. Casey has, has done a stunning job over the past three and a half weeks. Shout out to the Wellington, TBNZ Bureau. In fact, everyone based in Wellington for all, the organizations who've been covering this event, who've done stunning work.
But, Casey, can we see can we see that mess behind us? What happens to Wellington now? Because we were talking to me near Andy Costa before sorry, Andy Foster. Andy Foster, and he was saying, ain't no one coming into town. You're the MP.
How do you get people back?
Speaker 1: Oh, look, people will come back, and I know they will. And look, I there's a huge number of Wellingtonians who wanna come and do the clean up here. And, just to those people, just to say that the police and the health officials, aren't too sure exactly what's out there, so they're gonna clean it up professionally. But then there's gonna be a moment not too far away where Wellingtonians get to come back in here. And can I can I just say there is a job to do?
People need to go and have dinner at the backbencher. They need to go and buy a coffee at Greenland just down the road here. They need to head up to word-of-mouth and get some of their fantastic lunch stuff. They need to go and say thank you to the people at the Thornton New World who've been abused just because they were wearing masks. There's a heap of businesses around here, and the time is coming not too far away where Wellingtonians can show them some love.
Speaker 0: Clacey, we can see this mess behind us, can't we? What do you say to those people, minister? As well as an essential MP, as a born and raised New Zealander, as somebody who loves this country, what do you say to those people about where they go, the people who left that mess behind yesterday? The people who were setting fire to things? The people who were throwing bricks at the police?
Speaker 1: Well, to those people, I say there is no place for your behavior in New Zealand. And I think many of them will find themselves in front of courts as a result of what they did. And frankly, that is what they deserve. But to those who got swept along with us, who maybe walked away a couple of days beforehand, I said, stop again. Talk to your friends and family.
Realize that actually we are all in this together. We're not gonna get everybody back. We're not gonna get everybody who who came here with the intent to cause that trouble, but there are people in our families we can talk to.
@c_plushie - Coronavirus Plushie
Remember when epidemiologist Dr. Simon Thornley tried to give us another perspective on Covid-19, the level 4 lockdowns, @nzlabour's covid elimination strategy, and the need to inject everyone with the #Pfizer, when 'zero covid' couldn't be maintained? @Dingus65755973 @jacktame https://t.co/z7G0b10fMY
Video Transcript AI Summary
COVID-19 is compared to the flu, with the response criticized as disproportionate. Lockdown effectiveness is questioned, with minimal impact seen. The debate is noted for lacking diversity of opinion. The importance of vaccines is emphasized due to similar age distributions in COVID and non-COVID deaths. The average age of COVID deaths in New Zealand is highlighted at 82, the same as life expectancy. Elimination strategies are discussed in relation to vaccine availability.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I want to take a moment to clarify the position of the plan b group because it underpins everything I'm going to say. COVID 19 is a nasty flu like virus, it's new but it's not unique. The Ioannidis study shows the death rate is only very marginally worse than the standard flu viruses that kill 100 of sick and elderly New Zealanders every year. The response should be a measured one, like we've planned for lower mortality pandemics, not lockdowns. We've sacrificed our humanity, our society and our economy for the wrong virus.
The fear and panic that has driven the response of many scientists, politicians, policy makers and the media we believe is unwarranted and it's even irrational. And so the government advisers were actually saying that the response was disproportionate. Modeling's been a feature and there's an assumption that everyone's susceptible and that the infection fatality is high and we extrapolated data from overseas and we got very large estimates at 80,000 deaths in this headline. People must be wondering how were these so inaccurate? Just save.
I want to get save. I want to get this work published, but here's an early view. Lockdown was instituted here. We expect after a week or so the effect of the lockdown and we allow the curve to diverge and it does from the expected, but it's rather subtle. If you total up the expected number of cases compared to the observed with and without lockdown, you get about a 100 cases difference, which translates to about one death.
Question on my mind was how effective was it and how many lives did it save. If you total up the expected number of cases compared to the observed with and without lockdown, you get about a 100 cases difference which translates to about one death.
Speaker 1: Let let me ask this. Observing this debate from the outside, it's looked nasty. A lot of this debate has has verged on, being quite a personal being quite a personal debate, at least from the outside. Do you personally you are an epidemiologist. Have you personally published work on communicable diseases?
Speaker 0: Yes, I certainly have.
Speaker 1: And I mean, I've considered your published works and a large proportion of those at least focus on things such as tobacco use and alcohol use and that sort of thing as opposed to something that might be more directly relevant to a pandemic?
Speaker 0: I've been working in public health on the measles outbreak. I've been doing models of infectious diseases. So if I can't speak out on this issue, I'm not sure who can, Jack.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Do you feel like it do you feel like it's being personal?
Speaker 0: I think one thing that has shocked me, about the debate is the lack of debate. That science we know is about diversity of opinion and I believe that the government has been captured by scientists who have extreme views. If you look around the world there are very few countries that are chasing an elimination strategy for this virus. There are
Speaker 1: very few countries where that might be a possibility.
Speaker 2: To date, we've managed to largely control the outbreak. But as you can see, with this outbreak and with Delta, the return to 0 is incredibly difficult. In fact, for this outbreak, it's clear that long periods of heavy restrictions has not got us to 0 cases. But that is okay. Elimination was important because we didn't have vaccines.
Now we do.
Speaker 0: I'm just going to just something that I think is quite important at least for me in terms of the need for a vaccine. It's just, from this particular plot here which was kind of reassuring for me early in the while I was trying to figure out how bad covid was and so what I did was look at background deaths and I was given some data in 2019 and allegedly there's no, COVID and that's the age distribution of deaths in New Zealand during that time in the year of no COVID. So that's the black. And then I superimposed on that, the COVID deaths and I could only get into the nearest 10 years because it's all given in the papers but when I plotted them together and did a statistical test I found that there was absolutely, no difference in the distribution of age at death with covid and that without. And so I think this is an important bearing on the need for the vaccine particularly when you're hearing about people who have a severe reaction to the first one and then being coerced to have the second one.
That to me, is particularly frightening. Virtually no one on the other side is is, brings up that the average age of death with covid in New Zealand is 82 which also happens to be our life expectancy, half of us are dead by that that age anyway.
@c_plushie - Coronavirus Plushie
Matt Hancock, 17 March 2021 "The Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine is not only safe, it also helps make you safe". @ABridgen @thecoastguy @beverleyturner @MattHancock https://t.co/ZB3YvmURRn
Video Transcript AI Summary
The Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine is safe and recommended by regulators. Over 11 million people have been vaccinated, showing it is safe and saving lives. It is important to get the jab when you have the chance to stay safe.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: What I'd say is that this Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine is safe and that we should listen to the regulators And the British regulator, a world class regulator, the MHRA, the World Health Organization and the European Medicines Agency have all looked at the data. Now that over 11,000,000 people have been vaccinated with the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine, we can see in the real world its impact. And we can see that it is not only safe but saving lives. So it helps make you safe by taking it. So when you get the opportunity, I'd recommend to everybody to get the jab as soon as you can.
reSee.it AI Summary
In a series of posts, I discuss the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 on 9/11. I provide evidence of explosions and damage from falling debris and diesel fuel fires. I reference videos and documentaries that explore the topic, including one directed by Dylan Avery. Additionally, I mention a statement by Larry Silverstein suggesting controlled demolition. There are recordings of explosions before and during the collapse, and I highlight an explosion near WTC 7 captured by a reporter. Finally, I mention Tucker Carlson's evolving views on WTC 7.
@c_plushie - Coronavirus Plushie
🧵 THREAD FYI: Joe Rogan & Tucker Carlson World Trade Centre Building 7: Sounds of Explosions, Damage From Falling Debris & Diesel Fuel Fires. While discussing WTC 7 with Joe Rogan, @TuckerCarlson asked where the sound signature of explosions is on the recordings of the collapse of WTC 7. In 2008, David Chandler made a video called 'WTC 7, Sound Evidence for Explosions'. It's possible that Tucker hasn't seen this video, so I've included a clip from it here, and I'll post the link to the full video below. Also, @joerogan talks about how WTC 7 experienced a "tremendous amount of damage" from the collapse of the nearby Twin Towers, and that there was an "Incredible inferno" of diesel fuel fires which "Weakened the structure" of the building. But way back in 2008, even NIST, the government agency who investigated the collapse of WTC 7, ruled out both debris falling from WTC 1, and diesel fuel fires, as having any role in causing the collapse of the building. In this video you can hear Shyam Sundar, who was the Lead Investigator for NIST back in 2008, speaking about why they ruled out diesel fuel fires. The best documentary to watch about WTC 7 is 'SEVEN', directed by Dylan Avery, so I'll post that documentary below as well. @TCNetwork @RichardGage_911 @ic911justice @PiersRobinson1 @TedFWalter @AE911Truth @TheRedactedInc @Lukewearechange @thecoastguy @TheChiefNerd @VigilantFox Please retweet. 💣
Video Transcript AI Summary
The discussion revolves around the collapse of Tower 7, questioning if it was a controlled demolition due to sounds of explosions heard before the building fell. The faint sounds of explosions were captured on tape, sparking debate. The possibility of damage from neighboring towers, fires, and diesel fuel in the basement weakening the structure is also considered. However, experts argue that the collapse was not solely due to fuel oil fires as they wouldn't have generated enough heat to weaken critical columns.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Right. Well, the real problem with tower 7 is they go, well, okay. If it was a controlled demolition, how is that engineered? Did they just decide to do that before September 11th and you know how long it would take to rig a building like that? Or was it built into the building?
And how would they know it would even work? And how would they do something like that? And how would there not be a record of it being built into the building? Like, for someone to engineer
Speaker 1: And where's the slab with the tower on the on the tape? There would be a sound of the explosions
Speaker 0: going on.
Speaker 1: Which is a fair question. Yeah.
Speaker 2: A few blocks up West Broadway looking toward the World Trade Center in the distance, Ashley Banfield was conducting an interview for MSNBC.
Speaker 3: You were just told by police that you should move out of your
Speaker 2: The mic was set to pick up speech a few inches away. Yes. From the involuntary startle response. We know explosions are being heard. However, listening closely, we discovered that the microphone did indeed pick up the sounds of explosions, but very faintly.
Turn up the volume. Listen for a low rumble in the background.
Speaker 3: You were just, told by police that you should move out of your, apartment, Saviana. You've got Carolina here?
Speaker 4: Yes. They they advised us to leave because we have oh my god.
Speaker 2: This time, the sound has been filtered to emphasize low frequencies. Listen for booms like a bass drum in the distance.
Speaker 5: In fact, you just, call back base that you could move out of your, apartment, carliana. You got carlina here? Yes. They they I'm not just because we have
Speaker 1: And where's the sound signature on the on the tape? There would
Speaker 0: be a
Speaker 1: sound of the explosions.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Which
Speaker 1: is a fair question.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Here's a different version filtered to emphasize the mid range sounds. The bass drum is gone. I would describe the blast sound like a train on a bumpy track.
Speaker 3: You were just, told by police that you should move out of your, apartment, Saviana. You've got Carolina here? Yes. They they advised us
Speaker 4: to leave because we have oh my god.
Speaker 2: Here's the original sound again.
Speaker 3: You were just, told by police that you should move out of your apartment, Saviana. You've got Carolina here?
Speaker 4: Yes. They they advised us to leave because we have oh my god.
Speaker 3: Look behind us. Please turn in this way. Please be careful of your baby. This is it.
Speaker 2: That's the building.
Speaker 3: Oh my god. Oh my god. Oh my god. No. No.
No. We're
Speaker 2: If you didn't hear the blast, back up, use earphones, turn up the volume, and listen again. There were 2 blasts followed by 7 more regularly spaced all in 2 and a half seconds. Craig Bartner's testimony may come to mind.
Speaker 1: The whole time you hear them. I think I know an explosion when I hear it.
Speaker 2: When we hear the sharp regular series of sounds in the background, the building has not yet started to fall. When we hear the reporters say, this is it.
Speaker 3: This is it.
Speaker 2: The building has not yet started to fall. The fall of the building corresponds to the crescendo in the crowd response. Here is another street scene with the building in full view. The crowd responds almost immediately as the building starts to fall. This occurs just after the reporter says, this is it.
Speaker 3: This is it. Oh my god. Oh my god.
Speaker 2: Therefore, the blast we heard occurred seconds before the building started to fall.
Speaker 5: They they I'm not just relieved because I've had oh my god.
Speaker 0: And has there ever been a building that experienced a tremendous amount of damage because 2 enormous skyscrapers fell right next to it, damaged it? And then massive fire started, and then there's diesel generators that are in the basement. So they have all this fuel, so they have this incredible inferno in the basement that weakens the structure.
Speaker 3: Mhmm.
Speaker 0: Is that why it collapsed? Maybe.
Speaker 6: The collapse was also not due to the fuel oil fires, fuel oil, diesel fuel oil, substantial amounts of diesel fuel that were in the building. Such fires from ruptured fuel lines or from fuel stored in day tanks on the lower floors could not have been sustained long enough, would have not generated sufficient heat to weaken critical columns and would have produced copious smoke that was not observed on 9 11.
@c_plushie - Coronavirus Plushie
'SEVEN' @TuckerCarlson @TCNetwork @joerogan https://t.co/rwwX8AuTWG
@c_plushie - Coronavirus Plushie
WTC 7: Sound Evidence for Explosions By David Candler, made in 2008 @TuckerCarlson @TCNetwork @joerogan https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERhoNYj9_fg
@c_plushie - Coronavirus Plushie
A video I put together a few years ago . . @TuckerCarlson @TCNetwork @joerogan https://t.co/QilPtArkTU
@c_plushie - Coronavirus Plushie
And this is something that a lot of people are probably not aware of . . . @TuckerCarlson @TCNetwork @joerogan https://t.co/ooQmCX177G
@c_plushie - Coronavirus Plushie
@TuckerCarlson @TCNetwork @joerogan A record of explosions heard before, and at the time of the 'collapse' of WTC 7. @TuckerCarlson @TCNetwork @joerogan @RealAlexJones https://t.co/y5CRqWzlNw
@c_plushie - Coronavirus Plushie
I think a lot of people will have never seen this one . . . @TuckerCarlson @TCNetwork @joerogan @RealAlexJones https://t.co/Lco4X9sKa7
@c_plushie - Coronavirus Plushie
@c_plushie - Coronavirus Plushie
@TuckerCarlson
@c_plushie - Coronavirus Plushie
@rustyrockets
reSee.it AI Summary
Facebook live host @patrickgowernz, along with experts @PetousisH, @NigelLatta, and Dr. Maia Brewerton, discuss the truth about the #Pfizer shot. They claim that it ceases to exist in the body within hours to days. Investigative Journalist @sonia_elijah and @Johnincarlisle are also included. The Royal Commission of Inquiry should hold these individuals accountable for misleading people. Please retweet.
@c_plushie - Coronavirus Plushie
Facebook live host @patrickgowernz, with New Zealand's 'most qualified and trusted experts' @PetousisH, @NigelLatta and Dr. Maia Brewerton, giving you the unvarnished truth about what's in the #Pfizer shot, and how within hours to days after being injected into your body, it ceases to exist. I shit you not. Also included here, in retrospect, are Investigative Journalist @sonia_elijah and @Johnincarlisle The Royal Commission of Inquiry MUST hold to account these people for the way they mislead people. Please retweet. @nzdsos @HopeRising19 @BrookevanVelden @nzfirst @winstonpeters @TanyaUnkovichMP @RCR_NZ @P_McCulloughMD @voices_nz @JohnBoweActor @mattletiss7 @DrAseemMalhotra
Video Transcript AI Summary
The vaccine contains fatty acids and messenger RNA encased in fatty acid nanoparticles for protection. Once injected, the components are taken up by cells and eventually disintegrate. Some misinformation and fears about the vaccine's contents exist, but it is important to communicate clearly about its temporary nature and immune response activation. Additionally, the vaccine has been found in various tissues throughout the body, contrary to initial beliefs about its localized effects and degradation timeline.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And here's an here's another interesting question. And and this is the kind of thing that people do ask. Does the vaccine contain animal products?
Speaker 1: No.
Speaker 0: So what's in it for this person who's asking that?
Speaker 1: Fatty acids and, they they all important little, little piece of messenger RNA.
Speaker 0: Yeah. So I I guess what this person is wondering is what actually is is it in when they put it into your arm? You know, We know we know sort of what RNA is, don't we? But but what's actually in the vial, I guess, is what this person's really getting at.
Speaker 1: Right. So in the vial, of course, there's mainly water to, you know, for injection. In the vials, there's a little there's the wee strand of instruction, encoded in this little piece of messenger RNA. And it's sort of encased in in a little sphere of these little little fatty acids, and it keeps it it keeps it safe because the little RNA molecule is very fragile and, won't last long, unless it's got some protection. And this little bubble, I guess the little sphere or nano particle it's called, of fatty acids is taken up very nicely by the cell.
Speaker 2: Don't forget 2 of the 4, lipids in the lipid nanoparticles are highly toxic, completely novel and never authorized before in any medicinal product.
Speaker 1: And then once these things are taken up, they, they are they disintegrate. They are recycled, for example. So after, over a period of days, hours to days, actually, that what was injected really ceases to exist.
Speaker 0: Yeah. And, Nigel, with questions like this that to to some people, you know, they seem, you know, why how can someone not, you know, how can someone not know this, or how can someone be wondering what's in it? You know, how do you deal with these sorts of questions or people who seem to have, you know, got a lot of misinformation or unfounded fears? You know, how how how should you deal with this when you're communicating with someone?
Speaker 3: I'm not great at remembering a whole lot of complicate the reason I didn't become a doctor is because they have to know stuff. And I thought, it's not gonna work for me. You know what I mean? Like, these guys know things. Psychology is kind of about having opinions about stuff, and I can do that.
Yeah.
Speaker 0: Well well, you're talking to a journalist here who
Speaker 3: knows you a bit less. Alright? Sorry. I know. You know, when Helen was talking just before, I went, okay.
That's cool. So they inject the stuff into inject the RNA into your arm. They're gonna wrap it up in a little thing to protect it. And basically, within, you know, hours to days, that thing is gone. It's like they just put something in their arm temporarily that makes your immune system go, hang on.
Something going on over there. And then it starts making stuff to help us. So that like, I hadn't ever kind of heard it explained like that. And now I now I now I kind of get it. It's like, okay.
They put a thing in. It's wrapped in a thing. Your immune system is full.
Speaker 0: There's a lot of water, and there's a lot of a lot of it is actually water, isn't it, Helen? Yeah. It's going in there.
Speaker 3: And it and it and it makes stuff, and and then it and then it disappears.
Speaker 4: Now we want to discuss this document here. This is from the TGA, the Therapeutic Goods Administration in Australia, which authorizes is is quite stunning. We were initially told that this just stays in the deltoid muscle. But but but here here we see that the vaccine's actually been found in adipose tissue, adrenal glands, bladder, bone, bone marrow, brain, eyes, heart injection site, kidneys, large intestine, liver, lungs, basically all over the body. And the the other thing we were told that the the vaccine would only the mRNA would only stay there for a short period of time.
Speaker 1: As Helen was explaining, it's a single dose that's put in your arm and then quickly, your body clears it away.
Speaker 4: But then we read from page 4 that there is actually no degradation data.
Speaker 0: That's exactly right.
Speaker 3: We're not
Speaker 4: told we're not told how quickly it would it would go away. Really quite incredible.
Speaker 1: Over a period of days, hours to days, actually, that what was injected really ceases to exist.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
@c_plushie - Coronavirus Plushie
Here's the video again, hopefully this will remain playable. But why can some of my videos no longer be played @elonmusk ? https://t.co/T8Q9Fen9ol
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speakers discuss the Pfizer vaccine, claiming it contains contaminated plasma and DNA. They reveal their plan to create a flu that would increase demand for a vaccine that doesn't work. They express satisfaction that millions of Americans are lining up for the vaccine, unaware of its potential dangers. The speakers reveal their intention to sterilize people and control the future of human civilization to combat overpopulation. They argue that overpopulation leads to global problems like climate change and resource shortages. They believe drastic measures are necessary to save the planet, even if it means sacrificing individual freedoms. They warn of future privations and conflicts over resources if action is not taken.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You you used me. You used my flu. You desecrated all of my work. You disrespected science. What the hell did you put in that vaccine?
Speaker 1: The Pfizer, vaccine is contaminated with plasma n a. It's not just mRNA. It's got bits of DNA in it.
Speaker 2: We created a flu that sparked the demand for a vaccine that doesn't work after everyone in the country is vaccinated.
Speaker 3: And the world.
Speaker 4: Normalcy only returns when we've largely vaccinated The entire global population.
Speaker 3: How much evil do you have to do to do good?
Speaker 1: This DNA, can and likely will integrate into the genomic DNA of cells that got transfected with the vaccine mix.
Speaker 3: I knew it.
Speaker 5: I knew
Speaker 2: it. You created a panic, and now everybody's begging for the vaccine.
Speaker 5: No. No. No. Demanding it with all the entitlement of a first world country.
Speaker 6: A majority of Americans expect a vaccine to be available within 2 months, and 65% of those polled are eager to take the vaccine even if it's experimental.
Speaker 3: Yes. And now we have exactly what we want. 100 of millions of Americans lining up, offering us their arms, And letting us give them our creation.
Speaker 2: I'm pretty sure when every vaccinated person starts dying, they'll trace back to undetectable virus or not.
Speaker 3: Tell me this. What have you done today to earn your place in this crowded world? Exactly. Everything I do is a cure for our current situation. We intend To stop human reproduction for 3 generations.
Speaker 7: So remember that medicine that, many people were supposed to take, were obliged to take, mandated to take, or else they'd lose their jobs. You know the medicine I'm talking about. Something horrifying is happening. More people are dying, and fewer children are being born.
Speaker 3: The busy, endless global assembly line of babies A grind to hold. You're sterilizing people? Uh-huh. In the first 5 years, we'll start to see major birth rate declines as teenagers vaccinated today hit their childbearing years.
Speaker 8: Australia's fertility rate is near Historic lows and falling fast. The number of babies per woman is generally 2.1 just for Stable population, but Australia is currently 1.7, similar in most developed nations and in South Korea, A mere 0.8. Globally, it's 2.3, falling from 5.3 in 19 63.
Speaker 2: You're controlling the future of human civilization.
Speaker 3: Is that what they're calling it? It's a very nice euphemism for a species that is replicated like contagion across the planet, killing all other species in its wake.
Speaker 6: You hate people that much?
Speaker 3: On the contrary, I love people.
Speaker 2: The hell.
Speaker 3: Why would Doing what our government or citizenry is to spoil or self indulgent to do. We are saving ourselves from ourselves. Halting overpopulation.
Speaker 4: Now the world today has 6,800,000,000 people. That's headed up to about 9,000,000,000 Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, Reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15%.
Speaker 3: A 100 years ago, the global population was one point 7,000,000,000. 2011, it reached 7,000,000,000.
Speaker 4: Here we can see a chart that Looks at the total world population over the last several 100 years. And at first glance, This is a bit scary.
Speaker 3: People live too long, die less often, fuck too much, shit out babies like In 2050, they say it's gonna plateau.
Speaker 5: We'll blow past 11,000,000,000 and then slowly begin to decline.
Speaker 3: But by then, it'll be too late to save an Earth that bears any resemblance to a world we actually wanna live in. I love this planet, so I decided to take care of the problem. Global warming, mass extinctions, food, water shortages, all these problems can be boiled down to one thing, overpopulation. What do
Speaker 7: you see as
Speaker 2: the biggest challenges in in conservation?
Speaker 3: Yeah. The the growing human population. At 1,700,000,000, we can be as decadent, self indulgent, shitty as we want. At 10,000,000,000, we have to live strategically. We have to live modestly.
We have to live selflessly. And as you know, We're not that good at it. If we don't do something now, right now, in a decade, our world will experience extraordinary privations,
Speaker 5: the War of all against all. Water will go to war over water, and the people who will die first are the ones without power and
Speaker 7: The negative impact of population growth on all of our planetary ecosystems is becoming appallingly evident.
Speaker 6: You can't just decide people won't have babies because I
Speaker 3: can, and I did. Think of me as the stern parent who tells the children they can't play with the family gun. How about what this does to people's society. Salvation? We can form a new society.
Home. Mhmm. A grand social experiment. Do you wanna know what happens next?
@c_plushie - Coronavirus Plushie
I first uploaded this video in September last year, and it played fine at the time, but for some reason it won't play now, so I'm uploading it again.
@c_plushie - Coronavirus Plushie
@ABridgen Here's the video Andrew is asking you to watch Vaccine Trials ⎹ Full Measure Credit @SharylAttkisson https://t.co/mjwWXt1M3M
Video Transcript AI Summary
Florida's surgeon general raised concerns about the safety of COVID vaccines, while the federal government continues to promote them. This video tells the story of Maddie, a child who participated in Pfizer's vaccine study. After receiving the second dose, Maddie experienced severe symptoms including chest pain, abdominal pain, and loss of feeling in her legs. Despite seeking medical help, her symptoms were dismissed as anxiety. Maddie's case was not properly reported, and the FDA granted emergency use of the vaccine for children based on this study. Other children also experienced serious adverse effects, including heart problems and death. Maddie was eventually diagnosed with chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy. The government and those involved in the study declined to comment. Maddie's parents are hopeful for her recovery but have lost trust in the medical system.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Florida's surgeon general recently called for a halt in COVID vaccines due to safety questions, while the federal government continues to heavily promote them for adults and kids alike. Today, we begin with a little told story about COVID vaccine injuries. It's the story of Maddie, one of the children who took part in Pfizer's vaccine study on children. It's a remarkable account of what happened when Maddie got very, very sick, leading to accusations that Pfizer, the FDA, and the study leaders tried to bury her case.
Speaker 1: All three of my kids were in the Pfizer clinical trial, for 12 to 15 year olds at Cincinnati Children's.
Speaker 0: In summer of 2020, Stephanie DeGary and her family learned an important clinical Trial was about to be launched at nearby Cincinnati Children's Hospital. It would test Pfizer's experimental COVID 19 vaccine on 12 to 15 year olds to see if it was safe and effective. The DeGarys, firmly pro vaccine, didn't hesitate to let their children take part. Among 3 siblings, 12 year old Maddie alone was chosen to get 2 doses of Pfizer's vaccine rather than a harmless placebo. It proved a fateful and debilitating roll of the dice.
Speaker 1: Her second dose was January 20, 2000 21. That was my son's 16th birthday, literally the day. I have picture of the 3 of them, on that day. That night, in the middle of the night, that's when it all started. So less than it was maybe let's just say 12 hours after, her second dose.
Speaker 0: What kinds of things did she wake up with or was she suffering?
Speaker 1: She just came in and asked if she could sleep in our bedroom, which was not normal. She said, I don't feel right. Can I sleep in your room? So she slept in between us. So very odd.
And then in the morning, she ended up going to school just because she hates missing school because First thing, you have to make up the work. So by the time she came home from school, she my my husband called me at work and said, Maddie's having some sort of reaction. She had, like, what she described as electrical shocks going up and down her spine. She said she felt like her rip her heart was being Ripped out. So, chest pain.
She had severe abdominal pain. She was hunched over when she walked through the door. Her Toes and her fingers were white, and they were, like, when you touch them, they were ice cold, and painful.
Speaker 0: Did you think right away that this was probably a vaccine reaction?
Speaker 1: 100%. There was nothing wrong with her prior to that.
Speaker 0: Before long, Maddie lost feeling in her legs. Here, she's scooting on the floor and using her hands to lift her legs. DeGary says she was shocked when the lead study doctor offered no help. She found herself reluctantly following the advice of physicians who insisted Maddie's paralysis, seizures, passing out, all of it were caused by anxiety.
Speaker 1: I'm embarrassed how much I was brainwashed and believed them. She did cognitive behavioral therapy, which is Seeing a psychologist.
Speaker 0: At what point did you think to yourself, I've tried what they said. I know my daughter's not suffering a psychological event.
Speaker 1: I always had in the back of my mind, I I knew that it wasn't. So when she was in her hospital stay in April, they Treated her horribly. Like, they treated her like a crazy person. And at that point, I knew, plus she wasn't getting better.
Speaker 0: Maddie was rushed to the ER 9 times. By the time she was hospitalized for the 3rd time, she had heart problems, seizures, was passing out, vomiting, unable to swallow, and was fed through a tube. She was in the hospital that time for a month and a half.
Speaker 2: Hey. What's the matter?
Speaker 0: Take this out. Oh, yeah. I'm Studies are conducted to identify and investigate any health risks. Maddie's reaction was a giant red flag for Pfizer's vaccine. But the DeGary say those involved seem more interested in blaming Maddie's illnesses on Anything but the obvious culprit.
While Maddie was fighting for her life, the FDA granted emergency use of Pfizer's vaccine for kids as young as age 12 based on the study Maddie took part in. In a press release, Pfizer reported its vaccine had a favorable safety profile observed across 6 months of safety follow-up data after the second dose. No mention of what happened to Maddie. Parents across the country started rushing to get their children to heavily promoted shots.
Speaker 3: You were super duper today getting your COVID vaccine, Elmo.
Speaker 0: Yeah. There was a little pinch, but That was okay.
Speaker 2: I took a trip up there to the North Pole. I went there, and I vaccinated Santa Claus myself.
Speaker 0: It sounds like you have the sense that government slash the drug company and study folks did not want to acknowledge this as a vaccine adverse event?
Speaker 1: No. They did not.
Speaker 0: And you feel they were not honest about
Speaker 1: No. The reporting of her case? They left out a lot of information. They reported it as functional abdominal pain, So it's basically a stomachache that you can't explain.
Speaker 0: Congress, heavily funded by pharmaceutical industry donations, has avoided the subject of vaccine injuries for years. There were no official hearings on COVID vaccine side effects. In November of 2021, Maddie and her mother appeared at an expert panel held by senator Ron Johnson.
Speaker 3: I've got a quick question. Obviously, we invited, the CEO from Pfizer or some representative from Pfizer, nobody showed up. Pfizer has to be aware of you. Have they reached out to you?
Speaker 1: Neither Pfizer, the FDA, or the CDC has ever talked to us or attempted to. We have never heard anything from them.
Speaker 0: By then, COVID vaccines have been given to young people for 6 months with sometimes tragic results. Carrie Peterson, Edberg's son, Milo, got the shot at December of 2021 and ended up with a serious heart problem that's associated with COVID vaccines.
Speaker 4: He got vaccinated on, like, a Friday, and on Sunday, he actually, Sunday morning at 1 AM, was on life support. He was diagnosed with myocarditis. Doctors, of course, would not say it was vaxx injured, but why would a 6 year old have myocarditis?
Speaker 0: Daniel Hartman's 17 year old son was rushed to the hospital 4 days after his shot in September of 2021.
Speaker 5: My son, Sean, played hockey his whole life. To continue to play hockey, he had to get a vaccine. He took one Pfizer shot And died 33 days later.
Speaker 0: And 16 year old Ernesto, son of single parent Ernest Ramirez, dropped dead of an enlarged heart 5 days after his Pfizer COVID shot.
Speaker 2: When I got there, they were loading him up in the ambulance. I changed the ambulance to the hospital. When I got there, they were working on them at the hospital. There was a young doctor. He came up.
He said, your son's dead. You you know, you can go home.
Speaker 0: The DeGarys gave the government and those who experimented on Maddie permission to talk with us about her case. However, Pfizer, Cincinnati Children's Hospital and lead study scientist, doctor Robert Frank, declined comment and wouldn't answer our questions. Same with CDC, which also wouldn't tell us how many adverse event reports in children has received for COVID vaccines. The FDA told full measure the FDA takes vaccine safety very seriously and continues to monitor reports of all adverse events.
Speaker 1: We have nurses that come in, so they're late
Speaker 0: Left to their own devices, Maddie's parents began doing research to try to figure out what was really wrong.
Speaker 1: In July of 2022, we saw a neurologist that specializes in autoimmune, reactions that cause neurologic problems. And she was diagnosed with chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy. So, basically, that's where your body Attacks the your nerves.
Speaker 0: That's an immune disorder known to develop after other vaccinations too and is reported in other COVID vaccine recipients after Maddie. Today, Maddie is still using a wheelchair and a feeding tube. She can swallow small amounts of water and food, though it wreaks havoc with her stomach, so she's seeing a new specialist for that.
Speaker 1: She's getting more feeling back in her, like, in her legs. It's like moving down. At one point, she couldn't even hold up her neck. She can hold up her neck now.
Speaker 0: In small advances, DeGary says there's hope Maddie will eventually recover, though the family will never be the same. If you were to tell somebody what this is a story of, what's what's something you might say?
Speaker 1: It's a story of opening up my eyes, seeing things. I trusted the government. I trusted doctors. I trusted hospitals. What I thought they were is not what they are.
Speaker 0: We asked federal health officials if they agree with Pfizer's published claim that, quote, there were no vaccine related serious adverse events in their study on children, but they declined to answer the question.
reSee.it AI Summary
In a series of posts, I discovered that the World Health Organization (WHO) had made certain face mask videos 'unlisted' on their YouTube channel. Despite this, I found the original videos embedded in articles. The videos remained consistent with the WHO's stance on face masks, even after the policy changed. I provided the links to the original videos and also shared my timeline video showing the shift in face mask recommendations throughout 2020.
@c_plushie - Coronavirus Plushie
🧵 THREAD Face mask videos that the World Health Organisation would rather you not see. Back in Dec 2020, as I was making a video showing how we went from being told not to wear masks to being mandated to wear them, I wanted to use a couple of videos that the @WHO had at one time put out. I remembered seeing both of these videos back in March 2020, but in Dec 2020, when I searched for the videos, I couldn't find the originals that the WHO had uploaded to their You Tube channel. I was a little puzzled by this, as I knew I'd seen the videos before, so why could I no longer find them? Anyway, I broadened my search beyond You Tube, and I searched the web as a whole. Eventually, after a lot of searching, I found a couple of articles in which each of these two videos had been embedded. When I clicked on the videos in the articles, it took me through to the original videos, which were, just as I thought, originally uploaded to the WHO You Tube channel. And it was then that I realised why I couldn't find the videos when I'd searched for them. It was because at some point after the WHO originally uploaded the videos, they'd decided to make the videos 'unlisted'. For those who don't know, when you upload a video to You Tube, you're given three 'visibility' options for your video: 1. Public - meaning everyone can see the video, and you can find it when you search for it. 2. Private - meaning nobody can see it. 3. Unlisted - meaning only people with the link to the video can see it, and the video cannot be found when you search for it. This is one of those two videos. It was uploaded to the WHO You Tube channel on 10 March 2020, but when there was a shift in global face mask policy, they made this video 'unlisted'. I will also post the second video that I was looking for, and the links to the original videos in You Tube, so you can see for yourself that they were made 'unlisted'. If you watch my timeline video (which I will also post in the thread), you will see that what the WHO says in both these videos remained the truth, and was always applicable, even after the policy on face masks changed. 🔊
Video Transcript AI Summary
If you don't have respiratory symptoms like fever, cough, or runny nose, you don't need to wear a medical mask. Masks can give a false sense of protection and may even spread infection if not used correctly. Only healthcare workers, caretakers, and sick individuals with fever and cough should wear masks. Before wearing a mask, clean your hands. Check for tears or holes and identify the top and inside of the mask. Fit it on your face, covering your mouth and chin without any gaps. Avoid touching the front of the mask and clean your hands if you do. To remove the mask, take off the elastics without touching the front, discard it in a closed bin, and clean your hands. Don't reuse masks, replace them when damp. The best way to protect yourself is by frequently cleaning your hands with soap and water or alcohol-based hand rub. Stay safe!
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: If you do not have any respiratory symptoms, such as fever, cough or runny nose, you do not need to wear a medical masks, like this one. Mask alone can give you a false feeling of protection and can even be a source of infection when not used correctly. Masks should only be used by health care workers, caretakers or by people who are sick with symptoms of fever and cough. Why? Because health care workers and caretakers are in close contact with ill individuals, so they're at higher risk of catching COVID-nineteen.
And sick people should wear masks to protect others from small droplets that can come out when they cough or sneeze. So For health care workers, caretakers or individuals who have fever and cough, this is how you should wear a mask. Before touching the mask, clean your hands with alcohol based hand rub or soap and water. Inspect the mask for tears or holds, Verify which side is the top. This is where the metal piece is.
Then identify the inside of the mask, which is usually the white side. Then, fit the mask on your face. Pinch the metal strip or stiff edge so it holds to the shape of your nose. Adjust the mask over your face, covering your mouth and chin, making sure there are no gaps between your face and the mask. Do not touch the front of the mask while using it to avoid contamination.
If you accidentally touch it, clean your hands. To take off the mask, remove the elastics from behind without touching the front, and keep it away from your face. Discard the mask immediately in a closed bin and clean your hands. It is important not to reuse a mask. Replace it with a new one as soon as it gets damp.
And remember, the best way to protect yourself from the new Coronavirus is frequently cleaning your hands with alcohol based hand rub or soap and water. Stay safe, and see you next time.
@c_plushie - Coronavirus Plushie
This is the second video, originally uploaded to the @WHO You Tube channel on 6 Feb, 2020, but also made 'unlisted' a few months later. https://t.co/WftkH3GPYX
Video Transcript AI Summary
Medical masks alone cannot protect against the new coronavirus. They should be combined with hand hygiene and other preventive measures. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends wearing masks only if you have cough, fever, or difficulty breathing, and when seeking medical care. If you are healthy but caring for an infected person, wear a mask when in the same room. Masks do not need to be worn by those without symptoms as there is no evidence of protection. Properly discard used masks and clean hands with alcohol hand rub or soap and water. For more information, visit the WHO website at who.int. Thank you.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Medical masks like this one cannot predict against the new coronavirus when used alone. When you wear them, you must combine with hand hygiene and other preventive measures. WHO only recommends the use of masks in specific cases. If you have cough, fever and difficulty breathing, you should wear a mask and seek medical care. If you do not have these symptoms, you do not have to wear masks Because there is no evidence that they protect people who are not sick.
However, if you are healthy But you are taking care of a person who may be infected with the new coronavirus, then you should wear a mask whenever you are in the same room with that person. And remember, if you choose to wear a mask, use it and discard it properly and clean your hands with alcohol hand rub or soap and water. For more information on mask use, other preventive measures And the new coronavirus, check WHO website at who.int. Thank you.
@c_plushie - Coronavirus Plushie
@WHO Here's the original link to the first video, uploaded to the @WHO You Tube channel on 10 March 2020. Look directly under the video title, and you'll see that it is now an 'unlisted' video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4olt47pr_o
@c_plushie - Coronavirus Plushie
And here's the original link to the second video, uploaded to the @WHO You Tube channel on 6 Feb 2020. Again, look directly under the video title, and you'll see that it is now an 'unlisted' video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ded_AxFfJoQ
@c_plushie - Coronavirus Plushie
My timeline video, which feature clips from both of the above videos How went from being told NOT to wear face masks, to being MANDATED to wear them. A Timeline of 2020. https://t.co/Jz5hr9GTxP
reSee.it AI Summary
Vaccinologist @PetousisH clarifies that there have been only 10 serious adverse events from the #covid shot, urging @HopeRising19 to verify facts before spreading misinformation. Quite unbelievable!
@c_plushie - Coronavirus Plushie
Vaccinoliogist @PetousisH, who told @SeanPlunket @theplatform_nz that there have only been 10 people who've suffered a serious adverse event as a result of getting the #covid shot, tells @HopeRising19 to 'consider checking her facts before amplifying misinformation'. You really couldn't make this up!
Video Transcript AI Summary
They received texts claiming extraordinary lives, but the speaker asks how many people have suffered long-term health consequences from the vaccine. The other person, Helen, responds that there have been 10 cases of long-term consequences. In March 2023, MedSafe received 11,289 reports, with 1,062 listed as disabled, 118 as life-threatening, and 184 as deaths. The speaker clarifies if it's 100 or 1,000 cases, but Helen confirms it's around 10 for long-term effects.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: They keep on sending me texts telling me that their lives have been extraordinary. How many people have suffered long term serious health consequences as a result of getting the vaccine? Are we talking 100 or 1000, Helen?
Speaker 1: No. Oh, Long term, 10, perhaps. An official information application in April 2023 Revealed that by March 2023, MedSafe held 11,289 reports deemed medically significant or serious. 1,062 reports were listed as disabled. 118 were deemed life threatening.
184 were deaths.
Speaker 0: You're talking 100 or 1000, Helen?
Speaker 1: No. Long term, 10, perhaps?
@c_plushie - Coronavirus Plushie
"I said to the injector, as they put the needle in 'I'm doing this under force, I do not consent'" Some of them told @HopeRising19 that they felt so violated, they felt "raped" by their body invasion with lack of consent. And @chrishipkins had the gall to say "people made their own choices" .
Video Transcript AI Summary
The government of New Zealand is planning to mandate COVID-19 vaccinations for teachers, support staff, healthcare workers, and employees in certain industries. The mandate will require these individuals to be fully vaccinated by specific deadlines. Failure to comply with the mandate may result in termination of employment. The government aims to encourage vaccination by emphasizing the benefits of being vaccinated, such as access to various venues and activities. The mandate will also extend to workplaces where a vaccine certificate is required for entry, including hospitality, events, gyms, hairdressers, and barbers. The government acknowledges that some people may be hesitant or have not yet come forward for vaccination, and efforts will be made to reach out to them.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: In terms of the vaccine mandates, I acknowledge that it was a challenging time for people. But they made ultimately made their own choices. There was no there was no compulsory vaccination. People made their own choices.
Speaker 1: The government is planning to require every single teacher at every level and all support staff who work with children to be vaccinated.
Speaker 0: There was no compulsory vaccination.
Speaker 2: News hub can reveal the mandate Chris Hipkins is taking to cabinet on Monday is a mighty big stick. Every educator who works with a child will have to be vaccinated.
Speaker 0: People made their own choices. I can now confirm that we'll be extending this requirement to large parts of our health and education workforces as well. There was no compulsory vaccination. Cabinets agreed that high risk workers and health and disability sector We'll need to be fully vaccinated by the 1st December. People made their own choices.
This includes general practitioners, pharmacists, Community health nurses, midwives, paramedics and all health care workers in sites where vulnerable patients are treated Including intensive care units. There was no compulsory vaccination. We'll also be including certain non regulated health care workforces, including aged residential care, Home and community support services, Kaupapa Maori health providers and non government organisations that provide health services. People made their own choices. Schools and early learning staff and the support people who work with them, who have contact with children and students, will need to be fully vaccinated By the 1st January 2022 There was no compulsory vaccination.
That includes home based educators, All those who support people in our schools and early learning services such as teacher aids, administration and maintenance staff, And contractors. People made their own choices. Secondary schools in Kura will also be required to keep a COVID 19 vaccination register of their students. There was no compulsory vaccination. Students that don't produce evidence of vaccination will be considered unvaccinated.
People made their own choices. What was
Speaker 3: the ramifications paid for teachers or those in the health workforce who choose not to be vaccinated?
Speaker 0: Ultimately, in the health workforce, they will not be able to work in those roles. There was no compulsory vaccination. In the education workforce, From next year, they won't be able to work in those roles. People made their own choices.
Speaker 3: So my message to New Zealanders who have not yet had their first dose, if you want summer, If you want to go to bars and restaurants, get vaccinated. If you want to get a haircut, get vaccinated. If you want to go to a concert or a Festival, get vaccinated. If you wanna go to a gym or a sports event, get vaccinated.
Speaker 0: There was no compulsory vaccination.
Speaker 3: If you are not There will be everyday things you will miss out on.
Speaker 0: People made their own choices. Everyone will be able to get a vaccine between now and the end of the year. But of course, You know, and I want every New Zealander to come forward, but human behavior suggests that there will be some people that we have to actually really go out and look 4, there was no compulsory vaccination. But I can't say that, you know, that we're not gonna have some hesitant people or some people who just haven't come forward that we don't have to go out and find next People made their own choices.
Speaker 3: Cabinet has decided today that vaccinations will be mandated for everyone who works in any workplace where a vaccine certificate is required for entry.
Speaker 0: There was no compulsory vaccination.
Speaker 3: This includes hospitality, events, gyms, and close proximity businesses such as hairdressers And barbers.
Speaker 0: People made their own choices. Once the notice period commences, the employee will have that amount of time to get vaccinated. There was no compulsory vaccination. The employee will be able to retain their employment if they get vaccinated in that period, but their employment will be terminated if they do not.
Speaker 2: A mighty big stick.
Speaker 0: People made their own choices.
@HopeRising19 - NZ and the MRNA
I DO NOT CONSENT... In New Zealand 40% of our work force faced workplace mandates for Covid injections. When we had the nearly 60,000 member Health Forum community on Facebook, we received dozens and dozens of distressing emails. Emails from New Zealanders who desperately did not want to receive the #mrna Covid injection....but had life circumstances that did not include the option to lose their job by saying NO. Many nurses and teachers (in particular) sent me emails about the day they received their injections. They told me... I cried the whole time I was being injected I said to the injector, as they put the needle in "I am doing this under force. I do not consent". Some of them told me they felt so violated, they felt "raped" by their body invasion with lack of consent. http://thehealthforumnz.co.nz
The Health Forum NZ |
thehealthforumnz.co.nz
@c_plushie - Coronavirus Plushie
And this one . . . https://t.co/6a6yohRhSX
reSee.it AI Summary
The video I made exposed the deception surrounding the safety and effectiveness of the Covid shots in New Zealand. It's not just about the shots, but also the creation of a two-tier society and the coercion that led to job losses for those who chose not to get vaccinated. We need an independent inquiry into the mRNA injections' safety and efficacy. New Zealand is waiting and expecting action. Please retweet to help spread the message.
@c_plushie - Coronavirus Plushie
Making this video REALLY brought home to me just how diabolically we were deceived about the covid shots here in New Zealand. And it's not only the deception about how safe and effective the shots were, it was the two-tier society that was created, it was the coercion, and that people actually lost their jobs for choosing not to get injected with this!! Nothing less than a full, independent, no holds barred inquiry into the safety and efficacy of the mRNA injections will do. @nzfirst @winstonpeters @TanyaUnkovichMP @ErikaHarveyNZ @LeeDonoghue @MurfittTauranga @HopeRising19 @nzdsos @chrisluxonmp @ChrisPenknz @JudithCollinsMP @DrShaneRetiMP @P_McCulloughMD @DrJBhattacharya @DrAseemMalhotra @CranmerWrites @HatchardMedia New Zealand awaits. And expects. Do NOT let us down. I'm having people tell me they're not seeing my posts in their feed, so if you see this, it would help if you please retweet it. #ExcessDeaths #vaccinedeaths #vaccineinjuries
Video Transcript AI Summary
The video discusses the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines and their impact on the spread of the virus. The speaker argues that the vaccines are actually causing more harm by increasing people's vulnerability to the disease. They present a study from Cleveland, Ohio, which shows that the more vaccine doses a person receives, the more likely they are to contract and spread COVID-19. The speaker also mentions data from New South Wales, Australia, indicating that the more vaccine doses a person has, the higher their chances of severe illness and hospitalization. They conclude that the vaccines are functioning as "anti-vaccines" and making people more susceptible to the virus. However, another speaker emphasizes the importance of vaccination in preventing severe illness and death. They encourage people to get vaccinated and highlight the potential restrictions for those who remain unvaccinated.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So do you remember that we were told that the way out of this pandemic was to get everyone vaccinated? That was what was going to keep us safe.
Speaker 1: You know, that's what the vaccine is for. It's to stop the pandemic. Vaccinations are our armor. They help keep us safe. We need more people fully vaccinated Across more suburbs and more age groups.
As we do that, we will be in a better position to safely lift those restrictions That are the hardest to live with.
Speaker 0: But what I want to show you next was that literally what has happened to Canada is exactly what happened to those laboratory animals that were tested with the vaccine against the very first SARS virus where it literally, That so called vaccine ended up working as an anti vaccine and made them more vulnerable to the disease than if they had not been vaccinated. So what we now have is a pandemic of the vaccinated. I'm going to show you the evidence that this so called vaccine is actually an anti vaccine and that it has increased people's risk. It increases your chance of getting COVID.
Speaker 1: If you are vaccinated, it means that you are less likely to catch the virus.
Speaker 0: It increases your chance of spreading COVID.
Speaker 1: The more people who are vaccinated, the harder it is for COVID to spread through communities quickly and find our most vulnerable.
Speaker 0: And it damages your your immune system to such a degree that you have a higher risk of hospitalization and death.
Speaker 1: That means while we used to say that we needed to stay home to save lives, we now need to be vaccinated to save lives.
Speaker 0: And of course, that's what the narrative that the the Public health keep telling us that even though even though they now admit it doesn't stop you getting COVID, it doesn't stop you spreading COVID, they say it'll keep you out of hospital. At least you won't die.
Speaker 1: People who are vaccinated will still get COVID 19. It just means that they won't get sick and they and they won't die.
Speaker 0: And I'm gonna the evidence for why that is absolutely false. So this is a very important study that came out a few months ago from Cleveland, Ohio. This was a study done on health care workers. 51,000 health care workers that had had various numbers of COVID injections. And if you can see, there are 5 lines there.
The bottom of the graph is the passage of time, and they followed these people for 3 months to see who was getting COVID. And, of course, the people that are getting COVID are the people who are spreading COVID. The black line at the bottom is the people that were unvaccinated. 0 doses of the vaccine. They were getting less COVID than anyone else.
Speaker 1: The virus is literally finding unvaccinated people.
Speaker 0: The next line up, the red line is those that had had one dose of the vaccine. The green line, 2 doses. The blue line, 3 doses.
Speaker 1: For anyone who is not vaccinated right now, unless you choose to be, you will not be able to enjoy the freedoms of other New Zealanders.
Speaker 0: And the top line, the brown one, were the people that had had the bivalent booster, the one that's supposed to keep you the safest. They were getting COVID more than anyone else. There was an Absolute direct linear correlation that the more shots you got, the more likely you would get COVID and the more likely you would spread COVID.
Speaker 1: Please get a booster. Go and get boosted. The booster is incredibly important. Please do go out and get your booster today.
Speaker 0: What about severe injury and death? This is from New South Wales, Australia. This is 2 bar graphs. The one on the left is a bar graph with 4 bars showing again the number of vaccine doses. The graph on the left, those columns are people in hospital.
The graph on the right is people in ICU. Just for the sake of time and simplicity, let's look at the one of ICU, the graph on the right. You can see the people that had 0 doses. In other words, the unvaccinated, there were absolutely none of them in ICU. 0.
Of the people that had one shot, very few in ICU. And literally, the more shots they had, the more likely they would end up in ICU. It was an exact linear relationship. The more accumulated damage to your immune system from these boosters, the more harm that you would have from this disease.
Speaker 1: You know, the best protection that I can offer and that anyone can offer right now is a vaccination.
Speaker 0: This was functioning as an anti vaccine, making you even more vulnerable.
Speaker 1: Very soon, you won't be able to do many things that you love without being vaccinated, and I expect that we'll accelerate vaccinations. That is certainly our goal.
reSee.it AI Summary
The author expresses frustration with YouTube, stating that their videos have been deleted multiple times since 2020. They attempted to upload a video of a debate but it was quickly deleted, resulting in a one-week upload ban. The author believes YouTube is a waste of time.
@c_plushie - Coronavirus Plushie
Though I still do have a @YouTube channel, I'd pretty much given up uploading videos to it because YT just deletes them (resulting in me having several YT channels deleted since 2020). But today, for the first time in as couple of months, I thought I'd upload a video - the full debate about excess deaths with @ABridgen. But within a few minutes of uploading it, YT deleted it, and as a punishment I now can't upload anything to the channel for a week. YT is a waste of time.
@c_plushie - Coronavirus Plushie
Here's the video that YT quickly deleted, in Rumble https://rumble.com/v47gqb3-andrew-bridgen-mp-westminster-hall-full-debate-on-excess-deaths-16-jan-2024.html
Andrew Bridgen MP, Westminster Hall, Full Debate on Excess Deaths (16 Jan 2024)
Source: Parliament TV: https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/664b688c-cf82-4280-8d3d-8a2169c78d11
rumble.com
reSee.it AI Summary
The Pfizer shot, given to millions in New Zealand, was believed to not integrate with DNA. However, Dr. Joseph Ladapo, Surgeon General of Florida, stated that foreign DNA could enter cells through the mRNA COVID vax. Dr. Janci Lindsay and Dr. Phillip Buckhaults testified that the Pfizer shot is contaminated with DNA and SV40 sequences, which can alter genetic code, infect E.coli, and cause cancer. Full testimonies are available. #Pfizer #mRNA #COVIDvax
@c_plushie - Coronavirus Plushie
Both @NZStuff and the government told us the #Pfizer shot, which was given to millions of Kiwis, could not integrate with your DNA. This was 'The Whole Truth'. It was the information we could rely on, from the 'single source of truth', and we were told to dismiss everything else as misinformation. @JanciToxDoc @jehancasinader @NassMeryl @nzdsos @HopeRising19 @nzfirst @TuckerCarlson @FLSurgeonGen @MurfittTauranga
Video Transcript AI Summary
I have a degree in biochemistry and molecular biology and work as a toxicologist and expert witness. The Pfizer vaccine is said to be contaminated with plasma DNA, which is different from RNA as it can be permanent and passed on to future generations. However, the vaccine does not enter the nucleus where DNA resides. The DNA in the vaccine can integrate into the genomic DNA of cells, becoming a permanent part of the cell. Despite claims that the vaccine alters DNA, it does not contain anything that can affect DNA. The concerns raised about the vaccine's impact on DNA are unfounded.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I have a degree in biochemistry and molecular biology. And I'm a toxicologist and an expert witness as a profession nationally and
Speaker 1: I have a PhD in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. I'm a cancer gene jock. Basically I do cancer Genomics Research at the University of South Carolina When was the
Speaker 2: last time you saw one of these? Probably not since high school, right?
Speaker 1: The Pfizer vaccine is contaminated with plasma DNA.
Speaker 2: It's a strand of DNA. The genetic code found in almost every cell in your body containing the unique markers that make you, you.
Speaker 1: So that's why I'm kind of alarmed about this DNA Being in the vaccine, it's different from RNA because it can be permanent DNA gets transcribed into RNA and then RNA gets translated into protein DNA is a long lived information storage device What you were born with, you're going to die with and pass on to your kids DNA lasts for 100 of 1000 of years. And it can last for generations if you pass it on to your kids. Right? So, alterations To the DNA, they stick around.
Speaker 2: Well recently I've heard a pretty scary rumour doing the rounds. A claim that COVID nineteen vaccines alter your DNA. So is it true? Here's the important part. The vaccine never enters the nucleus of your cells.
That is where your DNA lives.
Speaker 1: This DNA can and likely will integrate into the genomic DNA of cells that got transfected with the vaccine mix. This is just the way it works. We do this in the lab all the time. We take pieces the DNA, we mix them up with a lipid complex like the Pfizer vaccine is in. We pour it onto cells and a lot of it gets into the cells and a lot of it gets into the DNA of those cells and it becomes a permanent fixture of the cell.
It's not just a temporary thing. It is in that
Speaker 0: So all of this about they will not go to the nucleus
Speaker 2: See never enters the nucleus of your cells.
Speaker 0: They will not integrate with your DNA.
Speaker 2: The vaccine does not contain anything that can affect Your DNA
Speaker 0: is not true and they knew it from the beginning because they knew the plasmids were there.
Speaker 2: So there you have it. If you were worried about the vaccine changing your DNA, fear not.
Speaker 1: This DNA, can and likely will integrate into the genomic DNA of cells that got transfected with the vaccine mix.
Speaker 2: Fear not.
Speaker 3: The double stranded DNA that is in the plasmids work to allow that DNA a to get into the nucleus of your cells Where it can then relatively easily cause mutations. Fear not.
Speaker 0: There is something very unusual going on here that is being done differently The babies that have a death profile like this. It's not done. It's never been done before.
Speaker 2: Fear not.
Speaker 0: I've never seen anything like this in my entire career. We have got to pull these shots and restrict them from our children. We cannot Not inject these into babies and children. These are contaminated, dangerous, lethal products.
Speaker 2: The whole truth about the COVID vaccine is a series from Stuff made in partnership with Maori Television and the Pacific Media Network.
Speaker 1: I'm kind of an expert on all the ways that the human genome can get futsed with during your lifetime, and which of those things cause cancer and which ones don't.
Speaker 2: We received Funding from the Google News Initiative.
@c_plushie - Coronavirus Plushie
Thread from last year https://t.co/AGcbISG3Io
reSee.it AI Summary
The leader expressed that in the near future, certain activities may require vaccination, which they believe will encourage more people to get vaccinated. The term "vaccinated" referred to receiving an mRNA gene therapy injection that did not prevent infection or transmission.
@c_plushie - Coronavirus Plushie
When "the best leader this Nation has had in a century" said: "Very soon, you won't be able to do many things that you love without being vaccinated, and I expect that will accelerate vaccinations, that is certainly our goal." By 'vaccinated', she of course meant 'being jabbed with an mRNA gene therapy injection that didn't stop infection or transmission'
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker emphasizes the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine in New Zealand, stating that being vaccinated reduces the risk of catching the virus and ending up in the hospital. They highlight the importance of vaccination in preventing the spread of COVID-19 and protecting vulnerable individuals. The speaker mentions efforts to incentivize and remove barriers to vaccination, including the requirement of vaccination certificates for accessing events and hospitality. They urge New Zealanders to get vaccinated to enjoy various activities and ensure collective safety. The message is clear: vaccination saves lives and promotes kindness.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The vaccine we are using in New Zealand is safe and effective. If you are vaccinated, it means that you are less likely to catch the virus and much least likely to end up in hospital if you do. The more people who are vaccinated, it the harder it is for COVID to spread through communities quickly and find our most vulnerable. That means while we used to say that we needed to stay home to save lives, we now need to be vaccinated to save lives, and we are doing everything that we can to remove in every barrier and incentivize and give every reason to be vaccinated. And we're sprinting to get as many people vaccinated as possible, and we've just added the incentive that for anyone who who is not vaccinated right now.
Unless you choose to be, you will not be able to enjoy the freedoms of other New Zealanders. Right now, or you're just 16,000 vaccines away from every DHB hitting the 90% target for first doses. And I know known that vaccination certificates will help us get those numbers up. Fully vaccinated people can enjoy all events and hospitality and gatherings by showing a vaccine certificate very soon. You won't be able to do many things that you love without being vaccinated, and I expect that will salaried vaccinations that is certainly our goal.
Vaccinations are our armor. They help keep us safe. So my message to New Zealanders who have not yet had their dose. If you want summer, if you wanna go to bars and restaurants, get vaccinated. In the fight against COVID, we've we've been a team.
We've been the team even 5,000,000. If you wanna get a haircut, get vaccinated. If you wanna go to a concert or a festival, get vaccinated. We're all in this together. If you wanna go to a gym or a sports event, get vaccinated.
We're actually, not going to be safe unless we're all safe. If you are not vaccinated, there will be everyday things you will miss out on. It means get vaccinated. You know, the best protection that I can offer and that anyone can offer right now as a vaccination. And if you are vaccinated, you can be assured that in the new frame, you enjoying the things you love, secure in the knowledge that the people around you and the environment you are in is as safe as possible in the COVID world.
If you've done the right thing to keep yourself and others safe, to look after one another, you should feel safe. You should be protected from those who haven't made that choice. We are literally all in this together.
Speaker 1: Get vaccinated, save lives, be kind. Get vaccinated, save lives, be kind. Get vaccinated, save lives, be kind. Get vaccinated, Save lives. Be kind.
Get vaccinated. Save lives. Be kind. Get vaccinated. Save lives.
Be kind. Get vaccinated, save lives,
@pearce_murray - murray pearce
Congratulations to the family. The best leader this Nation has had in a century makes good another promise. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-67967235
Jacinda Ardern marries partner Clarke Gayford in private ceremony
New Zealand's former PM marries TV presenter Clarke Gayford in a Hawke's Bay vineyard.
bbc.co.uk
reSee.it AI Summary
Mainstream media covered the protest at Jacinda Ardern's wedding venue, showing footage from various sources. The protest included signs blaming Ardern for vaccine-related illnesses and lockdowns. There was a heavy police presence, and some protesters displayed signs featuring photos of New Zealanders who allegedly died from vaccine side effects. A local resident expressed surprise that there weren't more protesters, referring to Ardern as 'JABcinda' due to her vaccination and lockdown agenda.
@c_plushie - Coronavirus Plushie
Mainstream media films protest at Jacinda Ardern's wedding venue yesterday. While the mainstream media probably tried to avoid getting the signs of covid injection injured Kiwis in shot yesterday, there were times when it was unavoidable. Here's a short compilation of mainstream media coverage (starting at 0:32) featuring footage from @1NewsNZ, @NewshubNationNZ, News 18 (used in an article from @MSN) and @NZStuff. The two photos at the end are from an article by @DailyMailAU The first 32 seconds of the video is not mainstream media, it's from Kylie Ware's Facebook page. Respect to all those who made their presence known. @jacindaardern @NZClarke @HelenClarkNZ @shananhalbert @nzlabour @HopeRising19 @nzdsos @CraggyRange @chrishipkins @winstonpeters @annettecanberra
Video Transcript AI Summary
Familiar faces, including the high commissioner to Australia and a former deputy labor leader, gathered at Craigie Range Winery in Hawke's Bay. Non-politicians like chef Peter Gordon and fashion designer Juliette Hogan were also present. Despite a small group of protesters outside the gate, security was tight and entry was strictly controlled. As workers and contractors arrived, police patrolled the area to ensure safety.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I don't know where it keeps The fake media? They couldn't have Ask for a better day. Hawke's Bay turning it on as some familiar faces arrived at Craigie Range Winery. The high commissioner to Australia, Dameonette King, another former deputy labor leader, Calvin Davis. Non politicians too.
Chef Peter Gordon and fashion designer Juliette Hogan, who designed the former prime minister's dress. There were some who didn't wish the former prime minister well. A small group of protesters waited outside the gate, but security was tight and the entry was strictly controlled.
Speaker 1: And as workers and contractors arrived, so too did the protesters. With that in mind, security was tight. Police patrolled the area as the guests arrived by the busload.
@c_plushie - Coronavirus Plushie
From the Daily Mail Australia article . . There was a heavy police presence due to several protesters with signs who still blame Ms Ardern for vaccine-related illnesses and lockdowns during the Covid era. Hours before guests were due to arrive, a male protester holding a sign reading 'Lest we forget jab mandates' was seen patrolling the outskirts of the lavish property. Another protester was seen brandishing 'death signs' featuring photos of New Zealanders who supposedly died from vaccine side effects as a result of mandates. A marked police car was seen driving up and down the country road on which the vineyard is located. Speaking to Daily Mail Australia from nearby Te Mata Peak, a local mum-of-three, who did not wish to be named, said she was shocked there weren't more protesters picketing the former PM's wedding. "She's not the person the world media have put her up to be," she began . . .IN New Zealand she's referred to as 'JABcinda' with her vaccination and lockdown agenda."
@c_plushie - Coronavirus Plushie
Jacinda Ardern marries Clarke Gayford in stunning vineyard ceremony
New Zealand's former Prime Minister Dame Jacinda Ardern has tied the knot with her longtime fiancé Clarke Gayford in a lavish wedding surrounded by friends, family and politicians.
dailymail.co.uk
reSee.it AI Summary
I have compiled all of Dr. Mike Yeadon's appearances on Talk Radio in 2020. The videos were originally on the TalkTv YouTube channel but have been deleted. I found them on Bitchute and organized them chronologically. There is also a thread with individual videos. The first appearance challenged Neil Ferguson, Matt Hancock, and SAGE, and discussed the problematic PCR test. The videos in the thread have better quality than the long video. You can watch the long video in better quality on Rumble.
@c_plushie - Coronavirus Plushie
All of Dr. Mike Yeadon's Appearances on Talk Radio in 2020 All the videos of Mike's appearances were originally on the @TalkTv YouTube channel (though at the time it was called Talk Radio), but if you search their channel now you won’t find any of them, because You Tube deleted them. As they were deleted over two years ago, I was thinking there must be a lot of people who haven't even seen them, or at least haven't seen all of them, so I searched for all those videos and eventually found them, mainly in Bitchute. After quite a bit of cross-referencing, I also pinpointed the correct date that each one was was originally uploaded to You Tube. Between September and December 2020, Mike spoke with @JuliaHB1 six times and once with @iancollinsuk making seven videos altogether. So here they all are, in chronological order, in one video. I also did a thread with all the individual videos, which I'll post below. Please RT @ClareCraigPath @robinmonotti @OracleFilmsUK
Video Transcript AI Summary
Dr. Mike Yeadon, former Chief Scientific Officer at Pfizer, questions the validity of the Ferguson and Imperial model that predicted high COVID-19 deaths and argues that not everyone is susceptible to the virus due to pre-existing T-cell immunity. He challenges the government to provide evidence for a second wave and criticizes the accuracy of PCR testing. Dr. Yeadon expresses concerns about the negative consequences of lockdown measures and the lack of consideration for population immunity. He suggests that community immunity has been achieved in the UK and questions the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine, advocating for targeted vaccination of high-risk individuals. The speaker also emphasizes the need for transparency and evidence in the approval process for the vaccine, expressing concerns about a COVID passport certificate and mandatory vaccination. They highlight the importance of individual consent and international law. The overassignment of COVID deaths is mentioned, and the possibility of approaching herd immunity is suggested. The speaker advocates for prioritizing the vaccine for vulnerable populations and urges caution in the rollout. The host acknowledges the alternative viewpoints and emphasizes the importance of debate.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Let's, talk to Doctor. Mike Yeadon. He's a former Chief Scientific Officer at Pfizer's Allergy and Respiratory research department. And he has been, one of the co authors of a a new, new article, for LockDown Skeptics about, risk. How likely a second wave is and whether or not all these new measures are really necessary.
Mike, thank you so much for joining us.
Speaker 1: Good morning, Julia. Nice to Respiratory.
Speaker 0: Nice to nice to speak to you. I was fascinated by this article and and shared it online. Because, I I'm I'm very much somebody I'm I'm I was not a lockdown skeptic. Risk. I'm I'm people who sort of say,
Speaker 1: oh, I won't wear
Speaker 0: a mask or I think lockdown's crazy. I thought they actually, the lot of the measures taken by the government early on were all about look. We've got a virus we don't know much about. We've got this computer model saying that we could be losing, you know, tens and tens of thousands of people. We need to lock down.
Look. Mistakes have been made, but a lot of lessons have also been learned. You are someone with experience in this field. Very senior figure at Pfizer, one of our major pharmaceutical companies. You've been looking along with your colleagues at all of the evidence, and all of the papers published by very very eminent epidemiologists, statisticians, virologists, and the like.
And you have come to the conclusion that you don't believe a second wave is are actually very likely. Why do you think it is the case that we are not going to have a 2nd wave?
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. Yes. I'll I'll take that. So just first, risk.
I I want to make a couple of comments about the Ferguson and Imperial model. I've come across no no see serious scientist who thinks there's any validity. Risk For example, it assumes that because the virus is novel, we were all initially susceptible, and we had biologists falling about with with With that one. Yes. It's a novel virus, but it's very closely related to at least 4 other viruses that circulate freely, in in the population, which are risk all coronaviruses and contribute to the common cold.
So bluntly, it was naive of them to assume everyone was susceptible. And, risk. Since then, 4 or 5 major papers have come out to suggest that between 30 50% of people had t cell immunity risk Cross reacting from, having been exposed to these other, common cold inducing coronaviruses. So So
Speaker 0: that so this is so this this goes back to Neil Ferguson, research. And this computer model say, oh, 250,000 people are going to die because, basically, we're all susceptible. It's a brand new virus, risk. And that's why we had to lockdown. And you're saying, actually, anyone with any actual knowledge of this particular field would know that that was not the case.
So that should already have driven some of our our policies on that front.
Speaker 1: Yes. It it it's it should. So I'm not gonna what I'm not gonna do is say anything more about risk model. But it's important that you know, that most scientists don't accept that it was even faintly right. But I think the government is still risk wedded to the model, and it is driving, as I want to discuss with you, trade offs, of availability of the NHS, risk.
Which is going to result in excess avoidable deaths, which I think the government has explicitly decided to do presumably because they think Ferguson's model is correct. So that's one thing. I will talk about the 2nd wave. Am I going to make a challenge to them, which if they can't answer it, that the public will be able to conclude that I'm correct?
Speaker 0: Risk Well, that's well, that they do that. They're obviously well, time is obviously relatively short. We don't have time for a seminar, unfortunately, my as I know you would love in fact, I would love you to give. I might just give over my risk to hold. I'll hold the seminar on this, but let's get straight to it.
Speaker 1: Me just say then let me just get right to it. So the NHS, risk Your public and I have observed the NHS is relatively less available than normally. We were fine with that when it was coping with the peak of the of the pandemic, but I know because I have seen it internal undeclared priorities for the NHS are to maintain COVID stance, keep the NHS lightly loaded through the winter, and the reason they're doing it is to cope with the expected 2nd wave. Now someone in government, either Hancock or Ferguson or research has explicitly run the numbers and decided that it's okay to, have excess avoidable deaths in order to be prepared. Now risk I want someone I want you to ask them, Julia, to come on the air and actually announce the calculus that they have made because it's not an accident.
It's a deliberate policy.
Speaker 0: And that's where we are seeing huge huge backlogs of people getting treatment, getting referral, or going to the GP, getting a referral from the GP, getting treatment, starting treatment, or continuing treatment. And we know we know tens and tens of thousands of people are going to die as a result of that. We already see excess deaths. And that's the question and that's been obviously, there's a trade risk. Calculation is being made by the government on the basis that will we will lose far more people to to coronavirus in a second wave.
Why do you believe a second wave is not coming then.
Speaker 1: Okay. So two principal reasons. 1, I mentioned just earlier that many people, 30 to 50% started with a level risk immunity that meant they were not susceptible to the virus at all. That is well accepted by almost every clinical immunologist and virologist by now. And the reason is risk They have circulating t cells.
These are cells that remember what you've been exposed to and allow you quickly to respond to a new but related
Speaker 0: risk. This is why lots of people who may well have had the virus, and certainly in my own family, loads of us have the virus. We have same same same time. But not everyone has tested responses for antibodies, they've made been people who had t cell immunity.
Speaker 1: Abs absolutely. Or if people have developed t cell immunity, it was not necessary for them to use all the efforts in their body to degenerate antibodies. So the antibody test, if you've got it, you probably you have been exposed, but if you're negative, it does not mean you have not been exposed. So anyway, I've risk about, my concerns with the NHS and in principle, I think t cell prior immunity was a very important factor. Risk.
What that meant importantly is only 20% or 25% of the people needed to be infected for the pandemic to come to a standstill, risk. Through the herd immunity threshold, and it's controversial, but I'm afraid it's a fact. When you look at the shape of the daily deaths versus time curve, it is obvious to any risk. Any biological expert that the pandemic is fundamentally over. Now you asked about 2nd wave.
I'm gonna challenge the government. I challenge risk. Ferguson, mister Hancock, or anyone from SAGE to cite the research literature that understands that underscores their belief in the 2nd wave. I I'm I'm an experienced literature searcher, and it doesn't exist. And did you know, Julia, that the long their last two risk Coronaviruses, the novel ones called SARS in 2003 and MERS more recently, novel coronaviruses, each of them one risk wave each, and that's what most people expect with SARS CoV-two.
There's no underlying literature that says the 2nd wave is coming. This is an assertion, risk. I think it's an assertion because Ferguson having nailed his colors to the mast and observing where only a 5th or a 10th the way to his total risk. Is insisting there'll be a 2nd wave, and I think it's most unlikely. There's no science that says it should happen.
Speaker 0: What about the people what about the people who say, well, I mean, we had this, of course, you know, the the flu, pandemic in in, in in, you know, around the end of 1st World War, and that there was a massive second wave there. It is your argument that it risk with with is this a this is a different virus from flu, but all all that there wasn't a 2nd wave then?
Speaker 1: Both. It was at so it's a different virus. It's a 100 years old, so we do not have good molecular biology to tell us what happened, but certainly, these there is strong evidence that there was more than 1 organism. Risk. And anyway, old data and it's flu, and I've cited recent data with novel coronaviruses, one wave each.
Speaker 0: Okay. So let's let's Let's move on to what what we should be doing right now then. Because we've got an infection rate that is going up. It's largely young people, we know, particularly late teens, early twenties, who've got a a tiny, tiny, tiny chance of getting seriously ill, even tiny chance of actually dying of the virus. The government says, look, that's true, but We are now starting to see early, hospitalization rates going in going up, and we're seeing, the death rate going up slightly.
It's still small numbers, they're worried that it's going to rise exponentially. They talk about this to say the 2nd way. Why do you think we shouldn't be worried about that?
Speaker 1: Okay. I can I can take that easily? Now as you know, they're going around the country using, the swab test where they use a technique called PCR. PCR Is a molecular biology technique, and it involves a terrific amount of amplification over and over and over again. Now that technique, is well known to produce, a risk at least of false positives.
That is it. It comes up positive even though risk. The virus is not present. Now, people like professor Carl Hennigan in Oxford has been has been banging the drum on this for ages So they should not use this protocol without revision. Now let me tell you, Julia, last week, the government put out, an edict to revise risk.
The PCR protocol so that weak positives will be retested, but there was no media on this. This is a major u-turn because Let me just say this, were it not for the test data that you get on the TV all the time, you would rightly conclude that The pandemic was over and nothing much is happening. Of course, some people go to hospital. We'd be moving into the autumn, flu season. But remember I've said there's no science that suggests the 2nd wave should happen.
And at all, I'm thinking with prior
Speaker 0: Get back over for those of us who are not medical experts, just in terms of the scrub test PCR, these are risk. The tests that people are getting, when you go to, you know, you're you're you're in the community. You think, oh, I've got a bit of a persistent cough. Got a temperature. I might be in contact with someone.
I'll go and get one of these tests government's made available. And we know there are some false positives, but we also that the concern is that a lot of these are are what positives. The way they are carrying out these tests, they are able to take detect the tiniest tiniest chase of the virus, which may be months months old. So So these people may well have had the virus, may have come in contact with it months ago.
Speaker 1: Have it now.
Speaker 0: They don't have it now. They're not infectious. They're not at risk of infecting anyone else, or themselves getting ill. Risk. But we are basing up government policy, an economic policy, a a a a a a civil liberties policy in terms of limiting people to 6 people at meeting and all based on what may well be completely fake data about the spread of the virus.
Hold on a minute. Okay. Risk But but why listen. We've got very eminent people. Chief medical officer, chief scientific adviser.
People are gonna be shouting at the radio right now saying, hold on a minute. You may well have medications, Mike. But why do you think you know more than them? Do you think they know this as well, but they're carrying on anyway? Or do you think they have honest reason to believe that we are in a 2nd wave and we're about started.
Speaker 1: Yes. I I when when this episode started, it was entirely fine when 30% of the samples were genuinely positive and people were ill. Risk Wasn't a problem that maybe half or 1% were false positives. It didn't matter. But I'm afraid now the ONS survey shows that the general prevalence of the virus, how many people have it in the community is about 10 times lower than the false positive rate.
To say it again, when you run the test, you'll find 10 times more false positives risk than actually exist in reality. And so they finally come to their senses and last week said, we have to change this protocol because we don't essentially, they've admitted, risk. We don't really know how many true positives we've got. So I am demanding that Sage and the government, pause Introducing any new restrictions until they've made a change that they've recognized is necessary, and then tell us what whether we really have risk An uptick in cases or not.
Speaker 0: Doctor Mike Eden, we're gonna have to leave it there. I'm I'm definitely going to get you one again next week, because I want to go over more of this. And I think it's it's very complicated those of us who are not scientists or medics to understand a lot of this. But, I I think, you know, we're gonna have to put some of those questions. We'd normally do get to the health secretary on release once a week.
Will put those questions to him. But doctor Mike Eden, who is a former chief scientific officer at Pfizer Allergy and Respiratory Research. Thank you very much for that. Let's talk about whether or not, any of this is even necessary. Now we had an extraordinary action to the interview, I did last week with doctor Mike Eaton.
He's the former chief scientific advisor with, Pfizer, the major pharmaceutical company. And he along with many others, including, Carl Henaghan, the professor of evidence based medicine at Oxford University, and I really defy anyone to question those credentials, have been questioning whether or not we are, well, horribly overreacting to a virus that, like all viruses, we are going to have to learn to live with. And big question marks over whether or not the policies with many Western governments, including the UK, have been following over the recent, months, are actually having any effect at all? Well, let's talk about all of us once again with doctor Mike Eaton back, I think, quite Quite literally, by popular demand. Good morning to you.
Speaker 1: Good morning to you.
Speaker 0: Lovely to talk to you. We had almost a 100,000 views on on YouTube of your video. Lots of reaction on Twitter. A lot of people just say, great to actually hear someone sort of expand this now. Let let's just talk about some really basic stuff here.
We saw yesterday 3,991 positive cases for coronavirus. It's up 50% in a week. You can understand why huge numbers of people are are reasonably worried that we are seeing that uptick in cases. Should we be worried?
Speaker 1: Well, so thanks for having me back, Julia. So, risk Of course, I definitely don't want to dismiss the possibility, that these numbers are real and that people will get ill and potentially go to hospital or even But the evidence to date, I think, suggests that all or substantial part of these positives could be due to what's called false risk Positive, tests. Now government knows that, the PCR test is very sensitive, and all tests have a propensity risk. A particular false positive rate. What's really frustrating, Julie, and your your listeners should know this, the government doesn't risk Either doesn't know what the false positive rate is or if it does, it's not declaring it and continuing with the assumption that it's 0.
And it's definitely not zero. Risk And Carl Hennigan did a calculation and he showed that if the false positive rate is as little as 0.1%, then more than half the positive tests are in risk. False or fake. And I think the false positive rate is probably much higher, possibly 1%. And if that's true, most risk Or or or of the positives are are actually false, and they are not infected, infectious, or ill.
Speaker 0: And the key the key thing there is, And again, for those of us who are not medically trained or scientifically trained, so indeed a great mathematics either. It's because the the actual percentage of people who are being tested positive is is a tiny tiny percentage. So if you have a very a positive, a a a false positive rate at that level, you actually are accounting for effectively all of the the positive test results. And this comes down to how they're testing and how they they carry out these cycles to sort of try and sort of, get particles of a virus. And and as far as, again, as far as I can understand it, it seems to be along the lines of the fact that we are finding traces of the old virus.
Basically dead virus virus that's been caught 6 months ago that could not possibly make the person ill currently and could not possibly be infectious other people. In which case, we're finding 3,991 cases of people, largely of people who may or may not have the virus in the past or don't have the virus at all, in which case not much to worry about.
Speaker 1: Yes. I I do think just a couple of things. So you're absolutely right. Risk. We know that because it's been shown that people who've recovered from the virus and they're clinically well and you can no longer culture virus from a sample from risk mouth or airways still can be positive in the PCR test.
And that's because, as you say, the test It's not a test for virus. It's not a test for living virus. The test looks for a particular piece of the genetic code. And if it finds a small piece risk of a dead virus that's still stuck in your mucus and is being shed from cells, you could still be positive on a swab test for a long time. Risk.
So that's what I think is a significant contribution. And the other one is just intrinsically that tests occasionally, statistically, risk. Throw up false positives and actually say a very good point, Julia, that the ONS survey still says that the prevalence of the virus is very low, which is good, Less than 0.1%. So if we find 2% positives and yet no one's ill, I'm worried that specifically, Matt risk Hancock's pillar 2 test is
Speaker 0: for That's community testing. That's people who are going to school, going to work, and getting tested. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yes. And I I think did you see on risk On the TV the other day, they showed a little clip of people beavering away on a line of white tables. They looked like big picnic tables, and they were in something that risk For all the world looked like a marquee tent. Mhmm. And there were some, you know, people casting around, wearing gloves and so on.
I think if they're really doing the tests or processing the samples, risk. You've got to be kidding. Imagine this was a test in a forensic case in law because this is the same kind of thing. They use PCR risk. To try and prove you you are or are not the guilty party.
But if you were doing your your forensic work in a tent like that, the lawyer would just throw it out and say, don't believe it.
Speaker 0: Risk. Right. That's that's a fair point. Now what about the argument that, okay, load of these may be false positives. A load of these people are are not a risk to themselves or or others.
Risk. But we are falling behind countries like Spain and France. They've also seen a big uptick in the number of cases, although they're not testing at the same level. And they are now, and we're 3 weeks ahead behind them. They are now seeing an uptick in people getting into hospital and in terms of deaths.
And we are now seeing that uptick in hospitalizations and in deaths. Is that not evidence that we should be worried that we are heading into the so called 2nd wave?
Speaker 1: Risk Yeah. No. It's a it's a fair question. I I I will tell you I'm very humble and very worried that I if I'm wrong, I would hate to sort of mislead people. But I did check, this morning, and the number of COVID deaths, at least in NHS England, is continuing to stay low and falling.
So risk I can't tell you what the ITU, you know, the intensive care status or number of admissions, but it has fallen constantly for 6 months. So, risk for it now to turn and increase, we would have to have some big change in transmission. So let me just comment on risk Something I've I've read a paper by somebody that's made me rethink the data. You know the story going around at the moment that very many more young people are testing positive risk in this PTR test. And people have said, oh, well, it must be the young people are, you know, interacting with each other as they do and not risk.
Looking at social distancing. Well, that's possible, but you know, I always felt that was implausible because young people felt rightly risk Less at risk from this virus from the get go. And as my children in their twenties have said, you know, what that young people have not been spending as much time social distancing. So what I'm saying is they would have caught it. They would have been the 1st people to have caught it and survived.
So the idea that now, 6 months later, risk. The young people are selectively guessing it. I just think that's for the birds. And I read a paper yesterday by a pathologist who's looked at this data and come up with a different and dramatic risk. Conclusion.
She says this is Claire Craig in Spectator. She says, if the, positive tests are false, they will be risk. Evenly across the population whether you're young or old. And you know what? That's what we're finding.
Now, 19 risk. Percent of the positive tests are in the under twenties, whereas during the pandemic, only 2% of the cases were in young people. So she's saying It's now spread evenly, so it's either of the virus is even or more likely that it's just, it's a feature of testing lots of people and It's just false positives.
Speaker 0: I said we're it's nothing. We're we're we're being told the answer to coming out of this, this predicament we're in and and avoiding a 2nd lockdown across the country or curfews and the likes. Even Christmas, the prime minister has said in an interview with the sun. The answer is more testing. But if we've got testing that is showing up so many false positives risk.
And people who are not infectious, who not at risk. The risk of course, is that more testing, creates more cases, creates more worry, is more likely to lead us to have a curfew and and lockdown, in which case well, what is the answer if it's not testing then?
Speaker 1: Okay. So I've got I've got the risk. For one comment, Sweden is not doing mass testing, and so far their society is not riven with ill people going to hospital and dying. Risk. And the reason I mentioned it is that they have had the same, percentage of their populations that come and die 0.06 risk centers we have had in UK and over the same time scale.
So I think it is at least worth looking at what they're doing. But I'm going to repeat, risk positive rates, which I think is dreadful because it's having a big impact on people. If you don't know what it is, shame on you. And if you do know what it is, you must disclose it. And risk.
Finally, you, some advisers have issued to you, guidance to retest the positives before declaring them. Are you doing that? Risk That would be that would we'd all be more satisfied. If they're genuinely infected and really got the virus, most of the time, they'll test positive again. I think risk A lot of them being false positives will not test positive if you immediately repeat them.
And that's good practice. That's the advice to the minister. Why isn't he doing that?
Speaker 0: Risk. That's that's certainly a challenge we'll be putting, to the health secretary next time we speak to him. You brought up Sweden, and and this has been a very big issue. Sweden famously being the country that didn't go to a formal lockdown. They went into a semblance of all time.
In terms of it was but it was voluntary. It was advice about social distancing, risk. Pubs and bars stayed open. Schools stayed open for all children up to the age of 16. They don't wear masks.
People just largely getting on with, with with normal life, and being fairly sensible. All the evidence then is pointing, as you say, given the similar death rates around the Europe. And and again, where they do differ, there are large factors that can explain that, which are quite separate from what governments have done or not done. Do you think that actually our best, hopes of of getting through this, will actually be be following what Sweden rather than, say, a 2nd lockdown? And what are your fears if we did go into some version of a 2nd lockdown?
Leaving aside the economic effects, risk, but the health effects of a 2nd lockdown in terms of coronavirus.
Speaker 1: Yes. I think if we have, a second lockdown, I think we're going risk. Amplify the negative effects. Forget the economy. It's very important.
Forget the economy. If we have another lockdown, I think we're going to amplify the non COVID deaths risk that I think, have happened already, and we're not much talking about them. It's as if there's no other health condition in the country risk Worth paying attention to and the consequence of locking down and restricting access to the health service, in case there's a second wave because that's an official policy risk. They've not bothered to tell you about. I think that's going to have and has already had the consequence of killing or allowing to die saveable people from non risk.
COVID illness, and I think so. Lockdown, I wouldn't do it. Let me just mention briefly, we it is now established our lockdown, our national lockdown, risk. Occurred too late to make any difference to the initial spread of the virus. Even, I think, professor Quiswitty accepts this.
Risk So think about it. We didn't introduce masks until quite recently, and our lockdown was too late to prevent the initial spread. I assert that actually what has happened In in UK, it's very similar to Sweden. We we made efforts that were distinct and different, but I don't think they made any difference because lockdown was too late and masks very much risk. So it wouldn't be surprising if we've had the same, you know, lethality, the same population percentage who have died, unfortunately, risk Then why aren't we in the same place?
And, it's worth noting, I had a quick look around the data in Africa, and, if risk. Mass population immunity is not keeping the numbers of illnesses and deaths, for example, in Malawi right risk on the floor. The imperial projection was for tens of thousands to die. I think about 250. So Yeah.
And a virologist from that country said, I I can think of no other explanation than mass population immunity to explain the difference between the models and whatnot.
Speaker 0: And that's the question is whether or not we we actually do now have enough population immunity to stop an exponential spread. We will. As we head into autumn and winter, we will see more people dying. But that is the nature of these respiratory diseases. Right now, let's, talk to my 1st guest of this hour.
And that's doctor Mike Eden. We've spoken to him a couple of times already, on the show since the pandemic. He's the former chief scientific advisor with Pfizer. And he has identified for us a number of issues with the testing regime. Now, Mike, when we've spoken before, The big thing that lots of people are asking the government about, and I saw this with all the Sunday shows at GATE, is how many people are getting tested?
Why aren't we doing more about crime providing more tests? Risk. Why can't people get tests if they're, you know, they're asymptomatic? Because we know about the spread of all that. And all the different issues.
But the thing risk. The issue that you've been raising, and it's something that Carl Hennigan, Oxford University has been raising, is whether or not these tests are even worth the paper they're printed on. Last week, Matt Hancock told me that the, positive that the false positive rate for these tests was below 1. And he said that was a nice low rate and that was a good thing. What is the false positive rate on the testing that we're doing in the community?
Speaker 2: Under 1%.
Speaker 0: It's under 1%. Even around under 1%. Do you know the exact
Speaker 2: rate? It's well, under 1% means that for all the positive cases, the likelihood of one being a false positive risk. It is very small.
Speaker 0: You're very concerned and have written a piece over the weekend to point out that he's quite wrong about that, isn't he?
Speaker 1: Yes. Good morning. Good morning to you. Yes. I'm afraid he he is, completely wrong about his view that there is no problem at all.
So, it's important just to explain what do we mean by false positive because I think the health sector has got risk. The wrong definition. The real definition of false positive is what risk percentage of the entire population that you are sampling in pillar two screening. What what percentage come up as positive? Risk.
Now he said it was just below 1%. And lines of evidence say, we think he meant probably 0.8. There's all sorts of reasons why he meant that. Risk. So if you have 10,000, patients, being screened, it's 0.8 of those or 80 that will come up as false positive.
Risk. And I think he thinks it's the percentage is positive.
Speaker 0: Now, Mike, Mike, apologies. Wrong. We've got we've got it in
Speaker 1: the talking about
Speaker 0: Mike, can I can I stop you a second? Because we've got a bit of a problem with your line. We've got a little bit of a, a cutting in and out. But I say let me just just go over the key point here He the the impression you got from the interview we did with my Matt Hancock was that he thought that it because of the false positive rate is below 1%, That means that below 1% of the cases that come up positive are false. And you'll say, no, it's not.
It's it's it's it's what what it's 1% of all those who you test or naught 0.8% probably of who you test. And given that we have such a tiny, tiny number of people who are testing positive around the same numbers, it means that something like in the region of 9 out of 10 of the tests that are coming up positive, people are told you have COVID, may not actually have COVID at all.
Speaker 1: Yes. I that you said it exactly correctly. So another way to say it risk is if the false positive rate, the fraction of your tests that come up positive, if they do not have the virus, risk. If that's greater than what's called the prevalence, the fraction of people who've got the virus, it doesn't matter how hard you try risk. You can't subtract it.
You will end up with most of your positives being what are called false positives. They don't have the virus. Risk. They're not sick. They won't get sick.
They're not contagious. And you may have noticed, Juliet, and that's possibly why I was thinking about this over the last few weeks. Have you noticed risk. When we get so called, searches or peaks, you know, Leicester and so on, almost no one was ill. And and and that risk.
Figures now because I think between, 5 times and 10 times the number of, of sorry, only 1 5th or 1 tenth risk the antivirus. These are the ones that are true positives. And so the problem is if the false positive rate is higher than the prevalence, risk You cannot use the assay. There's nothing you can do to fix it. And I believe this this this let me just finish this one sentence.
I may sound controversial, but risk Unless they can fix this assay, I believe they should stop pillar 2 testing because there isn't an assay that can do other than I have described risk. To generate mostly false positives.
Speaker 0: So this isn't that this is a peculiarly poor test. It's just this kind of testing in the community. And this is the big difference between testing in hospital and testing in the community. Testing hospital, we call pillar 1 testing in the community, pillar 2. Now, when you're doing pillar 1, you're testing people who are already ill.
They've got symptoms. And you're doing a testing with medical professionals taking the test, and they're going straight to the lab. And that of course, has a much higher rate of reliability than a test, done by non medically trained people in the community of to a certain extent, a fairly random sample of people because a lot of people are going to get tested who haven't got symptoms themselves. They may think they've been in contact with someone who thinks they've got COVID. Risk.
Again, odds are they haven't got it. So it's it's always it's all it's the number of people and the reason why they're being tested that's also the issue.
Speaker 1: Yes. You had you said it right. Risk. So the pillar one test in hospital, certainly just to take us back to that ghastly month of March where we're at the peak risk infections. And then in April, about April 10th, we saw the peak of deaths.
And then for the last 6 months, it's fallen continuously. But back in March, risk I've looked at the data and fully 30% of the people who were sampled were positives. And now it's 30% who are positive And then 0.1, 0.8% of a false positive. Basically, the effect there is instead of 30 out of a 100 being positive, risk Which and they do have the virus, you get 31. Because that one so you can see now the effect of false positives is irrelevant.
Yeah. Risk Now when there's almost no one who's got it, an average member of the society of the public, ONS says it's about 0.1%, 1 in a 1000. 0.8% is risk fixed, false positive rate, it's generating 5 to 10 times more false positives than real ones. And earlier in the summer, it was 20 times. Risk.
So it's got to stop. They they must not use this assay. It's producing catastrophizing. And also an important point, Julie, if I was risk. I was right and the government said, you know, Mike Eden's right, Carl Henningen's right.
Let's just pull this test. There's nothing else actually happening of any great note. Risk Yes. There are some in hospital. Yes.
There are some dying. But as compared with the 1,000 dying every day, we're down to about 1% of that. Risk And there's there actually isn't any fear that the government could provide. So it crosses my mind. I don't know why.
I'm not making a conspiracy. But if they wanted us to be fearful, risk The best way to do it is carrying on using a test that produces mostly false positives because wherever they travel, that's what they'll get.
Speaker 0: And this is the thing and the more testing you do, the more false positives you'll get. In fact, you'll make it more likely there will be more. But with 3,899 cases yesterday, we've been around that 3,000 mark. Now the 4,000 mark. The number is going up.
But we do know that the proportion of, positive cases of those tested, is also going up. So risk. There is there is a greater incidence, we think, of the virus in the community. And we have seen hospitalizations go up and we have seen desktop, but professor Carl Henrick at Oxford University was saying yesterday and in an article and on television, but this is the normal seasonal effect of getting ahead again September. We are there is a fear that we are catastrophizing normal seasonal trends.
More people will die flu. More people die of pneumonia, more people will get colds, and more people will get COVID. That doesn't necessarily mean we're entering a 2nd wave.
Speaker 1: Risk. Yes. Abs absolutely. It's absolutely right. I've tried to explain to people, and if people who are listening to this and want to know more of the background, res it's, my new article in Toby Young's lockdown skeptics.
I'm not a lockdown skeptic. The first time, I have been subsequently. It's a dangerous, damaging intervention that cuts across people's lives. And and worse, it doesn't actually stop people catching the virus. They just get it later.
Risk So I don't think it saves a single life, but it deprives us of access to the NHS. Everybody knows that risk NHS Access, they're trying their best, but but they've been told for some reason to keep the loading of patients light. Seriously, This was my 1st claim and it's true. They're keeping the loading on the NHS light, which is why you can't get the treatments and surgeries you want because they're planning for a 2nd wave. Risk.
And, Juliet, if you just give me 5 seconds, I just want to repeat the strong request to Matthew Hancock and risk Professor Ferguson. So if you believe there's going to be a 2nd wave, then you must have evidence for that. What is the underlying evidence that you're resting your case on? Because you seem to think there'll be 1, and you're planning for it, and you're depriving us of the NHS, and you're prepared to lock us down to avoid it. Risk.
But I've looked, and there's no evidence in the literature whatever. And as Carl Hennigan says, we're definitely not in a second wave at the moment. Res When you look at the data, honestly, there are more cases, but for the reasons Carl Hennigan said, I think at most, we're in a second ripple.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you very much for joining us doctor Mike Eden, former chief scientific advisor with Pfizer, looking at those figures. Really appreciate you joining Let's just talk about the whole issue of whether or not we should be listening to the scientists who are telling us, we need to go into risk. Tiers 1, tier 2, and tier 3. Possibly even a circuit breaker lockdown as it's being called.
But, this is all based on the advice of Sage scientist. Their minutes were released after the prime minister earlier this week announced that we were gonna be moving into different tiers. Obviously, within days, many parts of the country moving from tier 1 to tier 2 from tier 2 to tier 3 rather makes nonsense of the exercise. But there is some talk that even by next Friday, we could be looking at what is laughably called a circuit breaker, a local I'm sorry. National lockdown, but would actually be another full lockdown.
Yeah. You can go to school and go to work at large parts of the country, but it wouldn't necessarily break any circuit. Well, let's Talked to a man who's spoken to a number of times before, about whether or not actually, the advice we're getting on the science is actually good advice that we should trust. Mike Eden joins me again. He's a former chief scientific advisor with Pfizer and joins us now.
Good morning to you.
Speaker 1: Good morning, Julia.
Speaker 0: Good morning. Now you you spent over 30 years leading new medicines research in particular in the issue in the area of a respiratory disease. We've spoken to a number of times risk. False positive rates, and the like, many other issues. But you've just written a a piece for LockDown Skeptics website, risk.
Suggesting there is another key issue, well, a couple of key issues with the advice that Sage, the the the advisory group of, of medics scientists giving advice to the government. And you say they are committing a major error in terms of their assumptions. What is that assumption that you think is wrong, which therefore means that all the policy suggestions they are making are also wrong.
Speaker 1: Yes. Thank you very much, Julia. Yes. It's with some trepidation that I wrote That item, and it's out this morning, and anyone can find it and just look at 2 pie charts. As you'll probably know, the risk Speed of travel of an infectious agent in a population depends on what percentage of the population remains susceptible.
Risk If you were immune to start with or you've been infected and are now immune, then it doesn't travel, amongst the members. Now I couldn't believe it. When Boris, risk gave his speech, I think it was on Monday. And within 10 minutes, Sage's advice to ministers, risk I think it was dated late September, appeared on the Internet. I remember idly reading it.
And if everybody would like to go to the effectiveness of non risk Pharmaceutical interventions, NPIs, the 2nd paragraph. I read it, and I read it again, and I'm still on the looking glass side of the world. They said risk Since 90% of the population are still susceptible, dot, dot, dot, I believe that Sage risk Went into 2020 with a complete lack of awareness that about a third of us carry immunity, risk SARS CoV 2 because we've been exposed to closely related coronaviruses that cause common colds. Everybody who's deeply Immersed in this area knows that it seems Sage does not. So that's the first error.
They thought we went in because it's risk. A new virus with no immunity, and that's that's wrong. And at first, I thought, well, it'll it'll all come out of the wash. Then next, they've been tracking people's exposure risk By looking at how many people have got antibodies, which seems reasonable. The problem is that only the people who got sickest have Antibodies that stay up that you can measure later.
Speaker 0: Well, that I said I had those with my family. I I tested Mike, I tested positive for antibodies about a month or 2. But but my let me let me let me let me finish. Risk. But my but my my my the rest of my family, some of them tested, some of them didn't.
And those who were not this not very sick at all, didn't test positive for antibodies. So the assumption from Sage is that those people are still susceptible to disease.
Speaker 1: Yes. That's the thing. And they're wrong. Unfortunately, people who are exposed slightly, and have definitely been infected. They may not make much antibodies or none at all, but they definitely have converted their t cells.
They've remembered they've been exposed risk virus, and we can measure it in their blood. It's a clunky technique, but it's definitely true that people have been exposed to the virus or been exposed to common cold risk Viruses that are similar are no longer susceptible. My so my big claim is that Sage thinks that 93% of the British population are susceptible to the virus. No wonder they're panicking, and they think it's going to be a massive second wave. I'm afraid I think the science says that only at 28% susceptible.
And if I'm right, the pandemic should be largely coming to a close with some risk ripples in the regions that London should not be ablaze with coronavirus. There were nearly a 1000 deaths a day risk at this time in April, and now we think it's 10. So I if my predictions are correct, London should not risk see a big, secondary wave, and it's not. If I am correct, there'll only be outbreaks in the regions. That's what's happening.
Risk. If I am correct, the, rises that we are seeing northwest, northeast would be rising much more slowly risk than in the spring because there are fewer people and it's harder for the virus to move between
Speaker 0: And when you say when you say the regions,
Speaker 1: Mike I think it's I think it's over.
Speaker 0: Risk Mike, when you say the regions, you know, that that's millions and millions of people. I mean, we're not I say we're very much not a London centric but you're basically No.
Speaker 1: I'm a Southeast guy.
Speaker 0: No. Okay.
Speaker 1: Mike. I apologize. I'm actually born in Birmingham. I've lived in
Speaker 0: the Southeast. Yeah. Mike. Okay. So the the the key point here is that is that London London, the reason why it won't be having so much in is because there was much more exposure before the the 1st lockdown in London.
And therefore, a large parts of the country which has had not been mostly exposed, they're not having a second wave. They're having a 1st wave. But hold on a minute. Yes. There'll be lots of people saying, well, hold on a minute.
We saw what happened in that 1st wave. We saw how many people died. Side. We we don't want our 1st wave either. Why are you so convinced then that there that there will be that level of immunity in parts of the country which didn't have a lot of deaths early on.
For instance, let's look at Devon and Cornwall. They've never had any wave at all, not having one now, didn't have one then. Does that mean that they've still got much higher susceptibility?
Speaker 1: Risk I don't know. I I think it's likely, but I think it'd be fair to say I don't know. They didn't get a large amount of illness and deaths the first time due. You're right. Now risk It's possible that the reason is that they had a higher level of prior immunity, and it's possible the northwest and northeast will be hit harder risk than some other areas of the country, but there's nothing I don't think there's anything I I could do about that.
Let's say we were able to make a measurement. I mean, you might say, well, let's lock down. If you do want to do that, you should only do it in a targeted area. It would be absolutely crazy. I think it's crazy closing risk.
Big city like London down. I I've been looking and waiting for weeks expecting it not to come up in London and hoping to daughter it right. And it's not coming up in London. Risk. And I'll tell you what.
There's 1 you know, I've been talking earlier in the year about false positives and so on. Yep. It's definitely the virus risk definitely swept through the country and all countries in Europe, earlier in the year, and lots of people died. But some something really strange has happened that risk. I think the pandemic is substantially over.
I do think there'll be, as I say, the secondary ripple, I you know, as people, I'm afraid, catch it And get ill and some will die in the in the places further from London that weren't so exposed. But we've detected that there's some very odd thing is going on in terms of false positives. Risk. They're pushing the assay all the time to beyond any sensible limit. There's exaggeration.
There's kind of cheating. There's risk practice. Did you know, for example, that when people go to hospital as a COVID admission, you'd think that would be someone with some symptoms that turned up and was tested now, risk. Oh, look. They've got it.
But in fact, if they only get a positive test after 10 days in hospital, that is classed as a COVID admission. It's an absurdity.
Speaker 0: That this thing, Carl Henninger doing
Speaker 1: that, you better work that out.
Speaker 0: Yeah. The pro the professor of evidence based medicine at Oxford University, I know you're in contact with him, Carl Henninger. Their latest estimates are that when you actually look at the data which people go into hospital on the date they're tested, 17 a half percent of hospital COVID patients they believe caught the virus in the hospital. And again, we're also talking about people dying of COVID and with COVID. We know that there is no excess mortality right now.
We also know that we have seen risk. Very much fewer deaths. I mean, huge numbers. Tens of thousands of deaths that we would normally expected from things like pneumonia, from things like flu. That we've not heart disease, not this this year.
We've not seen that because those deaths have gone down as COVID deaths. And they may well be people who had COVID, but and they were tested positive for it or or they just, you know, they just they they they actually had it themselves. But a lot of those people, very sadly, were very near the end of their life already, would probably have died very tragically from those other diseases within a matter of weeks or months anyway. And yet they're counted as COVID deaths. And there's lots of evidence now, isn't there, that actually this year, risk.
Overall, when you count all deaths may not be an exceptional year for deaths at all.
Speaker 1: No. I I was quite surprised to look at this. I think lots of people would risk. Well, it's been just a horrific year. Obviously, if you were your relatives that that it is horrible, but it's only believe it or not, in terms of excess mortality, this year is risk ranks 8 out of 27.
So it's about like in the top third of bad years over the last 30 years or so. It's not that extreme. And it's for the reasons that you say, Julie. Yes. There are there are these quotes, COVID deaths with or off, but there are lots of people, lots of deaths we would have risk a variety of common causes, oddly enough, had just not happened.
And, of course, I think they have perished of those causes, and they just happen to have been risk found to have had this virus. So so I say again, it's a massive claim that I think the pandemic is fundamentally risk Over in this country and the only reason it's not that we're not being told it's over is because Sage has decided it's not over. If you look around you in London, people know people are not ill. Yeah. The hospitals are not full of COVID people.
It's not in the southeast, not in the southwest, risk in the center of England, not the east of England. And, honestly, I genuinely believe they may have, for whatever reason, risk Just predicted certain things that haven't happened, and now they've kind of like doubled down. But when you go and look at it, it is slight it is pretty much over. It will crest risk In the northeast and northwest, like it's done everywhere else in Europe, the secondary waves are always smaller in terms of ill people and lethality, And then it will go away. Stand up and tell them, you know, let's let's examine this evidence, see if Eden's crazy or or or not.
Speaker 0: Risk. But this is let's again, look at the evidence. Don't look at who's saying it. Look at the evidence. But the fact that you're a former chief scientific advisor at Pfizer.
I mean, I'm sorry. I think that's risk. People developing the pharmaceuticals to deal with these sort of diseases. I think it's worth listening to you. Mike Eden, really appreciate you joining us.
Always do. Former chief scientific advisor with Pfizer. Right now, let's turn our attention back to the lockdown and the reasons for the lockdown. Risk. And well, the reasons why perhaps in lockdown, ain't gonna provide the solution to the problem that we are have apparently got.
And why we may not have as bigger problem, as we've been told by the likes of balance, and to Chris Ritty and Boris Johnson. Let's talk to Mike Eden. He's, former chief scientific adviser with Pfizer. The for big pharmaceutical companies. We've spoken to him, as you all know, many times before about things like the false positive rate and the problems with mass testing.
Now this course comes at a time when we're about to see the mass testing with a rapid test over pretty much the entire population of Liverpool. That is the latest plan. But is that the answer to the problem? Mike Eden. Good morning to you.
Speaker 1: Good morning to you. Good morning.
Speaker 0: We've been I mean, virtually everyone I've spoken to, whether whatever we talk about, Anything to do with lockdown? Anything to do with the problems with the hospitals and the like? We we constantly come back to, it's the problem with testing and test and track and trace. And then we're not testing enough of enough people. We're not testing enough of the right people and we're not getting those test results back.
Is that the problem?
Speaker 1: Risk No. No. Good morning, everybody. It's really it sounds counterintuitive, but in my opinion, you don't chase respiratory viruses around the country using risk Industrial molecular biology. I don't think we should be testing anybody unless they turn up to hospital.
And even then, we should be doing it better than we're doing.
Speaker 0: Risk. And when you say doing it better than we're doing, you and I have spoken a number of times about false positive rates and things like that. There's still an ongoing issue. Although, again, I'm I get fact checked by the BBC when I ask The health secretary about this saying, well, this is all completely debunked. But we know many many eminent people, scientists and academics, in this field have questioned this.
The big issue here with the false positive rate, and if you've helped if you could explain what that is, for for my listeners listeners who don't are immersed in this, is it it it would appear that no one actually knows officially Yeah. What it is. But tell us what it is and why it's so important still.
Speaker 1: Yes. Okay. So just briefly, this PCR or polymerase chain reaction, it's an amplification technique where bait, which is human designed, is popped into a sample and then it goes into a machine that cycles it over and over and over again up to maybe 2 to the power of 40, an enormous number. Risk And the power of it is, you could find 1 molecule in the swimming pool, or not quite, 1 molecule in a sample you could certainly find. Risk.
And the problem with it is it sometimes produces a signal at the end when there's nothing in this at all. That's called false positives. Also, it can be positive risk When there's a, an after infection, broken pieces of viruses or things that are similar to what you're looking for. Bottom line, as you said, Julia, The government has now admitted informal written answers to parliament, so it's in Han Hansard, that they have not characterized it. They do not know what False positive, false negative rate is and I'm saying, please your listeners, the test is not to be trusted.
Everything they're telling you about, risk Cases, admissions, people in ICU and deaths all pivot off this PCR test. And I'm saying it's impossible to know whether all the positives are real or none of them.
Speaker 0: Well, what what about the people who creep who criticized you? People who criticize me? And again, I'm just I'm just reporting on on what the the experts are saying. I don't pretend expertise in this area, and, and never have. That okay.
When you've got a very low prevalence of the disease, as we had in July August Yeah. And then you're gonna see far more false positives. Because even with a very low rate, say, no 0.8% of them are false positives, which is the normal figure for these sort of kinds of tests. If you've got a much lower prevalence of the disease, then you're gonna have a 90% of them are gonna be false. However, when the disease is on the rise, and you've got a much higher percentage of people with the disease, is higher, then you get a much lower false positive rate.
And and hey, if we if if the false positive rate was as high as you said it was, we wouldn't be seeing all these people going into hospital now and we wouldn't be seeing this rising COVID deaths. What do you say to that?
Speaker 1: I'm sorry. I I have to push back on it. People saying the r number. Risk. The r number depends on the PCR test, which I'm telling you is unreliable.
More COVID patients going into hospital depends on the PCR test, which I'm saying is unreliable. Risk Even the people operating it could not stand in front of, you and say what percentage of the positives are genuine. I think some of them probably are, but no one knows.
Speaker 0: But risk. Well, of course, I mean, of
Speaker 1: course, some of them are. But And, Julia, if I may say if I may say, you said now the virus is rising. We've no idea if the virus is rising. Might be. In fact, I probably would I would credited with a small seasonal bump along with 4 other cross potentially cross reacting, common cold causing coronaviruses.
But There is no evidence that it's rising and definitely, Julia, you know this. The illness and death data says it's not. It's a respiratory virus. Risk There were no excess respiratory deaths in autumn. None.
There were no unusual levels of admissions to ITU based on respiratory illness. Risk That to me says it's not here.
Speaker 0: But this is it, isn't it? When when we see these stark figures, they reported in very sort of ponderous tones on the television, you know, we've had to do 500 more deaths or 4 or whatever whatever it is on any given day. Often actually, if you dig into it, you look at actually over the days in which they've actually being the the date of death as opposed to reported death. Actually, they we're looking at far lower numbers, but but also these are these are deaths with COVID not of COVID. So you can be in hospital for a whole variety of other reasons.
You can have heart disease, you can have cancer. If you test positive for COVID, you still end up on these these, on these statistics, don't you?
Speaker 1: That that's and see, this is what I'm saying. Everything you're being told, risk Every scary fact and prediction from Witty and Valens all hangs off the PCR test, which they have admitted they cannot tell what risk Sensitive positives are false and true. Let me say, I'm going to make a strong statement. Everybody should comply with the law. I don't want anyone not to.
Risk But that does not, that space does not extend to the space between your listeners' ears. I am saying the pandemic is fundamentally over in the UK. Risk. I'm more sure of this than ever and we should not be doing anything. So here's the two reasons, apart from the illness data and my problems with the test, two other reasons.
The theory says so. We now know that loads of people had prior immunity. There's an unbelievable amount of data. We see in balance have ignored it. And then when people are infected risk.
They mostly survive, they become immune. That's not a theory. That's how it works. And so as a result, I believe we are now risk Firmly at community immunity. So that's one thing.
Remember, they keep talking about 2nd waves. That's got my hackles up. I'm afraid, dear listener, risk. Viruses don't do waves. You must go and look it up.
And if I'm right, that means they've made it all up for I have no idea why. I'm sure they're well intentioned. Risk.
Speaker 0: This this this is the bit that people don't understand. Why why are they telling us data? I mean, even when we saw on Friday on Saturday night, risk. This figure, this 4,000 deaths a day from right. This was debunked within hours.
Yeah. This was then presented by our prime minister yet again in parliament on Monday. Even though it's already been debunked, and it was debunked by professor Carl Heineken and others pointing out that this was old data. It it was already it was already untrue at the point to which, they, they they actually he spoke about it. And and and and it's not a matter of opinion, untrue, mathematically disproven.
And yet we're still being given these sort of statistics. Why do you think that is?
Speaker 1: Well, for a start, I will say at this point, Julia. I don't know. I'm I'm a scientist. Risk. I can tell you what they're telling you is incorrect.
Furthermore, it hurts me to say it. They're clever people. I believe I absolutely know risk that they know what they're telling you is not true. So there must be a reason. I don't know.
I'm not a detective. I'm really not. Could it be about money Or or what all the whatever it is, the reset. I've no idea. I'm telling you they're telling you untrue things.
Les can I just give one last example Respiratory As to why your listeners will know I'm telling the truth? So I've said theory says so. Illness and death says it should be over and the PCR test is unreliable. The people's practical experience says so. How long does a seasonal flu epidemic last in the UK?
And the answer is probably 3 or 4 months. This risk Virus is more infectious. It can't take less time to go through the population. So I think from February to June, risk It was in the lands. That was where we saw the excess deaths and then it went.
And it doesn't come back because viruses don't do wave. Now one thing, one last thing. Do you know last week, Julia, everybody was going on about antibody levels and how they were falling. And I heard the spin that I couldn't believe. Risk They said, this means the immunity doesn't last long.
No, that's a wrong interpretation. Immunity to viruses is mostly conferred by what's called risk. Levels falling and falling. Human body is very efficient. It doesn't keep making antibodies that it doesn't need.
What this data is telling us risk. Is that people aren't being exposed again and again and again to the virus. That's why the antibody levels are falling. It perfectly fits my thesis.
Speaker 0: Mike Keaton will have to leave it there and point out he's at risk. Former vice president of Pfizer. He's a former chief scientific advisor. He was actually a person who looking at respiratory diseases. This is what he does as a for a living.
He's a scientist. Thank you very much indeed. I really appreciate you joining us.
Speaker 3: Now let's move into this territory. The health secretary announced the UK has ordered 5,000,000 Moderna vaccines, enough for 2a half 1000000 people, they said last night. This is amid fears that Britain had missed out on supplies. The early data suggests the vaccine is up to 95% effective. Earlier in the day, Matt Hancock also said 2 new risk.
Mega Labs will be constructed, which will double the UK's coronavirus testing capacity to more than a1000000 a day by the new year. The 2 sites at risk. Play a major role in the government's mass testing strategy and raises questions of whether more cities could join Liverpool in regularly testing all of its at risk. Regardless of whether or not they have the symptoms. Let's speak with doctor Mike Eden, former chief scientific adviser with risk Pfizer much been in the news a lot, of course, lately.
Mike, good afternoon to you. I mean, just talk us through this. What what are you making of these latest set risk. Of government announcements, you know, with your sort of previous scientific hat on in that respect. I mean, does this sound to you like the way to go?
Speaker 1: Hello there. Yes. Good afternoon. So doctor Mike Eden, thank you very much for having me on your show. Yes.
So risk. I'm led to almost this conclusion, that, the government's almost telling us that testing sets you free. I think the first things risk before which is that more we test, the safer you'll be and maybe eventually we'll be able to move around. And I'm here to tell you risk That, actually, it's testing that's keeping us in a in a really serious problem. If I could just, expand for a moment.
I risk People who followed my Twitter feeds and I've appeared on your on your colleague Julia Hart Brewer's show a few times will know I've had a bee in my bonnet about problems with uh- PCR mass testing. These are the tests they do every day and reveal every evening, whatever it is, 35,000 new cases. Risk. So you may remember last week, the government sent the army into Liverpool and they used a new test. This is so called lateral flow test it looks a bit like a pregnancy test kit, you know whatever you put some liquid in one end you wait a few minutes and the answer comes out.
And they've been doing a really good job the army, they think they've tested 90,000 people in the city of Liverpool, good people who've really helped them there risk. And, they've pretty much found no virus. It's kind of little too. I think it's none but they'll I'll let them say it's little. Now that what that tells you is is a problem with one of the tests.
Either the PCR test is telling us that, as we are told, that there's a hotspot in the country, northwest, loads and loads of people with this disease or this new test is correct. Well, we could easily sort them out, but bluntly, I believe we are in what's called a PCR false positive pseudoepidemic. Now when you're in an epidemic, pseudoepidemic, it looks like it's a real one, but it's a testing error problem. We could prove or disprove what I've just said easily and I will give credit to Doctor Claire Craig, another appear on your radio show.
Speaker 3: Yep.
Speaker 1: Risk. She points out this new test is available in the city of Liverpool right now, and their next step is to put it into the hospitals to test their staff. It's a good idea then you know whether they're, treated with the virus or not. And her her her suggestion risk is well, why not test some of the patients that have already been tested positive for PCR? If she and we if I'm right and she's right because we have the same view on this, risk.
Then, the lateral flow test, the new test is gonna be, not gonna show very much virus. And this is
Speaker 3: So it will show somebody who supposedly has had coronavirus risk. Has had coronavirus, but the test will show that they haven't. Is that what you're used to say?
Speaker 1: Exactly. So PCR test says they're massively positive. Risk. I think this new test will confirm they actually don't have the virus. And if I'm wrong, then the government gets a big a big tick and all their patients risk So
Speaker 3: if if I've got this right then, Mike, the Yeah. The PCR test and you're you're right. I mean, there are other clinicians and scientists that that have echoed exactly what you're saying. We risk spoken to Yeah. To many of them on this program.
The PCR test you you suggest was inadequate. It wasn't right. It it didn't do what it's meant to do. This new test is Am I right in saying you're suggesting this even worse than the original test?
Speaker 1: No. No. What I let me just clarify. So I've done quite a lot testing in different ways. So the PCR test is an amplification test, and it looks the bits of genetic information RNA.
Yeah. So that's what you need to know. It's the genetics, And it amplifies. The this lateral flow test is looking for proteins. So it's looking the outside of a virus.
Risk. And basically, if it encounters the test materials, it it can then I think it generates a color, and you can actually see the change in like a plus risk. Yep. Yep. So if it has faults about it, every test is imperfect, but if it has faults, one thing you can say about it is it has different faults.
Risk. And so if it's if you get the same results with the 2 tests, you can believe the results. If you get a different result with the 2 tests, risk What you can be sure is at least 1 of them is broken. Okay. So that's what I'm saying.
Speaker 3: So if we've got I I mean, in in Liverpool, I understand 2,000 people have tested positive out of risk Almost a 120,000 now who visited, centers since the testing began. What what what do you make of that information? Risk.
Speaker 1: That's, I would like to look at it, in in percentages because it's quite a low percentage. I think The latest information I got was it was hovering around 0.4%. So that would be, yeah, 4, I think it's 4 in a 1,000 something like that. So, I'm saying that it's about probably between 5 10 times lower than it quote should be risk. If the predictions based on PCR testing were correct in the city of Liverpool.
So based on ONS predictions for the area.
Speaker 3: So something must be wrong. Presumably, if Yeah.
Speaker 1: That's all. Risk
Speaker 3: Here's what I don't get, Mike. I mean, you're you're telling us that something that you you clearly believe and firmly believe and you're not alone is based on sound scientific risk Evidence and theory. What about your colleagues that don't share that view? What is what are they seeing that you're not seeing or the other way around?
Speaker 1: I I I I think the the Let me just say that PCR is a great technique. I think it's really good. I personally colleagues of mine used it as a research tool and I benefited from that as the department is what it's not good at I think is an industrial piece of molecular biology. No one's ever done that before and we are testing, I think if I heard risk. Mister Hancock correctly, 370,000 people a day.
Now that's a that's a piece of industry really to organize, to collect samples, to pipette them into little plates and move them around the country. The chance is that you can do that without allowing even a waft of a slice of risk. A little fragment of viral DNA to move around and accidentally contaminate other parts of the plate, I would say is between slim and none. And basically, I I think that Everyone's working really, really hard. Each person, each group in this chain of industrial microbiology and at some point, Some kind of contamination is going on.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 1: It's easy to easy to disprove it by frankly doing what they're about to do anyway but instead of just testing the start next week, please Start by testing some of the patients that you've already had a PCR positive.
Speaker 3: And this would because the government might say or or or somebody on the other side of this discussion, Mike, might So well, okay, regardless of that, so let's say we've got some of the numbers of infections wrong and even if there is a a Seismic error as I I think you're suggesting. There is at the other end of this story, there are lots of people who are definitely risk. Positive. They're in hospital. They're on ventilators, and some die.
That's that's not theory. That's fact.
Speaker 1: Right. Risk. Well, you know, of course. It is a sad part of life that we're all in deaths. Eventually, my time in yours will come.
620,000 at risk. Citizens of the country die every year. That's quite a lot. I think it's like 17, 1800 a day, which is really quite quite frightening. We don't normally think about So of course, at any stage in the year and certainly winter, people turn up in hospital, they're not well.
Some get better and I'm afraid some some proceed and eventually die. Now what I'm saying is some of those people have tested PCR positive and at the moment, if that happens within a month, the test would call them a COVID death. Now what's What's, what what is really striking is is this, that we are told we've got this lethal pandemic sweeping the land, carrying away a lot of our our fellows and yet the total number of deaths, you know, per week or per month is entirely normal. Risk. And unless we have seriously, unless we're failing to count dead people, then there's a problem because there are the normal number of risk Government's claim that thousands of people have died of COVID this this autumn.
So
Speaker 3: So that
Speaker 1: that so that's what's led me. Sorry. Sorry to cut across
Speaker 3: No. It's not at all.
Speaker 1: Me to risk. No. And that's what's led me to think, oh my god. You know? I mean, I kind of hoped I was wrong earlier in the year, but now we've got the position where we've got this swoosh, like risk.
Like a nice swoosh of, excuse me, big swoosh of cases followed by some COVID deaths, you know, 100 a day, which is shocking. Risk. But then when you look back at the when you add them all up it's the normal number and a friend of mine, Jonathan, risk. Jonathan Engle has just passed me a graph to say that the number of COVID deaths, over the last 4 weeks exactly matches the risk reduced number of all the other causes of death. In other words, that would tally with what I've said.
It's we just simply got a misdiagnosis or mis risk. And everyone involved is doing their best and sincerely believes that it is covered in front of them.
Speaker 3: So response It's not a there's
Speaker 1: not a
Speaker 3: you're not you're not advocating a conspiracy theory theory here.
Speaker 1: No. No. Not at all.
Speaker 3: Something terrible going on. So so let let me just ask you then, Mike, Applying what you're saying, that the PCR test doesn't really the industrial scale application of it is Perhaps misplaced, I think that more or less sort of quotes what you'll say. If you apply that then to the supposed 50,000 people in this country risk who have died, either of or with COVID. What would you imagine that figure would be in reality?
Speaker 1: Okay. So I'm I'm not an expert in pathology, but I do think the spring epidemic probably did account for 40,000 genuine deaths. There was nothing wrong with any of the numbers, but in terms of the matching up of risk. PECR positivity, people getting ill, going to hospital and dying and the excess death, everything married up. That's why there risk There was nothing wrong, I don't think.
April, May, I think that was I wouldn't say it's fine. I mean, as a scientist working, I I could see that I could see the statistics all made sense. It all made sense. And what I think has happened is, I mean, honestly, I I know people don't like the phrase herd immunity, but community immunity, I am convinced and there are some there who believe me that the force that turns the expanding epidemic in the spring and risk. Peaking in early April, turned it over and made it drive down glide down to almost nothing by June or so.
That that was a reduction The population who were susceptible to the virus and the reason it was so few that were infected when the, I believe that the risk. Pandemic petered out is that 50% of us were already immune because we our body has had experience of Common cold causing coronaviruses, which, of course, the BBC didn't didn't bother to tell you about those. No. So 50% of the population were already immune.
Speaker 3: What about the, just go back to this excess deaths because we're here, you know, we heard in the middle of the year tens of thousands of excess deaths in this research. Yes.
Speaker 1: Yes. I think that's correct. So I think through the spring, there was a big peak of excess deaths. A lot of them were respiratory deaths. I do think they were risk.
We were killed by the virus, you know, the, but I what I think has happened since is that by summer, we were in a normal position risk. And we were in a normal position because the country was no longer susceptible to this virus. There were too few remaining susceptible people. This would be an uncontroversial remark in any other year than 2020. Really, when you survive a respiratory virus, risk.
Plain respiratory virus, you become immune. It's not no ifs or buts, mister Boris Johnson. You can't catch it again. You certainly can't get ill. You can't transmit it risk.
Once you once you have too few people susceptible, the epidemic stops. You might have some endemicity, You know, where the virus is is being exchanged at low levels, but it is not it's not a public health emergency. No way. So what we're seeing risk. In the and so what we're seeing, I think, is simply a testing problem in the autumn where we try to, quote, chase down the virus, which is why I don't think mass testing is helpful or necessary and and then we've got an association of testing and deaths which makes us think there are hundreds of COVID deaths a day, but when you look at the total deaths it's Just normal.
Yeah. So it's just a category error.
Speaker 3: So it's just been and COVID is applied because it's Yep. It's risk. Found within a test, the PCR test of the person who has died.
Speaker 1: That's right.
Speaker 3: And you you your contention is it it's perhaps wrongly applied.
Speaker 1: Risk. It is wrong, I'm saying that yes, I'm saying that in the vast majority of cases it's essentially it's a false positive caused by an industrialization And that we can and the evidence for this is not just theoretical although that's pretty strong evidence but it's the fact we don't have excess deaths and now we've got the Liverpool data, thank you Liverpool where 90,000 people have effectively got such a low signal that my experience is that we will we will conclude risk.
Speaker 3: But why I I guess the the point I'm slightly struggling with, Mike, is why what the the error that you you point out and again, many other people agree with you. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Risk
Speaker 3: Why are you not applying that to the the 50,000 that have died or the 30,000 in the summer that you you you mentioned or the beginning of all of risk. Surely, no.
Speaker 1: I can
Speaker 3: What what yeah. I was about to say what why was that inaccuracy not complete during that?
Speaker 1: Yep. It's a really good question. Thank you. I probably failed to do that so in this in the spring because remember most people who died it was March, April really the bulk I think died in April, risk The peak, I think, was about April 10th or 11th and then it began to decline, so April and May. At that time, we didn't have mass testing in these lighthouse labs.
What we had was overworked public health laboratory service labs, some big hospitals have their own PCR labs, some university labs that were co opted risk. And everybody was kind of throwing their weight in. So there were lots and lots of different labs doing it. Some did it well, some did really well. I'm sure some had a few few errors.
But the thing was it wasn't an industrialized centralized Right.
Speaker 3: So the fact that it was more focused meant that it was more accurate?
Speaker 1: Yes. Exactly that. They were they were doing it the way you normally would. Yeah.
Speaker 3: Mike, listen. We hit the clock. It's been fascinating. Let's talk again. I know there's a lot of people really interested in what you're saying and it's interesting how the world of science does divide at risk.
On this one as well. But they're the views of doctor Mike Yeadon, former chief scientific adviser with Pfizer. You heard what he said. I mean, there is a bit of a wow factor To what he said, if you've not heard any of that before.
Speaker 0: Let's get the thoughts on the new vaccine rolled out, we're told as of Monday in this country. Let's get the thoughts of doctor Mike Eden. He's a former chief scientific advisor for Pfizer. And here, we've spoken to many times over the show. Many times on Talk Radio about concerns about testing, and about, you know, what what what what's this what a lot of people say, what's really going on behind the scenes, when it comes to the scientific and medical management of the coronavirus virus.
Good morning to you, Mike.
Speaker 1: Good morning, Julia.
Speaker 0: Good to talk to you. Now, you've raised a lot of concerns about testing, which is very much your area of expertise from your your many many years working, risk, at companies like Pfizer and setting up your own company involving with with testing and and lab work and the like. What are your thoughts on the rollout of this vaccine? Respiratory Respiratory Respiratory. Because there are an awful lot of people who've got concerns about the testing and concerns about government policy.
Who are raising, what lot people would regard as conspiracy theories. About about how, you know, this vaccine, oh, it's all about making money. It's not gonna do anything good. It's about controlling us or the like. Do you sign up to any of those conspiracy theories?
Speaker 1: No. I don't. So, Julia, first well, thank you for having me again. 1st, I was I'm chief scientific I was the chief scientific adviser for respiratory at Pfizer. I would love to be anyway.
So, first, I will say, because I'm going to say some things that aren't popular, risk I'm gonna make it clear. I'm not an anti vaxxer. I've spent my entire working life in the pharmaceutical industry and including to today, where I Biotech clients. I've had all the vaccines myself, so it's my wife, so did our children when they were small. And as evidence, I stay current, risk I believe in well developed vaccines that meet a medical need.
When my children were who are now in their twenties, when they were in their teens and the most recent, risk HPV vaccine arrived. I looked at the data, talked it through my children, and advised them to make their own decision. So I'm pro vaccine. It was developed well risk And meets a medical need. So, where where am I on this vaccine then?
I would say and this comes from experience not of vaccine development, which I don't have, risk 32 years in drug development, r and d. So safety is the most important fact. You you can't compromise on risk. The next is how well does the does the new medicine work? And when you've understood both those safety as it was a risk, risk.
The f the effectiveness, the benefit, you can look at risk benefit. And even that ratio will change depending on the unmet medical need. The amount of benefits risk. You're going to get not just effectiveness, but how how do you is the person suffering from the condition you're gonna treat? So I would say I do have concern because res In the main, young healthy people, do not get they're not likely to get severely ill or to die, with this this this virus.
Now some people do. There were clearly some cases in the spring. But certainly looking in the autumn now, it does seem to be risk. Back to the elderly and already ill that are most at risk. And so I would want to see it, offered to those people.
And I'm very concerned about risk A wide rollout for this reason that we don't yet know enough about the long term safety. That's not controversial. We've just not been in people very long. Perhaps a bit more controversial, I don't think we know much about the effectiveness because the trial, has only studied whether or not people became risk PCR positive, and people will know I have concerns about that. And I think they're valid.
They haven't looked at full length viral sequencing or cultures. So we've just got PCR risk positive or not. I do think the vaccine has done something to that endpoint. Don't think we can be clear that that will lead to reductions risk. Severe illness or death.
Speaker 0: Although, I think they they they they have claimed that that that is what they're looking at. Now again, we told this this vaccine, another vaccines 90% plus effectiveness. Even in people of the older age category, where they who are most at risk. So am I right in thinking your argument is that look, yeah. People should, you know, the vaccine is Definitely good for people who are the older age categories, even in their nineties, their eighties, their seventies, possibly even their sixties.
People who are at higher risk, those who are vulnerable. But do you don't think there should be a mass rollout vaccination campaign for everybody else who is at I mean, we've seen the statistics at much, much, much lower risk of dying.
Speaker 1: Yes. You've summarized it very well, but I would just come back to the you said, you invited me to agree that it's very effective in in the Saudi Group. I would say we don't know that yet. Risk. I do accept, and Pfizer said that is their intention, but the basis of approval of the drug, we've not yet seen all the information, basis of approval by risk HRA yesterday, presumably, was on the basis of reduction in in becoming PCR positive, that is, as a surrogate for infections.
They don't even risk have solid data that it reduces infection. I think it will do that, but will it reduce severe illness and death? I don't think anyone can say.
Speaker 0: And it's gonna be really crucial that that we do, see the evidence on which the MHRA, this is at the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulation Agency. The basis on which they've made that, risk. That's decision. So the people I mean, that that that's just good practice, isn't it? That the way everyone could be reassured.
Speaker 1: Risk. It should be released. They normally I don't know if it's true, uses this phrase, but they usually have an SBA. It's the summary basis risk of approval, and it can be written quickly because it's a summary. So I would want to see the vaccine equivalent of an SBA this week, please.
It's really quick to do. You can tell us what risk the basis. Please do that anytime.
Speaker 0: I mean, are you are you concerned at all about the talk of this idea of a COVID passport certificate? So you get your vaccine, at. You've got a certificate, and then that will, I mean, allow you Qantas Airlines have already said you're not gonna get on one of their planes next year without a vaccine certificate. I'm thinking, well, I won't be using Qantas Thank you very much. But, but but, you know, you wouldn't be able to say use go to go to a sports stadium, wouldn't be able to go into certain restaurants.
Private businesses would be allowed to say, I need to see effectively your health records before I allow you, access to to my my my, my business. What do you make of that? And even some people talking about how this needs to be a mandatory vaccine.
Speaker 1: I know. Well, certainly, risk. Mandatory is is is extremely problematic. I I hope that listeners know or watchers know that because of, risk Some very unpleasant things that happened in the 2nd World War. All the countries of the world decided after that that they would put in place a convention that said risk That, the human body is sacrosanct and that no one shall perform a medical procedure on it without the consent of that person.
Obviously, There are some exceptions, people who don't have agency or capacity. But for the rest of us, it's simply illegal under international law to which we are a signatory risk mandate, and that's also true of coercion. So I I strongly I would advise the government to persuade people to take it on the evidence. Risk So if you provide the evidence this is good for you, you'll take it. That's that's as far as we should go.
And when it comes to vaccine certificates and risk because I think it will become coercion. And also, you know, why don't we just be sensible about this? It's a nasty vaccine, a nasty virus. Risk It can it definitely has killed a lot of people. It still represents the stress if you catch it and you're not immune.
But this you know, it's it's a worse version of flu in most people at risk who are old and are less severe at risk for those who are much younger. I don't understand why we're getting quite so hyperventilatory about this, And but that's politics and all science. Yeah.
Speaker 0: No one comes to that. But but that's it. But the politics and science have become very intertwined, haven't they? Because with this idea, a lot of people seem to be caught up with this idea, that you could go to 0 COVID. You'd never have a single death.
People saying, one death is too many. Well, it's seeming not to realize that 1700 people die of various things every year. We we are seeing or we're not in the data right now that that we've we've basically had a complete collapse of flu deaths. Now this may do that due to the fact that people are self isolating, people are social distancing, we've been in lockdown. But a lot of people think actually, and lots of experts think That it may well actually be that, you know, people are catching the dominant virus going around, which would be coronavirus, not flu.
Yeah. But also that a lot of the deaths right now may actually be, be called COVID deaths. And we and we have to be careful about what those deaths are rated. They are deaths that are registered, involved. They often Then the technical thing is, they involve COVID.
So we are seeing, when we see these death numbers every day on the news. They are for deaths that have been registered where someone has died with COVID, not necessarily of COVID.
Speaker 1: Yes. No. I can comment on that. So, People who are followers of my good colleague, doctor Claire Claire Craig, who is a, a a a diagnostic pathologist. So so she's done all the work that I'm going to I'm going to mention.
So, yes, I I don't wanna put words in their mouth in case I get it wrong, but it's certainly true that there is overassignments risk of deaths to COVID. So not all of the people who have got a COVID death, that is they died within 28 days of a positive PCR test, risk Not all of those people died because of the virus or or even with it. Sometimes there'll be false positive symptoms and so on. But I just want to make a a quick comment just, res You've said I I talk about testing. I do.
But my training also includes immunology, and we seem to have forgotten immunology. Risk. I'm convinced, and I hope I can do it in 3 or 4 sentences, that to say the country's broadly at herd immunity. So there's been extensive risk. Papers published to show that people had prior immunity because their bodies had seen a related virus, a common cold causing coronaviruses.
That's not controversial. Even public health risk England's now published on that front. I believe we're at herd immunity as evidenced by a lack of COVID deaths In London right now, it's worth about 200 to 250 every day. 7 months ago, I checked 3 days ago, it was nine at risk. So that means it's 95, 96% lower.
Now there are some areas that were hit hard in the spring and are still being hit hard, and it's Liverpool. Well, a friend of mine, Joel Smalley, has looked at this, and it's the same pattern. There are districts and regions in the northwest risk that contributed the deaths in spring, regions a, b, and c. I don't remember their names. But in the autumn, it's not a, b, and c.
All the deaths come from d, e, and f. So risk. I think there's strong evidence of herd immunity. I advise people to go and look at that. The reason this is important is not that we don't need a vaccine, risk.
But it means is there's a weaker case still for, as it were, trying to throw ourselves in front of the train by using the vaccine. That's the only thing that'll stop it. I think it's risk Mostly self limiting. Definitely still people catching it and dying. And mostly the elderly and ill.
I would want to see them offered The vaccine first. And I think we should just take a step back and not not be so, frankly, so hasty as it's risky.
Speaker 0: Okay. I Really appreciate you joining us, doctor Mike Yeadon, former chief scientific advisor with Pfizer. I know people being very eagle eyed and eagle eyed when we have guests like Mike Yeadon on, putting alternative points of view. But again, an awful lot of the things that he says. It's amazing how often a few months down the line, the likes of public health thing than other do except, including the the item about T cell immunity, she was talking about there.
But again, we're saying that actually, this is a vaccine. It should be rolled out to those who are most vulnerable to, the, the virus. But perhaps not necessarily hastily rolled out to those who are not most vulnerable. That would be those of us under 60, who have don't do not have underlying results concerns that his point of view. We put the points of view of many different experts on the show.
We're not afraid of debate here at Talk Radio, as you'll know.
@c_plushie - Coronavirus Plushie
All the videos, with a description of each of them, are in this thread:
@c_plushie - Coronavirus Plushie
I think you'll find that the videos in the thread are actually better quality than they are in the one long video. But the quality of the long video might be better if you watch it in Rumble, here: https://rumble.com/v2ilvm6-all-7-deleted-mike-yeadon-videos-in-one-place-see-description.html
ALL 7 Deleted Videos of Mike Yeadon on Talk Radio
Dr. Mike Yeadon appeared on Talk TV a number of times in 2020. All the videos of Mike's appearances were originally on the Talk TV YouTube channel (at the time it was called Talk Radio), but if you se
rumble.com
@c_plushie - Coronavirus Plushie
Slightly better quality . . . The reason the long video is not so sharp is because it's one I downloaded from my Rumble channel and X seem to have also really compressed it when I just uploaded it, but I just found this on my hard drive, it's the original video, so hopefully this one's a little sharper
Video Transcript AI Summary
In a video, Dr. Mike Yeadon, former Chief Scientific Officer at Pfizer, raises concerns about the likelihood of a second wave of COVID-19 and questions the accuracy of current testing measures. He criticizes the assumptions made by government advisors, suggesting that they overestimated population susceptibility and ignored pre-existing immunity. Dr. Yeadon argues that the current testing regime produces false positives, leading to unnecessary fear and restrictions. He opposes a mass vaccination campaign and advocates for targeted vaccination of vulnerable populations, emphasizing the need for safety and long-term effectiveness data. The speaker also discusses the approval process for the Pfizer vaccine, emphasizing the importance of transparency and evidence. Concerns are raised about COVID vaccine certificates and mandatory vaccinations, with an emphasis on individual consent. The speaker suggests that the country may have already achieved herd immunity and calls for a cautious approach to vaccine distribution, prioritizing the elderly and vulnerable. The interviewer acknowledges the importance of diverse expert opinions and the need for debate on the topic.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Let's, talk to Doctor. Mike Yeadon. He's a former Chief Scientific Officer at Pfizer's Allergy and Respiratory research department. And he has been, one of the co authors of a a new, new article, for LockDown Skeptics about, risk. How likely a second wave is and whether or not all these new measures are really necessary.
Mike, thank you so much for joining us.
Speaker 1: Good morning, Julia. Nice to Respiratory.
Speaker 0: Nice to nice to speak to you. I was fascinated by this article and and shared it online. Because, I I'm I'm very much somebody I'm I'm I was not a lockdown skeptic. Risk. I'm I'm people who sort of say,
Speaker 1: oh, I won't wear
Speaker 0: a mask or I think lockdown's crazy. I thought they actually, the lot of the measures taken by the government early on were all about look. We've got a virus we don't know much about. We've got this computer model saying that we could be losing, you know, tens and tens of thousands of people. We need to lock down.
Look. Mistakes have been made, but a lot of lessons have also been learned. You are someone with experience in this field. Very senior figure at Pfizer, one of our major pharmaceutical companies. You've been looking along with your colleagues at all of the evidence, and all of the papers published by very very eminent epidemiologists, statisticians, virologists, and the like.
And you have come to the conclusion that you don't believe a second wave is are actually very likely. Why do you think it is the case that we are not going to have a 2nd wave?
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. Yes. I'll I'll take that. So just first, risk.
I I want to make a couple of comments about the Ferguson and Imperial model. I've come across no no see serious scientist who thinks there's any validity. Risk For example, it assumes that because the virus is novel, we were all initially susceptible, and we had biologists falling about with with With that one. Yes. It's a novel virus, but it's very closely related to at least 4 other viruses that circulate freely, in in the population, which are risk all coronaviruses and contribute to the common cold.
So bluntly, it was naive of them to assume everyone was susceptible. And, risk. Since then, 4 or 5 major papers have come out to suggest that between 30 50% of people had t cell immunity risk Cross reacting from, having been exposed to these other, common cold inducing coronaviruses. So So
Speaker 0: that so this is so this this goes back to Neil Ferguson, research. And this computer model say, oh, 250,000 people are going to die because, basically, we're all susceptible. It's a brand new virus, risk. And that's why we had to lockdown. And you're saying, actually, anyone with any actual knowledge of this particular field would know that that was not the case.
So that should already have driven some of our our policies on that front.
Speaker 1: Yes. It it it's it should. So I'm not gonna what I'm not gonna do is say anything more about risk model. But it's important that you know, that most scientists don't accept that it was even faintly right. But I think the government is still risk wedded to the model, and it is driving, as I want to discuss with you, trade offs, of availability of the NHS, risk.
Which is going to result in excess avoidable deaths, which I think the government has explicitly decided to do presumably because they think Ferguson's model is correct. So that's one thing. I will talk about the 2nd wave. Am I going to make a challenge to them, which if they can't answer it, that the public will be able to conclude that I'm correct?
Speaker 0: Risk Well, that's well, that they do that. They're obviously well, time is obviously relatively short. We don't have time for a seminar, unfortunately, my as I know you would love in fact, I would love you to give. I might just give over my risk to hold. I'll hold the seminar on this, but let's get straight to it.
Speaker 1: Me just say then let me just get right to it. So the NHS, risk Your public and I have observed the NHS is relatively less available than normally. We were fine with that when it was coping with the peak of the of the pandemic, but I know because I have seen it internal undeclared priorities for the NHS are to maintain COVID stance, keep the NHS lightly loaded through the winter, and the reason they're doing it is to cope with the expected 2nd wave. Now someone in government, either Hancock or Ferguson or research has explicitly run the numbers and decided that it's okay to, have excess avoidable deaths in order to be prepared. Now risk I want someone I want you to ask them, Julia, to come on the air and actually announce the calculus that they have made because it's not an accident.
It's a deliberate policy.
Speaker 0: And that's where we are seeing huge huge backlogs of people getting treatment, getting referral, or going to the GP, getting a referral from the GP, getting treatment, starting treatment, or continuing treatment. And we know we know tens and tens of thousands of people are going to die as a result of that. We already see excess deaths. And that's the question and that's been obviously, there's a trade risk. Calculation is being made by the government on the basis that will we will lose far more people to to coronavirus in a second wave.
Why do you believe a second wave is not coming then.
Speaker 1: Okay. So two principal reasons. 1, I mentioned just earlier that many people, 30 to 50% started with a level risk immunity that meant they were not susceptible to the virus at all. That is well accepted by almost every clinical immunologist and virologist by now. And the reason is risk They have circulating t cells.
These are cells that remember what you've been exposed to and allow you quickly to respond to a new but related
Speaker 0: risk. This is why lots of people who may well have had the virus, and certainly in my own family, loads of us have the virus. We have same same same time. But not everyone has tested responses for antibodies, they've made been people who had t cell immunity.
Speaker 1: Abs absolutely. Or if people have developed t cell immunity, it was not necessary for them to use all the efforts in their body to degenerate antibodies. So the antibody test, if you've got it, you probably you have been exposed, but if you're negative, it does not mean you have not been exposed. So anyway, I've risk about, my concerns with the NHS and in principle, I think t cell prior immunity was a very important factor. Risk.
What that meant importantly is only 20% or 25% of the people needed to be infected for the pandemic to come to a standstill, risk. Through the herd immunity threshold, and it's controversial, but I'm afraid it's a fact. When you look at the shape of the daily deaths versus time curve, it is obvious to any risk. Any biological expert that the pandemic is fundamentally over. Now you asked about 2nd wave.
I'm gonna challenge the government. I challenge risk. Ferguson, mister Hancock, or anyone from SAGE to cite the research literature that understands that underscores their belief in the 2nd wave. I I'm I'm an experienced literature searcher, and it doesn't exist. And did you know, Julia, that the long their last two risk Coronaviruses, the novel ones called SARS in 2003 and MERS more recently, novel coronaviruses, each of them one risk wave each, and that's what most people expect with SARS CoV-two.
There's no underlying literature that says the 2nd wave is coming. This is an assertion, risk. I think it's an assertion because Ferguson having nailed his colors to the mast and observing where only a 5th or a 10th the way to his total risk. Is insisting there'll be a 2nd wave, and I think it's most unlikely. There's no science that says it should happen.
Speaker 0: What about the people what about the people who say, well, I mean, we had this, of course, you know, the the flu, pandemic in in, in in, you know, around the end of 1st World War, and that there was a massive second wave there. It is your argument that it risk with with is this a this is a different virus from flu, but all all that there wasn't a 2nd wave then?
Speaker 1: Both. It was at so it's a different virus. It's a 100 years old, so we do not have good molecular biology to tell us what happened, but certainly, these there is strong evidence that there was more than 1 organism. Risk. And anyway, old data and it's flu, and I've cited recent data with novel coronaviruses, one wave each.
Speaker 0: Okay. So let's let's Let's move on to what what we should be doing right now then. Because we've got an infection rate that is going up. It's largely young people, we know, particularly late teens, early twenties, who've got a a tiny, tiny, tiny chance of getting seriously ill, even tiny chance of actually dying of the virus. The government says, look, that's true, but We are now starting to see early, hospitalization rates going in going up, and we're seeing, the death rate going up slightly.
It's still small numbers, they're worried that it's going to rise exponentially. They talk about this to say the 2nd way. Why do you think we shouldn't be worried about that?
Speaker 1: Okay. I can I can take that easily? Now as you know, they're going around the country using, the swab test where they use a technique called PCR. PCR Is a molecular biology technique, and it involves a terrific amount of amplification over and over and over again. Now that technique, is well known to produce, a risk at least of false positives.
That is it. It comes up positive even though risk. The virus is not present. Now, people like professor Carl Hennigan in Oxford has been has been banging the drum on this for ages So they should not use this protocol without revision. Now let me tell you, Julia, last week, the government put out, an edict to revise risk.
The PCR protocol so that weak positives will be retested, but there was no media on this. This is a major u-turn because Let me just say this, were it not for the test data that you get on the TV all the time, you would rightly conclude that The pandemic was over and nothing much is happening. Of course, some people go to hospital. We'd be moving into the autumn, flu season. But remember I've said there's no science that suggests the 2nd wave should happen.
And at all, I'm thinking with prior
Speaker 0: Get back over for those of us who are not medical experts, just in terms of the scrub test PCR, these are risk. The tests that people are getting, when you go to, you know, you're you're you're in the community. You think, oh, I've got a bit of a persistent cough. Got a temperature. I might be in contact with someone.
I'll go and get one of these tests government's made available. And we know there are some false positives, but we also that the concern is that a lot of these are are what positives. The way they are carrying out these tests, they are able to take detect the tiniest tiniest chase of the virus, which may be months months old. So So these people may well have had the virus, may have come in contact with it months ago.
Speaker 1: Have it now.
Speaker 0: They don't have it now. They're not infectious. They're not at risk of infecting anyone else, or themselves getting ill. Risk. But we are basing up government policy, an economic policy, a a a a a a civil liberties policy in terms of limiting people to 6 people at meeting and all based on what may well be completely fake data about the spread of the virus.
Hold on a minute. Okay. Risk But but why listen. We've got very eminent people. Chief medical officer, chief scientific adviser.
People are gonna be shouting at the radio right now saying, hold on a minute. You may well have medications, Mike. But why do you think you know more than them? Do you think they know this as well, but they're carrying on anyway? Or do you think they have honest reason to believe that we are in a 2nd wave and we're about started.
Speaker 1: Yes. I I when when this episode started, it was entirely fine when 30% of the samples were genuinely positive and people were ill. Risk Wasn't a problem that maybe half or 1% were false positives. It didn't matter. But I'm afraid now the ONS survey shows that the general prevalence of the virus, how many people have it in the community is about 10 times lower than the false positive rate.
To say it again, when you run the test, you'll find 10 times more false positives risk than actually exist in reality. And so they finally come to their senses and last week said, we have to change this protocol because we don't essentially, they've admitted, risk. We don't really know how many true positives we've got. So I am demanding that Sage and the government, pause Introducing any new restrictions until they've made a change that they've recognized is necessary, and then tell us what whether we really have risk An uptick in cases or not.
Speaker 0: Doctor Mike Eden, we're gonna have to leave it there. I'm I'm definitely going to get you one again next week, because I want to go over more of this. And I think it's it's very complicated those of us who are not scientists or medics to understand a lot of this. But, I I think, you know, we're gonna have to put some of those questions. We'd normally do get to the health secretary on release once a week.
Will put those questions to him. But doctor Mike Eden, who is a former chief scientific officer at Pfizer Allergy and Respiratory Research. Thank you very much for that. Let's talk about whether or not, any of this is even necessary. Now we had an extraordinary action to the interview, I did last week with doctor Mike Eaton.
He's the former chief scientific advisor with, Pfizer, the major pharmaceutical company. And he along with many others, including, Carl Henaghan, the professor of evidence based medicine at Oxford University, and I really defy anyone to question those credentials, have been questioning whether or not we are, well, horribly overreacting to a virus that, like all viruses, we are going to have to learn to live with. And big question marks over whether or not the policies with many Western governments, including the UK, have been following over the recent, months, are actually having any effect at all? Well, let's talk about all of us once again with doctor Mike Eaton back, I think, quite Quite literally, by popular demand. Good morning to you.
Speaker 1: Good morning to you.
Speaker 0: Lovely to talk to you. We had almost a 100,000 views on on YouTube of your video. Lots of reaction on Twitter. A lot of people just say, great to actually hear someone sort of expand this now. Let let's just talk about some really basic stuff here.
We saw yesterday 3,991 positive cases for coronavirus. It's up 50% in a week. You can understand why huge numbers of people are are reasonably worried that we are seeing that uptick in cases. Should we be worried?
Speaker 1: Well, so thanks for having me back, Julia. So, risk Of course, I definitely don't want to dismiss the possibility, that these numbers are real and that people will get ill and potentially go to hospital or even But the evidence to date, I think, suggests that all or substantial part of these positives could be due to what's called false risk Positive, tests. Now government knows that, the PCR test is very sensitive, and all tests have a propensity risk. A particular false positive rate. What's really frustrating, Julie, and your your listeners should know this, the government doesn't risk Either doesn't know what the false positive rate is or if it does, it's not declaring it and continuing with the assumption that it's 0.
And it's definitely not zero. Risk And Carl Hennigan did a calculation and he showed that if the false positive rate is as little as 0.1%, then more than half the positive tests are in risk. False or fake. And I think the false positive rate is probably much higher, possibly 1%. And if that's true, most risk Or or or of the positives are are actually false, and they are not infected, infectious, or ill.
Speaker 0: And the key the key thing there is, And again, for those of us who are not medically trained or scientifically trained, so indeed a great mathematics either. It's because the the actual percentage of people who are being tested positive is is a tiny tiny percentage. So if you have a very a positive, a a a false positive rate at that level, you actually are accounting for effectively all of the the positive test results. And this comes down to how they're testing and how they they carry out these cycles to sort of try and sort of, get particles of a virus. And and as far as, again, as far as I can understand it, it seems to be along the lines of the fact that we are finding traces of the old virus.
Basically dead virus virus that's been caught 6 months ago that could not possibly make the person ill currently and could not possibly be infectious other people. In which case, we're finding 3,991 cases of people, largely of people who may or may not have the virus in the past or don't have the virus at all, in which case not much to worry about.
Speaker 1: Yes. I I do think just a couple of things. So you're absolutely right. Risk. We know that because it's been shown that people who've recovered from the virus and they're clinically well and you can no longer culture virus from a sample from risk mouth or airways still can be positive in the PCR test.
And that's because, as you say, the test It's not a test for virus. It's not a test for living virus. The test looks for a particular piece of the genetic code. And if it finds a small piece risk of a dead virus that's still stuck in your mucus and is being shed from cells, you could still be positive on a swab test for a long time. Risk.
So that's what I think is a significant contribution. And the other one is just intrinsically that tests occasionally, statistically, risk. Throw up false positives and actually say a very good point, Julia, that the ONS survey still says that the prevalence of the virus is very low, which is good, Less than 0.1%. So if we find 2% positives and yet no one's ill, I'm worried that specifically, Matt risk Hancock's pillar 2 test is
Speaker 0: for That's community testing. That's people who are going to school, going to work, and getting tested. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yes. And I I think did you see on risk On the TV the other day, they showed a little clip of people beavering away on a line of white tables. They looked like big picnic tables, and they were in something that risk For all the world looked like a marquee tent. Mhmm. And there were some, you know, people casting around, wearing gloves and so on.
I think if they're really doing the tests or processing the samples, risk. You've got to be kidding. Imagine this was a test in a forensic case in law because this is the same kind of thing. They use PCR risk. To try and prove you you are or are not the guilty party.
But if you were doing your your forensic work in a tent like that, the lawyer would just throw it out and say, don't believe it.
Speaker 0: Risk. Right. That's that's a fair point. Now what about the argument that, okay, load of these may be false positives. A load of these people are are not a risk to themselves or or others.
Risk. But we are falling behind countries like Spain and France. They've also seen a big uptick in the number of cases, although they're not testing at the same level. And they are now, and we're 3 weeks ahead behind them. They are now seeing an uptick in people getting into hospital and in terms of deaths.
And we are now seeing that uptick in hospitalizations and in deaths. Is that not evidence that we should be worried that we are heading into the so called 2nd wave?
Speaker 1: Risk Yeah. No. It's a it's a fair question. I I I will tell you I'm very humble and very worried that I if I'm wrong, I would hate to sort of mislead people. But I did check, this morning, and the number of COVID deaths, at least in NHS England, is continuing to stay low and falling.
So risk I can't tell you what the ITU, you know, the intensive care status or number of admissions, but it has fallen constantly for 6 months. So, risk for it now to turn and increase, we would have to have some big change in transmission. So let me just comment on risk Something I've I've read a paper by somebody that's made me rethink the data. You know the story going around at the moment that very many more young people are testing positive risk in this PTR test. And people have said, oh, well, it must be the young people are, you know, interacting with each other as they do and not risk.
Looking at social distancing. Well, that's possible, but you know, I always felt that was implausible because young people felt rightly risk Less at risk from this virus from the get go. And as my children in their twenties have said, you know, what that young people have not been spending as much time social distancing. So what I'm saying is they would have caught it. They would have been the 1st people to have caught it and survived.
So the idea that now, 6 months later, risk. The young people are selectively guessing it. I just think that's for the birds. And I read a paper yesterday by a pathologist who's looked at this data and come up with a different and dramatic risk. Conclusion.
She says this is Claire Craig in Spectator. She says, if the, positive tests are false, they will be risk. Evenly across the population whether you're young or old. And you know what? That's what we're finding.
Now, 19 risk. Percent of the positive tests are in the under twenties, whereas during the pandemic, only 2% of the cases were in young people. So she's saying It's now spread evenly, so it's either of the virus is even or more likely that it's just, it's a feature of testing lots of people and It's just false positives.
Speaker 0: I said we're it's nothing. We're we're we're being told the answer to coming out of this, this predicament we're in and and avoiding a 2nd lockdown across the country or curfews and the likes. Even Christmas, the prime minister has said in an interview with the sun. The answer is more testing. But if we've got testing that is showing up so many false positives risk.
And people who are not infectious, who not at risk. The risk of course, is that more testing, creates more cases, creates more worry, is more likely to lead us to have a curfew and and lockdown, in which case well, what is the answer if it's not testing then?
Speaker 1: Okay. So I've got I've got the risk. For one comment, Sweden is not doing mass testing, and so far their society is not riven with ill people going to hospital and dying. Risk. And the reason I mentioned it is that they have had the same, percentage of their populations that come and die 0.06 risk centers we have had in UK and over the same time scale.
So I think it is at least worth looking at what they're doing. But I'm going to repeat, risk positive rates, which I think is dreadful because it's having a big impact on people. If you don't know what it is, shame on you. And if you do know what it is, you must disclose it. And risk.
Finally, you, some advisers have issued to you, guidance to retest the positives before declaring them. Are you doing that? Risk That would be that would we'd all be more satisfied. If they're genuinely infected and really got the virus, most of the time, they'll test positive again. I think risk A lot of them being false positives will not test positive if you immediately repeat them.
And that's good practice. That's the advice to the minister. Why isn't he doing that?
Speaker 0: Risk. That's that's certainly a challenge we'll be putting, to the health secretary next time we speak to him. You brought up Sweden, and and this has been a very big issue. Sweden famously being the country that didn't go to a formal lockdown. They went into a semblance of all time.
In terms of it was but it was voluntary. It was advice about social distancing, risk. Pubs and bars stayed open. Schools stayed open for all children up to the age of 16. They don't wear masks.
People just largely getting on with, with with normal life, and being fairly sensible. All the evidence then is pointing, as you say, given the similar death rates around the Europe. And and again, where they do differ, there are large factors that can explain that, which are quite separate from what governments have done or not done. Do you think that actually our best, hopes of of getting through this, will actually be be following what Sweden rather than, say, a 2nd lockdown? And what are your fears if we did go into some version of a 2nd lockdown?
Leaving aside the economic effects, risk, but the health effects of a 2nd lockdown in terms of coronavirus.
Speaker 1: Yes. I think if we have, a second lockdown, I think we're going risk. Amplify the negative effects. Forget the economy. It's very important.
Forget the economy. If we have another lockdown, I think we're going to amplify the non COVID deaths risk that I think, have happened already, and we're not much talking about them. It's as if there's no other health condition in the country risk Worth paying attention to and the consequence of locking down and restricting access to the health service, in case there's a second wave because that's an official policy risk. They've not bothered to tell you about. I think that's going to have and has already had the consequence of killing or allowing to die saveable people from non risk.
COVID illness, and I think so. Lockdown, I wouldn't do it. Let me just mention briefly, we it is now established our lockdown, our national lockdown, risk. Occurred too late to make any difference to the initial spread of the virus. Even, I think, professor Quiswitty accepts this.
Risk So think about it. We didn't introduce masks until quite recently, and our lockdown was too late to prevent the initial spread. I assert that actually what has happened In in UK, it's very similar to Sweden. We we made efforts that were distinct and different, but I don't think they made any difference because lockdown was too late and masks very much risk. So it wouldn't be surprising if we've had the same, you know, lethality, the same population percentage who have died, unfortunately, risk Then why aren't we in the same place?
And, it's worth noting, I had a quick look around the data in Africa, and, if risk. Mass population immunity is not keeping the numbers of illnesses and deaths, for example, in Malawi right risk on the floor. The imperial projection was for tens of thousands to die. I think about 250. So Yeah.
And a virologist from that country said, I I can think of no other explanation than mass population immunity to explain the difference between the models and whatnot.
Speaker 0: And that's the question is whether or not we we actually do now have enough population immunity to stop an exponential spread. We will. As we head into autumn and winter, we will see more people dying. But that is the nature of these respiratory diseases. Right now, let's, talk to my 1st guest of this hour.
And that's doctor Mike Eden. We've spoken to him a couple of times already, on the show since the pandemic. He's the former chief scientific advisor with Pfizer. And he has identified for us, a number of issues with the testing regime. Now, Mike, when we've spoken before, The big thing that lots of people are asking the government about, and I saw this with all the Sunday shows at GATE, is how many people are getting tested?
Why aren't we doing more about crime providing more tests? Risk. Why can't people get tests if they're, you know, they're asymptomatic? Because we know about the spread of all that. And all the different issues.
But the thing risk. The issue that you've been raising, and it's something that Carl Hennigan, Oxford University has been raising, is whether or not these tests are even worth the paper they're printed on. Last week, Matt Hancock told me that the, positive that the false positive rate for these tests was below 1. And he said that was a nice low rate and that was a good thing. What is the false positive rate on the testing that we're doing in the community?
Speaker 2: Under 1%.
Speaker 0: It's under 1%. Even around under 1%. Do you know the exact
Speaker 2: rate? It's well, under 1% means that for all the positive cases, the likelihood of one being a false positive risk. It is very small.
Speaker 0: You're very concerned and have written a piece over the weekend to point out that he's quite wrong about that, isn't he?
Speaker 1: Yes. Good morning. Good morning to you. Yes. I'm afraid he he is, completely wrong about his view that there is no problem at all.
So, it's important just to explain what do we mean by false positive because I think the health sector has got risk. The wrong definition. The real definition of false positive is what risk percentage of the entire population that you are sampling in pillar two screening. What what percentage come up as positive? Risk.
Now he said it was just below 1%. And lines of evidence say, we think he meant probably 0.8. There's all sorts of reasons why he meant that. Risk. So if you have 10,000, patients, being screened, it's 0.8 of those or 80 that will come up as false positive.
Risk. And I think he thinks it's the percentage is positive.
Speaker 0: Now, Mike, Mike, apologies. Wrong. We've got we've got it in the talking about Mike, can I can I stop you a second? Because we've got a bit of a problem with your line. We've got a little bit of a, a cutting in and out.
But I say let me just just go over the key point here He the the impression you got from the interview we did with my Matt Hancock was that he thought that it because of the false positive rate is below 1%, That means that below 1% of the cases that come up positive are false. And you'll say, no, it's not. It's it's it's it's what what it's 1% of all those who you test or naught 0.8% probably of who you test. And given that we have such a tiny, tiny number of people who are testing positive around the same numbers, it means that something like in the region of 9 out of 10 of the tests that are coming up positive, people are told you have COVID, may not actually have COVID at all.
Speaker 1: Yes. I that you said it exactly correctly. So another way to say it risk is if the false positive rate, the fraction of your tests that come up positive, if they do not have the virus, risk. If that's greater than what's called the prevalence, the fraction of people who've got the virus, it doesn't matter how hard you try risk. You can't subtract it.
You will end up with most of your positives being what are called false positives. They don't have the virus. Risk. They're not sick. They won't get sick.
They're not contagious. And you may have noticed, Juliet, and that's possibly why I was thinking about this over the last few weeks. Have you noticed risk. When we get so called, searches or peaks, you know, Leicester and so on, almost no one was ill. And and and that risk.
Figures now because I think between, 5 times and 10 times the number of, of sorry, only 1 5th or 1 tenth risk the antivirus. These are the ones that are true positives. And so the problem is if the false positive rate is higher than the prevalence, risk You cannot use the assay. There's nothing you can do to fix it. And I believe this this this let me just finish this one sentence.
I may sound controversial, but risk Unless they can fix this assay, I believe they should stop pillar 2 testing because there isn't an assay that can do other than I have described To generate mostly false positives.
Speaker 0: So this isn't that this is a peculiarly poor test. It's just this kind of testing in the community. And this is the big difference between testing in hospital and testing in the community. Testing hospital, we call pillar 1 testing in the community, pillar 2. Now, when you're doing pillar 1, you're testing people who are already ill.
They've got symptoms. And you're doing a testing with medical professionals taking the test, and they're going straight to the lab. And that of course, has a much higher rate of reliability than a test, done by non medically trained people in the community of to a certain extent, a fairly random sample of people because a lot of people are going to get tested who haven't got symptoms themselves. They may think they've been in contact with someone who thinks they've got COVID. Risk.
Again, odds are they haven't got it. So it's it's always it's all it's the number of people and the reason why they're being tested that's also the issue.
Speaker 1: Yes. You had you said it right. Risk. So the pillar one test in hospital, certainly just to take us back to that ghastly month of March where we're at the peak risk infections. And then in April, about April 10th, we saw the peak of deaths.
And then for the last 6 months, it's fallen continuously. But back in March, risk I've looked at the data and fully 30% of the people who were sampled were positives. And now it's 30% who are positive And then 0.1, 0.8% of a false positive. Basically, the effect there is instead of 30 out of a 100 being positive, risk Which and they do have the virus, you get 31. Because that one so you can see now the effect of false positives is irrelevant.
Yeah. Risk Now when there's almost no one who's got it, an average member of the society of the public, ONS says it's about 0.1%, 1 in a 1000. 0.8% is risk fixed, false positive rate, it's generating 5 to 10 times more false positives than real ones. And earlier in the summer, it was 20 times. Risk.
So it's got to stop. They they must not use this assay. It's producing catastrophizing. And also an important point, Julie, if I was risk. I was right and the government said, you know, Mike Eden's right, Carl Henningen's right.
Let's just pull this test. There's nothing else actually happening of any great note. Risk Yes. There are some in hospital. Yes.
There are some dying. But as compared with the 1,000 dying every day, we're down to about 1% of that. Risk And there's there actually isn't any fear that the government could provide. So it crosses my mind. I don't know why.
I'm not making a conspiracy. But if they wanted us to be fearful, risk The best way to do it is carrying on using a test that produces mostly false positives because wherever they travel, that's what they'll get.
Speaker 0: And this is the thing and the more testing you do, the more false positives you'll get. In fact, you'll make it more likely there will be more. But with 3,899 cases yesterday, we've been around that 3,000 mark. Now the 4,000 mark. The number is going up.
But we do know that the proportion of, positive cases of those tested, is also going up. So risk. There is there is a greater incidence, we think, of the virus in the community. And we have seen hospitalizations go up and we have seen desktop, but professor Carl Henrick at Oxford University was saying yesterday and in an article and on television, but this is the normal seasonal effect of getting ahead again September. We are there is a fear that we are catastrophizing normal seasonal trends.
More people will die flu. More people die of pneumonia, more people will get colds, and more people will get COVID. That doesn't necessarily mean we're entering a 2nd wave.
Speaker 1: Risk. Yes. Abs absolutely. It's absolutely right. I've tried to explain to people, and if people who are listening to this and want to know more of the background, res it's, my new article in Toby Young's lockdown skeptics.
I'm not a lockdown skeptic. The first time, I have been subsequently. It's a dangerous, damaging intervention that cuts across people's lives. And and worse, it doesn't actually stop people catching the virus. They just get it later.
Risk So I don't think it saves a single life, but it deprives us of access to the NHS. Everybody knows that risk NHS Access, they're trying their best, but but they've been told for some reason to keep the loading of patients light. Seriously, This was my 1st claim and it's true. They're keeping the loading on the NHS light, which is why you can't get the treatments and surgeries you want because they're planning for a 2nd wave. Risk.
And, Juliet, if you just give me 5 seconds, I just want to repeat the strong request to Matthew Hancock and risk Professor Ferguson. So if you believe there's going to be a 2nd wave, then you must have evidence for that. What is the underlying evidence that you're resting your case on? Because you seem to think there'll be 1, and you're planning for it, and you're depriving us of the NHS, and you're prepared to lock us down to avoid it. Risk.
But I've looked, and there's no evidence in the literature whatever. And as Carl Hennigan says, we're definitely not in a second wave at the moment. Res When you look at the data, honestly, there are more cases, but for the reasons Carl Hennigan said, I think at most, we're in a second ripple.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you very much for joining us doctor Mike Eden, former chief scientific advisor with Pfizer, looking at those figures. Really appreciate you joining Let's just talk about the whole issue of whether or not we should be listening to the scientists who are telling us, we need to go into risk. Tiers 1, tier 2, and tier 3. Possibly even a circuit breaker lockdown as it's being called.
But, this is all based on the advice of Sage scientist. Their minutes were released after the prime minister earlier this week announced that we were gonna be moving into different tiers. Obviously, within days, many parts of the country moving from tier 1 to tier 2 from tier 2 to tier 3 rather makes nonsense of the exercise. But there is some talk that even by next Friday, we could be looking at what is laughably called a circuit breaker, a local I'm sorry. National lockdown, but would actually be another full lockdown.
Yeah. You can go to school and go to work at large parts of the country, but it wouldn't necessarily break any circuit. Well, let's Talked to a man who's spoken to a number of times before, about whether or not actually, the advice we're getting on the science is actually good advice that we should trust. Mike Eden joins me again. He's a former chief scientific advisor with Pfizer and joins us now.
Good morning to you.
Speaker 1: Good morning, Julia.
Speaker 0: Good morning. Now you you spent over 30 years leading new medicines research in particular in the issue in the area of a respiratory disease. We've spoken to a number of times risk. False positive rates, and the like, many other issues. But you've just written a a piece for LockDown Skeptics website, risk.
Suggesting there is another key issue, well, a couple of key issues with the advice that Sage, the the the advisory group of, of medics scientists giving advice to the government. And you say they are committing a major error in terms of their assumptions. What is that assumption that you think is wrong, which therefore means that all the policy suggestions they are making are also wrong.
Speaker 1: Yes. Thank you very much, Julia. Yes. It's with some trepidation that I wrote That item, and it's out this morning, and anyone can find it and just look at 2 pie charts. As you'll probably know, the risk Speed of travel of an infectious agent in a population depends on what percentage of the population remains susceptible.
Risk If you were immune to start with or you've been infected and are now immune, then it doesn't travel, amongst the members. Now I couldn't believe it. When Boris, risk gave his speech, I think it was on Monday. And within 10 minutes, Sage's advice to ministers, risk I think it was dated late September, appeared on the Internet. I remember idly reading it.
And if everybody would like to go to the effectiveness of non risk Pharmaceutical interventions, NPIs, the 2nd paragraph. I read it, and I read it again, and I'm still on the looking glass side of the world. They said risk Since 90% of the population are still susceptible, dot, dot, dot, I believe that Sage risk Went into 2020 with a complete lack of awareness that about a third of us carry immunity, risk SARS CoV 2 because we've been exposed to closely related coronaviruses that cause common colds. Everybody who's deeply Immersed in this area knows that it seems Sage does not. So that's the first error.
They thought we went in because it's risk. A new virus with no immunity, and that's that's wrong. And at first, I thought, well, it'll it'll all come out of the wash. Then next, they've been tracking people's exposure risk By looking at how many people have got antibodies, which seems reasonable. The problem is that only the people who got sickest have Antibodies that stay up that you can measure later.
Speaker 0: Well, that I said I had those with my family. I I tested Mike, I tested positive for antibodies about a month or 2. But but my let me let me let me let me finish. Risk. But my but my my my the rest of my family, some of them tested, some of them didn't.
And those who were not this not very sick at all, didn't test positive for antibodies. So the assumption from Sage is that those people are still susceptible to disease.
Speaker 1: Yes. That's the thing. And they're wrong. Unfortunately, people who are exposed slightly, and have definitely been infected. They may not make much antibodies or none at all, but they definitely have converted their t cells.
They've remembered they've been exposed risk virus, and we can measure it in their blood. It's a clunky technique, but it's definitely true that people have been exposed to the virus or been exposed to common cold risk Viruses that are similar are no longer susceptible. My so my big claim is that Sage thinks that 93% of the British population are susceptible to the virus. No wonder they're panicking, and they think it's going to be a massive second wave. I'm afraid I think the science says that only at 28% susceptible.
And if I'm right, the pandemic should be largely coming to a close with some risk ripples in the regions that London should not be ablaze with coronavirus. There were nearly a 1000 deaths a day risk at this time in April, and now we think it's 10. So I if my predictions are correct, London should not risk see a big, secondary wave, and it's not. If I am correct, there'll only be outbreaks in the regions. That's what's happening.
Risk. If I am correct, the, rises that we are seeing northwest, northeast would be rising much more slowly risk than in the spring because there are fewer people and it's harder for the virus to move between
Speaker 0: And when you say when you say the regions,
Speaker 1: Mike I think it's I think it's over.
Speaker 0: Risk Mike, when you say the regions, you know, that that's millions and millions of people. I mean, we're not I say we're very much not a London centric but you're basically No.
Speaker 1: I'm a Southeast guy.
Speaker 0: No. Okay.
Speaker 1: Mike. I apologize. I'm actually born in Birmingham. I've lived in
Speaker 0: the Southeast. Yeah. Mike. Okay. So the the the key point here is that is that London London, the reason why it won't be having so much in is because there was much more exposure before the the 1st lockdown in London.
And therefore, a large parts of the country which has had not been mostly exposed, they're not having a second wave. They're having a 1st wave. But hold on a minute. Yes. There'll be lots of people saying, well, hold on a minute.
We saw what happened in that 1st wave. We saw how many people died. Side. We we don't want our 1st wave either. Why are you so convinced then that there that there will be that level of immunity in parts of the country which didn't have a lot of deaths early on.
For instance, let's look at Devon and Cornwall. They've never had any wave at all, not having one now, didn't have one then. Does that mean that they've still got much higher susceptibility?
Speaker 1: Risk I don't know. I I think it's likely, but I think it'd be fair to say I don't know. They didn't get a large amount of illness and deaths the first time due. You're right. Now risk It's possible that the reason is that they had a higher level of prior immunity, and it's possible the northwest and northeast will be hit harder risk than some other areas of the country, but there's nothing I don't think there's anything I I could do about that.
Let's say we were able to make a measurement. I mean, you might say, well, let's lock down. If you do want to do that, you should only do it in a targeted area. It would be absolutely crazy. I think it's crazy closing risk.
Big city like London down. I I've been looking and waiting for weeks expecting it not to come up in London and hoping to daughter it right. And it's not coming up in London. Risk. And I'll tell you what.
There's 1 you know, I've been talking earlier in the year about false positives and so on. Yep. It's definitely the virus risk definitely swept through the country and all countries in Europe, earlier in the year, and lots of people died. But some something really strange has happened that risk. I think the pandemic is substantially over.
I do think there'll be, as I say, the secondary ripple, I you know, as people, I'm afraid, catch it And get ill and some will die in the in the places further from London that weren't so exposed. But we've detected that there's some very odd thing is going on in terms of false positives. Risk. They're pushing the assay all the time to beyond any sensible limit. There's exaggeration.
There's kind of cheating. There's risk practice. Did you know, for example, that when people go to hospital as a COVID admission, you'd think that would be someone with some symptoms that turned up and was tested now, risk. Oh, look. They've got it.
But in fact, if they only get a positive test after 10 days in hospital, that is classed as a COVID admission. It's an absurdity.
Speaker 0: That this thing, Carl Henninger doing
Speaker 1: that, you better work that out.
Speaker 0: Yeah. The pro the professor of evidence based medicine at Oxford University, I know you're in contact with him, Carl Henninger. Their latest estimates are that when you actually look at the data which people go into hospital on the date they're tested, 17 a half percent of hospital COVID patients they believe caught the virus in the hospital. And again, we're also talking about people dying of COVID and with COVID. We know that there is no excess mortality right now.
We also know that we have seen risk. Very much fewer deaths. I mean, huge numbers. Tens of thousands of deaths that we would normally expected from things like pneumonia, from things like flu. That we've not heart disease, not this this year.
We've not seen that because those deaths have gone down as COVID deaths. And they may well be people who had COVID, but and they were tested positive for it or or they just, you know, they just they they they actually had it themselves. But a lot of those people, very sadly, were very near the end of their life already, would probably have died very tragically from those other diseases within a matter of weeks or months anyway. And yet they're counted as COVID deaths. And there's lots of evidence now, isn't there, that actually this year, risk.
Overall, when you count all deaths may not be an exceptional year for deaths at all.
Speaker 1: No. I I was quite surprised to look at this. I think lots of people would risk. Well, it's been just a horrific year. Obviously, if you were your relatives that that it is horrible, but it's only believe it or not, in terms of excess mortality, this year is risk ranks 8 out of 27.
So it's about like in the top third of bad years over the last 30 years or so. It's not that extreme. And it's for the reasons that you say, Julie. Yes. There are there are these quotes, COVID deaths with or off, but there are lots of people, lots of deaths we would have risk a variety of common causes, oddly enough, had just not happened.
And, of course, I think they have perished of those causes, and they just happen to have been risk found to have had this virus. So so I say again, it's a massive claim that I think the pandemic is fundamentally risk Over in this country and the only reason it's not that we're not being told it's over is because Sage has decided it's not over. If you look around you in London, people know people are not ill. Yeah. The hospitals are not full of COVID people.
It's not in the southeast, not in the southwest, risk in the center of England, not the east of England. And, honestly, I genuinely believe they may have, for whatever reason, risk Just predicted certain things that haven't happened, and now they've kind of like doubled down. But when you go and look at it, it is slight it is pretty much over. It will crest risk In the northeast and northwest, like it's done everywhere else in Europe, the secondary waves are always smaller in terms of ill people and lethality, And then it will go away. Stand up and tell them, you know, let's let's examine this evidence, see if Eden's crazy or or or not.
Speaker 0: Risk. But this is let's again, look at the evidence. Don't look at who's saying it. Look at the evidence. But the fact that you're a former chief scientific advisor at Pfizer.
I mean, I'm sorry. I think that's risk. People developing the pharmaceuticals to deal with these sort of diseases. I think it's worth listening to you. Mike Eden, really appreciate you joining us.
Always do. Former chief scientific advisor with Pfizer. Right now, let's turn our attention back to the lockdown and the reasons for the lockdown. Risk. And well, the reasons why perhaps in lockdown, ain't gonna provide the solution to the problem that we are have apparently got.
And why we may not have as bigger problem, as we've been told by the likes of balance, and to Chris Ritty and Boris Johnson. Let's talk to Mike Eden. He's, former chief scientific adviser with Pfizer. The for big pharmaceutical companies. We've spoken to him, as you all know, many times before about things like the false positive rate and the problems with mass testing.
Now this course comes at a time when we're about to see the mass testing with a rapid test over pretty much the entire population of Liverpool. That is the latest plan. But is that the answer to the problem? Mike Eden. Good morning to you.
Speaker 1: Good morning to you. Good morning.
Speaker 0: We've been I mean, virtually everyone I've spoken to, whether whatever we talk about, Anything to do with lockdown? Anything to do with the problems with the hospitals and the like? We we constantly come back to, it's the problem with testing and test and track and trace. And then we're not testing enough of enough people. We're not testing enough of the right people and we're not getting those test results back.
Is that the problem?
Speaker 1: Risk No. No. Good morning, everybody. It's really it sounds counterintuitive, but in my opinion, you don't chase respiratory viruses around the country using risk Industrial molecular biology. I don't think we should be testing anybody unless they turn up to hospital.
And even then, we should be doing it better than we're doing.
Speaker 0: Risk. And when you say doing it better than we're doing, you and I have spoken a number of times about false positive rates and things like that. There's still an ongoing issue. Although, again, I'm I get fact checked by the BBC when I ask The health secretary about this saying, well, this is all completely debunked. But we know many many eminent people, scientists and academics, in this field have questioned this.
The big issue here with the false positive rate, and if you've helped if you could explain what that is, for for my listeners listeners who don't are immersed in this, is it it it would appear that no one actually knows officially Yeah. What it is. But tell us what it is and why it's so important still.
Speaker 1: Yes. Okay. So just briefly, this PCR or polymerase chain reaction, it's an amplification technique where bait, which is human designed, is popped into a sample and then it goes into a machine that cycles it over and over and over again up to maybe 2 to the power of 40, an enormous number. Risk And the power of it is, you could find 1 molecule in the swimming pool, or not quite, 1 molecule in a sample you could certainly find. Risk.
And the problem with it is it sometimes produces a signal at the end when there's nothing in this at all. That's called false positives. Also, it can be positive risk When there's a, an after infection, broken pieces of viruses or things that are similar to what you're looking for. Bottom line, as you said, Julia, The government has now admitted informal written answers to parliament, so it's in Han Hansard, that they have not characterized it. They do not know what False positive, false negative rate is and I'm saying, please your listeners, the test is not to be trusted.
Everything they're telling you about, risk Cases, admissions, people in ICU and deaths all pivot off this PCR test. And I'm saying it's impossible to know whether all the positives are real or none of them.
Speaker 0: Well, what what about the people who creep who criticized you? People who criticize me? And again, I'm just I'm just reporting on on what the the experts are saying. I don't pretend expertise in this area, and, and never have. That okay.
When you've got a very low prevalence of the disease, as we had in July August Yeah. And then you're gonna see far more false positives. Because even with a very low rate, say, no 0.8% of them are false positives, which is the normal figure for these sort of kinds of tests. If you've got a much lower prevalence of the disease, then you're gonna have a 90% of them are gonna be false. However, when the disease is on the rise, and you've got a much higher percentage of people with the disease, is higher, then you get a much lower false positive rate.
And and hey, if we if if the false positive rate was as high as you said it was, we wouldn't be seeing all these people going into hospital now and we wouldn't be seeing this rising COVID deaths. What do you say to that?
Speaker 1: I'm sorry. I I have to push back on it. People saying the r number. Risk. The r number depends on the PCR test, which I'm telling you is unreliable.
More COVID patients going into hospital depends on the PCR test, which I'm saying is unreliable. Risk Even the people operating it could not stand in front of, you and say what percentage of the positives are genuine. I think some of them probably are, but no one knows.
Speaker 0: But risk. Well, of course, I mean, of
Speaker 1: course, some of them are. But And, Julia, if I may say if I may say, you said now the virus is rising. We've no idea if the virus is rising. Might be. In fact, I probably would I would credited with a small seasonal bump along with 4 other cross potentially cross reacting, common cold causing coronaviruses.
But There is no evidence that it's rising and definitely, Julia, you know this. The illness and death data says it's not. It's a respiratory virus. Risk There were no excess respiratory deaths in autumn. None.
There were no unusual levels of admissions to ITU based on respiratory illness. Risk That to me says it's not here.
Speaker 0: But this is it, isn't it? When when we see these stark figures, they reported in very sort of ponderous tones on the television, you know, we've had to do 500 more deaths or 4 or whatever whatever it is on any given day. Often actually, if you dig into it, you look at actually over the days in which they've actually being the the date of death as opposed to reported death. Actually, they we're looking at far lower numbers, but but also these are these are deaths with COVID not of COVID. So you can be in hospital for a whole variety of other reasons.
You can have heart disease, you can have cancer. If you test positive for COVID, you still end up on these these, on these statistics, don't you?
Speaker 1: That that's and see, this is what I'm saying. Everything you're being told, risk Every scary fact and prediction from Witty and Valens all hangs off the PCR test, which they have admitted they cannot tell what risk Sensitive positives are false and true. Let me say, I'm going to make a strong statement. Everybody should comply with the law. I don't want anyone not to.
Risk But that does not, that space does not extend to the space between your listeners' ears. I am saying the pandemic is fundamentally over in the UK. Risk. I'm more sure of this than ever and we should not be doing anything. So here's the two reasons, apart from the illness data and my problems with the test, two other reasons.
The theory says so. We now know that loads of people had prior immunity. There's an unbelievable amount of data. We see in balance have ignored it. And then when people are infected risk.
They mostly survive, they become immune. That's not a theory. That's how it works. And so as a result, I believe we are now risk Firmly at community immunity. So that's one thing.
Remember, they keep talking about 2nd waves. That's got my hackles up. I'm afraid, dear listener, risk Viruses don't do waves. You must go and look it up. And if I'm right, that means they've made it all up for I have no idea why.
I'm sure they're well intentioned. Risk.
Speaker 0: This this this is the bit that people don't understand. Why why are they telling us data? I mean, even when we saw on Friday on Saturday night, risk. This figure, this 4,000 deaths a day from right. This was debunked within hours.
Yeah. This was then presented by our prime minister yet again in parliament on Monday. Even though it's already been debunked, and it was debunked by professor Carl Heineken and others pointing out that this was old data. It it was already it was already untrue at the point to which, they, they they actually he spoke about it. And and and and it's not a matter of opinion, untrue, mathematically disproven.
And yet we're still being given these sort of statistics. Why do you think that is?
Speaker 1: Well, for a start, I will say at this point, Julia. I don't know. I'm I'm a scientist. Risk. I can tell you what they're telling you is incorrect.
Furthermore, it hurts me to say it. They're clever people. I believe I absolutely know risk that they know what they're telling you is not true. So there must be a reason. I don't know.
I'm not a detective. I'm really not. Could it be about money Or or what all the whatever it is, the reset. I've no idea. I'm telling you they're telling you untrue things.
Les can I just give one last example Respiratory As to why your listeners will know I'm telling the truth? So I've said theory says so. Illness and death says it should be over and the PCR test is unreliable. The people's practical experience says so. How long does a seasonal flu epidemic last in the UK?
And the answer is probably 3 or 4 months. This risk Virus is more infectious. It can't take less time to go through the population. So I think from February to June, risk It was in the lands. That was where we saw the excess deaths and then it went.
And it doesn't come back because viruses don't do wave. Now one thing, one last thing. Do you know last week, Julia, everybody was going on about antibody levels and how they were falling. And I heard the spin that I couldn't believe. Risk They said, this means the immunity doesn't last long.
No, that's a wrong interpretation. Immunity to viruses is mostly conferred by what's called risk. Levels falling and falling. Human body is very efficient. It doesn't keep making antibodies that it doesn't need.
What this data is telling us risk. Is that people aren't being exposed again and again and again to the virus. That's why the antibody levels are falling. It perfectly fits my thesis.
Speaker 0: Mike Keaton will have to leave it there and point out he's at risk. Former vice president of Pfizer. He's a former chief scientific advisor. He was actually a person who looking at respiratory diseases. This is what he does as a for a living.
He's a scientist. Thank you very much indeed. I really appreciate you joining us.
Speaker 3: Now let's move into this territory. The health secretary announced the UK has ordered 5,000,000 Moderna vaccines, enough for 2a half 1000000 people, they said last night. This is amid fears that Britain had missed out on supplies. The early data suggests the vaccine is up to 95% effective. Earlier in the day, Matt Hancock also said 2 new risk.
Mega Labs will be constructed, which will double the UK's coronavirus testing capacity to more than a1000000 a day by the new year. The 2 sites at risk. Play a major role in the government's mass testing strategy and raises questions of whether more cities could join Liverpool in regularly testing all of its at risk. Regardless of whether or not they have the symptoms. Let's speak with doctor Mike Eden, former chief scientific adviser with risk Pfizer much been in the news a lot, of course, lately.
Mike, good afternoon to you. I mean, just talk us through this. What what are you making of these latest set risk. Of government announcements, you know, with your sort of previous scientific hat on in that respect. I mean, does this sound to you like the way to go?
Speaker 1: Hello there. Yes. Good afternoon. So doctor Mike Eden, thank you very much for having me on your show. Yes.
So risk. I'm led to almost this conclusion, that, the government's almost telling us that testing sets you free. I think the first things risk before which is that more we test, the safer you'll be and maybe eventually we'll be able to move around. And I'm here to tell you risk That, actually, it's testing that's keeping us in a in a really serious problem. If I could just, expand for a moment.
I risk People who followed my Twitter feeds and I've appeared on your on your colleague Julia Hart Brewer's show a few times will know I've had a bee in my bonnet about problems with uh- PCR mass testing. These are the tests they do every day and reveal every evening, whatever it is, 35,000 new cases. Risk. So you may remember last week, the government sent the army into Liverpool and they used a new test. This is so called lateral flow test it looks a bit like a pregnancy test kit, you know whatever you put some liquid in one end you wait a few minutes and the answer comes out.
And they've been doing a really good job the army, they think they've tested 90,000 people in the city of Liverpool, good people who've really helped them there risk. And, they've pretty much found no virus. It's kind of little too. I think it's none but they'll I'll let them say it's little. Now that what that tells you is is a problem with one of the tests.
Either the PCR test is telling us that, as we are told, that there's a hotspot in the country, northwest, loads and loads of people with this disease or this new test is correct. Well, we could easily sort them out, but bluntly, I believe we are in what's called a PCR false positive pseudoepidemic. Now when you're in an epidemic, pseudoepidemic, it looks like it's a real one, but it's a testing error problem. We could prove or disprove what I've just said easily and I will give credit to Doctor Claire Craig, another appear on your radio show.
Speaker 3: Yep.
Speaker 1: Risk. She points out this new test is available in the city of Liverpool right now, and their next step is to put it into the hospitals to test their staff. It's a good idea then you know whether they're, treated with the virus or not. And her her her suggestion risk is well, why not test some of the patients that have already been tested positive for PCR? If she and we if I'm right and she's right because we have the same view on this, risk.
Then, the lateral flow test, the new test is gonna be, not gonna show very much virus. And this is
Speaker 3: So it will show somebody who supposedly has had coronavirus risk. Has had coronavirus, but the test will show that they haven't. Is that what you're used to say?
Speaker 1: Exactly. So PCR test says they're massively positive. Risk. I think this new test will confirm they actually don't have the virus. And if I'm wrong, then the government gets a big a big tick and all their patients risk So
Speaker 3: if if I've got this right then, Mike, the Yeah. The PCR test and you're you're right. I mean, there are other clinicians and scientists that that have echoed exactly what you're saying. We risk spoken to Yeah. To many of them on this program.
The PCR test you you suggest was inadequate. It wasn't right. It it didn't do what it's meant to do. This new test is Am I right in saying you're suggesting this even worse than the original test?
Speaker 1: No. No. What I let me just clarify. So I've done quite a lot testing in different ways. So the PCR test is an amplification test, and it looks the bits of genetic information RNA.
Yeah. So that's what you need to know. It's the genetics, And it amplifies. The this lateral flow test is looking for proteins. So it's looking the outside of a virus.
Risk. And basically, if it encounters the test materials, it it can then I think it generates a color, and you can actually see the change in like a plus risk. Yep. Yep. So if it has faults about it, every test is imperfect, but if it has faults, one thing you can say about it is it has different faults.
Risk. And so if it's if you get the same results with the 2 tests, you can believe the results. If you get a different result with the 2 tests, risk What you can be sure is at least 1 of them is broken. Okay. So that's what I'm saying.
Speaker 3: So if we've got I I mean, in in Liverpool, I understand 2,000 people have tested positive out of risk Almost a 120,000 now who visited, centers since the testing began. What what what do you make of that information? Risk.
Speaker 1: That's, I would like to look at it, in in percentages because it's quite a low percentage. I think The latest information I got was it was hovering around 0.4%. So that would be, yeah, 4, I think it's 4 in a 1,000 something like that. So, I'm saying that it's about probably between 5 10 times lower than it quote should be risk. If the predictions based on PCR testing were correct in the city of Liverpool.
So based on ONS predictions for the area.
Speaker 3: So something must be wrong. Presumably, if Yeah.
Speaker 1: That's all. Risk
Speaker 3: Here's what I don't get, Mike. I mean, you're you're telling us that something that you you clearly believe and firmly believe and you're not alone is based on sound scientific risk Evidence and theory. What about your colleagues that don't share that view? What is what are they seeing that you're not seeing or the other way around?
Speaker 1: I I I I think the the Let me just say that PCR is a great technique. I think it's really good. I personally colleagues of mine used it as a research tool and I benefited from that as the department is what it's not good at I think is an industrial piece of molecular biology. No one's ever done that before and we are testing, I think if I heard risk. Mister Hancock correctly, 370,000 people a day.
Now that's a that's a piece of industry really to organize, to collect samples, to pipette them into little plates and move them around the country. The chance is that you can do that without allowing even a waft of a slice of risk. A little fragment of viral DNA to move around and accidentally contaminate other parts of the plate, I would say is between slim and none. And basically, I I think that Everyone's working really, really hard. Each person, each group in this chain of industrial microbiology and at some point, Some kind of contamination is going on.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 1: It's easy to easy to disprove it by frankly doing what they're about to do anyway, but instead of just testing the start next week, please Start by testing some of the patients that you've already had a PCR positive.
Speaker 3: And this would because the government might say or or or somebody on the other side of this discussion, Mike, might So well, okay, regardless of that, so let's say we've got some of the numbers of infections wrong and even if there is a a Seismic error as I I think you're suggesting. There is at the other end of this story, there are lots of people who are definitely risk. Positive. They're in hospital. They're on ventilators, and some die.
That's that's not theory. That's fact.
Speaker 1: Right. Risk. Well, you know, of course. It is a sad part of life that we're all in deaths. Eventually, my time in yours will come.
620,000 at risk. Citizens of the country die every year. That's quite a lot. I think it's like 17, 1800 a day, which is really quite quite frightening. We don't normally think about So of course, at any stage in the year and certainly winter, people turn up in hospital, they're not well.
Some get better and I'm afraid some some proceed and eventually die. Now what I'm saying is some of those people have tested PCR positive and at the moment, if that happens within a month, the test would call them a COVID death. Now what's What's, what what is really striking is is this, that we are told we've got this lethal pandemic sweeping the land, carrying away a lot of our our fellows and yet the total number of deaths, you know, per week or per month is entirely normal. Risk. And unless we have seriously, unless we're failing to count dead people, then there's a problem because there are the normal number of risk Government's claim that thousands of people have died of COVID this this autumn.
So
Speaker 3: So that
Speaker 1: that so that's what's led me. Sorry. Sorry to cut across
Speaker 3: No. It's not at all.
Speaker 1: Me to risk. No. And that's what's led me to think, oh my god. You know? I mean, I kind of hoped I was wrong earlier in the year, but now we've got the position where we've got this swoosh, like risk.
Like a nice swoosh of, excuse me, big swoosh of cases followed by some COVID deaths, you know, 100 a day, which is shocking. Risk. But then when you look back at the when you add them all up it's the normal number and a friend of mine, Jonathan, risk. Jonathan Engle has just passed me a graph to say that the number of COVID deaths, over the last 4 weeks exactly matches the risk reduced number of all the other causes of death. In other words, that would tally with what I've said.
It's we just simply got a misdiagnosis or mis risk. And everyone involved is doing their best and sincerely believes that it is covered in front of them.
Speaker 3: So response It's not a there's
Speaker 1: not a
Speaker 3: you're not you're not advocating a conspiracy theory theory here.
Speaker 1: No. No. Not at all.
Speaker 3: Something terrible going on. So so let let me just ask you then, Mike, Applying what you're saying, that the PCR test doesn't really the industrial scale application of it is Perhaps misplaced, I think that more or less sort of quotes what you'll say. If you apply that then to the supposed 50,000 people in this country risk who have died, either of or with COVID. What would you imagine that figure would be in reality?
Speaker 1: Okay. So I'm I'm not an expert in pathology, but I do think the spring epidemic probably did account for 40,000 genuine deaths. There was nothing wrong with any of the numbers, but in terms of the matching up of risk. PECR positivity, people getting ill, going to hospital and dying and the excess death, everything married up. That's why there risk There was nothing wrong, I don't think.
April, May, I think that was I wouldn't say it's fine. I mean, as a scientist working, I I could see that I could see the statistics all made sense. It all made sense. And what I think has happened is, I mean, honestly, I I know people don't like the phrase herd immunity, but community immunity, I am convinced and there are some there who believe me that the force that turns the expanding epidemic in the spring and risk. Peaking in early April, turned it over and made it drive down glide down to almost nothing by June or so.
That that was a reduction The population who were susceptible to the virus and the reason it was so few that were infected when the, I believe that the risk. Pandemic petered out is that 50% of us were already immune because we our body has had experience of Common cold causing coronaviruses, which, of course, the BBC didn't didn't bother to tell you about those. No. So 50% of the population were already immune.
Speaker 3: What about the, just go back to this excess deaths because we're here, you know, we heard in the middle of the year tens of thousands of excess deaths in this research. Yes.
Speaker 1: Yes. I think that's correct. So I think through the spring, there was a big peak of excess deaths. A lot of them were respiratory deaths. I do think they were risk.
We were killed by the virus, you know, the, but I what I think has happened since is that by summer, we were in a normal position risk. And we were in a normal position because the country was no longer susceptible to this virus. There were too few remaining susceptible people. This would be an uncontroversial remark in any other year than 2020. Really, when you survive a respiratory virus, risk.
Plain respiratory virus, you become immune. It's not no ifs or buts, mister Boris Johnson. You can't catch it again. You certainly can't get ill. You can't transmit it risk.
Once you once you have too few people susceptible, the epidemic stops. You might have some endemicity, You know, where the virus is is being exchanged at low levels, but it is not it's not a public health emergency. No way. So what we're seeing risk. In the and so what we're seeing, I think, is simply a testing problem in the autumn where we try to, quote, chase down the virus, which is why I don't think mass testing is helpful or necessary and and then we've got an association of testing and deaths which makes us think there are hundreds of COVID deaths a day, but when you look at the total deaths it's Just normal.
Yeah. So it's just a category error.
Speaker 3: So it's just been and COVID is applied because it's Yep. It's risk. Found within a test, the PCR test of the person who has died.
Speaker 1: That's right.
Speaker 3: And you you your contention is it it's perhaps wrongly applied.
Speaker 1: Risk. It is wrong, I'm saying that yes, I'm saying that in the vast majority of cases it's essentially it's a false positive caused by an industrialization And that we can and the evidence for this is not just theoretical although that's pretty strong evidence but it's the fact we don't have excess deaths and now we've got the Liverpool data, thank you Liverpool where 90,000 people have effectively got such a low signal that my experience is that we will we will conclude risk.
Speaker 3: But why I I guess the the point I'm slightly struggling with, Mike, is why what the the error that you you point out and again, many other people agree with you. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Risk
Speaker 3: Why are you not applying that to the the 50,000 that have died or the 30,000 in the summer that you you you mentioned or the beginning of all of risk. Surely, no.
Speaker 1: I can
Speaker 3: What what yeah. I was about to say what why was that inaccuracy not complete during that?
Speaker 1: Yep. It's a really good question. Thank you. I probably failed to do that so in this in the spring because remember most people who died it was March, April really the bulk I think died in April, risk The peak, I think, was about April 10th or 11th and then it began to decline, so April and May. At that time, we didn't have mass testing in these lighthouse labs.
What we had was overworked public health laboratory service labs, some big hospitals have their own PCR labs, some university labs that were co opted risk. And everybody was kind of throwing their weight in. So there were lots and lots of different labs doing it. Some did it well, some did really well. I'm sure some had a few few errors.
But the thing was it wasn't an industrialized centralized Right.
Speaker 3: So the fact that it was more focused meant that it was more accurate?
Speaker 1: Yes. Exactly that. They were they were doing it the way you normally would. Yeah.
Speaker 3: Mike, listen. We hit the clock. It's been fascinating. Let's talk again. I know there's a lot of people really interested in what you're saying and it's interesting how the world of science does divide at risk.
On this one as well. But they're the views of doctor Mike Yeadon, former chief scientific adviser with Pfizer. You heard what he said. I mean, there is a bit of a wow factor To what he said, if you've not heard any of that before.
Speaker 0: Let's get the thoughts on the new vaccine rolled out, we're told as of Monday in this country. Let's get the thoughts of doctor Mike Eden. He's a former chief scientific advisor for visor. And here, we've spoken to many times over the show. Many times on Talk Radio about concerns about testing, and about, you know, what what what what's this what a lot of people say, what's really going on behind the scenes, when it comes to the scientific and medical management of the coronavirus virus.
Good morning to you, Mike.
Speaker 1: Good morning, Julia.
Speaker 0: Good to talk to you. Now, you've raised a lot of concerns about testing, which is very much your area of expertise from your your many many years working, risk, at companies like Pfizer and setting up your own company involving with with testing and and lab work and the like. What are your thoughts on the rollout of this vaccine? Respiratory Respiratory Respiratory. Because there are an awful lot of people who've got concerns about the testing and concerns about government policy.
Who are raising, what lot people would regard as conspiracy theories. About about how, you know, this vaccine, oh, it's all about making money. It's not gonna do anything good. It's about controlling us or the like. Do you sign up to any of those conspiracy theories?
Speaker 1: No. I don't. So, Julia, first well, thank you for having me again. 1st, I was I'm chief scientific I was the chief scientific adviser for respiratory at Pfizer. I would love to be anyway.
So, first, I will say, because I'm going to say some things that aren't popular, risk I'm gonna make it clear. I'm not an anti vaxxer. I've spent my entire working life in the pharmaceutical industry and including to today, where I Biotech clients. I've had all the vaccines myself, so it's my wife, so did our children when they were small. And as evidence, I stay current, risk I believe in well developed vaccines that meet a medical need.
When my children were who are now in their twenties, when they were in their teens and the most recent, risk HPV vaccine arrived. I looked at the data, talked it through my children, and advised them to make their own decision. So I'm pro vaccine. It was developed well risk And meets a medical need. So, where where am I on this vaccine then?
I would say and this comes from experience not of vaccine development, which I don't have, risk 32 years in drug development, r and d. So safety is the most important fact. You you can't compromise on risk. The next is how well does the does the new medicine work? And when you've understood both those safety as it was a risk, risk.
The f the effectiveness, the benefit, you can look at risk benefit. And even that ratio will change depending on the unmet medical need. The amount of benefits risk. You're going to get not just effectiveness, but how how do you is the person suffering from the condition you're gonna treat? So I would say I do have concern because res In the main, young healthy people, do not get they're not likely to get severely ill or to die, with this this this virus.
Now some people do. There were clearly some cases in the spring. But certainly looking in the autumn now, it does seem to be risk. Back to the elderly and already ill that are most at risk. And so I would want to see it, offered to those people.
And I'm very concerned about risk A wide rollout for this reason that we don't yet know enough about the long term safety. That's not controversial. We've just not been in people very long. Perhaps a bit more controversial, I don't think we know much about the effectiveness because the trial, has only studied whether or not people became risk PCR positive, and people will know I have concerns about that. And I think they're valid.
They haven't looked at full length viral sequencing or cultures. So we've just got PCR risk positive or not. I do think the vaccine has done something to that endpoint. Don't think we can be clear that that will lead to reductions risk. Severe illness or death.
Speaker 0: Although, I think they they they they have claimed that that that is what they're looking at. Now again, we told this this vaccine, another vaccines 90% plus effectiveness. Even in people of the older age category, where they who are most at risk. So am I right in thinking your argument is that look, yeah. People should, you know, the vaccine is Definitely good for people who are the older age categories, even in their nineties, their eighties, their seventies, possibly even their sixties.
People who are at higher risk, those who are vulnerable. But do you don't think there should be a mass rollout vaccination campaign for everybody else who is at I mean, we've seen the statistics at much, much, much lower risk of dying.
Speaker 1: Yes. You've summarized it very well, but I would just come back to the you said, you invited me to agree that it's very effective in in the Saudi Group. I would say we don't know that yet. Risk. I do accept, and Pfizer said that is their intention, but the basis of approval of the drug, we've not yet seen all the information, basis of approval by risk HRA yesterday, presumably, was on the basis of reduction in in becoming PCR positive, that is, as a surrogate for infections.
They don't even risk have solid data that it reduces infection. I think it will do that, but will it reduce severe illness and death? I don't think anyone can say.
Speaker 0: And it's gonna be really crucial that that we do, see the evidence on which the MHRA, this is at the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulation Agency. The basis on which they've made that, risk. That's decision. So the people I mean, that that that's just good practice, isn't it? That the way everyone could be reassured.
Speaker 1: Risk. It should be released. They normally I don't know if it's true, uses this phrase, but they usually have an SBA. It's the summary basis risk of approval, and it can be written quickly because it's a summary. So I would want to see the vaccine equivalent of an SBA this week, please.
It's really quick to do. You can tell us what risk the basis. Please do that anytime.
Speaker 0: I mean, are you are you concerned at all about the talk of this idea of a COVID passport certificate? So you get your vaccine, at. You've got a certificate, and then that will, I mean, allow you Qantas Airlines have already said you're not gonna get on one of their planes next year without a vaccine certificate. I'm thinking, well, I won't be using Qantas Thank you very much. But, but but, you know, you wouldn't be able to say use go to go to a sports stadium, wouldn't be able to go into certain restaurants.
Private businesses would be allowed to say, I need to see effectively your health records before I allow you, access to to my my my, my business. What do you make of that? And even some people talking about how this needs to be a mandatory vaccine.
Speaker 1: I know. Well, certainly, risk. Mandatory is is is extremely problematic. I I hope that listeners know or watchers know that because of, risk Some very unpleasant things that happened in the 2nd World War. All the countries of the world decided after that that they would put in place a convention that said risk That, the human body is sacrosanct and that no one shall perform a medical procedure on it without the consent of that person.
Obviously, There are some exceptions, people who don't have agency or capacity. But for the rest of us, it's simply illegal under international law to which we are a signatory risk mandate, and that's also true of coercion. So I I strongly I would advise the government to persuade people to take it on the evidence. Risk So if you provide the evidence this is good for you, you'll take it. That's that's as far as we should go.
And when it comes to vaccine certificates and risk because I think it will become coercion. And also, you know, why don't we just be sensible about this? It's a nasty vaccine, a nasty virus. Risk It can it definitely has killed a lot of people. It still represents the stress if you catch it and you're not immune.
But this you know, it's it's a worse version of flu in most people at risk who are old and are less severe at risk for those who are much younger. I don't understand why we're getting quite so hyperventilatory about this, And but that's politics and all science. Yeah.
Speaker 0: No one comes to that. But but that's it. But the politics and science have become very intertwined, haven't they? Because with this idea, a lot of people seem to be caught up with this idea, that you could go to 0 COVID. You'd never have a single death.
People saying, one death is too many. Well, it's seeming not to realize that 1700 people die of various things every year. We we are seeing or we're not in the data right now that that we've we've basically had a complete collapse of flu deaths. Now this may do that due to the fact that people are self isolating, people are social distancing, we've been in lockdown. But a lot of people think actually, and lots of experts think That it may well actually be that, you know, people are catching the dominant virus going around, which would be coronavirus, not flu.
Yeah. But also that a lot of the deaths right now may actually be, be called COVID deaths. And we and we have to be careful about what those deaths are rated. They are deaths that are registered, involved. They often Then the technical thing is, they involve COVID.
So we are seeing, when we see these death numbers every day on the news. They are for deaths that have been registered where someone has died with COVID, not necessarily of COVID.
Speaker 1: Yes. No. I can comment on that. So, People who are followers of my good colleague, doctor Claire Claire Craig, who is a, a a a diagnostic pathologist. So so she's done all the work that I'm going to I'm going to mention.
So, yes, I I don't wanna put words in the mouth in case I get it wrong, but it's certainly true that there is overassignments risk of deaths to COVID. So not all of the people who have got a COVID death, that is they died within 28 days of a positive PCR test, risk Not all of those people died because of the virus or or even with it. Sometimes there'll be false positive symptoms and so on. But I just want to make a a quick comment just, res You've said I I talk about testing. I do.
But my training also includes immunology, and we seem to have forgotten immunology. Risk. I'm convinced, and I hope I can do it in 3 or 4 sentences, that to say the country's broadly at herd immunity. So there's been extensive risk. Papers published to show that people had prior immunity because their bodies had seen a related virus, a common cold causing coronaviruses.
That's not controversial. Even public health risk England's now published on that front. I believe we're at herd immunity as evidenced by a lack of COVID deaths In London right now, it's worth about 200 to 250 every day. 7 months ago, I checked 3 days ago, it was nine at risk. So that means it's 95, 96% lower.
Now there are some areas that were hit hard in the spring and are still being hit hard, and it's Liverpool. Well, a friend of mine, Joel Smalley, has looked at this, and it's the same pattern. There are districts and regions in the northwest risk that contributed the deaths in spring, regions a, b, and c. I don't remember their names. But in the autumn, it's not a, b, and c.
All the deaths come from d, e, and f. So risk. I think there's strong evidence of herd immunity. I advise people to go and look at that. The reason this is important is not that we don't need a vaccine, risk.
But it means is there's a weaker case still for, as it were, trying to throw ourselves in front of the train by using the vaccine. That's the only thing that'll stop it. I think it's risk Mostly self limiting. Definitely still people catching it and dying. And mostly the elderly and ill.
I would want to see them offered The vaccine first. And I think we should just take a step back and not not be so, frankly, so hasty as it's risky.
Speaker 0: Okay. I Really appreciate you joining us, doctor Mike Yeadon, former chief scientific advisor with Pfizer. I know people being very eagle eyed and eagle eyed when we have guests like Mike Yeadon on, putting alternative points of view. But again, an awful lot of the things that he says. It's amazing how often a few months down the line, the likes of public health thing than other do except, including the the item about T cell immunity, she was talking about there.
But again, we're saying that actually, this is a vaccine. It should be rolled out to those who are most vulnerable to, the, the virus. But perhaps not necessarily hastily rolled out to those who are not most vulnerable. That would be those of us under 60, who have don't do not have underlying results concerns that his point of view. We put the points of view of many different experts on the show.
We're not afraid of debate here at Talk Radio, as you'll know.
reSee.it AI Summary
According to @denisrancourt speaking with @RealAlexJones, all cause mortality data suggests that there was no virulent new pathogen spreading globally. Hot spots of mortality were attributed to assaults from medical treatments. Additionally, more than half of the countries had no excess mortality until the rollout of Covid shots.
@c_plushie - Coronavirus Plushie
All cause mortality data disproves the idea that there was a virulent new pathogen spreading in the world. There were hot spots of mortality occurring synchronistically, but these were due to assaults against people because of 'medical treatment'. There's more than half the countries in the world where there was no excess mortality whatsoever, until they rolled out the Covid shots. @denisrancourt speaking with @RealAlexJones
Video Transcript AI Summary
According to the speaker, the all-cause mortality data contradicts the idea of a viral respiratory pandemic. They argue that spikes in mortality during the COVID period were due to assaults on vulnerable people through medical treatment. Different jurisdictions had different methods of assault, such as overusing HCQ or using ventilators. They claim that more than half the countries in the world had no excess mortality until the vaccines were rolled out, which resulted in a surge of deaths. Even in India, there was no excess mortality until the vaccines were introduced, causing a significant increase in deaths.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: As far as I can tell from all cause mortality, data that we've been studying extensively for a long time, there's no such thing as a viral respiratory pandemic. Okay. This is really, really important in terms of mortality I'm talking about. So it's very important for your listeners to realize That the all cause mortality data, when you study it by state in the United States or by country in Europe or even region of Europe and so on, It, it contradicts, it disproves the idea that there was a virulent new pathogen that was spreading in the world. There is it's counter evidence to the idea of a spreading new pathogen.
There is no such thing that would that is seen in the all cause mortality. So we have proven that there that that that nothing was spreading. There are hot spots of mortality that occur synchronously around the world that are directly related to assaults against people because of, medical treatment, and treatment by institutions and care homes and hospitals and so on. Horrendously, horrendous. So every time you assault vulnerable people, you kill them.
And this is what we see. So you have to realize that the nations that were doing that in the hot spots in the big hospitals where they were doing that, You have these spikes in mortality during the COVID period after the pandemic was announced. There were different ways of assaulting and it did depend on jurisdiction. So for example, in in in Germany, they did not over use high, high doses of HCQ and they did not get a Peak of mortality. When all the countries around were getting it because of excessive overdoses of HCQ at the very beginning in the 1st months of the pandemic When they decided it would be a good idea to try that because they were all excited about that there was this new pathogen.
So there's examples like that. So the nature of the assault It is different from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but there's a lot of people who use ventilators. Like in Northern Italy, it was all about ventilators. They were putting 2 patients on every ventilator. They found a way to do that.
They really they really did a lot of killing there, and so on. So Well, what I'm trying to say is measures and assaults definitely killed people, But there are many jurisdictions where this was not happening and there are no there's no excess mortality. So you have to realize There is more than half the countries in the world where there was no excess mortality whatsoever that can be detected until you roll out the vaccines And then there's a large surge, an uptick of mortality to a domain of higher mortality. So this is true even in India where you would think that Something like this would spread according to the ideas of epidemiology. There was no excess mortality in India Until they rolled out the vaccines, and they rolled them out 3 months later than everyone else.
So and then when they rolled out the vaccines, it caused three point 7,000,000 deaths in India. Excess deaths. So there's more than half the countries in the world where they did not Do these aggressive assaults. And they had no excess mortality whatsoever until you roll out the vaccines. And then you have these large peaks of mortality when you roll out the vaccines.
@c_plushie - Coronavirus Plushie
I'm not reposting this to try and get it to a nice round 1M views. Honest! 😄
reSee.it AI Summary
There is a claim of 17 million deaths from the Covid vaccine, which is compared to a global war. The claim is supported by a study and discussed in an interview with Bret Weinstein. The interview is recommended for viewing.
@c_plushie - Coronavirus Plushie
17 million deaths from the Covid vaccine? That's like the death toll of a global war! - Yes, absolutely, this is a great tragedy of history, it's of that proportion. @TuckerCarlson speaks with @BretWeinstein @SeanPlunket @theplatform_nz @stkirsch @DrAseemMalhotra @DowdEdward
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker discusses the safety data of Pfizer's vaccine trials, highlighting the short duration of the trials and the potential for serious adverse events. They mention a 1 in 800 rate of serious harm per shot and express concern about the long-term effects and mortality risk. They mention an estimate of 17 million global deaths from the vaccine and compare it to the death toll of a global war. The speaker emphasizes the seriousness of the situation.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So just first part of the question, what do you think we're gonna see in terms of a a death toll and injury toll from this vaccine, so called?
Speaker 1: Let's say here's here's what we here's what we know. Joseph Freeman and his colleagues, including Peter Doshi, did a, an evaluation of Pfizer's own safety data from its safety trials. These trials were absurdly short. In fact, Pfizer only allowed 1 month Before it vaccinated its controls and made it impossible to detect, further harms. And what they found was A 1 in 800 rate of serious adverse event.
This is not minor stuff. This is serious harm to health. 1 in 800 per shot. That's not per person, that's per shot. 1 in 800 rate which in 1 month that suggests a very, a very high mortality risk.
And in fact, we saw mortality in the in the safety trials. What happens over the long term, we've certainly seen such a range of pathologies that have crippling effects on people's health that, I shudder to think how many people have actually
Speaker 0: So I'm not a math genius, but 1 in 800 shots times billions is, you know, a lot of people.
Speaker 1: Yep. There was, a press I was recently at a conference, in Romania on the COVID crisis. And so there was a lot of work trying to unpack what we actually understand, and I saw a credible estimate of something like 17,000,000 deaths globally from this technology. So
Speaker 0: 17,000,000 deaths from the COVID vax?
Speaker 1: Well, when, you know, when you scale up to 1,000,000,000, it's not hard to reach a number like that with a technology this dangerous. Now to your deeper question, I think let's steel man.
Speaker 0: So just for perspective, I mean, that's like the death toll of a global war.
Speaker 1: Yes. Absolutely. It is this is a a a great tragedy of history, so that proportion.
@c_plushie - Coronavirus Plushie
Must watch: Full interview https://t.co/uAchTKKyYd
@c_plushie - Coronavirus Plushie
17 Millions deaths, study by @denisrancourt and others https://t.co/MdWqWNvtE6
@c_plushie - Coronavirus Plushie
Dr. Matt Shelton: Change is In the Air Dr. Emanuel Garcia speaks with Dr. Matt Shelton @nzdsos
Video Transcript AI Summary
Dr. Matt Shelton discusses his experience as a medical doctor and his journey towards integrative medicine. He expresses concerns about the limitations of allopathic medicine and the lack of focus on the root causes of illness. Dr. Shelton shares his experience of being suspended for questioning the government's narrative and advocating for informed consent. He highlights the importance of individual rights and the need for a proper inquiry into the management of the pandemic. Dr. Shelton remains hopeful for a shift in consciousness and a return to ethical and moral medical practices.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Okay. Welcome. And, this is doctor Matt Shelton, and it is a pleasure for me to be talking with him again. I think the last time we inter we did an interview together, Matt, was about a year ago. I think it was November of last year, possibly.
Is
Speaker 1: it that long? I think it's he should make it clear. I'm doctor Matt Shelton with New York Manigarcia.
Speaker 0: Yeah. You are doctor Matt Shelton. Yeah. I said I'm here with doctor Matt Shelton. Exactly.
I think people can see your name too.
Speaker 1: Think I am. Yep.
Speaker 0: And, and, you're here in my my series, my podcast series in Substack, which I've entitled Profiles in Courage. You've been very courageous over the past several years for sure in many ways. But just to get things started, Matt, just tell me and tell whoever's gonna listen in, about you, who you are, brief summary of yourself.
Speaker 1: Yeah. It's all very Really, but, I guess, I mean, I've been a medical doctor for 38 years now, and the last half of my career, I've sort of found my way increasingly to, working from an integrative perspective. So I've taught, at postgraduate level Nutrition and environmental medicine, and I've incorporated that as much as I've been able to in my, sort of general practice Work. You know, it was an evolutionary journey over a few years of recognizing the limitations actually of allopathic medicine and how, you know, on the one hand incredibly powerful some drugs are. That always brings danger and and Particularly unpredictable unknowns the more medications people are on.
So it seems to me that, I was never really, getting to the heart of why people are sick and what causes illness. So it was a sort of revolution, sorry, a revelation, and I guess an evolution in my thinking To find tools, I had to go, you know, I had to pay to learn them learn them myself, because you're not spoon fed these along along the way. That that actually allowed me to to do a much better job, I thought. And it kinda reduces the stress in medicine too if you have more More tools that you can use, more different ways of thinking that you can bring to bear. And I remember thinking about this or talking about this with you last year, but it's it's another year since then that I haven't practiced medicine, because I was suspended in August 2021, for, essentially canceling the the government's narrative, and and, you know, being disobedient around what we were supposed to be saying.
But I felt I had responsibility for patients that were enrolled with me and for whom I received some government money for taking care of. And I really just tried to give my my medical opinion, and the rest is History, I suppose, is over 2 years later now. So this is my 2nd year without practicing. I did actually win in court. I won my rights to get my license back.
The Medical Council of New Zealand immediately just proposed to resuspend me, and then my Certificate lapsed anyway. We're supposed to reply, reapply every year. As you know, Manny, there are hoops that we have to jump through. And because the GP college had torn up my fellowship very quickly. I would have to reapply under a different category than the vocational registration that I've used for my my virtually my entire time here, which would mean that I would need an overseer, satisfactory to, the medical council.
And, you know, there would have been endless barriers and difficulties there, so I found myself working full time anyway, in in in different ways. And it actually suits me, really to be not suspended, Which I'm not, but just not practicing for now. But it's been a wrench. You know, it's been who I've been, a doctor and The opportunity to to, you know, make a contribution for all those years, it's still pretty sore, But I can't do it for now. But I'm trying to contribute in in other ways, I guess.
So so that
Speaker 0: What what was the terrible thing that you did that the authority I'm going after you for. I mean, let's you can talk about it.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Sure. Well, I, The line in the sand for me was always when they'd start vaccinating the children. We we had the, the frontline workers and and, Medical doctors have been told, in the 1st mandate actually, we got this guidance document that we were expected to be vaccinated. And then then they started doing the elderly, so people, I think over 70.
And then suddenly one day, the, The prime minister announced that the school's school aged children were going to be done from the next day in the vaccination centers. And, you know, I've been increasingly, concerned and and distressed really by what I saw happening, this sort of headlong rush With no, no nuance and no acknowledgement of the inherent unknowns and potential dangers, to to get everybody vaccinated as fast as possible. So I sent a text out as being the the the quickest way that I could reach the greatest number of people, To my patients who were under 50 and for whom we had mobile phones, really just just saying that that they should do their own due diligence and that, you know, there were many unknowns And that we weren't preventing people from getting vaccinated, but there was other information that they might want to look at I'm particularly on our website, which was still relatively new, nztsos.com. And and, yeah, that caused a complete Shitstorm. You know, I made a a a technical error, it seems, and that some patients who received the text hadn't actually been my patients for some time.
So some younger people who'd, as I say, not been with me and maybe perhaps already got vaccinated, got this text out of the blue and I totally understand Their their befuddlement or even distress. Yeah. But but I I just felt I had an obligation to get my thoughts into the mix. Yeah. What what you were really encourage people to
Speaker 0: You were advising people to inform themselves about this intervention, about the risks and benefits. But this gets back to listen. What didn't the medical council put out a document telling people telling doctors that They shouldn't say anything negative about the vax, which essentially undermined informed consent.
Speaker 1: Who was just taken down
Speaker 0: off the web.
Speaker 1: Right? Yeah. What was that last bit?
Speaker 0: Yeah. It was just taken down. This document was just taken down off the website, I I saw.
Speaker 1: Yeah. They've actually rescinded it, but in in relative silence. You know, doctors haven't been told officially that this guidance document is no longer in force. And it was sent out long before mandates were even discussed actually in this country. I mean, at that stage, the prime minister was still saying that they wouldn't make them compulsory.
So that was the first kind of official mandate really, But the other colleges or the other regulatory authorities like the dentists and the nurses and everyone else Obviously took their cue and copied exactly what the medical council said, which is that we were expected to be vaccinated and That the benefits of vaccination should be, encouraged. And there was a a follow-up, public statement or two by the chairman of the medical council saying that essentially the anti vaccine, information wouldn't be tolerated. So it was a very clear, you know, clear message that we were to get in get in behind Okay. And and and, you know, give the good news, but without, and in a way that was breaking the Medicines Act, actually, that says that, you know, risks and benefits have to be discussed with any prescription mentioned, which this is.
Speaker 0: Exactly.
Speaker 1: So, you know, it just felt wrong in so many ways. And as you know, Manny, we'd already been looking at research and writing letters to the officials and the government trying to raise concerns and alarm bells. And I was particularly mindful of children for whom COVID was already very clearly, you know, not a significant threat at all, and and women of childbearing age. And I think in order to save text characters, You know, I I I would have once to have written women of childbearing age, but, you know, I I had a limited number of text characters that I could use in one text, so I just Chose chose to write Fertile Women, and and that was seized on by the media and a number of people have said, oh, you know, it sounded sleazy or Or dodgy. And yet to put the text in the media in the way that that they did, Actually did us a huge service because many, many people suddenly heard the name NZD SOS for the first time and saw our website And realized in fact that that it was not as clear cut as this is safe and effective and Take it, and you won't get COVID, and you certainly won't die of it, which was the messaging as we know at the time.
Actually, still is largely, and and incredibly.
Speaker 0: Despite despite the overwhelming evidence that it does it is neither safe nor effective. It doesn't really prevent COVID. It doesn't prevent transmission. Maybe it works for some people, you know. And if you wanna take it, you can take it.
But what you did with your text, Matt, was really just tell people, Listen. If I were to prescribe a medicine like, Olanzapine or Fluoxetine to a patient, okay, I'd have to give them the risk and benefits. I have to say, well, You might this might happen. This negative effect might happen. This is what we expect to happen if it works well.
If something goes wrong, do this, that, the other. All of a sudden, for this experimental jab that could not have been adequately tested because it was so new, with a new mechanism of action, Doctors were told, just tell everybody it's great, basically.
Speaker 1: Yeah. That that's the sum of it. And and, you know, regrettably, many of us did just that Because, you know, we know that the power that the regulators have, they they can and they have, you know, taken license licenses away in an instant. It stopped you working. You know, the media, you know, hound you and and, you know, all the other doctors kind of, You know, see what's happening to you and are scared that the same thing might happen to themselves.
You know, there's a there's a lot of theater, and and and witch hunts. You know we've used that that word. I mean there's a whole bunch of us who, in fact most of the people who first put their signature to our first letter of concern. And at that stage, we just we were naive and relatively innocent, and we thought we would get a dialogue, you know, we'd get an answer We'd be able to engage the, you know, the medical council and and Medsafe and and government officials, you know, in in all these unknowns. And what was Safety netting, you know, how would we know?
You know, and we had the basic sort of pharmacovigilance system already, but it was It was never funded or equipped to work as a, you know, to to work for this size of of essentially an experimental clinical trial. And people who say it's not experimental because billions of doses have been done, given, don't really know what an experiment is. You know, an experiment is is is where you do something because you don't know the outcome and you're waiting to see what's gonna happen. And that's plainly what's been happening, and we're seeing what's happening. We don't know what's gonna happen next, So the experiment is still ongoing.
Speaker 0: So when you say we're seeing what's what's happening, tell us a little more about that. What is happening? Well,
Speaker 1: you know, even the mainstream media will talk about this astonishing Rise in all cause mortality. More people are dying than than ever before in New Zealand history. Yeah. And it's happening in in, Finally, all the heavily vaccinated countries around the world, and this is absolutely, you know, true. You know, you can just look at any any of the mainstream outlets and at least they're talking about that.
And You know, when government officials say in the UK parliament do give an answer, it's usually around the well, you know, it's happening in other countries too. So end of story. Well, it is. And, You know, the mechanisms, the pathways for how, this experimental gene transfer technology, because we have to remember it's not a vaccine. Yep.
Not as we we've you know, it's another norm that's been changed, another definition that was mysteriously changed in 2019, Like the definition of herd immunity, etcetera, the goalpost has been moved to shoe this thing in because calling it a vaccine gives liability protection to the companies, and it means that a whole bunch of testing that all other drugs go through, particularly looking at genotoxicity, so that's damage to the genome and and Possible effects on on the DNA, you know, the the the sort of the the start up and functioning instructions in the cell, and For, congenital malformations and and, that sort of toxicity too. Yeah. And none of that had to be done, Simply because it had been redefined as a vaccine. So the evidence has just grown and have been and continued, and we as a group have been, you know, talking with more and more families, more and more people who've been injured, More and more briefed people about their situations, and we've seen patterns of, You know, obfuscation and denial and noncooperation at the level of of, the postmortems, Whether you can actually get a post mortem, what the results show, and then what the coroners say about it.
You know, there are a few things we can say, and that is that, you know, causes unknown or died of unknown cause It's becoming a very common cause of death, in Alberta and Canada. It's the commonest cause of death on test certificates now. And yet They can say with absolute certainty without despite not knowing what killed somebody that it wasn't the vaccine. And if if that isn't a red flag with a really bad smell, don't know what it is.
Speaker 0: Well, let me yeah. I mean, I I've talked about this myself many, many times. I've asked the question, how many people have to die suddenly? How many athletes have to die on the pitch? How many young kids have to get heart attacks that never got them before?
And all you get is, well, I guess, we're getting acculturated to sort of expecting people just to die at this point. I guess, I think they're sort of softening us up, Matt. You know, so now, I saw I saw a Terribly, despicable piece of propaganda, talking about childhood heart attacks. Something and and, you know, and I'm thinking, when did this ever the kids, you know, it's a rare rare rare thing. And all of a sudden, We're being kind of conditioned to accept, oh, well, this happens just like the excess steps, I guess, people die.
That's right. Everybody dies. All these soccer players who were dying, I guess they die too. It's we're we're in a bizarre world that they've created, and it's a very traumatic one for many people. You know, you live in this cloud where left is right, right is left.
Herd immunity doesn't exist. Natural immunity doesn't exist. Treating people early was never encouraged. In fact, people are being punished because they decided they should treat people with symptoms with the with the right medications. And that's get that's part of this witch hunt.
I'm particularly, peeved at the at the medical council, which I I is I think is a totally corrupt organization. And, and I've seen what's happened to my colleagues. People you know who are being hold in front of their professional conduct committees or in health profession, health practitioners, tribunals, and whatnot. And what have they done? Have they killed people?
Have they damaged people? They've done nothing but actually try to help people. And it's my opinion, they should be awarded medals for what they've done. Instead, They continue to go after these people for the most ridiculous of things. I mean, really, is there can you talk about any of that From what you know, are you able to discuss that publicly?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, as you know, Manny, we're we're actually taking the medical counsel to court, over their use of the guidance, and their censure of early treatment. And yes. You know, they're they're taking a number of us to the cleaners for, you know, discussing, recommending, prescribing, trying to import, you know, some of the medicines that that, you know, from very early on, you know, there was reliable, peer reviewed, double blind, controlled Trials and meta analyses of those trials, which is the highest level of evidence you can get. And we've been, you know, attacked for that I'm yet told that this experiment will this new platform with no history of use in in immunology and never a single product before, with with only provisional consent or what's known in other countries as emergency use authorization.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: You know, we're to encourage that and and not discussing any of the downsides. I mean, it it is a completely, You know, Alice in Wonderland situation. And I think what what troubles a lot of people when we put this stuff out there Is that in order to accept what we're saying is happening, they have to believe that many, many people who they previously trusted, are allowing all this to happen. And how can that be? It's preposterous.
Which people which people have who which people have they previously trusted? Doctors, you Oh, I'm talking about, you know, regulators, government officials, people that run, you know, MedSafe, Ministry of Health people, politicians, you know, leaders, and senior figures in in medicine, I guess, as well. You know, we have the people in medical council, we have a college for GPs, and we have a college for Physicians, and we have the the the NZMA, well, that's defunct now. You know, and all the nurses And and and the chiropractors and the physios and everybody, you know, has has kinda got in behind. And a lot of those people know that it's wrong, But it's human nature that that we, you know, we don't wanna go first.
We copy what everybody else does. You know, we're we're We're afraid, basically. And, as long as everybody's doing the same thing, then, you know, maybe we personally won't won't get criticized. We won't get singled out and and punished even if we know it's wrong. But there there are some people who who don't know that it's wrong, and they were so captured by the, you know, the fear narrative.
And they were told, like many of the doctors were told at the beginning, essentially, that this is kind of battlefield conditions. There's gonna be dead bodies everywhere. You're gonna Triage, you know, this is unlike a situation you've ever been in. So by implication, you know, all the norms, of, you know, the niceties in medicine, can be chucked out the window because this is gonna be the worst thing you've ever been in. And it turned out very quickly, even before COVID ever got to New Zealand based on data out of other countries, that it wasn't the worst thing ever.
It was just another You know, influenza level, degree of illness. But in fact, you know, many people who supposedly had COVID had no symptoms at all, And many others had symptoms, related to, just like a cold, whereas with influenza, it's fairly binary. If you have influenza, you feel terrible for a week, and then you get better. And if you're elderly or infirm, then you don't get better. And and we see that every year.
This is the reality of of, you know, of medicine and, what happens in different demographics. So I think that's the big Cognitive block for so many people is they see everybody else thinking and feeling the same thing. So they're all enabling each other. And, of course, know, smart people, they know that we have biases, but they don't think they apply to them. You know?
They think they're smart enough to know their own biases, and it's just everybody else That that falls into these sort of cognitive traps. And and, you know, I've long said that, look, if if you can trick or convince 1 person that black is white and that we're in a war and that suddenly we've all just gotta do what we're told and everything will be fine. If 1 person can buy that, then many, many people Because we're all basically the same. We're wired the same, with a few superficial differences. But but in terms of, What we'll do if the right buttons are pushed and we all have these same buttons, You know, then Bob's your uncle.
This is why we are where we are, and we've seen this in history numerous times. And and we keep coming back the example of of 1930s Germany, and and it still stands as a very good one, how you can bewitch and hypnotize a whole population, You know, into tolerating really dreadful things. But it didn't happen in an instant. You know, the whole of the 1930s, this Overton's window was shifted. This range of things that people would tolerate and accept as normal was gradually moved.
So it almost imperceptibly, and people are taken along with it. So so so that then then, you know, they look back, and eventually they're reminded of how things were. And and they can be horrified, and then it can take generations to recover as a as a nation. And I I worry that that the rebuilding process, When sanity has returned, because it will. I think it will.
It's gonna be really where the the real hard work starts. Well, I'd like to talk
Speaker 0: to you about that. Do you feel that there is a turning tide? And I know we've talked about this many times. We're all waiting for the tide to turn, the pendulum to swing. You know?
Do you feel there's movement now in those people who have trusted the authorities and are now they have to be aware of something that isn't quite right at this point, I would think. What are the DCI
Speaker 1: I I I do, Manny. And and I mean, this isn't just Hopium, or or selection bias, I don't think. You know, we've sensed for some time certainly an undercurrent and a gradual shift, and and look at the election. You know, 3 out of 4 people Didn't vote for the government that we've just had.
Speaker 0: Yep.
Speaker 1: So majority of people didn't think they were doing a good enough job to deserve to come back in again. Now that doesn't mean that all those people are alert to how harmful this has all been, but You know, I I do think there's a mass kind of consciousness shift and awakening, if you like, that's starting to happen. And, you know, we we we've seen some really, very hopeful, promises from the new coalition government, for instance. So we just had an election here in New Zealand. Yeah.
And the and the agreements that have been signed, you know, sound promising, the promise of a proper inquiry that's gonna look at the full scale of, you know, aspects of the the management of this pandemic. You know, we we still wanna see the The detail and and see the color of their money, of course, because they're still, you know, politicians' promises. But the the other early signs are good. And I think when people hear this interview, there will already have been a big data dump released by by Steve Kurz from a country, and I'm not I'm not a 100% certain which country it is. But the promise is that this is reliable record level data that's going to show the extent of harms That's clearly unknown inside government somewhere.
And I think that's gonna be big. And I hope that that adds to the momentum You know, this this this shift back to kind of where things were before, you know, we were bewitched and beguiled and and Frightened into a sort of, you know, mid compliance, so that somebody might feel better
Speaker 0: for you. Essentially, what you're saying is that there are data that the government has has in his possession that they haven't really released to anyone at this point.
Speaker 1: Well, we've been suspicious of that here And and other people have in their own in their own countries too, because what what we're seeing and hearing on the ground and what's actually reported in the media, what we're hearing from Funeral directors.
Speaker 0: Yep. Yep. Tell us.
Speaker 1: Ambulance drivers, you know, people inside the health system, you know, speaks to carnage, frankly, you know, Huge numbers of of injuries, strokes, heart attacks, you know, more of everything, but especially in younger and younger and younger people. And this for me is the clincher. This isn't just, you know, another 10 elderly people dying in this country on average. You know, it's across the age ranges. And you know, as a working doctor, you know, for 38 years, you know, I've maybe been aware of a couple of child deaths only, you know, sudden Unexpected child deaths, you know, with no warning, you know, not just in my practice.
There was 1 in my practice about 5 years ago, but, you know, the just just the sheer number that are being reported is is is off the charts, literally.
Speaker 0: So so we're gonna so we're gonna expect something big to happen in in a few days. Correct?
Speaker 1: Well, supposedly. And and and Steve Kirsch, you know, he doesn't make these claims lightly, and he's a real data fiend. And he's always asking people to test him and debate him Yep. On the numbers.
Speaker 0: And no one ever does, by the way. No one ever does them up in his challenges. You notice that? He's offered $1,000,000, I think, to people to debate about something. I wanna bring up a medical case in front of you, you as a doctor.
Okay? 1 of my, one of my neighbors, last Easter, Had a pulmonary embolism 3 days after she had been diagnosed with a, a DVT, deep venous thrombosis. K. They sent her home. She had a PE, survived that, got to hospital, survived that.
And I happen to ask her afterwards. I said, well, What did they say? You know, they they give you any idea what might have caused this. And she said, no. Nobody knows anything.
They can't understand anything. Okay. Alright. A week later than when I asked her the same question, she said, oh, now now I know what happened. This is from when I had COVID a year and a half ago.
Okay. Now I do know this person because this person works as a teacher, has been jabbed at least 3 times, probably 4 times. Okay? No one, 1 person has talked to her about the possibility. I'm not saying the the definite, a certain, causative factor in all of this.
But the possibility that this could have been a factor in something developing, particularly given the fact that we do know from a lot of sources about the thrombogenic nature of the jab, about all of the clotting problems and everything else. So this is what is killing me about this, Matt. And, for example, I heard a very famous particle physicist, cosmologist, whatever. Give a, put out a YouTube video. Person is a big influencer, a real a real physicist, real mathematician, real scientist, and and present, an entire video on long COVID And all the sequela, all of the difficult all the, complications, etcetera, and never once talking about the possibility that What people are seeing as long COVID could also be the result of complications arising from the so called vaccine.
Now that to me is astonishing and demoralizing because this is a real supposed to be a real scientist, you know, doing math at levels that I can't even dream of, that kind of stuff. And yet, here they are putting this stuff out, and I have to say, I was just absolutely deadened by that. I couldn't I couldn't believe my eyes and ears.
Speaker 1: But but as a as a psychiatrist and an analyst, Manny, don't don't you, well, I mean, I I know you do. We're we're We're human beings first, and then, you know, scientists, artists, musicians, writers, you know, police, whatever whatever we do second, you know, we use such a tiny, thin kind of veneer of our intellect, of our brain's capacity for actually thinking.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: You know, and much of it is involved beneath the surface, isn't it? All these these hidden processes that that we're not aware of unless we dedicate ourselves to a lifetime of of, You know, therapy or just inquiry, mindfulness, whatever. And then we can start to second guess, some of what our mind
Speaker 0: But tell us this right here. Matt, here's a person who spends her time puzzling about dark energy, dark matter, particles haven't been discovered, gravitons, quantum gravity. I mean, these are these are very difficult things. These And here, I'm talking about a pretty simple issue, which is that there may be a few variables you have to consider when someone comes down with something. If someone's sick, You have to consider more than 1 variable.
Right? I mean, that's that's really the most simplistic kind of science you can imagine. And that has gone out the window because of this snow job that has been pulled by the people who pull this agenda off.
Speaker 1: Well, she's just as vulnerable, I guess, to groupthink and to the echo chamber and also to recognizing her area of expertise and her scope. And so she will, you know, hand over the sort of intellectual rigor that she brings maybe to her area of of of confident expertise. Today my question is Matt. The medical.
Speaker 0: So when did she become a medical doctor? When did she what gives her the right to talk about long COVID as an astrophysicist or a particle web whatever the hell she is? You know, cosmologist.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Look. I I get it, but she's she's been enabled to do that by by seeing everybody else do it as well. You know, here we are, everybody and anybody, you know, in in this country, anybody who's got any sort of profile has been saying get the jab, and they've all been breaking the Medicines Act. You know, it's a prescription medicine that, you know, requires a nuanced conversation, of of pros and cons, by a registered medical practitioner.
You know, so so they're all they're all practicing medicine without a license. You know, has a single one of them been arrested or taken to court? It's a clown world. It's a it's a clown world, and and it's it's it's just to me, speaks more than anything else, just about the human condition. You know, this this has happened because it can happen, you know, and we've learned a lot.
But we probably, you know, smart people I've been warning us, I guess, about crowd psychology and and, you know, blinkers and and willful blindness and heads in the sand. I mean, you know, we all do it in our lives in various different aspects. You know, there there's there's there's nothing, you know, innately bad or wrong With a lot of these people, they've just been led into a situation that is catastrophically terrible.
Speaker 0: And right. And, Matt, this thing has been and, you know, this thing has been global. This is a global program that's going on. How many billions of people got jabbed around the world? And there have been billions.
Not not completely. Not a 100%, which is great. But there's still been billions of people who've gotten this jab. And, and of course, we always hear about the new Dangers that are coming down the pipe, new pandemics that might be arising, and all these kinds of things. I mean, there there's an operation of of inducing fear in everybody.
So that we should be grateful to have the little bit of human rights that we have And be happy with that as opposed to thinking, well, we can live relatively freely. I mean, there's no such thing as complete freedom, but we do have rights. We have the ability to That to have pleasure and and and travel and, you know, fulfill our experience.
Speaker 1: With each other. You know? And and that's that's been one of the most damaging things. You know, we go on and on about the vaccine, but this social distancing, you know, separating people from each other, the masking, hiding our faces. Exactly.
Yes. Thank you. You know, isolating people in their own homes, you know, driving driving wedges and creating these these false distinctions, You know, it's it's it's all designed to make us surrender completely psychologically. Yes. And many of us have, and and I don't think they can be blamed.
You know, and I personally don't blame, you know, the vast majority of my colleagues. You know, I'm pretty sure that if I was a lot younger, I would have taken the jab. You know, I I would have deferred to my senior colleagues, and it wouldn't have occurred to me that that, you know, if if I delved into it, you know, I would do a better job than people that were plainly much, much more clued up than me. You know, it it it it takes it takes a while to start to kind of Wake up to the dangers and that the world is crawling with predators and it's it's crawling with with, You know, the worker ants and the lieutenants, and the people who just wanna know what the rules are, and who's in charge So they can be happy. And that is how organized human societies work.
And it's how we got to the top of the food chain, you know, through cooperation and through people contributing What they're able to, you know, given the, you know, the sort of meritocracy, this you know, well, we're not all equal at birth, But we all have a vested interest in success. You know, we've just come a very long way Very quickly, I think. And we've been living in in complex societies and and we'd only just done away with the fear of of, You know, of of predators and and famine, you know, we sorted out food production, you know, and and here we were with chance to kind of live harmoniously, and then all of a sudden technology comes along and that takes takes us all away from each other again. You know, we're stuck on our phones, staring at screens. You know, we're we're we're not moving, we're not breathing, we're no longer eating properly.
You know, so so we're under Under assault from all, you know, all directions. And it amazes me that that many people have kept it together as well as they have.
Speaker 0: And, Matt, what about this idea though? What about this idea that the Sacrosanct inviolability of your body. Forget about the soul for now. You have the body you have invite an enviable, barrier here, which is your body. No one has a right to inject you, put anything into you that you don't want to take.
I mean, really, this has been they have transgressed that boundary. They've tried to. And they have
Speaker 1: Well, we shouldn't even have to say You're right. We shouldn't even have to say in an ideal world because even in this very unideal world, you know, we've had, you know, the Nuremberg Code, the Helsinki Declaration, International government on on civil and political rights. You know, all of these things say, you know, the right to decline medical treatment, you know, the right not to be tortured, You know all of the human rights that are innate and prescribed were written down, you know, we're having to fight to get them back. Well, they never should have been taken away in the 1st place. And and for me the fact that they were taken away is a punishable offence Because we have to make sure that a sign is sent that you don't do this to us and you don't do it again, for sure.
And and this is supposedly why we have, You know, the law and and the judiciary and the police. But but that that is is an absolute A fence. It's it's a line that that once crossed, you know, unless somebody stops things very quickly. The rest is inevitable And can end up, with with with, you know, terror and and torture and and oppression and murder and atrocities, Because that's that's what happens when you don't have a moral code or when you have 1 and then you've torn it up and you try and replace The individual conscience of of the doctor, in in in our case or whoever, by dictates from the state. You know, and this is just ideology, and it's a political system that's never actually worked in practice, as far as I know, in any country.
It's actually just led to the deaths of hundreds of millions of people at the hands of their own government. And yet we you know, there are still people who still think that they have the divine right to tell us what to think, how to live, and they can prescribe behaviors and think that they can stamp out You know, other normal ways of of living, and relating to each other, because they say so. Well Do you do
Speaker 0: you think the legal system can be relied upon to give these issues a fair hearing? Now I know we've had a few victories in the legal system. Sue Gray, for example, they tried to take her law practicing license away, and she fought back and she won, which was to her great credit. Do you think that the judiciary will kind of come to their senses and understand these Fundamental issues, and protect us.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I I think so. I I do. I mean, the system's only as good as the people who who, You know, uphold it. And and as you said, we've we've had some important wins.
I mean, there's been a whole bunch of employment court cases where, you know and and people keep winning, you know, they they they they're winning against the fact they were mandated unfairly out of work. And we've won, you know, our suspension cases, And other people have around the world, and essentially we've all won on the human rights issues. You know, our right to free speech and our freedom Conscience has been breached and it shouldn't have been. They go out of their way to avoid testing the science and and if they have to, there's always a deference to, you know, the government expert, as if We're such a big country with such a vast gene pool that that the most correct and the most talented will somehow always float to the top and end up in in government positions. You know, and and we shouldn't have second shouldn't have second guessed, though.
And that has to change. And that's what I'm really hopeful that a proper inquiry Will will show. You know, judges they they look and and they see, were the processes followed? Yeah. And they really try not to have to Look at what's called the merits of the decision.
So, you know, parliament makes a decision and passes a law, that's it. There's nothing the judge judges can do about it. No matter how wrong or unfair or unworkable the law is, until it's changed back, the judges are stuck with it. And and this is the type of of, you know, parliamentary I don't wanna use the word dictatorship, but, You know, our parliament grabbed grabbed a lot of power for itself in in 1986 actually by a sort of sleight of the hand. And and, you know, Parliament authority is is supreme here.
So, you know, our our moves or or our Our best hope is actually through getting the legislation changed. And and I'm hoping that that when there's an egregious breach of the legislation, like We are saying the medical council, has indulged in that a judge somewhere will will recognize that. Yeah.
Speaker 0: I I hope you I hope you're right about that. And I'm glad you accordingly. I'm glad you mentioned the employment court cases because Liz Lambert's been doing tremendous work. She and Erica Whitcomb together, and people are winning cases. Now they're not being they're not publicized, but but they've won a lot of cases, and they're And it's because they're going for the law and to the letter of the law.
So that's a very hopeful sign that these, that that these successes have occurred. Before we before we wrap up for the evening, is there anything else you wanna say or talk about or I mean, we could go on forever.
Speaker 1: You know me, Manny. Was talking about. Us when we really get going. Much of it maybe we shouldn't we shouldn't put on air. But but but but I am feeling, I mean, it's been a a really, you know, hard road.
You know as well, just just Keeping smiling, keeping working, holding, you know, holding the truths dear, and, You know, sticking always to, you know, as your starting point, you know, is this behavior ethical and moral? And look, moral. And I do just want to say that it's just not sticking for the authorities to say, you know, that the definition now of a Disinformation doctor or misinformation doctor essentially is one who disagrees with the government because that's actually what they're saying. And that the first You know, ethical responsibility that a doctor has nowadays is not to the individual patient in front of you, but in fact to maintain The confidence of the whole population in the public health edifice. Now so so that's basically saying it's about obedience to The state, loyalty to the state, and not the patient in front of you.
And, you know, until my last breath, that will never, That will never wash with me.
Speaker 0: Yeah. And that's a subversion that's a subversion it's a version of the most fundamental of medical principles, really, when you think of it. And that's but that's what they've been doing. They've subverted so much, Matt. They've changed perceptions about the world.
They've told us black is white or whatever Pieces, strength pieces, weakness, and all that kind of stuff. Right? I don't and I but I am feeling hopeful too. I think the Change in government is a good sign. I think that, I have a feeling too among regular people that they're noticing that things Things aren't quite right and haven't been quite right.
And, and I think that our actions I think the New Zealand doctor's SOS actions, legal actions are gonna be very important in all this, and you've been really a tremendous driving force in the organization. You put yourself out there, so you deserve tremendous credit. And, let's keep your fingers crossed. And Yeah. Yeah.
Well, I I
Speaker 1: think so. And I and I think this is gonna, we're gonna recover because most people are fundamentally good, you know, and it's the goodness in people that has been taken advantage of. You know, they've been tricked, coerced, You know, nudged, been told things that are completely wrong and they've they've done things for the right reasons, they thought, but But they've been given wrong information. And and, you know, I I think those people will will, you know, wake up to protect themselves and their families and each other. We just have to find a a way of breaking through and getting the right information to people in the right way That will help this this kinda hypnosis or whatever it is, that some people are still in.
And the people that are awake, you know, we need to give them the courage, you know, to recognize the power that they have, certainly if they work together Yeah. And they just assert their rights that never should have been taken away in the 1st place. Exactly. Exactly. And so we we we aren't falling into the same trap, you know, again and again through human history.
Speaker 0: Well, that's well said, Matt. And thank you so much for, talking again. I'll we'll have we'll have to I'll have to talk another time soon as well because I know so much is going on, and it's a pleasure for me always to, discuss these very important things. So Thanks a million. I'll stop you now.
Okay.
Speaker 1: Okay. Hey, Greg
@c_plushie - Coronavirus Plushie
Source: https://www.bitchute.com/video/HT9jkBluEie5/
Dr. Matt Shelton: Change is in the Air
Dr. Emanuel Garcia interviews Dr. Matt Shelton
Dr. Shelton is a founding member of New Zealand Doctors Speaking Out with Science (www.nzdsos.com). He discusses the covid phenomenon and its ramifications as well as the winds of change that are blowi…
bitchute.com
reSee.it AI Summary
The Medsafe CARM Safety Report #32 for the Covid shot reveals 27,651 adverse events, 982 of which were serious, and 91 deaths reported after the shot. The report also highlights that typical reporting captures only 5% of the actual number of adverse events. On October 9, 2021, there were 28 Covid-related deaths, mostly among individuals in their 70s, 80s, and 90s with underlying health conditions. The report raises concerns about the number of adverse events and deaths compared to typical vaccine administration in New Zealand. Several posts reference the need for proper investigation into deaths following the Pfizer mRNA injection. Marcel de Graaff, a member of the European Parliament, shares shocking facts about the Covid-19 shots found in a response from the European Medicines Agency, emphasizing that the vaccines were not intended to prevent infections. Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi calls on German doctors and politicians to unite and stop the shots, declaring the contracts null and void for fraud.
@c_plushie - Coronavirus Plushie
When The 'Cure' Is Worse Than The Disease Medsafe CARM Safety Report #32 For the #Covid shot Data Up to 9 Oct, 2021 Report Published 27 Oct, 2021 Total Adverse Events Reported: 27, 651 Adverse Events Deemed Serious: 982 Deaths Reported After the Shot: 91 15 of these deaths were people aged 30-59 yrs. 1 of the deaths was a person aged 10-29 yrs. (exact ages of the deaths isn't given in the report). In regard to the 982 serious adverse events, Medsafe defines 'serious' as: * Is a medically important event or reaction. * Requires hospitalisation or prolongs an existing hospitalisation. * Causes persistent or significant disability or incapacity. * Is life threatening. * Causes a congenital anomaly/birth defect. * Results in death. Keep in mind that Medsafe itself acknowledges that typical reporting captures no more than 5% of the actual number of adverse events. So if 27,651 adverse events might have only been 5% of the actual number, there could have been around 553,020 adverse events at that time. And do you know how many covid related deaths there were on 9 Oct 2021? There were 28. The majority of whom were people in their 70s, 80s and 90s who had underlying health conditions. 5 of them never even tested positive for covid (4 of them tested negative and 1 wasn't tested) but they were classed as 'probable cases' based on symptoms and they were all included in the official 'covid death' numbers. As of 9 Oct, 2021 NONE of the covid related deaths were under 50 yrs of age. Yet 15 people who were reported as having died after the covid shot were aged 30-59 yrs, and 1 person who died was aged 10-29 yrs. @winstonpeters @HopeRising19 @JudithCollinsMP @MurfittTauranga @nzfirst @chrisluxonmp @cjsbishop @dbseymour @AshBloomfield @TanyaUnkovichMP #NZCovidInquiry #mrnavaccines #vaccineinjuries #vaccinedeaths #DiedSuddenly #StopTheSilence
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speakers express concern about the limited reporting of adverse reactions to vaccines. They mention a report suggesting that only 5% of adverse reactions are recorded in the database. Despite this, they assure viewers that the COVID vaccine is safe. They highlight that prior to the COVID vaccine rollout, the average number of adverse event reports for all vaccines in New Zealand was 1500 per year, with one or fewer deaths reported annually.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: When
Speaker 1: But what really worries me here is that that is just the tip of the iceberg. There's a report to the select committee to help select committee About the CALM's database, and they suggest that only 5% of adverse reactions ever make it to the database.
Speaker 2: When I
Speaker 0: Now I know some people are nervous about the vaccine and wanting to wait a bit longer to see what happens. I understand it's natural to have questions, but I can assure you the vaccine is safe.
Speaker 3: But my overall message to all New Zealanders is that the vaccine,
Speaker 4: is is a very safe vaccine.
Speaker 3: My message is the vaccine we've got is safe. What I would say is we've got a really good, really safe vaccine here.
Speaker 1: But what really worries me here is that that is just the tip of the iceberg. Only 5% of adverse reactions ever make it to the database.
Speaker 2: Prior to the rollout of the COVID injections, an average cumulative total of adverse event reports for all doses of every vaccine seen administered in a typical year in New Zealand was 1500 adverse event reports. That's every childhood vaccine, every travel vaccine, flu vaccine, shingles vaccine combined, resulting in 1500 reports a year. How many deaths are reported following vaccination in a typical year? One or less.
@c_plushie - Coronavirus Plushie
Medsafe CARM Safety Report #32 For the Covid Shot Data Up to 9 Oct, 2021 Report Published 27 Oct, 2021 https://www.medsafe.govt.nz/COVID-19/safety-report-32.asp#death
Safety Report #32 – 9 October 2021
medsafe.govt.nz
@c_plushie - Coronavirus Plushie
Track the covid cases, deaths, etc, day by day, month by month, year by year, for 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, here (this is the page for 2020) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_COVID-19_pandemic_in_New_Zealand_(2020)
Timeline of the covid-19 pandemic in new zealand (2020) - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
@c_plushie - Coronavirus Plushie
#DiedSuddenly in New Zealand shortly after the #Pfizer mRNA injection
@c_plushie - Coronavirus Plushie
Lynda Wharton @HopeRising19, full presentation
@HopeRising19 - NZ and the MRNA
They are real New Zealanders who are injured from covid injections #covidvaccines New Zealand families who today sit around a table with an empty chair and a loved one gone forever #covidvaccines You can read 200 of their stories here: https://thehealthforumnz.co.nz/aly-cook-parliamentary-submission/ I share the New Zealand record of death and destruction at the hands of #Pfizer, in the video below (Please retweet in the hope that it will reach New Zealanders who are still unaware) #nz #mrna #informedconsent #covidvaccines #diedsuddenly
Video Transcript AI Summary
Linda Wharton, an accomplished author and holistic health professional, discusses the adverse effects of COVID-19 vaccines in New Zealand. She highlights the lack of informed consent and the significant number of adverse events reported, including deaths and serious health conditions. Wharton emphasizes that the injections do not prevent infection or transmission and warns about the long-term effects on fertility and overall health. She calls for individuals to strengthen their convictions, seek truth, and be the change they want to see in the world.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The 1st person I would like to introduce you to, she actually doesn't need an introduction. She has is a lady who has been very central across New Zealand. She has got a heart of gold. She has been a light for a lot of people in the darkness. She's an accomplished author and holistic health professional.
She has given a voice to those New Zealanders who had their voice taken away, especially by the medical establishment. She has helped families of vaccine injured New Zealanders as well as those who have been vaccine injured. She's creator of the Health Forum and just an all around amazing lady. I I just want to, welcome Linda Wharton.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Rachel, for that lovely intro and for your wonderful sense of humor. And thanks everyone for, wow, turning up in such wonderful numbers in Christchurch. And I was one of those ones that bent down and kissed various parts on the flight into Dunedin. It was terrifying. And then I was supposed to fly to Christchurch, and I simply couldn't face it.
So I've been to my ticket and hopped on a 7 hour bus soon as yet here. It was way better than flying. So usually, when I speak, I'm out front. I walk up and down. I like to connect with my audience.
But tonight, it just felt really important with these 3 South Island, presentations that that I get across exactly what I want to say. So I am going to basically use notes tonight, so forgive me for that. Thank you. That was yesterday, my birthday. So it's a great honor for me to be here today sharing the platform with someone I have admired and respected from afar, Doctor Esi Malhotra.
Thank you, Doctor Malhotra for your selfless dedication to truth telling. At a time when speaking out of turn comes with significant personal costs and consequences, as you know, only too well. As I started to write this presentation, I wondered what is the very best use of the 20 minutes I will have? In keeping with the work of the health for men's ed, I have chosen you, the people. The most powerful truth I can share with you is the real life experience of hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders, including you, whose lives have been changed beyond recognition by the brutal COVID response of the past 3 years.
With more than 35 years as a holistic health professional and a health researcher and writer. 2 years ago, having watched the development of the warp speed experimental mRNA injections, and then the rollout in countries ahead of New Zealand, I awaited New Zealand's turn with trepidation. I previous previously researched had written about other old school vaccines and understand the typical timeline for the development of a new vaccine. Typically 5 to 10 years from conception to injection. And you also that mRNA technology had until now been consigned to individual treatment of patients with likely terminal diagnosis, such was the poor risk benefit profile of using mRNA in human treatment.
When the 1st plane loads of Pfizer's mRNA COVID injection arrived in New Zealand with great fanfare and public adulation, all I could see were a 1,000 red flags flowing in the wind. Each one of them representing an unknown, an unexplained, a data missing, a syringe full of promises with little in the way of supporting evidence other than a long history of acknowledged pitfalls and harm from both mRNA and lipid nanoparticles, I watched and I waited. If I knew this, then thousands of other New Zealanders would would also know it. Real experts, medical specialists, vaccinologists, immunologists, virologists, doctors. I consult myself with the certainty that there would be discussion and debate.
There would be nuanced explanation of both the risks and the possible benefits from consenting to such a rapidly provisionally approved experiment. Wouldn't there? The rest is they say as history and most of you live through that history. From day 1, New Zealanders were permitted only one belief, the belief of safe and effective. Every media platform, every politician, every doctor, every hospital, Every celebrity and social influencer, every citizen were permitted only one belief, safe and effective.
There was no informed consent offered in the decision making process of New Zealanders. Traditional practice of medicine with its individualized risk benefit analysis, informed consent, and an adherence to the fundamental precept of first do no harm, all consigned to the shop's rubbish container. In their place, came mass vaccine hubs with barely a word usher before a needle inserted, ushered through to a 15 minute waiting area along with hundreds of others, or worse still, a needle plunged into an arm through a car window and a few minutes spent sitting in a car park before driving away. Then came mandates, employment mandates, and then life mandates. 40% of working New Zealanders faced the choice of taking the needle or being escorted from their work premises with their working lives flung into a cardboard box.
No gold watch for long service. No morning tea with cakes and hugs. Just a sideways glance from workmates, perhaps a security guard accompanying them to their car and a warning that If you come back tomorrow, you will be trespassed and we will call the police. Their crime, A refusal to comply with an autocratic medical directive from a faceless bureaucracy in Wellington. With that one choice, a decision often made up to much soul searching, extensive research, And sometimes also medical consultations.
New Zealanders consign themselves to a subclass of humans, lepers, potential carriers of disease, the unclean, the selfish, the granny killers. In preparation for a 2022 group meeting with the human rights commissioner, I put a call out on social media for New Zealanders to send me their personal story of having a mandate medical exemption declined. My inbox exploded with 2,000 emails in just over 48 hours. Unimaginable stories of New Zealand lives changed with the stroke of a pen and the word declined. Why were they requesting a medical exemption?
Some of them, had already taken a 1st COVID injection and nearly died, rushed to hospital from a pharmacy or a vaccine hub gripped by a life threatening anaphylactic reaction. Pfizer themselves to this day, warn not to take another dose of their product If you have experienced anaphylaxis, Ashley Bloomfield knew better. Medical exemption declined with instructions to book a special appointment in a hospital ED department Where your next injection can be administered with a recess team and a crash cart on standby. I'm not joking. Other New Zealanders experienced myocarditis, pericarditis, a heart attack or stroke following their 1st injection.
They too were not exempted for the next dose, instead being given a temporary 12 week extension to allow for some form of recovery before risking their life again with a second dose. Other New Zealanders had specialists who recommended that they did not take the COVID injection based on zero safety data Pertaining to their unique condition. These included a variety of autoimmune diseases and chronic fatigue declined. Still others applied for exemptions as there was a complete lack of high quality safety data for use during pregnancy or lactation. And there still is, by the way, a complete lack of high quality safety data.
They too were declined. The lucky Kiwis who somehow escaped workplace mandates still found themselves enmeshed in life mandates. You want anything resembling a normal life, then you will take these 2 injections. You'll be rewarded with your past To prove that you are no longer an unclean, pass in hand, you can step back into your life. You can go to the library, the swimming pool, the restaurant.
You can attend your friend's wedding or attend the funeral of your loved one when they die. You can visit your elderly mum in her rest home. You can take your driver's license and sing in the school play. You can join your family to sit around the Christmas table. Coercion from government, media, and community was the order of the day.
With millions of New Zealanders complying willingly or with their arm wrenched behind their back, it was only a matter of time until the medical casualties started to pile up on the sideline and pile up they did in unprecedented numbers. 48,000 New Zealanders stopped after their 1st dose. They either lost their jobs or their ability to take part in life rather than risk a second dose. This one dose demographic holds a world of pain in their slice of the pie chart. They are likely the adverse event collateral damage demographic.
The 1st doses who ended up flat on their back for a week or were still sitting in emergency room or a hospital bed with a plethora of terrifying mysterious symptoms or they collapsed with sudden life threatening anaphylaxis before they even left the Vax Hub transported to hospital in an ambulance pumped with adrenaline. By the end of November 2022, MedSafe discontinued regular pharmacovigilance reports. So that's nearly a year ago, showing the number of New Zealanders who had reported adverse events following COVID injections. MedSafe themselves acknowledge that typical reporting captures no more than 5% of the actual number of adverse events. This is a passive voluntary reporting system and many New Zealanders, including many doctors, do not even know that it exists.
By November 2022, MedSafe had received 65,000 adverse event reports. By MedSafe's own standards, if these reports represent only 5% of the actual number of adverse events, They suggest that 1,300,000 New Zealanders experienced an adverse event following a COVID injection. By November 22 2022, there were 3,688 reports deemed serious, meaning a medically important event that requires hospitalization, causes persistent or significant disability always life threatening or results in death. Nearly 6,000 adverse event reports were lodged for young people aged five To 19 years. 184 families reported the death of a loved one following their COVID injection.
974 New Zealanders had new onset myocarditis or pericarditis after their injection. Contrary to the Ministry of Health Assurance that these conditions are mild and self limiting, many of these people remain severely unwell 2 years on. Prior to the rollout of the COVID injections, an average cumulative total of adverse events for adverse event reports for all doses of every vaccine administered in a typical year in New Zealand was 1500 adverse event reports. That's every childhood vaccine, every travel vaccine, flu vaccine, shingles vaccine combined resulting in approximately 1500 reports a year. Compare that to the 64,000 to the end of November last year for COVID injections.
How many deaths are reported following vaccination in a typical year? 1 or less. Compare that with 184 reports in the 1st 21 months of COVID injections, 184 reported deaths. An official information application in April 2023 revealed that by March 2023, MedSafe held 11,289 reports deemed medically significant or serious. 1062 62 reports were listed as disabled, 118 were deemed life threatening, 184 were deaths.
Sadly, the numbers tell the same story all around the world. Australia has nearly 1,000 post COVID injection deaths reported to the TGA. That's their equivalent of MedSafe. The American VAR system, like our MedSafe, is thought to capture somewhere between 1 5% of actual post vaccination adverse events. For the American population alone, they have received 985,000 418 adverse event reports for COVID injections up to August 2023.
These include 18,093 deaths, 5,043 new cases of myocarditis and pericarditis, 17,357 listed as permanently disabled. The WHO, the g access database currently stands at 5,165,000 adverse event reports for COVID vaccines. Compare this with a global total of 171,000 Cumulative reports for every dose of the MMR vaccine administered the world over since 1975. You get the picture. These are not dry dusty numbers on a spreadsheet.
Each of these reports is a living, breathing human being. Somebody's mother, father, brother, sister, or child. The cumulative burden of both ill health and death resulting from COVID injections is truly unprecedented And unimaginable. Contrary to the endless messaging in New Zealand and around the world, none of the COVID injections were ever tested for their ability to prevent transmission and indeed have gone on to prove that they neither prevent Infection nor transmission. The very premise upon which was built the socially cataclysmic employment mandates And vaccine pass mandates in New Zealand.
Excuse me. I've got nervous dry mouth. Every week, another study comes to light showing in every ever greater detail that we continue to play with fire. Fire and the lives of New Zealanders who simply trust the Ministry Health and their doctor who continue to urge New Zealanders to take yet another booster. It is clear that the Ministry of Health has no intention of keeping New Zealanders informed of the tsunami of damning new evidence Surfacing every week.
They have failed to inform all of us of the following. The injection does not stay in the arm. It circulates freely around the body and it bioaccumulates in multiple organs including the ovaries and the testes. The MMR is not that sorry. The mRNA is not gone in a few days.
We now know that it lasts at least 6 months in some people. There are clear signals of female and male fertility issues including sometimes permanent menstrual disorders. The lipid nanoparticles and the mRNA crossed the sacrosanct blood brain barrier. They crossed the placental barrier in pregnancy and they pass into breast milk. Children exhibit immune suppression and decreased ability to defend against viral infection for at least 6 months post injection, And that's each injection.
The list of missing information for New Zealanders is far too long to complete here. There is more, much much more. If you did not take a COVID injection and you were sitting here in the audience today, I can guarantee that each and every one of you carries a wound or a thinly healed over scar From surviving life as an unvaccinated New Zealander. Perhaps you lost your job, Your home, your marriage, your mana, or your trust in the government, your doctor, and the entire medical system. If you took the COVID injections either willingly or through coercion, The past 3 years have most likely cost you something too.
Maybe you were seriously vaccine injured or perhaps you have experienced a slow decline in health in the months since one of your doses. If you took the injections and you were one of the lucky ones who noticed nothing more than a sore arm, you may still carry scars. Perhaps you've lost a relationship with someone who made a different choice to you. The wall of separation may feel too enormous to scale and the relationship has just drifted into oblivion. All of us are in a state of post traumatic recovery one way or another.
Nobody was spared from some aspect of the COVID response induced trauma. And that, we are united whatever personal health decision we made. COVID is officially over in New Zealand. We were instructed several weeks ago that it's Time for us to draw a line beneath our COVID response, look to the future and the unspoken subtext, forgets the diabolical government overriding of our basic human rights and New Zealand's Sacred Bill of Rights. It's time now for overseas holidays, new business plans, lattes, summer concerts, building new homes, and more.
Except for thousands of invisible, silenced New Zealanders, such moving on as both a physical, emotional, and mental impossibility. They are our vaccine and the children, Her brothers and sisters, our parents, our grandparents, our best friends. Real good Kiwis. Just like the people oh, good. It has been working.
I wasn't sure whether they were up there. Just like the people you've been watching on the screen behind me as I speak. Nobody wants to know about them, not our media, which refuses to share their stories, not our MPs who look the other way intent on not rocking their career boat, instead sticking to the sanctioned But now disproven narrative of safe and effective. Giving voice to a vaccine injured person refutes The mantra, they have espoused and still do safe and effective. Not our ACC system, Which has declined more than 50% of the seriously vaccine injured applicants, leaving them too sick to work, financially unsupported and living on a sickness benefit or the kindness of friends and family.
I am 62 years old as of yesterday. In the past 2 years of my life, I have met more real life heroes than in the other 60 years combined. I always knew that many Kiwis had still running up their spines, a likely spillover from previous generations of tough as they come pioneers from the homeland along with courage and strength of our indigenous people, every ounce of that high tensile steel has been needed for the mandated out And the vaccine injured to get up each morning and simply put 1 in front of the other 1 foot in front of the other and continue. People like Casey in her mid twenties and once a bubbling over with youthful vitality An enthusiasm for life, young woman. Now largely confined to a wheelchair with a plethora of neurological call and functional disabilities, ACC declined.
People like Rob, A former mental health nurse who suffered both a stroke and a heart attack 6 months after his fiber Pfizer injection, now confined to a wheelchair with neurological damage and cardiac damage, ACC declined. People like Roseanne, A once vibrant and highly energetic events manager mandated and injured by the Pfizer injection. 2 years on, Roseanne lives with pain, fatigue, tremors, spasms, and seizures. People like Nikki, who is here tonight. Age 43 and once a mandated nurse injured by her 2nd dose of Pfizer, Nikki lives with blood clots in her lungs and will be on dangerous blood thinning medication for the rest of her life.
Other New Zealanders struggle to just move on because they still grieve a loved one who passed suddenly and unexpectedly following a COVID injection. Rory was a 26 year old plumber. He was engaged to be married and he took the injection to keep his job and to be able to book a wedding reception venue. The pharmacy where Rory was injected knew about the risk of myocarditis But made the conscious decision not to frighten people away with this information as was revealed in his coronal inquest. Rory didn't know that the severe chest pain he experienced in the days after his injection were a sign of potentially deadly heart trouble.
He died suddenly in his bathroom 2 weeks after his injection. Garrett, age 30, was a much loved son and brother. He was a viticulture apprentice and was mandated for his job. A perfectly healthy young man, Garrett took his 1st Pfizer injection. 3 weeks later, he passed away suddenly in his bedroom on his own.
Each of these very real New Zealanders together add up to a inconvenient truth. 20 minutes arrives rapidly and here it is. I often feel like I am the dark angel of doom when I speak about My work and the reality that we have all lived through and I have witnessed so intensely. It's difficult to speak of vaccine injuries and death mandates, censorship, social alienation Without feeling this way. So in closing, I want to bring some light into that darkness.
I have witnessed strength and generosity of spirit and legions of my fellow New Zealanders. People who were and are willing to endure immense self sacrifice to stand for truth embodies sovereignty. I've been at the receiving end of a bounding generosity from 1,000 who want nothing more then to feel they are contributing to this once in a lifetime stand against tyranny, oppression, Censorship and enormous psychological operations. You have invited strangers to your table and your homes. You have housed families who have lost everything through taking a stand.
You have offered friendship and strength and hope to others so broken that without you, they may well no longer be here. We are living in a rapidly changing world with the values that have got that have guided us until now are under threat of destruction. Global elite, technocracy, and the biopharmaceutical complex all have their plans for us. We, however, number in the billions. Our challenge is to believe in our own strength and to consciously determine the values and the truths that we hold dear.
The constructs of light that we will fight for for the future lives of our children and our grandchildren long after we ourselves have departed. How do we do this? We get clear within ourselves. We each do our own personal work of strengthening our conviction, our courage, and our clarity. We spend time in contemplation, and we seek to find or renew our unbreakable connection with our higher power, our consciousness, the divine.
In short, we commit to be the change we want to see. In the infamous words of Mahatma Gandhi, you must be the change you wish to see in the world. If you are not happy about anything in your world or society, be willing to change it first Within yourself. Don't complain. Complaining won't take you anywhere.
Nothing will change unless you change.
Aly Cook Parliamentary Submission | The Health Forum NZ
thehealthforumnz.co.nz
@c_plushie - Coronavirus Plushie
@c_plushie - Coronavirus Plushie
"The mass government campaigns to vaccinate yourself, to protect your parents, your neighbors, the weaker in society, were not only unauthorised, but also completely nonsense and not based on facts". https://t.co/QyuHE30z6O
@c_plushie - Coronavirus Plushie
reSee.it AI Summary
There is no evidence of long-term side effects from the Pfizer shot, according to a pharmacist and government expert. However, a Medsafe report shows 27,651 adverse events and 91 deaths reported after the shot. It's important to note that this may only represent 5% of the actual number of adverse events. On October 9, 2021, there were 28 COVID-related deaths, none of which were under 50 years old. In contrast, 15 people aged 30-59 and 1 person aged 10-29 died after the shot. #NZCovidInquiry #mrnavaccines #vaccineinjuries #vaccinedeaths #DiedSuddenly #StopTheSilence
@c_plushie - Coronavirus Plushie
Are there any long term side effects of the #Pfizer shot? "We've only been using the vaccine for about a year. . . we have not seen anything that is concerning in that time. . . there is no plausible reason why suddenly there could be a problem further down the track" ~ Pharmacist, and government accredited expert, Sally Schnauer, 9 Nov, 2021. @MurfittTauranga @nzdsos @winstonpeters @ChrisPenknz @chrisluxonmp @HatchardMedia @DrShaneRetiMP
Video Transcript AI Summary
There have been no concerning long-term side effects of the vaccine so far. The vaccine has only been in use for about a year, and we haven't seen any alarming issues with other vaccines that have been used for a long time. While we can't say for certain what might happen after several years, there is no scientific reason to believe that problems would suddenly arise. Although the vaccine is new, we have no plausible reason to expect any issues in the future.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Okay, somebody has asked, are there any long term side effects of the vaccine? So, I can help with that one. We've only been using the vaccine, as everybody knows, for about a year. I think the first This dose of the Pfizer vaccine was administered in the UK to a lovely, almost 90 year old lady on the, I think it was the 20th December Last year, so not quite a year. We have not seen anything that is concerning in that Time and when we look back at other vaccinations that have been delivered over the years, We have never seen anything that has popped up in an alarming manner many many years later.
So we are focused on the fact that it doesn't, there's no plausible reason why suddenly there could be A problem further down the track. There's no reason that, there's just no scientific, plausible reason why we would see that. But I acknowledge that the vaccine is a new one, and so we haven't used it a long time, so we can't say, well yes, after 5 years, so I acknowledge that completely, but we've not Seeing that type of issue with other vaccines and there are lots of them and have been used for a long time.
@c_plushie - Coronavirus Plushie
"We have not seen anything that is concerning in that time." See this post about Medsafe CARM Safety Report # #32, which has data up to 9 Oct, 2021, which is ONE MONTH BEFORE Sally Schnauer is speaking. https://t.co/k1KIIdLkED