.
How can the good guys win? I think we got to learn the biology.
.
I had my headphones off all day today. I need to adjust the quality.
I apologize for this. A little bit over the top here.
There we go. A little better there.
.
I always used to think that Mark used a tonic cytos, so I was usually trying to figure out
what kind of swelling or disease that was. I never understood that it was ITS as an end for really long time.
I kept seeing cytos. On to time of cytos.
I know it's dumb, but it's true.
It's scheduled for six minutes.
I never thought.
You know.
It's going on French, British, Italian...
It's smooth, it's a Japanese television.
I was just thinking...
You've been everywhere.
Some kind of swelling.
It's embarrassing.
But there's still one thing on top.
What happened to the real mummy?
He's doing some of the mummy.
Ahhh!
Oh, we're here!
I found the mummy!
Well, gang, I guess that wraps up the mystery and the mummy, too.
Oh, we're here!
I don't know if you're joking or not.
Can we do a full episode of the Scooby Doo sometime?
I'm not sure if you're serious.
But yeah, eventually we're going to have to again.
We haven't recapped the whole thing in a long time,
so I do think it's probably a pretty good idea,
but recapping that really means we're going back to immunology 101
and then putting immunology 101
where it was when we set it when.
Because that's really what's important.
Because what...
What very few people got right from the very beginning,
we actually did get right here.
And that would be the immunology.
I stand pretty solid on those rounds.
I'm sure I'm the first person to have really,
succinctly and yet in-depth enough capture
the early coronavirus literature to the extent to it.
You can see that T-cell immunity was understood to be paramount
or primary in the response to that antibodies were irrelevant.
And that proved true here again.
But it's not a matter of what is true,
but it's a matter of what's perceived to be true.
And that's the reason why misleading the young about antibodies
with Saturday Night Live and misleading our grandparents
about immunology on the nightly news isn't cool.
But right now we've gone beyond this.
We're now really tricking people into accepting their slavery.
Tricking people into...
People aren't doing the work that's necessary to remember
and learn and remember our history.
We need to start doing that again.
Or we won't get the power back from these challenges.
That's for sure.
I see the bricks in the back of the theater,
and I think a lot of us here also.
I have no responsibility for the current pandemic.
Stop lying!
I have no responsibility for the current pandemic.
Good evening ladies and gentlemen.
This is Giga Home Biological High Resistance Low Noise Information Brief
brought to you by a biologist the 9th of October,
9th of October, 2023.
Good evening.
Welcome to the show.
This is Giga Home Biological.
It's getting cold back here in the garage.
And so occasionally you may hear a heater fire up,
which just sounds a little bit more like Starship background noise.
But since we're not always going to be on the Starship,
it's going to seem a little weird.
Don't take the bait on TV and social media.
It's getting pretty hard.
I'm not going to speculate about anything to do with anything much farther
than about 20 miles away from my house unless it has to do with biology.
And since it's not much biology going out in the Middle East right now,
I think I'm going to keep my mouth shut about that.
Suffice it to say that I'm aware that things are getting hairy.
I'm aware that we're going to be challenged in the coming months.
That's for danger.
And it's going to be nice to know that you've got family and friends
and neighbors and people to count on.
And if you don't, you know, maybe it's a good time to start thinking about
reconnecting with those around you.
The outside sounds that are behind me are actually
just barely crickets out there.
We had a couple of cold nights where they were silent.
The Scooby-Doo is still on.
And I still believe that a lot of these people have misled us
from the very beginning about the worst-case scenario,
and it's inevitable possibility in the future.
I believe that they were involved in making sure that those windows
of possibility stayed open in everyone's mind
so that there was sufficient room for giant fear,
giant uncertainty, giant doubt,
and with an orchestrated presentation across social networks
and across media, they were able to convince people of biology
that doesn't really exist.
And that is very different than saying that there aren't viruses.
It's very different than saying that the PCR test doesn't work
or something like that.
We have a very well nuanced understanding of where we think
our hypothesis is.
So welcome to the show.
If you haven't been here before,
it's your first time finding us.
It's going to be a little hard to jump in on this particular show
because we're not going to really cover what we've been talking
about with regard to what is perceived to be true and how
what is perceived to be true has come to be.
But if you are just joining us for the first time,
suffice it to say that we've been working on a hypothesis
where state actors and non-government organizations
like maybe the WEF or SEPI or the WHO
or other organizations that I'm sure lots of people can name
have a stake in the idea that the entire globe or the population
of the globe, the huge portion of the population of the globe
across cultures, across national borders,
takes on the mythology that in 2020 somewhere in the world
originated an RNA sequence which was capable of infecting the world
and changing the way that commerce is done,
changing the way that we track goods and services,
changing the way that we perceive our role,
our place within mother nature on this planet.
And so I would argue that almost everybody that we thought
was a good guy trying to solve the puzzle,
a good guy trying to solve the mystery,
a good guy trying to save us from these bad people
who are making profit off of this emergency
were actually part of an elaborate theater
designed to entice all of us,
whether we were on the left or the right,
whether we were progressive or conservative,
to entice all of us into trying to solve this mystery
of whether this was a lab leak or a natural virus
and whether it was to blame on China or America
or a combination of both or did they fund one another
and somebody made a mistake or what happened and who's lying about it?
And coming to the understanding that the lies were orchestrated,
that the theater was orchestrated,
that the email leaks were orchestrated,
that the leaked Slack messages were orchestrated,
and even the leaked grant proposals could have been orchestrated.
It's even possible that a lot of the papers
that are purported to be evidence for this pandemic potential
and coronaviruses that exist primarily in three caves in China
is actually also largely a potential created by those publications,
which in reality are not some kind of, you know,
bedrock of proof for the potential for a unique RNA sequence
to be able to do something that most all other RNA sequences
are nowhere, can even approach doing.
But again, it's not what's a matter true,
it's a matter of what's perceived to be true,
and this illusion of consensus around the biology of RNA
and the illusion of consensus around the biology of a pandemic,
that yeah, of course there's these viruses.
Of course, we can potentially make a virus that could kill more people
than a nuclear weapon and could go around the world for three years,
could be an incapacitating agent because of its super high infectivity,
because we added five amino acids to the final sequence of the protein.
And when we really think about this,
when we really think about the idea that a fear and cleavage site,
which actually whose functionality only manifests in the protein
that it is encoding, could ever increase the fidelity of copying of the RNA.
Because one of the reasons why a fear and cleavage site would potentially be so wonderful
is that it would be reproduced and it would stay in the virus
or stay in the swarm represented quite strongly
for many, many, many, many, many subsequent infections,
but as we've discussed, the quasi-species swarm doesn't allow for that,
and as we have discussed, if this is not a functional part of the spike protein,
which would greatly decrease the fitness of the virus progeny,
then the presence or absence of the fear and cleavage site won't really matter that much,
but the crazy part is, is that it won't change the fidelity of the copy procedure.
And since it doesn't change the copying procedure,
there's no reason to believe that because of a fear and cleavage site,
pandemic potential would emerge.
Because what people have confused with pandemic potential is fidelity.
In order for what to have happened, according to all of these people who have almost all written books
or made some kind of fame or fortune or comfort from the virus,
have sold the idea that a particular RNA sequence is able to infect hundreds and hundreds of millions of people,
and that it's highly trackable because of this fidelity.
And this has never occurred before in the history, in the history,
this has never occurred before in the history of RNA viruses.
Now, some people will try to tell you the story that, well, we can sequence them so easy now,
or we try it so hard now, that's why.
But that's insufficient answer for what we understood before the pandemic with regard to variability of RNA replication
and the fidelity of the, or lack of fidelity within the quasi-species swarm,
or the quasi-species, I'm not sure really which term is correct.
But that extreme variability that's present because of the thing that we've discussed a few times in a row now,
the original genome is very quickly outweighed and replaced in the copy procedure
by incomplete genomes, subgenomic gene RNA, and genomes with errors, genomes with changes.
And so the idea that this single genome like Omicron gets copied over and over and over and over and over again,
that's not real.
Because at the very best case scenario, three changes are made every time there's a copy,
and that copy doesn't just immediately get packed into a new virus and popped out.
It floats around, and it's part of the growing amount of RNA that is interfering with this original RNA getting copied.
And you can find countless papers discussing this phenomenon and how what it leads to,
which is including recombination of coronaviruses with one another
when the RNA-dependent polymerase drops from template to template when more than one template of a coronavirus is present.
Ralph Beric and his co-author Ralph Denison have argued that as many as 35% of all the coronavirus is present
in a co-infection, in a cell culture, are recombinant genomes.
In some respects, that's mathematically very close to the recombinant, the frequency of recombination that's present in flu,
although as you know, flu has a disjointed genome and so recombination is a different mechanism there.
John Campbell and Angus Daglesch, I'm going to play it at 1.25, maybe 1.5.
It's a really important interview to listen to because they talk a lot about immunology.
The immunology is basically what we've been saying with some changes which, of course, could be completely correct.
And so most of my plan is not to interrupt, but just to take notes and then maybe make a little summary at the end of what I took notes on,
what I saw and what I'm going to look up or try to follow up on.
I believe that this guy is a cancer dude, so he may talk about the genes, he may talk about T cells, he may talk about normal cancer
and re-emergent cancer, I have no idea, I just know that a lot of people, I mean way more than normal,
and then also Pamela sent me this video, so now I really have to watch it, and since I need to really know what I was going to do,
this became the very easy choice.
You're quite an important one, and I'm so pleased to welcome Professor Angus Dalglish, Professor Welcome, and thank you for coming.
Thank you.
Now Professor Dalglish is a professor at St George's University London.
I'm not going to go through all of his qualifications, but he's a Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians in the UK and Australia.
He's a Fellow of the Royal College of Pathologists, he's a Fellow of Medical Sciences as well as having an MD medical research degree.
He's really quite impressive, and he's had 563 publications, I don't know how you fit that in one lifetime, but that's what he's had with over 25,000 citations.
I believe Professor you're still working as a cancer doctor, you're a consultant oncologist.
I am indeed, yes.
Now, what's concerning you at the moment, there's some observations that you've been making that are concerning,
just if you don't mind, tell us about your observations and what your concerns are.
Well, I began to notice, I've been doing that onoma patients for over two decades and probably three.
Can you hear that?
He said melanoma in case you didn't hear that, it's a little tinny or something, I'll see if I can adjust this sound.
Longer than I can think, and I started working with these patients because nobody else wanted to work with them,
because they were very difficult, they didn't respond to chemotherapy, and so I was very interested in the history of immunotherapies working.
So, I basically immersed myself in this and started doing the first cancer vaccines,
first of all, collaboration with Don Morten of Cancer Vax and John Wayne Institute in California,
and I was the only collaborator outside the US for a set of many years,
and then I started working with a whole range of cancer vaccines,
and the ones that I'm most interested in, the ones that have stood the test the time are actually the simplest,
the heat-kill micomaterial ones, etc.
So, while doing this work, I began to notice things that, you know,
why did some people respond very well, and others not, I won't go into the details,
but it was, the first thing was clearly it was a vitamin D, we suddenly realized we were dealing with endemic vitamin D deficiency,
and if you corrected it, they started to respond better to immunotherapy, etc.
So, I've had some patients on immunotherapy for several years,
long before the new immunotherapies were approved, the hippielemies and the nillows and pembroves, etc.
And I started to notice that some of these patients, they were coming up to, you know,
they were over 10 years, 15 years, 20 years, they were suddenly relapsing,
and they were presenting with relapse disease after years of not having any disease.
Now, this was not unusual to me because I've seen it before, but I always wanted to know why.
Of course.
These are patients with malignant melanoma, malignant skin cancers.
I noticed that the patients had relaxed before, they all had a history of reason of something which caused
a significant period of immune suppression, such as, you know, a significant upset, bereavement, divorce, bankruptcy, etc.
And I saw it, but there was an explanation for it.
Now, more recently, I saw, I started to see it in more patients than I was used to in a short period of time.
First of all, it was six patients I counted who all came and they'd had to have another lump out yet to investigate and found it,
got relaps, etc.
And I started to ask the question, you know, have you had bereavement, divorce, and certainly other?
And then it, it tweaked.
They'd all told me that they'd, they'd, I've had my booster,
I've kept up to play with my boosters and it suddenly began to tweak because I was very against the booster program.
I put it quite, quite basically.
I've done over 30 years research into optimizing vaccines and immune response.
And I, I came to the conclusion that the vaccines that they use are obsessed with antibodies.
And I'm not, actually, I'm not interested in antibodies because it's the T cell response that you want.
It is the innate T cell response.
And as a cancer doctor, I noticed that the innate T cell response starts to decline at 55.
And by 70, it's fairly much in your boots. It's gone down the big ski slope.
But if you superimpose the rise of cancer treatments, it rises at the opposite rate, forming like a butterfly wing.
So it started to last as a cause and effect.
And then we found that we had an agent such as this, the new one we worked with for a long time,
IMM 101, he killed, it really boosted the innate immune response.
This is just a simple bacteria that's been killed and rejected.
I mean, it's, it's the, it's the other end of BCG and it came out of BCG work.
And it's very interesting is that BCG, it was found to boost the innate immune response.
And here's the clue, if you give it more than twice, it basically starts to ruin the response and just boost sanding.
So did this BCG was used to prevent tuberculosis?
BCG vaccine tuberculosis.
Now the heat kill micabacteria, they don't do this.
If you keep giving them, they keep boosting the T cell response.
They don't induce an antibody response. So that's kill mice and just boost sanding.
So did this BCG was used to prevent tuberculosis?
BCG vaccine tuberculosis.
Now the heat kill micabacteria, they don't do this.
If you keep giving them, they keep boosting the T cell response.
They don't induce an antibody response.
So as such, I thought this is a very useful agent.
I've been doing clinical trials on it.
And one of the things I did notice right at the beginning of the COVID was the patients are already telling me that, well, they're often their wife or husband would say, I don't know what it does for the cancer.
But I've never seen them go through winters and not have colds of blues all the time.
They seem absolutely fit.
And then I realized this is the innate ingredient response.
So I predicted this would be a very good frontline for COVID.
And sure enough, it was at the height of the first wave where there's no vaccines mentioned.
None of these patients call COVID.
And yet their average age was all over 65 as the average.
And they all were at risk as they had stage all melanoma.
They had a full thing.
None of them got ill.
They might have had a very mild COVID where other people all around were going down very badly with COVID, mainly the staff.
So these are people in your trial professor that were simply giving this microbacterial, very simple, killed bacteria vaccine.
And even though it's a specific form of bacteria you were giving, it was stimulating an innate immune response that was working against a wide variety of different viruses.
So you got it in one.
So that was the environment I was in.
And then we come up with the vaccine comes in.
And as I said, I had a lot of experience in this.
And I came to the conclusion, if you need to give more than two shots of vaccine, it doesn't work.
That'll be one of my general rules of vaccine.
And I think that's been proven to be absolutely right.
They've been the mooseless and worse than mooseless.
And they shouldn't.
They should never have been given.
If they were going to be considered, they should only be given to people who you knew their immune status.
You should have mentioned it.
I went on to a TV live debate with other doctors.
And I said, why the hell would you give a booster to a vaccine that people have already had without measuring if the response was satisfactory?
Because they might not need it.
Because if they do not need it, you'll make things worse.
And that was from the PCG example to name but one.
So people just dismiss me.
They wouldn't enter into proper debate about this.
They said this is an emergency.
No, it wasn't an emergency.
Because the next thing I realized, especially when the people who had the boosters were actually often saying,
well, I never had the COVID till I had the last booster.
And it all sorts of clues like this.
But it was in this group who were getting the relapses.
They all mentioned they were having the boosters as if they'd done the right thing.
And I suddenly explained, I thought it's the booster that's leading to the relapse.
And as a scientist, I wanted to know what the reason for that is.
Well, I know that you've only got a limited capacity in your immune system.
If you boost with another vaccine to harness half the immune system to make antibodies
to a virus that no longer exists on the planet, probably for one or even two years,
you're going to weaken it.
You're going to reduce the front line.
And then we got the papers coming up that beautifully confirmed it.
They showed that the booster, you no longer make ITG-1 and 3 neutralizing antibodies.
You get a subtype switch to ITG-4.
There's a very detailed, excellent paper showing this.
Well, an ITG-4 subtype is the last one because it's more of a taller agenda.
And it basically said, I don't have enough of this abuse.
We're switching off.
There's a salt on us with these agents.
But it gets worse because it also suppresses the T-cell response.
And there were some people who did a really nice study.
I can't remember it offhand, but I actually presented it in the presentation I dig easily.
The first group who showed that the T-cell response crashes after the booster in cancer patients.
Whereas it's not perturbed in the first two, but the booster,
these do a massive reduction in the T-cell response.
Not in all of them, but in many of them.
Well, to me, this was enough because we know, for immunotherapy,
I knew from my work of home 20 years before we started using these checkpoint inhibitors,
it'd be a demo, et cetera, that the T-cell controlled this disease
because I only saw relapses when there was a reason for perturbation.
Now we had a booster that was clearly causing perturbation,
which if it was transient, I wouldn't mind, but it was a lot more than transient,
especially when the patient said, well, I've had five vaccines.
I mean, I was beginning to scream, what are they doing?
What do I do?
And I reported all this to various medians.
I wrote it to, I wrote a paper to the people.
Okay, let's take a break there because it was going fast.
I'm sure for everybody.
Let me just come back over here and grab a older PowerPoint presentation from 2021.
And see if we can't just shed a little light on this.
So here's a slide from 2021.
And we talked about T-cells may offer lasting protection against COVID-19.
This was July 28th, 2020.
And I'd already been using this pretty much since August, I think of 2020.
The reason why this was pretty dubious is because language in titles in science matters.
And if anybody understands that Dr. Francis Collins does who wrote this blog.
And in choosing the immune T-cells may offer lasting protection against COVID-19,
he leaves the door open for maybe they don't.
Maybe it's not T-cells.
But of course, he knew already that in 2014,
there was a paper about CDA T-cells providing substantial protection from lethal coronavirus
disease done by none other than Stanley Pearlman,
the preeminent expert of coronaviruses at Iowa in the United States,
sitting on several committees, including the who advisory committee on coronavirus.
And he would have known that in 2010,
Stanley Pearlman demonstrated that T-cells responses are required, but antibodies aren't.
Required.
So there would have been no reason based on the previous mountain of coronavirus biology
in the literature to assume that T-cells weren't important,
but to assume that they were the thing required.
And of course, you and I learned that this is how the immune system works.
The T-cells and their orchestration and all their different kinds,
and all those different kinds,
crescendo and decrescendo, the immune response, that's really how it works.
B-cells are more puppets than anything else.
And this is really unfortunate that this illusion,
and it is an illusion of consensus that we don't know what's going on.
We have no idea what will happen with this coronavirus, but they knew.
Ten years before the pandemic, they already knew that virus-specific T-cells were vital.
So we see this pretty cool super-fast revealing sort of lecture
about how heat-killed mycobacterium is the best cancer vaccine out there.
It originates in BCG work, which I don't know what BCG work is.
We're going to have to do all kinds of stuff.
I'm going to have to work really hard.
I've got a lot of other things to do, too.
He had identified a endemic vitamin D deficiency already long ago,
and he already knew that this helped with people with this skin cancer
that he's talking about, this melanoma.
Relapse occurred often during stress or bereavement was the word he used several times,
and that could be marriage or divorce or death in the family.
And in the pandemic, he correlated relapse with the booster vaccine,
and he didn't correlate it, repeat, he did not correlate a relapse
with the first two shots, but now with the boosters.
Now it would be interesting to know whether or not the majority of the people
that he's calling boosted would have had AstraZeneca or Pfizer or Moderna,
because in the UK is one of the few places where AstraZeneca was rolled out
pretty widely.
And so it's possible that these people are a very unique experiment
where they had been first transformed to the spike and then transfected to the spike.
Yee.
No offense to if that's you.
He's not at all interested in antibodies.
That was a really cool.
I don't think you can see my arrow, can you?
You have to use this thing then.
He's not interested at all in antibodies.
That was a really nice statement for him to make.
And he said, you know, the T cells do everything.
That's really what we knew.
But interestingly, he did say that he killed mycobacterium vaccine that is used to treat
this melanoma in these patients can be used to repeatedly activate T cells.
It can.
These patients didn't get COVID.
So when they were being treated with this, this heat activated, heat killed
mycobacterium vaccine, which I guess is an activator for the immune system during this
to treat cancer, also protected them from COVID.
Interesting, right?
So he argues that they should have known the immune status of people before boosting.
Well, that's of course, that's of course true.
And if they were infected, then they should have never gotten another vaccine again.
That's also very true.
But people are doing it.
People are getting sicker because they're getting COVID or whatever it is that overlaps
with the RNA that they're, that they're transfecting us to, the protein that they're
transfecting us to.
And I don't purport to understand it, but understand that there are a number of
there's a
sorry, I had to hear what was going on back there.
There's a, there's a number of different mechanisms by which this could be going wrong.
And so we just need to understand that as he said repeatedly, repeated exposure doesn't
mean good.
And when we were talking last night with Drew Weismann's lecture about how with
mRNA in an LNP, we got 50 fold more antibodies.
Well, if you, if you let this guy listen to that guy say we got 50 fold more antibodies,
I think this professor would lose his mind.
And he would like stop the whole prefer, he would hope he would stop the whole
presentation and be like, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, wait.
Hey, Drew Weismann, like, why do you think some antibodies good, more antibodies better?
You know, truckloads of antibodies are, are, are fantastic.
Why, why is that what, what, what biological evidence do you have that any
homeostatic mechanism in a pattern integrity works like that?
What, what enzymatic chain of proteins working together works better the more of one of
those that you have.
Because that's what an antibody is.
It is a part of a system of signaling in the immune system.
And having more and more and more of it will eventually lead to an imbalance that will be
maladaptive.
Having more and more cells in the immune system focused on that protein or that set of
epitopes or whatever happens after that happens when you transfect someone cannot always be
good.
And if what happens is what Drew Weismann showed us in that talk yesterday,
that your lymph nodes are completely full of cells that are transfected, we don't know
how to transfect T cells usefully.
And anyone claiming that we know how to transfect T cells usefully to augment the immune system
without throwing off anything that it's doing that we're not aware of.
Let me repeat that again.
We're not capable of augmenting the immune system with the specificity with the tinkering
accuracy to not accidentally mess with all the other things that the immune system has
brought into balance in our lives.
Ignoring the antigens on strawberries, ignoring the antigens on your favorite processed foods,
ignoring the antigens present in your favorite box cereal, ignoring the antigens in your
cleaning products.
Your immune system works really, really hard if you don't have something wrong with your
skin or you don't have something wrong with your gut.
You've been doing very well and protecting it, very well and augmenting it.
But most likely if you've lived in America your whole life, your immune system is a wreck.
And it's really interesting what this guy says because it is this illusion that there's nothing
to fix, that there's this illusion that there's nothing to bring back into balance.
There's this illusion that there's nothing you can do.
Just take the vaccine.
When it might be better for you to lose weight to eat better, to stop drive-throughs, to stop
eating out of a box or a bag, it might be better to do those things than it would be to
transfect yourself because those things actually will usefully augment your immune system.
And that's really the trick.
He also pointed to the subtype switch to IG4 which suppresses the T cell response.
He looked a little bit into that.
It seems to be that the people on the other side of the argument want to tell you that
IG4 does nothing.
It's like a no functional FC portion of the antibody so it does nothing.
But it's hard for me to really imagine that the immune system has developed IG4 as a way,
IG4, excuse me, as a way of doing nothing.
That seems to be quite wasteful.
And so more than likely it does do something.
And suppress the T cell response makes sense because the T cell response being suppressed
by a smaller antibody, I don't know if it makes sense because it's a smaller antibody.
It's because it, where it is in that progression that it seems to go from IgM to IgG, IgG1,
3, IgG4.
So if it is the one after repeated exposure, it does definitely make sense that it's tolerance.
And the tolerance would be expressed by a T cell response that's dampened.
Okay, I'm sorry, I just figured I had to say something.
BMJ.
I thought the BMJ had actually started to publicize things which are a little bit, you know,
concerning to doctors rather than censor it.
And basically I found, you know, I was the first in the UK to point out that the virus escaped
from the lab.
And to me it was completely obvious because it had inserts in it that one of them could
occur naturally, not six or around the receptor binding site, no, that wasn't.
And for my pains pointing this out, I thought this is brilliant.
This is brilliant, we can challenge the nature of the sites.
Every single general turned down papers pointing all this out saying it's not in the public
interest.
I mean, basically this was a normal one.
Okay, so one possibility is that he is one of these many people who was right, that the
sequence of the virus that was released is a sequence that indicates that it was a lab
virus and that these extra things that they put in the protein of the spike protein into
the protein that is the spike protein, these extra little things made it somehow possible
for the RNA that encodes for it to circle the globe for three and a half years.
That seems to be what he believes.
And so we've got to be aware of where this guy's immunology is awesome and then where
it's like, wait, do you understand what you're saying?
And so the sequence that was released made it seem like it was a lab leak.
Not all of the sequences, not all of the sequences, the sequence that was released at the beginning
of the pandemic and how many of these inserts has he kept track of?
How many of these inserts do we know are still there or not there?
Who's keeping track of that?
And if they are so important and yet so easy for someone to find, if they have the sequence
of the virus, why in the hell aren't some of these people keeping track of these sequences
so that we can sort of correlate their appearance or disappearance with the veracity of the infection,
with the infectivity of the virus, with the gain of function attributes that must certainly
be present if there's six of these things around the receptor binding domain of the virus.
Well, the administrative truth has taken over.
This is after you've had 563 previous papers published over a distinguished career.
I can't think of a doctor who's more qualified than you offhand actually, so after a distinguished
career and all this work, you could get published any more.
Well, it's not actually the quantity that there's a quality issue, too, I would say.
And I've never really wanted to publish things that were at least the time were irrelevant
but to add to stories, I've had a lot of stories, I had a big presence in HIV and I discovered
the receptor that it was the first author of colleagues doing it and that led to me being
very recognised as a serious virologist and scientist, which to me was very surprising.
I was at all the early HIV meetings and I've upped into people, I mean, after I was a guest
at Bon Gallo and I had bumped into Fauci with Fabio and all the others and I thought, well,
these guys really, at the field, was talking about publications, they were publishing in
nature and science and they took three weeks in a bit to me and I was just lucky to get
one or two in it, it just seemed to me that they were kind of god's must and it took me
quite a while before I realised, actually, no, they're not, and I came to the conclusion
and I was saying this because it's in my personal opinion that Fauci is not very bright.
He thinks he is, he's a very good diplomat, he's actually not very bright because I pointed
out that in sessions when he'd share that, is you'll never get the HIV vaccine if you
use the entire envelope, the 3,000 antigens of it, you throw that as an antigen after
the new response, it's going to pick out the dominant responses and the viruses evolve
that the dominant responses will be against the bits of it, it doesn't give a damn about
and I also predict is that it's a decoy, that their Achilles heel buys at the heart of
this and by giving the whole envelope, you'll never allow the body to see the Achilles heel,
we worked it out, I won't go into that but that's a big chunk of papers that I did which
I have never got the recognition that they deserved, I thought they were far more important
than the CD4 receptor but, I mean, I'm just going to rewind it and listen to what he said
again.
Look at that, is you'll never get the HIV vaccine if you use the entire envelope, there's 3,000
antigens of it, you throw that as an antigen after the new response, it's going to pick
out the dominant responses and the viruses evolve that the dominant responses will be
against bits of it, it doesn't give a damn about that and I also predict is that it's
a decoy, that their Achilles heel buys at the heart of this and by giving the whole envelope,
you'll never allow the body to see the Achilles heel, we worked it out, I won't go into that
but that's a big chunk of papers that I did which I have never got the recognition that
they deserved, I thought they were far more important than the CD4 receptor but the wasn't
like this.
Those papers were far more important than they were given recognition for and this was far
more important than the CD4 receptor.
The CD4 receptor is supposedly how the HIV virus infects T cells and he said that the Achilles
heel lies at the heart of this but I don't know what he meant if that meant the envelope
protein or the heart of the HIV virus or what but I hear motivation, I hear an ego,
I don't hear somebody who's trying to blow the whistle, I hear somebody who's more than
trying to blow the whistle, he's trying to blow his own whistle, interesting.
This led to me collaborating and my group with several people, we had a European collaborative
group which we introduced lots of papers and showed that the virus never causes AIDS unless
it activates the immune system first and whether it activates is determined entirely by your
HIV type and those people who know it's sort of tissue genetics you've born with isn't
it?
Absolutely.
He just said that it never causes AIDS in people, it all depends on their HLAs uptime.
Never causes AIDS in people unless it activates their immune system and that depends on HLAs
uptime, I think that's what he said.
We introduced lots of papers and showed that the virus never causes AIDS, the best activates
the immune system first and whether it activates is determined entirely by your HLAs type
and those people who know it's sort of tissue genetics you've born with isn't it?
Absolutely.
Those people who had long-term infection and didn't seem to get ill, we predicted they
must have a certain HIV type and one of the guys that worked with me was very hot on this
actually predicted the HIV type early on from his computations and modelling and the modelling
that's my colleagues and I didn't those days, unlikely people at Imperial College
don't seem to model anything remotely correctly, this turned out to be very true because he
predicted that HIV-8 people would get AIDS quickly and those with HIV-27 would get it
very slowly if this Achilles heel was a bit dry with the disease and it was proven in
a big MRC survey that those were the only two significant things, B-8 plus, B-27, they
hardly get it.
Based on the back of that I predicted, well, there's one group of chapsu that never gets
AIDS however much virus you've given them, that's the chimpanzee, I reckon they must
all be HLA B-27 or similar.
It took five years to persuade that one of the people who had a large chimpanzee colony
to do the HLA, if it were genetic immune codes and they were all HLA B-57 which is sort of
a brother of B-27 so absolutely right and the only conclusion from that was they'd all
been eliminated in the past in the wild by HIV, so you're dealing with a survival
population.
We had a big understanding of this and working with my Norwegian colleague who came up with
the same idea, do not use the envelope, too much information, decoy, Achilles et cetera,
he identified four Achilles heels, made them in peptides, asked me to join him because
of immunological expertise and the HIV being in the HIV field, he did that very successful
HIV vaccine, never achieved its primary goal in trials because the primary goal would
be set wrong, had it not been set wrong, it probably would have been much more successful.
We haven't given up, I think this is the best HIV vaccine, but what really got me about
the establishment is that the gates are rescued, the MRC, MRC, they all ask you, and we put
this proposal and said that the envelope vaccines will never ever work because this
certainly will, but this already works, we've had it in humans and it reduces the virus
learned very well.
We want to just modify, optimize it, and we recommend that you be able to give this and
take people off how the HIV trends were for months and months at a time, which should
be tremendous for Africa.
We were always rejected, it's a very clever idea, et cetera, et cetera, but we don't need
a plan B at the moment because we've got a great big worldwide clinical trial and this
looks like it will be positive.
One, two, three, the third time, they still said it be positive, I mean, was it Einstein
who said the definition of an idiot or somebody who keeps studying the same thing expecting
a different answer?
Sounds like the sort of thing he would say, yeah.
So you have HIV vaccine, what is it actually target?
It was targeting the, this is very relevant to COVID by the way, it targeted the nucleus,
not the envelope.
Right, so the proteins in the nucleus of the HIV, it ignored the envelope, we subsequently
optimized it by adding in the one bit that drives the immune activation, which I had
spent years identifying reality and it makes it seem better, so it really works well now.
Now the thing that really annoys the nucleus is not a thing, so I'm not sure what he's
talking about.
Maybe it's the nucleocapsid protein, maybe HIV has a similar protein with a similar name,
but even John Campbell seemed a little confused with the nucleus of what?
This is unfortunate.
It's an awful lot of sales pitch here, and it's a sales pitch for an HIV vaccine that
has four Achilles heels, which are his cartoon version of an epitope or an antigen set.
He seems to get those two things mixed up and antigen can have many epitopes.
You should see it that way, because an epitope is really a very specific word, which describes
the amino acid sequence that the immune system has encoded, either in a T cell receptor or
has presented on MHC2 or has been encoded in a B cell receptor, i.e. antibody.
So don't let that get mixed up for you, because that's something that everybody, when they're
being imprecise gets mixed up, but an antigen is the protein in question.
The antigen in the case of the cartoon transfection is the spike protein, or in the case of a
more realistic transfection, it's a spike protein in whatever fragments are made from
a fragment RNA, and whatever fragments are made when the protein is expressed correctly
or bolded correctly.
That's an antigen, and those antigens can have many epitopes on them, and it's up to
your immune system to select the epitope from the spike protein that it will present to
T cells that it will make antibodies potentially to.
Because if you don't have B cells that recognize a particular part of the spike protein, then
you're not going to have B cells that do that.
So it's a predetermined thing already, and a lot of people don't understand that, that
what you have is there.
And until that B cell gets recruited and given T cell help, it's not going to evolve, it's
genetic identity at all, it's just going to sit there dormant.
So this guy seems to believe, and I correct me if I'm wrong in the chat, but this guy
really seems to believe that two shots were okay.
That seems to be a pretty crazy thing for me, for him to be saying right now, anybody
is saying that the booster was the particular thing, and that no vaccine works if you need
more than two.
So he almost seems to be arguing that the mistake was the booster, and what are we on
in America?
Are we on our fourth or our fifth?
This is a real interesting stance that he's taking here.
I mean, was it Einstein who said the definition of an idiot or somebody who keeps studying
the same thing expecting a different answer?
Sounds like the sort of thing he would say.
So you have HIV vaccine, what does this actually target?
It was targeting the, this is very relevant to COVID by the way, it targeted the nucleus
not the envelope.
Right.
So the proteins in the nucleus of the HIV, it ignored the envelope.
We subsequently optimised it by adding in the one bit that drives the immune activation,
which I have spent years identifying, we added the one bit that drives the immune activation,
the one bit, and we, he's squeezing motion as we added in, we added in the one bit, the
tell is this, darn it, I'm getting upset because this is not the accuracy, and this
is not what I hoped it is.
It makes it seem better.
So it really works well now.
Now, the thing that really annoys me was the, or we're talking people spending billions,
I mean, how Genentech was involved in IH, the Gates Foundation, Garvey, IHavi, we approached
them all, and they all brushed us off, we know what we're doing.
And each of those big, he mentioned a lot of players, right?
And each of those big, worldwide vaccine trials, it was the same thing being presented, just
different technology.
So it made me realise, do not fall for technology, now, listen to that, because this is what
we hear all the time.
And you know, 10 years ago, it was DNA vaccines, are they going to save the world, this sat in
the other?
They worked brilliantly in mice, and guinea pigs and things, and dogs.
But as soon as you get bigger, the dogs, they do not work.
These are the adeno virus vector.
And so it, then everybody said, RNA is the thing, now don't think RNA is recent, I mean,
this is the other thing.
And when I was giving a thing, saying that I actually blame the RNA technology to make
it the boosters even worse, and people were involved in them, say, the attitude was, well,
what do you, you know, you need to be like what you're talking about, you want to stay
technical, you know, I'm conscious, no, I mean, I sat on the scientific board by a company
that called itself the messenger RNA cancer vaccine company for five years, I left six
or seven years ago, and they had everything in place.
I mean, they weren't able to take it forward.
So the messenger RNA industry has been there waiting for an excuse for a long time.
And I think that's correct.
And he should have been waiting for an excuse to teach you that adenovirus DNA containing
adenoviruses that work in lower animals are called transformations.
And mRNA used in any carrier type form to express proteins in these lower animals has
been called transfection.
Now, I'm really happy with what he said there because it actually brings to mind something
that I should have really pointed out a long time ago.
And that is that we don't understand why it's so difficult to create genetically modified
animals, but it is.
It's easy to do it in mice relative to doing it in rats.
And it's even more difficult to do it in monkeys than it ever would be to do it in rats.
And I'm not even sure if it's possible to do it in monkeys yet.
I would need to look maybe it's possible in some smaller monkeys.
And it's not really clear why, but my guess is, is it's the lifetime of the animal.
My guess is, is it's the lifetime of the pattern integrity that you are messing with.
And you can remove the gene from a pattern integrity that's only going to last for, you
know, like, only needs to last for 50 weeks.
But if you remove a pattern integrity from something that whose developmental time course
is a few years and whose productive lifetime is 20 years, then that the detrimental effects
of removing one of these parts of the pattern integrity from it can have catastrophic consequences
and that manifests itself in all kinds of weird anecdotal shoulder shrugs in academic
science.
Why don't you make a knockout monkey of that?
Well, we can't make knockout monkeys.
Why don't you take that gene and do what you did in that mouse in a better animal example?
Well, because we can't, because a lot of the things that we can do in mice, we can't do
in higher animals.
And what he expressed here, which I was not aware of, but I took notes and I think we
should follow up on this, is that adenovirus DNA transformation and the use of a DNA of
adenovirus in animals up to dogs seems to work interesting, isn't it?
Interesting that we know that much interesting that he knows that much.
Not sure this is the gold mine that everybody thought it was, but it is a gold mine.
It's a gold mine because you can now know why, well, I think we're learning.
It's great.
I like why it's, you know, it was the pandemic was the excuse that you suddenly to save
the world, et cetera.
This was the kind of thing, but when I go back to going to the patients who've relaxed
and melanoma, they go back to that, I put it all down to the immune suppression caused
by the boosters.
But I've seen some later relapses, which is say, well, perhaps the immune suppression
was recovered by now.
And then you become aware of that this is where the irony comes in, is that the, to me,
I was always suspicious.
I saw all these reports and they were always pushed aside and many publications were pulled
in the census, or well, in the censorship, by whatever it is, I don't know.
But whatever it is, the census has been awful.
But now there is enough data out there.
There's enough people cried out that the quality control of messenger RNA viruses, which I believe
was always the big issue.
I mean, it was a big, big issue.
That's not me.
And you've seen all the, the quality of the vaccines, you know, the, there was a, for
the first time, mainstream media, the article in spectator Australia actually went through
well, not only is the quality controlled or for, but it's contaminated with DNA plasminced.
One report up to 350 yard times with sequences from the SV40 promoter.
Well, the SV40 is an oncogenic promoter used in cancer development in mice.
And, you know, first of all, I say, what, hell is that doing in an RNA vaccine you have
to ask?
Because the presence of that, the presence of DNA means it can integrate.
Surely, that's not possible.
Well, you don't have to go very far into the literature to find people reporting that
these spike proteins integrated into all sorts of different tissue.
And for, you know, for rape, they said that it stays at the point of the injection site
and there's no way it spreads.
Oh, that's all right.
And so this is turns out to be a complete life.
It's been identified.
It autopsies.
It's been identified everywhere.
And this is the other thing with patients.
I can't get autopsies on these patients to prove this.
It's quite incredible.
But a colleague who had an explosive cancer, a co-erectal, basically at surgery, sent the
places away, the pieces away, the tuses away, and spike messenger RNA from the vaccine insertion
was confirmed.
So it is, this is, this to me is quite frightening that this is occurring.
And also that there's been this, we don't need to do post-moresomes on patients dying
from this.
It is, it's like it's from on high and they just won't do it.
I pleaded for one on the patient who died from explosive melanoma, who said, I never
felt well after the booster, I just felt chronically unwell and then the melanoma came
exploding back.
And then I had the patient's relatives consented to a post-mortem.
Oh, yes.
So just a minute.
You're one of the most senior doctors in the country.
You wanted a post-mortem.
The relatives are consented to a post-mortem, but that, that was refused.
This is just unbelievable.
It's over, yeah.
Unbelievable.
It is over by whom?
Well, perhaps there's something to do with, there was a report which got into the Lancet
of people who died after the vaccines to see whether it could, I don't know if you saw
that.
It appeared in the Lancet, but then it was pulled.
It was pulled very quickly.
The explanation given it was properly peer reviewed, which tells you there's not, peer
review is over-embed.
I mean, basically it's not politically within the political mantra.
And this is what really, this is what really frightens me.
I went to do an interview along these things, you know, into a mainstream media channel.
And the guy warned me at the beginning, he says, I have to be very careful the way I
ask you questions.
And please don't be put off.
I probably sound fairly hostile.
I'm very happy to discuss facts or something, are they?
But he said, the government had made it a crime to criticize the vaccine program on the media.
And I said, I'm astonished but actually thinking about it, I'm not surprised because it explains
why nothing, nothing is being discussed.
Without someone in the mainstream media, they actually don't think I'll do it.
And as you know, the off-con basically weighed it into Mark Stein on the GB News, but basically
querying just that.
I mean, it's the job of the press to raise the question.
And that actually is my job.
I mean, I was carpeted for saying this without proof that I'd actually have to present proof.
Well, they won't let you get the proof, that's not.
But based on this, one of the things that I did do, because I have been with many others,
particularly Ross Jones and Clare Grant, we had written many, many lessons to the people
who need to know about all these issues, particularly Ross and our children, which I
do in 100%.
I said, there's absolutely no need for a vaccine.
This vaccine, actually, I said, for the beginning, they said only for people over 70 and they
were about, they're ill.
And when it came down to 4050, I said that, you know, there was no need for that, because
we were getting this myocardis, parvitis signal.
Why did they carry on persisting going down?
Then you ate, that's another, another story.
But we reported all this to people like Chris Whitty and the Department of Health, NHS,
the MHRA, we basically got no engagement, which I think is an absolutely disgrace given
the series of this on it.
So I was told to say, haven't you been reported to the counter disinformation, which is set
up by the government, the government, and it said, you can do if you go through this
particular process, they've got to let you know.
And I was told by somebody who had done all this and found that they had been reported
for it.
So I decided and went through this process, I mean, I suspect I have been reported more
times than anybody else, because I started with a virus, I appeared, bang, bang,
criticize in the virus, the origin of the virus, lockdown, bang, bang, as I said, lockdown
was more ironic.
And I said, you should never lock down when you haven't bothered to quarantine.
And if quarantine doesn't work, there's no point locked down.
And it never works for airborne diseases, I thought.
And the, just as a cancer doctor, I said, you lock down the cancer, that death rate,
in six to 12 months or two years, we go through the roof, because they won't be excremed
in early treatment.
And I pride ourselves, you were bloody good at that, then, but this lockdown, the collapse
of the NHS has destroyed that, and it's really, really tragic.
So that's pretty bad.
Just let me write this down, whoops.
Now, there's some contradictions here that I don't like, and they're contradictions that
again, I think are part of this cognitive trap, that maybe he's weaving around John
Campbell.
I don't know, maybe he's just a really, he's a good guy, meaning well, but still fully
trapped in the Scooby-Doo.
But he definitely believes that the government, this is bad writing here, I had my armchair
was bad.
The government made it a crime to discuss the vaccine that was told to him by some journalist.
And a mainstream journalist.
And so he believes that that makes it somehow right.
And so he also definitely, and that's the trick, right?
The leaks, secret phone calls, special emails, ooh, a senator called me, a must being that
I'm on to something, the senator told me I'm right.
So he definitely believes that there's gained a function viruses that it was covered up,
and that makes it even more believable.
He believes the booster was a bad idea.
He said more than three times that two, two shots make sense, but three thousand, that's
when I knew it was crazy DNA contamination now it's come up recently in his discussion.
And censorship has now reared its ugly head again, as part of the way that he was sure
that something wasn't right, which I get.
But we still have not mentioned protocols.
Campbell hasn't mentioned Madazalam Campbell hasn't mentioned the things that
were done in the homes in the UK, he hasn't mentioned one bit about it.
Not one bit about PCR fraud, nothing.
So that's pretty impressive.
Anyway, he said that this is the part that really bothers me.
He said that cancer would go through the roof.
Sorry, I wanted to finish that.
This is very bad because of lack of early screening.
So that's not good because that's part of the narrative that a lot of people were laying
down at the beginning of the pandemic, including the TV people.
And if the TV people were laying this narrative down, then you know it's weird that he's doing
it now, reminding you that it might not even be the shot that's bringing all this
cancer out, but it's what it's the lack of early screening.
And so we're starting to create this illusion now because he also mentioned SV 40 on the
other page as being part of promoting cancer and he mentioned DNA integration.
And so he says the booster did it, there's contamination and that it can integrate.
But then he goes all the way back to the beginning of the pandemic and says because of lack
of early screening, there's also going to be all this cancer.
So which one is it?
Is it both?
You're not explaining it very well.
And you have interspersed those two ideas with a whole bunch of sidebar about what you
got cut out of and what people should have been paying attention to with regard to your
research about HIV.
Ooh, it's interesting.
Wow.
I did not expect this to be my evening tonight.
I thought that I was going to have a pretty straightforward immunology stream.
This is intriguing.
That's really one of the things that I was, that one of our letters handed into Rudy
Chris Whitty and everybody else, this that and the other, that this resulted in another
complaint to the CDU about me the next day.
Counter disinformation unit.
So what the hell are they doing?
As you say, I'm in a far, far better position than any of these people.
I can't believe the complete, unbelievable, I got to choose my words very carefully.
But to rely on Sage, you better, you get better information from the people running
Battersea's Dokom, but they've put their infection control in my view.
I mean, I just couldn't believe that.
And Chris Whitty, I mean, I cannot believe the astupidity of the statements that he has
made right from the beginning.
We told him about vitamin D, you know, this, that, the other, and he came back, he had
the contact and he says, there's not enough evidence to do anything about it.
I mean, not enough evidence that is beyond belief.
And then that's true.
You know, when we challenge him, that's true.
Jason M in the chat says that this may be the first time he's had to vent, that's, that's
a legitimate thing.
That's right.
It could be the first time anybody's ever listened to him.
So he's got to say something that that's possible.
Who knows what I'll do when I get on Tucker Carlson, right?
And he says, oh, you've got to vaccinate the children in order to protect the parents
of grandparents.
In that last sentence, he re-reals papers of stupidity.
First of all, you don't vaccinate people to protect other people.
That's the first thing you're wrong.
And then by saying to protect the parents and the grandparents that already been subject
to this vaccine battering, you've admitted it doesn't work.
It's unbelievable.
And so, I mean, I've got, I think Chris Whitty said one or two things that made a reasonable
sense earlier on.
He said, well, you can't really introduce vaccines unless nothing works.
And the virus is really lethal, like it kills young people, the third of them, which is
absolutely true.
So why did the Allow Vaccine program to be rolled out for a disease that only killed
old people, in my view, just bought for death by about three months and didn't actually
kill anybody else any more than the random viruses, the flus, et cetera, do it.
And I think, and I call them this, I think there has to be accountability, you know,
that has to be this, um, hallett inquiry.
See, but why won't he explain it?
Why doesn't he explain that we can, and it might be that we just need to educate John
Campbell.
We need to educate this guy that the data is there.
Denny Rancour, Denny Rancour has the data.
He can show that the all-cause mortality doesn't support the spread of a respiratory virus.
I don't care what he thinks.
And he says the vaccine wasn't necessary unless like it killed the third of the people that
had infected, but then think carefully, sir, about what they did.
They rolled in all of the deaths that they could.
They increased the deaths that they could by discouraging the use of antibiotics to tick
a little bit here, discouraging the, the, uh, resuscitation of cardiac patients in New York
and other places, encouraging the use of ventilators prematurely in order to stop spread before
people needed ventilation.
This, this is what they're missing.
And they're right on the cusp.
If they could just understand that, okay, now realize that you don't need a particularly
dangerous virus.
You need a particularly well-oiled machine capable of delivering this fear around the
world at exactly the same time, with the exact same precision in met and messaging
so that everybody stopped using antibiotics, so that everybody started ventilating, so
that everybody panicked, so that everybody shut down.
And the use of revdesivir, the use of medazolam, the use of all of these tricks resulted in
more people dying in the hospital than should have and being tallied to COVID.
If it didn't result in more all-cause mortality, it just means that there was enough deadwood
from previous years so that it didn't raise the expectations, the expected age of death
was actually higher in the pandemic.
Because of the nature of that sort of top-heavy population pyramid that we had, they're talking
about none of this, but we can get them there.
The vaccine wasn't necessary, he knows it wasn't necessary, he knows it didn't work.
But now, if he also has somebody in the government that says we can't run a vaccine unless A,
B, and C, then he also could realize, it's possible he could realize.
And John Campbell, therefore, could realize that wait, in order to get A, B, and C they
might've done something, in order to get A, B, and C might've been the reason why the
protocols were changed, in order to get A, B, and C, that might've been the reason why
they use medazolam, John Campbell, in order to get A, B, and C that might've been the
reason why they use revdesivir in America, John Campbell.
In order to get A, B, and C that might've been the reason why they lied about what happened
New York it actually should be feet to the line this was you were on it was in
your watch your charge all this stuff now is because you didn't do things and I
think why didn't witty resign why didn't balance resign they're all they're
like hello all of this is also because of John Campbell who did nothing but
encourage people to take the shot it's all because of him because he didn't
get out there earlier where's his YouTube channel you see what I'm talking
about here it's very easy to throw mud now but I'm what unless you're willing to
say that you were also involved like I have been saying it repeatedly the
lab leak the lab leak the lab leak was me for a couple months but I came to my
senses in May of 2020 not in in in October of 2023 and there has to be some
acknowledgement that if any of these people like John Campbell could have
come to their senses in 2021 we could have avoided this in 2020 it would have
been even better but then maybe he'd have just been thrown off a YouTube this
is what we're dealing with right now this is how the the the narrative gets
rolled up they've used this football has passed in the ball around the back because
it can't be bothered to sort the female properly it just passed past they're
blaming everybody else I mean I think it's a query is it's just a fast but a
whitewash and by the time they come to any conclusions the people will go on
for so long they'll have forgotten what it was all about and the people would be
completely retired or dead or god knows this is all and I think they should be
the people who should have intervened because they they were daily immune
about things and if they didn't they should have got the right people didn't
reside hmm go back to your patients professor with the melanoma there's
this perturbation in the immune system now have you seen aggressive is the melanoma
become more aggressive more sort of more virulent melanoma as a result of the
perturbations which may well include the vaccine completely in fact it's my
colleagues who came up with the saying we're seeing this too it's absolutely
explosive they point this work explosive and my colorectal colleagues have seen
this now they're talking about explosive presentations of colorectal cancer in
young people particularly like they've never seen before can I just say that I
wish you would stop saying explosive colorectal cancer I don't know why he has
to keep saying that anyway it was one of those that the integration of the spike
protein in their shoe it's almost like a new disease explosive colorectal cancer
of the young yeah so they are presenting and it's already in the liver and the
lymph nodes for the lungs whereas normally it's already metastasized yeah
this is a process that when you put them under pressure it gradually escapes
there's a slow process in most people explosive is extremely unusual and the
colorectal surgeons are all reporting this now is have you seen any cases that you
probably wouldn't expect of lymphoma cancer of the lymphatic system oh absolutely
not I mean I don't do lymphomas in the clinic so that's the first thing but I'm
hearing people who after their booster vaccines have gone down that with
lumps in the neck and things like that and I found that a colleague worked
somewhere else completely and I bumped into my eyes said you know how are you
I said oh I'm okay but I've developed some lumps in my neck and they've been
diagnosed as lymphoma and I just trying to be sympathetic so what earth calls
that and the patient says oh apparently it's due to the vaccine might that's what
my oncologist said and I said but this is the reaction I'll get it everywhere
and yet when we report it higher up the chain we're told it's only going to
shut up and not cause panic amongst the patient any rate that person told me
that three of her friends out of the couple of dozen had all had the same
thing it was quite amazing then I found somebody else lymphoma is not
something that we're gonna test for very much but given the talk to we heard
from Drew Weisman which was only like a year old yesterday where he said he was
really excited about how easy it was to target the lymph nodes and again I said
yesterday night and I'll say it again transfecting a bunch of T cells it just
can't be the it can't be the goal of any therapy that's designed to use fully
augment the immune system that just makes no sense I mean it really makes no
sense that you could show those pictures to a room full of biologists and people
wouldn't be like now my only my only claim here is that I wasn't in that room I
wasn't around during a talk like that had I been around during a talk like that
when I was in in academia still I would have said something I've done it many
times and in that case that is just absurd it is absolutely absurd that you
can show a glow-in-the-dark staining lymph node and say look what we can do
and that's a good idea show up a section of Baron Mabone marrow and say look
what we can do as if that's a good idea as if that is a useful way to augment the
immune system now you can make a little mouse model that has one readout or three
readouts that can all be translated into a bar graph and show that the changes in
those readouts are in the general direction of a therapeutic that might
be useful but in a mouse that doesn't mean anything because we can make knockout
mice because we can make transgenic mice we can make pre-driven genetic
altered mice we can't do that with most other mammals
we're talking about genetic mice you know genetically inbred mice you can't
genetically in breed humans I just don't know what to say ladies and gentlemen
but we're dealing with something here where there is an illusion most of the
people who mean well are still under its spell I was only able to to start to
become aware of this illusion a few years ago it's not like I knew what this was
the pandemic saved me it probably saved a lot of you and now we need to use the
pandemic to save these guys because they're there they're on their way out of the
cave they know that something is wrong they shouldn't see these kinds of
cancers they shouldn't see it in this frequency they shouldn't see it in this
young and there shouldn't be a temporal correlation with a particular therapeutic
exposure but it is there is a temporal correlation with a therapeutic exposure
to a vaccine candidate transfection that the maker itself was bragging about not
ten months ago about how these preparations of lipid nanoparticles and
mRNA are very easily targeted to the lymph node to the bone marrow they go
all over the body locally and had a lymphoma diagnosis then I found my a
close member of the family developed a leukemia and that was after the booster
vaccine now here I want to point out that quite a few people especially my
agent etc probably have low-grade B cell disease lymphomas leukemias
etc my lomas and yes and it's maintained under control because it was a good
healthy T cell surveillance it keeps it under control so when you give a booster
and you start to find these B cell hemias and things coming more common you
don't have to look hard to work out what the packet genesis is I why they
suddenly appear but my other colleagues are pointing out that they're seeing
more renal cancer too a lot more renal cancer now renal cancer in my loma
we're always loved together as being tumors that seem to respond to immune
therapy but you know they were both both the ones that responded to interferon
and interlinked to you before we had specific therapy so that again would
fit the T cell perturbation control theory and are we talking about what
sorts of leukemia is potentially are we talking about here well B cell ones so
I mean one of the ones specifically had its array of subtypes called
mandrel cell that all fits into the more chronic remind me please is that
the myloid type yes yeah right thank you yeah now you mentioned before about the
the the SS 40 now that this is the Simeon virus I think isn't it Simeon
virus 40 I'm a right in thinking that that coincidentally in infects monkey
kidney cells which are cultured to and then those cell cultures are used to
make the DNA which is then used to make the RNA which is in the vaccine does
that the way it works I am not in theory yes yeah I'm not completely
okay was in the vacuum kidney cells which is the Simeon virus now you mentioned
before about the the SS 40 now that this is the Simeon virus I think isn't
it Simeon virus 40 I'm a right in thinking that that coincidentally in
infects monkey kidney cells which are cultured to and then those cell
cultures are used to make the DNA which is then used to make the RNA which is in
the vaccine is that the way it works I am not I don't know that that's the case
would they use monkey kidney cells to make the DNA that is then grown in the
bacteria I think they print the DNA I think they just made that DNA from from
like synthetic so that it's super pure and then they couldn't create the whole
construct and then they put that in I don't think that they use monkey kidney
cells to do it I think that's incorrect and SV 40 the virus is different than
the SV 40 promoter and the SV 40 promoter is used in the plasmid it is
not the whole virus it is the start sequence that makes sure that the the
bacteria makes many many many copies of the plasmid that contains it I think
it's related to the origin of replication but it's not the origin of
replicate could be the origin of replication I don't know SV 40 may be
the origin of it but it's also just a promoter type thing like a signal that
that tells the bacteria to make many copies of the plasmid so I'm not I'm
pretty sure they're they're getting this confused but it'll go in theory yes
yeah I'm not completely okay with how they are doing it I mean it's a commercial
secret yeah now you find these sequences in both files are a Moderna you can
start but I mean if it was just in one batch I think they need to be very
careful here because they basically said that monkey kidney cells were used in
the production of the vaccine and so what they're gonna do is they're gonna
create this thing where then somebody can easily debunk them and say see John
Campbell's an idiot he doesn't know what he's talking about monkey kidney cells
would never use to make the DNA the DNA was made pure with synthetic processes
they just printed it see how dumb John Campbell is now I'm not saying that I'm
saying that what this sets up is for somebody to say that some some armchair
youtuber debunker like debunk the funk can take this one clip and dunk on him
do you see it it's really dangerous this is so bad this is how fragile are our
statuses right now and how easily the cards can come down that's why I think
it's a real trap to think that John Campbell is actually waking up he's got
this guy on here but he's not pushing back against him at all he's deferring
to his expertise even though there's lots of times here when he could have
pushed back find this guy's email for me I'll see if I can get him on my stream
that they'll join but you know I'll dry whoops whoops what the hell
it's somebody a very early on various you pointed out that there were terrible
side effects in some people even in the first and second years and then they
found that there was a massive difference in the batches and so if
there was three big batches one batch would be responsible for 90% of the side
effects yeah so we know then this is a big quality control issue going on and
so if as they say they find these sequences in lots of different batches it
does that's just I think one of the bacteria used is E. coli which of course
is what we call a gram-negative and if there's any contamination from the
gram-negative cell walls that would make people that would make people pretty
ill as well if that was the case I'm that's the endotoxin which we have
heard we have heard Josh Getzko on this guy's program talk about that we've
also heard Robert Malone talk about how he solved the endotoxin problem many
years ago when he was trying to develop this technology interesting right we
know for sure I mean I remember it very distinctly that he said that in that
interview with with Vage on health Philip McMillan just a couple days ago I
know I've been going for 34 days straight but I can remember what I did and I
remember what we listened to and that's why this work is paying off because it
seems like we're wasting our time watching the same thing over and over
again but we're actually not what we're doing is we're catching people in lies
because when you're lying it's hard to keep things straight and the more you
see how people can't keep things straight the more it is easy to see that they
must have been lying that and again I'm not talking about the present video but
I am I need you to be cautioned into thinking that John Campbell has been
awakened even if he's awake to the transfection being dangerous he's not
awake to the sum total of of lies plus protocols equals very little virus he's
still under the assumption that people were saved but there was contamination
and the contamination could explain all of what this brother professor is saying
if John Campbell wants to lean that way if that's the confirmation that he's
looking for this professor is giving him all the ammunition he needs to confirm
that well it could be the transfection but you know it's this DNA contamination
is definitely bad I mean why are we talking about the
transfection going to the lymph nodes right now they must know that they could
know that he's been against this for so many months or years he must have looked
into it too could find the same videos and descriptions that we have where it
goes to the lymph node he's an immunologist what is he thinks gonna happen he
described it earlier in the video you might remember to harness half the
immune system with this shot can't be a good idea he said to harness half the
immune system sounds a lot like transfecting a lymph node and all the cells
in it doesn't it yee that idea concerned dramatically concerned about what you've
seen already what possible implications could this have for cancers emerging
over the next few years well obviously I'm aware of quite a few patients who
mean bullied into having booster and then have the booster just to be safe
because you're at risk I think this is highly unethical because and I have seen
it a communication you are required to contact your GP immediately and arrange
for another booster and things like that that is totally unethical it's non-GMC
compliant in fact it's nearly Nuremberg Charlotte territory yeah because there's
no informed consent there's not even any justification but the boosters going to
do these patients any good in fact completely to the contrary and the big
thing is that they they wanted you to have the vaccine and better protect
everybody else it doesn't protect infection at all from the Cleveland
study I know the big Cleveland study was updated it most as I've dated in
September and they've confirmed if you have the booster you have three and a
half guys more like to get COVID and if you don't so I would put that into
grievous bodily arm territory not a necessary medical prophylactic treatment
territory I mean the way in terms of what you want to do that and the only way that
that is causing them to be three and a half times that's an interesting idea
that that if you could show that the recommendation of the CDC actually led
to more danger for the people who took the shots maybe you can blame it on them
that's interesting and I don't think it's a pretty very ridiculous idea because
again like this guy has been good at pointing out and what I think I was
ranting about yesterday with regard to Drew Weismann's presentation about
antibodies and activation of the immune system and and transfection or delivery
of RNA in different places in the body the idea that unequivocally more is
better in all cases and that the bigger difference between previous attempts at
augmenting the immune system and this one with one metric was somehow a sign of
superiority and what that that that whole argument belies is a gross
underestimating of the complexity of the immune system what that that
misrepresentation belies is a complete misunderstanding of how the immune system
probably works and this guy seems to know more than Drew Weismann but doesn't
really seem to be keen on really laying it out which is fine because maybe this
is the first time he's been out there and it's got a lot of things he wants to
say but we can be critical as we watch it and so that's why I'm drawing your
attention to these things well likely is that it has perturbated the immune system
and all the liars have said it's used its resources to fight viruses that don't
exist it's making lots of useless antibodies which are actually contrary
not to fighting viruses that don't exist means that it evolved to not have the
original spike protein I think that's what he means so take that also with a
grain of salt between to another one called antibody dependent in Harlan and
the same Cleveland that they had reported that they the vaccine companies
say ah but this is a great technology because all the new variants we can make
a new vaccine for and give you the new variants and we can give you two variants at once
there is no evidence that that protects you whatsoever in fact in all the
mice work there's evidence that we'll actually do more harm by doing and so
first of all this type of virus we have antibody dependent on the heart
which I think is clearly going on yeah but secondly to explain why they're so
useless is that I published with some other colleagues because there's a
completely different group from the origin of the virus going over the
secrets of finding out these of all we genetically put in I publish with
another set of colleagues is what the history of coronavirus vaccine is and
what lessons can be learned from it the lessons that can be learned from it is
no coronavirus vaccine is ever been shown to be of any use at all and that's
what I was saying in 2020 in May there was never a coronavirus vaccine that's
ever worked not in veterinary science not in a laboratory model it's never
worked and so there was no reason to believe that this would work now to the
contrary one of the motivating factors of Ralph Barracks laboratory in the
beginning was to use coronaviruses because of their harmless nature because
of their ability to fly under the radar because our immune system ignored them
they might be useful for molecular techniques for medical use extraordinary
they don't have one for the cult and more importantly they would love one the
next would love them but they just don't they just don't work and the main
reason they don't they don't work is the coronavirus has had this phenomenon
once they became system seen it it locks in it's called immunological imprinting
or antigenic sin so when you do any variation all you do is boost the
response to the person and that would explain why they're so useless and why
they're letting all other other variants in through the back door and other
people have said that we probably wouldn't have to see that I think is a
really it's not a good enough explanation so I'm just getting it
rough him again I'm gonna make my my image a little bigger what he should be
saying is that if we instruct the immune system to pay attention to parts of the
coronavirus which are not functionally constrained then we will instruct the
immune system to make memory to a changing target and our immune system
doesn't do that normally and when our immune system makes mistakes is when it
does make memory to self proteins or to a moving target and so part of what the
immune system has evolved to do is select epitopes from the antigen that
seem to be functionally constrained that are related related related to previous
epitopes previous proteins that have been seen your body has a mechanism which
I can't explain because I don't adequately understand but I assure you
it's there to use the catalog of previously memorized epitopes in
functionally constrained proteins of other entities like this RNA virus
whatever it is and those epitopes are from this most the immune system is
designed to first select from those rather than to augment and awaken new
ones and we're awakening new naive de novo memories in the immune system is
much more complex than augmenting previously activated and already
crescendo de crescendo memories that are stored in the immune system and those
are two very different processes that vaccinologists never talk about that
these people that sell this stuff never talk about that these guys aren't talking
about so we've got to be always on top of this but this imprinting thing is
important but he could also point out that there are there are genes and there
are sections of the genome that whether you believe in the coronavirus biology
per se or not the primary literature that occurs before 2020 shows clearly
that there are parts of this virus that don't change and therefore can be used
as targets in a pan coronavirus PCR test that's the end protein that's the RNA
dependent RNA polymerase and for years that's how we found all coronaviruses is
looking for the things they share in common and your immune system has taken
the same strategy in developing whatever immunity is necessary in order to cope
with coronaviruses the least memory possible the immune system tries to
respond the least memory possible it's become very obvious to me that this idea
of forcing the immune system to make a robust memory to something is exactly
antithetical to how the immune system works you're trying to avoid a cascade
you're trying to get the least amount of memory formed the least amount of
activation to cope with every threat to maintain inside from out we're gonna
learn how to teach this immune system better than it's ever been taught before
and that's how we're going to change the world because when people understand
that their immune system has been made dumb simple in order to pray upon us in
order to get us to sign up as unhealthy test subjects so that eventually our
grandchildren will be born into a system like that once you understand we're
going to be free I've had the problem with the variants it hadn't been for the
vaccine program in the first place which in retrospect everybody said well at
least to protect it loads of people but I don't even buy that anymore because it
came in when everything was dying out and new variants were being induced
probably by the vaccine so you know one of them I can tell you that I'm gonna
have Denny Rancour on the show again he just sent me his newest paper and that
paper is pretty cool because it deals with taking this claim of the of the
it takes there it is it this is his
substantive evaluation of whether the Nobel Prize winning COVID-19 vaccines
actually saved lives and if you take a look at the article you will see
that if you throw in the numbers and what what Denny has which is really
cool is that he has in this gray line here so the blue line is the actual more
to all cause mortality the gray line is the rollout of the vaccines from zero to
you know all the vaccines are out and so in order for between 14 million and
19 million people to have been saved by the vaccine it would have to have been
saved after the rollout of the vaccine right so that's what Denny has here in
this time frame is that the rollout of the vaccine is the gray numbers and what we
are supposed to have avoided is the red number then because the red number would
be 14 million people on top of the all-cause mortality that we have here and as
you know the blue already shows increases in all cause mortality that
aren't due to COVID but are seem to be due to the shot rollout but now we see
the preposterous nature of the claim that the vaccine saved 14 million to 19
million lives if we see these charts and of course you could do this all around
the world in Canada and elsewhere because they made numbers in this paper that was
published in the Landsat which we will talk about with Denny as well that
claimed these crazy figures and so you can throw it back on top of these
figures and show what they claimed they saved with the vaccine and see how
absurd it is and nonetheless they're making these claims and it doesn't really
seem as though we're gonna escape from this until people realize that it is the
protocols that created the illusion that allowed the vaccine to be rolled out in
the first place it wasn't the cover-up of a lab virus it was the appearance of the
cover-up of a lab virus that distracted people from realizing that the
protocols and that the tests were being used to roll up all cause mortality into
a new disease and they doing everything they could to drive up all cause
mortality do not resuscitate orders ventilating people that don't need it
remdesivir, medazolam, opioids, anything to get all cause mortality to go up when
they needed it to go up at the start of the pandemic where they needed to go up
at the start of the pandemic and then once this machine was rolling it was
gonna go to the end and that's what people are starting to realize as they
look backwards and they investigate what people did in 2020 and you realize
that people realized that there was money to be made opportunities to be had
and they were acting too early to not to have been tipped off people are
starting to scramble for the exits ladies and gentlemen because we're on to
them I'm not saying these guys are the bad guys I'm saying that this is how it
happens and this is what we said a few years ago they're gonna slow roll us to
the truth here are these guys being allowed to say this are these guys
slowly figuring it out I don't know but there's if they're slowly figuring it
out then they're right on pace with the Scooby-Doo that's gonna eventually be
used to blame it on certain Western countries that this was allowed to
happen which I don't necessarily disagree with but if we don't come to
terms with the extent to which they lied to us about the proportion of people
killed by a novel virus gain a function leak versus protocols and lies and fake
testing we're never gonna escape. One of the big important chapters was in the
the places that got the new various quicker so those are the most intensified
vaccine programs and one of the ones the first ones to come out that was
completely different was only Chrome which came out to South Africa and the
South Africans beautifully described that this was a much more infectious
agent but it wasn't serious don't worry about it don't do this that it is not
thing just don't worry about it and by the way we've done our work it makes no
difference whether you're vaccinated or unvaccinated whether you get infected
whether you get ill whether you go classical or you die they had all that
data on the plate again they communicated with the the government and all these
people who decided that they probably not that clever and got it wrong and they
persisted with lockdown and I do think that that data is the reason why Nick
Hudson was so hot for so long because he knew that in in South Africa they had
data which showed otherwise other lunatic things all South African
science got it wrong yeah and of course in retrospect they got a hundred percent
right and I must say after hearing them being interviewed I knew they were
completely right because they're absolutely absolutely special and people
who work in that environment tend to be brighter than those who end up in white
hole indeed so giving repeated booster doses of vaccine produces more antibodies
if you've got time to tell us what our antibody dependent enhancement is what
is being enhanced by these antibodies well as mentioned the antibodies they're
no longer neutralizing because they were developed in order to attack a virus
and said that's got long gone so you've got all these antibodies and they attach
to the other viruses because there's some bits the same but they don't
neutralize it so by attaching to it they they have their antibodies sticking
out so they're more likely to be gobbled up by the macrophages things and brought
into the system so it makes them more likely to go into cells it makes them
more likely to go in cells yes and it's very it's very well described and it's
the bane of trying to produce vaccines against things like dengue fever
I think that they're being disingenuous with this mechanism here and it's just
dawned on me what they're what they're disingenuous about
so antibodies are supposed to bind to the virus and neutralize the virus meaning
block the receptor and I think this is wrong because they're supposed to do
lots of things they're supposed to tag the virus for processing they are
supposed to bring in complement to destroy it to rupture it and they can
also I don't think that antibodies are just designed to block the receptor and
do nothing else and that's what neutralizing means they're no longer
neutralizing that's what that means if they're not neutralizing it means that
they don't block the receptor and neutralize it I think this is a very
big mistake this is a very big trap here in the immunomethology the
neutralization means something when the antibodies don't neutralize anymore it
means that they bind to a different part of the receptor binding domain but
that shouldn't necessarily mean that that wouldn't allow the immune system
to find the virus and to take it up it's not the uptake of the virus that's
dangerous I don't think because if neutralization was important then you
would need as we've talked about before you would need a neutralizing
antibody for every spike protein on every virus otherwise the neutralizing
thing would only be partial and so I think we fooled ourselves with some of
these in vitro assays to assume that neutralization is how it works when we
do these things in a dish there's no other immune cells there there's no
complement system there there's nothing there so then in that while I can't
believe I'm figuring this outright live on the screen but in that preparation in
a cell culture where there's no immune system and no complement system then
it's easy to imagine that antibodies neutralize the fusion protein of
viruses and prevent the fusion and prevent the RNA from being taken up by
those cells but that's a very very closed system where any other effects that
the antibody binding to that virus would have are not there which could
include immediate destruction by the complement system the complement system
acts very quickly T cells and macrophages can act very quickly and if
they're there to take up the cells this could be a distraction anybody
dependent enhancement is a much more complicated thing which may involve
actually the idea that the antibodies that bind to this thing help it to infect
your cells protected from immune activation no they caused the immune
activation so you have all these antibodies floating around free in
your in your blood and when they bind to things and aggregate they cause
inflammation so that antibody dependent enhancement is simply could be as simple
as the idea of having antibodies when you don't need them and since the only
thing that we can usefully augment in a vaccine scenario is seroprevalence that
any time that antibodies are maladaptive you get antibody dependent
enhancement what a stupid name for having antibodies when you don't need
them what a stupid excuse for augmenting the immune system going wrong oh my
gosh this is blowing my mind that I'm figuring this out right now have we
really bamboozled ourselves to the extent to which that we believe that
antibody dependent enhancement love you have too many of the wrong ones it'll be
bad it's not too many of the wrong ones too many antibodies period think about
that proteins floating around in your blood to protect you from stuff that's
not what your blood is a soup of proteins that protect you from stuff that
memorize all different kinds of epitopes you got antibodies for all this that's
not how it works holy cow we got them oh my gosh we got them of course once the
antibody is held in a cell culture where you do a neutralizing assay you don't
have the immune system you don't have the complement system and so it's a very
little cartoon world where the only readout you have is whether or not these
pseudo virus particles bind to the cell culture and cause the cell culture to
change and so then it's very easy to you have antibodies in the solution and so
now that reaction doesn't happen and now you have this whole cartoon in your
imagination that says that fusion proteins are blocked by antibodies and
that's how we defend ourselves against viruses and so the more antibodies you
have the better don't you see it holy shit
the virus into the cell oh my gosh I can't believe I'm figuring this out now in
2023 so the government are building a new plant in Harwell Science Park just
near Oxford to produce 250 million doses of mRNA vaccine per year as far as we
know there's another plant near Melbourne we believe in Australia to
produce a couple hundred million doses per year there's another one in Canada
is this a good idea have to think very carefully I read today that Germany has
ordered the destruction of millions of millions doses of vaccines having come
to the right conclusion Switzerland is the same Switzerland been all their
vaccines I think they've been a hoodwink about this I mean we do did need a good
facility but now I don't the last mass production needs messenger RNA I think
it should be put in totally into the bin a lot he hate me for this because they've
put so much intellectual everything in it but I mean if I if I was 10 years ago
involved a scientific things committees who had everything sorted out to go in
and they're talking about cancer vaccines you know so many safety issues
aren't the same as giving it to own every man and his dog yes it's just
chalk and cheese isn't it if you've got someone with someone with a who's
perfectly healthy and you give them an intervention you've got one set of
risk benefit analysis if you've got one of your patients for example who's
gravely ill with some form of cancer then clearly you're going to be prepared to
take a bigger potential risk because the risk from the cancer is so much bigger
it just seems a completely different equation it's proportionality yeah
proportionality with the messenger RNA risk and well populations saying you
are preventing them getting okay so he does get that that's good they're going
to die anyway I mean you know we've all lived through I mean the COVID thing
has made us forget just how lethal some of the flu epidemics have been I mean
30,000 years not unusual I was a junior doctor so we didn't close down the
country from that that's all I want to ask really professor just got one we do
plan if you would like to I'd like to do another video at some stage on viral
origins I don't want to do that today but that's an interesting one but do you
have a particular blood level that you like to titrate your patients with
cancers how high do you like their vitamin D levels to be
oh yes I've done a lot of work on that and I know that came to the I came to
conclusion that the normal level which the NHS and doctors like to bark at you
normally you don't need to do anything there's not normal at all because it's
the normal population which is endemically low if it isn't indeed that is the
problem it is means you're like that they're like normal for people with low
bit of indeed normal for people that are low I mean I don't know what to work and
most things I included myself in this and I measured my own bit of indeed and
took a bit of the exception and I read wisely I mean and I must give full
credit to David Grimes and David Anderson who really I mean if anybody
deserved the Nobel Prize let me make sure about the Nobel Prize for the
COVID pandemic because I had lobbied strongly independently and I found
that they had to and to ignore us and many others who probably do the same
thing I think there's is medical negligence what the government total
medical issues anyway to not forgetting your actual question is I came to
conclusion I want all my patients to have a vitamin D3 level over a hundred
nanomoles per liter not 50 as the NHS seems quite happy with I managed to get
our own hospitals except up to 75 but for my patients I wanted to be over a
hundred it makes an unbelievable difference so that'd be about 40 in
America nanograms per mill I honestly you've got me there I think you divide
I was trying to do it you divide by 2.5 so I quite quite so it's around about
that but over a hundred nanomoles per liter it would be your preference
yes and it really does make a big difference and that might mean giving like
10,000 units a day to bump it up over a thousand I mean the other thing there's
300 genes involved in absorbing it. Fauci was taken four thousand units per
day I think when he was on the Jennifer Garner Instagram podcast in 2020 he said
he was taken four thousand units a day and producing the act component of the
vitamin D3 most people are going to have a mild deficiency in one of those
gene productions at some stage so I've seen people who have had very low
vitamin D and I'm a statement that they outdoor lives they have great nutrition
and everything like that and they've got very low vitamin D's I again because I
have to know explanations for all these things of course I signed this
except I said to this guy but I said you're super low it's like he deliberately
avoided vitamin D tell me what you do because you're always out cycling in the
sun and it's so fit next I and he says well I get up in the morning I have my
breakfast and then I slap on my sunscreen and this that I go for a bike
I said what fact did he use he said 50 right well once I knew 50 I started
asking 50 is a complete block because it's even worse though because you're
also putting things on your skin your skin is your immune barrier your skin
is not necessarily liking all the chemicals that are in that product so
not only are you robbing yourself of natural production of vitamin D which
is now starting to seem so strange right that they were so insistent that we
needed to protect ourselves from the Sun and that we could use Sun cream to do
it as opposed to you know like a a parasol which is really the sad part of
this that's all we really needed is just stay in the shade like they do in
tropical countries and instead we sold products sold products sold chemicals
that we put on our immune system on our barrier the largest organ in our body
and these guys are talking about it now too like SPF 50 is not even what matters
what what matters is the goo the garbage and we were clogging ourselves with
covering ourselves with some of the most sensitive skin our body is our face
he's describing somebody putting it on his face every day
while we have AOC on Instagram complaining about how sunscreen is is too
highly regulated in America by the FDA that's her concern right now man we are
making progress but we're not making progress it's like we're spinning our
wheels in the deepest puddle of mud it's starting to be rewarding because the
engines making noise and we're able to shift some gears and there's mud flying
everywhere and it's moving we're not going that far we need to focus we need
to get the attention of these people and start to explain to them the real depth
and breadth of this delusion they're in under now the people using fact that you
are having super low bit of indeed even if they're out the Sun all the time so
it's far too strong and that's another global thing that the NHS and people
should do they should remove fact that it's actually dangerous because it
completely locks out the visible to cope with it indeed so anyway so that's
how going back I think that's a hundred nanomoles is to a some people and then
we put it this way I've seen nobody near a hundred who hasn't been taking
supplements with one exception and I won't forget it I said this it was quite
a elderly man yet now we treated him quite well and I said you know we need
to make sure he has his vitamin D supplements things like that but I
measure it first and when he came back he had a level like 97 98 which is near
enough a hundred doctor and I said each shore he doesn't take any vitamin D
and he said no no no he only takes he takes his aspirin and his heart tablets
and they said they walked out the door and his way popped back in that says do
you know what though ever since I had put him on cod liver oil he's been
yeah let's go back to the other side was the the so-called bait they don't
might mention that now they don't like anything but they're just dark cool and
skin all the early people who die in a dark kind of skin and they did another
report useless report which found it was every form of discrimination poverty
deprivation they didn't mention a bit of the deeper I have never seen a dark
kind of skin black and Asian person in the hospital that I've done I've never
seen one of them with a bit of indio 30 unless somebody's got to the first
they're taking supplements that was the explanation for their end to death rate
that we had and now because it couldn't have been deprivation because it was
right I mean there was many doctors the first opera consultants yeah they may
argue that they're deprived but not everybody else later so that was the
first and that was the thing I tried to get through to witty and again I mean
the guy is just I mean he really is totally unfit for purpose I mean why
hasn't been sacked or why hasn't resigned I have no idea he's absolutely
grateful he kept saying again the game there's no need for a bit of indeed
like he didn't need to know about it yeah I'm pretty sure I got a message through
to Chris witty via various political figures as well I'm pretty sure it got
through I know Brian's Anderson did too but anyway there are four papers out
there in retrospect showing that the bit of indeed had a better protection than
any of the vaccine brain and the one that I think is the most important was a
big Spanish study which revealed that there's a lot of it in indeed
deficiency in Spain which I would not have thought that it is they avoid the
sun and then when they're young they get leathery skin so we have a
significant point and they did a retrospective study of everybody admitted
to hospitals who ill of covid so they looked at everything and the only the
only conclusion a meta analysis was it was really simple if your vitamin D
level was below 30 when you went into hospital with covid you had a 77%
chance of dying if it was over 75 you had a 2% chance that I don't need to
bother my statistical department's heads in order to work out what's how
significant even I can cope with that one yeah it was unbelievable yeah I love
this micro bacterium that you give so it's a simple micro bacterium that you
kill it and you inject it and that produces a broad spectrum immunity
against a variety of viruses potentially influenza potentially covid
well if the reason it does it is because it boosts the innate immune
loss so presumably the government by biting your hand off to get the rest of
your time I told them all about it and I mean once again you couldn't make it
up I couldn't believe it Chris Witte said there wasn't enough animal work
done on it it had been in hundreds of patients we did have not had a single
SAE another example that is not fit well what's SAE sorry serious adverse
event yeah there's many of those I mean it actually is a very very safe
vaccine it's a very very safe unlike Pfizer where if you go back to the
VAERS data that was released basically if you had a serious adverse event three
or four of which means here you have 3% chance of dying well nobody would get
a vaccine with a 3% chance of dying with an adverse event but it was covered up
it was only released as you know that I caught demanded that on freedom
expression that it be released otherwise we never know so you're just using this
vaccine in your own clinical trials I'm gonna fade this out
I need to get to bed on time tonight I have decided to make the commitment to
coach a sixth-grade basketball team this fall which means there's no way in
the hell I'm gonna be able to keep up nightly streaming but that doesn't mean
much right now because it's not gonna start till November I just want to give
you a heads-up that this utopian nightly delivery mechanism is not gonna last
that long probably make it to Halloween which might be 67 in a row I put the
chat in the chat this link I can still see it up there at 958 so if you want to
watch the rest of this video or watch it again without my commentary by all
means do so thank you very much to all the people that are scrolling about my
head it helped me from 2020 up until now some of these subscribers aren't
current anymore some of them are all of them are responsible for me being here
thank you very much for your support thank you for sharing my word thank you
for caring can love your neighbor I'll see you again tomorrow
and so it sends out all these suppressors and