[00:00 - 00:28] Speaker 0: Welcome back to Professor Robert Clancy from Australia. Robert is no stranger to the channel, a very long term consultant physician, researcher, immunologist, professor of pathology, professor of medicine, holder of the Australian medal. We could go on, Robert. It's just great that we have such leading people such as yourself and and professor, Angus Dalbreath for example coming on the channel. So thank you very much for coming back on. [00:29 - 00:32] Speaker 1: It's always a lot of fun and it's a great pleasure, John. [00:32 - 00:42] Speaker 0: And we have a completely open agenda today. We're trying to get people to get this book. Someone making a lot of money out of this, Robert. [00:42 - 01:04] Speaker 1: Well, I should say right up front, John, it's only gonna cost the authors because, all the profits that from this book go to a program trying to help vaccine damaged patients. So Yep. You you'll find that, I live in the same house and drive the same car. [01:05 - 01:45] Speaker 0: Very reassuring. No. I mean, that that is the the the people doing this, I mean, it's not the not only they've made nothing from it. I mean, some of the toll of of personal losses, the the the expense that people have paid for making a stand is is quite impressive, one of the important parts of the book. And towards the end, some of the personal accounts of injury from beautiful young people who should be here and aren't, and the level of suffering is is true true truly appalling. [01:47 - 02:14] But it's it's it's COVID from the Australian perspective. One thing that immediately struck me, Robert, was was was how consistent this is with the experience in United Kingdom. And and from what I can gather, the experience in Canada or in The United States, there seems to be, international issues. It's almost as if there's been some sort of international choreography here, isn't it? That [02:15 - 02:42] Speaker 1: Well, it's interesting you should say that, John. I should say right up front, but this book came about a meeting that I met with Mel McCann, who is my co editor here. Mel is she's not here, she's in Northern Queensland. But if if she's watching, I'm a little embarrassed, but I'll have to say Mel is one of the most remarkable family practitioners I've ever met. Yeah. [02:42 - 03:39] Single handedly, she initiated a class action, at her cost, largely at her cost, for the vaccine damaged in Australia. And, it was held in Sydney, the the legal, court case, and I went along essentially as a innocent, bystander, if you like. And, I met Mel, and we got together, we had a meal, and we said, look, you know, we're seeing the same things from different points of view. Why don't we get colleagues that are seeing it from their point of view and put together a version which, initially, as you say, was an Australian story, but it's the same story as you're seeing in The United Kingdom, my colleagues and friends are seeing in North America and Europe. And, it it's a story that's across the vaccinated world. [03:39 - 04:20] Although this is not just a a book about the vaccine, it's a book about, the COVID era and, what has happened, who made the decisions, what was good, what was not so good. Quite a lot that's not so good. And Mel, said, look. We really have to cover this story in a way that people understand the depths of of of sadness that occurred. And so we decided that we would put in the second half of the book a number of stories relating to terrible outcomes that have been neglected and not understood and and not acted upon. [04:21 - 04:25] Speaker 0: Yeah. And the amount of physical pain in some of those accounts are horrific. [04:27 - 05:05] Speaker 1: Well, we could've we could've written, as as you know, John, because you've shared this experience. Yeah. We could've written a whole book another But we we we wanted to, as we did with the various aspects of the science, the economics, the press, the regulatory affairs, the pharmaceutics, we wanted to touch in an objective as objective fashion as we could. Mhmm. We we we've included references where we believe they're important without trying to overwhelm people with intricate science. [05:05 - 05:21] We've tried to simplify that as much as we could, but at the same time, we're not running away from the fact that, this is a science based book, that we've tried to be evidence based. It's a terrible term, I hate it, but it's the one that we all use Evidence [05:21 - 05:24] Speaker 0: It's become a slightly tarnished term lately, hasn't it? [05:25 - 05:40] Speaker 1: Evidence based has been in medicine for longer than I have, but it's only been a term for a lot less time. So I think when we all started, John, we did things without evidence, but now it's all evidence based, it's okay. [05:40 - 05:47] Speaker 0: That's right. And I had the pleasure of interviewing Doctor. McKan in that very room where you're now sitting, Robert, with her. [05:47 - 05:48] Speaker 1: You did, of course, of course. [05:48 - 05:52] Speaker 0: With her husband doing the filming. Yeah. Also, [05:52 - 06:10] Speaker 1: Mel, you are a remarkable woman. You really are. I just hope that that recognition is made. Mel has basically handed her life over to doing what she can for the vaccine damaged people at, as I said, her cost. [06:11 - 06:17] Speaker 0: But as the saying goes, she's on the right side of history. She will be. She will be vindicated sooner or later. [06:17 - 06:24] Speaker 1: It'd be very nice if she can live a long time because these things in history often take a few generations. [06:24 - 07:07] Speaker 0: Indeed, they do. So I mean, in the book we've got we've got the the pharmaceutical industry's problem, then we've got perspectives from the bureaucrat, the family practitioner, the concerned physician scientist, the journalist, immunologist, the vaccinologist, the oncologist, the statistician, the physician, medical leaders, the health professional, regulators, lawyers, economists, futurist. I mean, is written by people with specialist knowledge in the field, but it's still highly accessible. So the the intelligent lay reader should definitely try and get this. Unfortunately, not available in e copy yet, Robert. [07:07 - 07:08] We're still in hard copy. [07:08 - 07:14] Speaker 1: No. No. At the moment, it's hard copy, but John, I understand you're going to be kind enough to put a link up. [07:14 - 07:16] Speaker 0: Oh, yeah. Well, for sure. For sure. [07:16 - 07:17] Speaker 1: So that people [07:17 - 07:28] Speaker 0: can't repeat why. Yeah. For sure. And hopefully, PDF coming up. And any profits don't expect there will be many profits, but any profits that are made are going to help vaccine injured [07:27 - 07:57] Speaker 1: Well, rang Mel just before the interview to ask her to make sure you had the latest link for this, she said that already many hundreds of well, it's only been out a week or so. And we've you know, it's about 30 or 40% of the first printing. So it it's it certainly hits a nerve, and people are are fine. And the feedback we're getting is that, they're it. They're finding it [07:57 - 07:57] Speaker 0: Yeah. [07:57 - 07:59] Speaker 1: Of value. [07:59 - 08:05] Speaker 0: I think that that that's one of the catchphrases, not catchphrases, but one of the truth. It just hits a nerve. You read it and you go, oh, yeah. [08:05 - 08:06] Speaker 1: Oh, yeah. That's [08:06 - 08:13] Speaker 0: right. You know, it it sort of Yeah. States the blatantly obvious that you hadn't quite realized before with clarity. [08:13 - 08:52] Speaker 1: You know, I can assure you, John, it was a was a labor of love, but also I don't think ever, again, I'll take on even though most all of these people are my friends. Yeah. And they're still friends, I think. It is very hard when you take what it was, something like 18 or 19 people who are specialists in their area and try to meld them into a a book with some sense of continuity and regularity about it. What I have to do is give enormous credit credit to Houstead Press. [08:53 - 09:15] The owner of Houstead Press took this on like a I'm not sure Matthew is watching, but a bit like a mother hen. He ended up telling us what to do. He made the point that we have to tell people at the beginning what the book's all about. Yeah. You can imagine all us super duper specialists were interested in our own little bits. [09:15 - 09:28] So I, with Matthew, I put together a, hey, this is what the book's all about. Matthew made it look a lot better than I would have. But Matthew came up with the design for the cover, which I think is brilliant. [09:28 - 09:29] Speaker 0: It is. [09:31 - 09:43] Speaker 1: And he put the order together, which was a very important thing to do. So Matthew, if you are watching this, thank you so much. I owe you, my friend. You're a treasure. [09:44 - 09:46] Speaker 0: Writing books is is a particular skill set, isn't it? [09:46 - 09:51] Speaker 1: Oh, that's okay. Sorry, Robert. He also publishes my map books. [09:52 - 10:02] Speaker 0: Oh, okay. Yeah. An excellent example of which I see in the background there. Makes a profit. I'm just wondering who wrote the foreword of this book. [10:02 - 10:10] It looks quite Oh, it's John John Campbell. Oh, okay. That's me. Yeah. A very small contribution, but [10:11 - 10:22] Speaker 1: well, actually, when I when I read the foreword that John Campbell wrote for our book, I thought, well, we we don't need anything else. We'll just put covers around. He's covered it all. [10:22 - 10:48] Speaker 0: Not not at all. It only works because we stand as we say, it only works because we stand on the shoulders of giants. It's yeah. Why was this why was this whole COVID response necessary? Because Australia is a modern, sophisticated, scientific, dare we say, evidence based country that had, as far as I understand it, a first class pandemic plan in place for decades. [10:48 - 11:02] Speaker 1: I know. I know. What happened? Well, what happened is why the book happened, because we we lost the plot. For the very we have experienced, I think it's five pandemics since 1900. [11:02 - 11:09] We had the Yeah. Yeah. Plague pandemic back in 1900. Plague, yeah. Australia handled pandemics extremely well. [11:09 - 11:33] Yeah. As one can. Yeah. What we did is we learned from the experience, and we put those experiences into plans, and we were and we developed infrastructure because, you know, we're an island nation, and we needed to have our own research. The peculiarities of our geography required our own epidemiology to look at patterns. [11:34 - 12:17] We needed to have our own source of vaccines and medications, so we developed the Commonwealth Serum Laboratory. We developed the Walton and Leiser and Hall Institute run by McFarlane Burnett, who did all the underpinning work for the flu, which, of course, became after the nineteen eighteen nineteen pandemic, was followed by three further pandemics between 1956 and about 02/2010. All of that was built. And so we developed a great strength in immunology, particularly, and virology. So when it came to COVID, everything went out the door. [12:17 - 13:02] We lost control of pandemic management, and we had imposed on us, as you did, a narrative that we really came out of the political, pharmaceutical, military complex in North America. Now that they clearly wanted to test a different style. So the vaccine that they brought out did two things. It replaced the plans that were in place, and so we were on hold for a year until the messenger RNA and and the DNA vector genetic vaccines became available. And that, of course, led to huge numbers of deaths, and we were precluded. [13:02 - 13:46] All of this is in the book because it happened in across the vaccinated world. Yeah. The the medications that were highly effective, which a few of my colleagues and I wrote quite a significant amount in in this book. Hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, highly effective, were banned simply because they got in the road of this megathon, this this vaccine that we were promised, never really used in humans before, but it was a promised answer. And, of course, it did no more than a flu vaccine would have or an ordinary old fashioned ground up virus vaccine would, but it did a lot of damage. [13:46 - 14:06] And, I think that has created, amongst a very intelligent population, an understanding that something went wrong. And, you know, there's never been an apology. Unless it occurred in The United Kingdom, we have never had an apology. [14:06 - 14:07] Speaker 0: Anything but. [14:08 - 14:43] Speaker 1: Anything but. And because we haven't had an apology, there's not been a recognition that mistakes were made. And because there's not been a recognition of mistakes being made, then we have this new industry of messenger RNA vaccines that have promised to take over our vaccine world. And there's a fantastic chapter in this book by one of the most remarkable women I've ever met, and I'll I'll pick it out. Her her name is, Alison Bevich. [14:43 - 14:43] Alison [14:44 - 14:49] Speaker 0: No. She's great. Yeah. I met I met her at a con the in Sydney we attended. [14:49 - 14:59] Speaker 1: Well, I met her, and someone said, this is Alison. She's a bus driver. I said, oh, hi, Alison the bus driver. What I didn't know is that she was a very senior journalist. And she [14:59 - 15:00] Speaker 0: sacked. [15:00 - 15:02] Speaker 1: Well, no, no, she resigned because [15:03 - 15:04] Speaker 0: Oh, on principle, right? [15:04 - 15:30] Speaker 1: Right. This one, there's a few that have been sacked, but she resigned because she refused to do what she was told to do, which was promote something she couldn't believe in. What Alison has done in this chapter, and it's fantastic, she has followed the money. And when you follow the money, it is scary. I happen to be reading she's writing her own book at the moment, which she's a superb writer. [15:30 - 15:31] She really is. [15:31 - 15:35] Speaker 0: She read Totally totally readable. Yeah. 100%. [15:35 - 15:37] Speaker 1: I I love her dearly. She We'll put [15:37 - 15:38] Speaker 0: a link to her Substack, actually. [15:39 - 15:42] Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. She does have a Substack. Yeah. Yeah. [15:42 - 15:42] And it's [15:42 - 15:44] Speaker 0: very There's about you and me, Robert, I believe. [15:46 - 15:47] Speaker 1: Good thing I don't read substacks. [15:47 - 15:49] Speaker 0: From last April. [15:49 - 15:52] Speaker 1: Yeah. For the lies. Lies. But no [15:52 - 15:54] Speaker 0: You come out quite well. [15:56 - 16:11] Speaker 1: Well, that's because I give her lunch from time to time. Yeah. But she's become a real family friend of ours. She finishes a bus day each day at about twelve, and then comes over to our place on the way home. She the book she's writing is just amazing. [16:11 - 16:25] I I read a chapter actually earlier this evening, again, in detail following the the money in North America, through the WHO, through all these various big money organizations. [16:25 - 16:25] Speaker 0: Yeah. [16:25 - 16:28] Speaker 1: It's so scary. So scary, John. [16:28 - 16:37] Speaker 0: And it's the sheer it's the sheer vulgarity of it, power and money. Arrogance. Arrogance. It's just the lowest human denominator, isn't it? It's a [16:37 - 17:07] Speaker 1: It is. It is. I I think I I never come across anything like this before. You know, I've been so lucky working in a profession that had great pride, had an integrity, had had a composure and a structure, where, alright, know, we had a trickle down sort of educational process, which has been now replaced because we're broken up into specialties, and so we don't have that cohesion. Has it happened in nursing too? [17:09 - 17:17] Speaker 0: Well, I was the same. I I have quite a privileged existence for most of my working life. I just happily trained up my students and we did a you know, we we trained a few Yeah. [17:17 - 17:18] Speaker 1: I did too. [17:18 - 17:52] Speaker 0: You know, paramedics and things along the way and it it it was great. And the the start of the pandemic, I I still accepted the official narrative. I mean I didn't read you know, when the chief medical officer and chief scientific officer stood up next to the prime minister, thought, oh, let's listen to what they've got to say. You What know, what I don't know, the the big question in my mind is now of course, my position is the antithesis to that. I'm intrinsically suspicious of anyone, especially in political authority now. [17:53 - 18:15] What I and COVID's been good because it's opened my eyes to the level of manipulation and international cynicism that is there. What I don't know is was I just in this blind delusional world before that or was this all going on and I just wasn't aware of it? I've never quite answered that question. I suspect things have been getting worse over the past twenty years and this has brought it to a head. [18:15 - 18:23] Speaker 1: Yeah. I I think I think you're right, John. I think that you and I, we live in the health silo. And I I think that Yeah. We all live in silos. [18:23 - 18:50] I I talk to friends of mine who know a lot more about, climate change than I do. And and the ones who are thoughtful, and there's some very thoughtful people, say the same thing is occurring in their world. And I talk to people I've got a a friend who's been very prominent here in the sexualization of of children and education of children. And I mean, he just pulls his hair out. He's got more hair than I have, so he can do that. [18:50 - 19:16] And he and so as I talk to people who live in different silos, there seems to be some societal change that we're experiencing. Because we've been so involved in our own silo, in our own area, we've missed, I think, a lot of what's been going on. And it takes a pandemic in health to say, oh, wait a second. What is going on here? [19:17 - 19:36] Speaker 0: Yeah. I'm under the impression that we're being manipulated and controlled. And I think I just want to agree completely with what you said. I've talked to climate change experts, pediatricians. I mean, people that we're talking about with this I mean, we're not commenting on climate change. [19:36 - 19:54] It's it's just the the agenda. The the the the sexualization of children. This is not well, we can talk to blokes down the pub about it, but we're talking about the most senior psychiatrists, the most senior pediatricians. Absolutely. The most senior scientists. [19:54 - 20:16] Yep. And and this is part of the problem in my mind. The people of this caliber, I mean in all due modesty, use it yourself Robert, know, you're you're a founding immunologist. Angus Dow Gliesch, other people, leading leading doctors we've talked to, they're not allowed an opinion anymore. [20:16 - 20:39] Speaker 1: No. But They have to follow the narrative. It's something it just suddenly hit me, John. Have you noticed that that all these silos, areas we're talking about, the the people who are coming out and saying, what's going on, are my generation and nearly your generation. That we're we're we're older people who are at the verge of retiring or retired. [20:40 - 21:04] We don't have anything to lose in terms of our career. We cannot be manipulated in the same way that a young person can trying to get on to the the, you know, the escalator of of professions. I'm I'm thinking about my friend in a very senior pediatrician with sexualization of children. He and I were the same year at at medicine. I'm thinking about climate change. [21:04 - 21:58] It was a fantastic article that even I nearly understood by two of the most senior climate scientists in the world, both retired. And they wrote this extremely well documented thing saying, of course, there's climate change. But, you know, let's be sensible about this. And, you know, we we've got a world where it's very hard to be sensitive about things. And so what we're trying to do with this book, dragging us back to our book, is is try to put some sense as we see it through our eyes and into the story by not just taking a story from me or yourself, but from a whole range of people that we've come in contact with who have got a view and opinion on aspects, from pharmacologists, economists, journalists. [21:58 - 22:01] The statisticians did a [22:01 - 22:10] Speaker 0: fantastic The stats chapter's excellent. Andrew Andrew Madre. Yeah. No, I understood some of it. [22:10 - 22:39] Speaker 1: Yeah. No, it is good. What he's done, which no one else has done, is that it's actually written by a chap called Andrew Madre, who's a physicist statistician, who had nothing to do with health so much, but had his own business, and started sort of taking an interest in this and couldn't believe what's going on. And he'd become an extraordinary expert in all cause death. Yeah. [22:39 - 22:57] Well, show the one with the pink and the blue is the queen. No one else is, as far as I can see, has actually done that, where he's actually looked at all cause death coinciding just with the vaccine, and you'll see that in that, I'm trying to remember which is the the the red is the [22:57 - 23:03] Speaker 0: Yeah. It's it's it's non non COVID it's page one five five, Robert. Non non COVID excess deaths, COVID deaths. [23:03 - 23:04] Speaker 1: Worked out. [23:04 - 23:06] Speaker 0: What? Vaccine doses. [23:06 - 23:46] Speaker 1: Lou, he says, okay. This could be increased death due to the vaccine, but there's no way that you can say that the pink, which is something like forty thousand people in Australia Australia alone, dying over and above the expected trajectory. Yeah. And what I find fascinating with the book is that since it's come out, and of course, was all finished a few months back, evidence is coming out that supports so many of the ideas, not because well, I think that the ideas were very good, but more evidence. And there's been I'm not sure if you've seen, it's just coming out of Japan at the moment. [23:46 - 24:12] It's only semi in print. But in Japan, they were able to take 20,000,000 people and work out who had the vaccine and who didn't. And they were able to show highly significant that all the excess deaths were in the vaccinated group, that the non vaccinated group had none. Now, alright, that's just one study in Japan. But last week [24:12 - 24:14] Speaker 0: Well, a study of twenty minute million people. [24:15 - 24:41] Speaker 1: 22,000,000 people. Yeah. Yeah. It's not a bad Last week, a very smart statistician in Australia sent me, his paper that he's just publishing, so I won't mention all the details. But what he was able to show was that ex about three months after every splurge of a vaccine booster, mortality went up. [24:41 - 25:11] And that's exactly the timing the Japanese found. They found that the peak mortality was a hundred days after the, after after vaccine vaccination, whatever the vaccine whatever it had, then the the the so there's this amazing consistency now that's starting to come, remembering that the Australian government had an inquiry into excess deaths and said there's nothing in it. It's all due to COVID. I mean, I tell you. [25:11 - 25:18] Speaker 0: That's just mean I mean, the Why? We know about the excess deaths from iatrogenesis. [25:18 - 25:19] Speaker 1: I know. I know. [25:19 - 25:27] Speaker 0: I I mean, how many people died from combining in The UK, for example? Combining midazolam and morphine. [25:28 - 25:29] Speaker 1: That's right. [25:29 - 25:40] Speaker 0: And as clinician, idea of combining those two strikes, it's enough to make you jump up from your tea and go and change the prescription, isn't it? [25:41 - 25:49] Speaker 1: Tell me we had the same problem, but that's just too terrible to think about, isn't it? Well, the same thing But is [25:49 - 25:52] Speaker 0: there, it? It's not known, it's not known about. [25:52 - 26:01] Speaker 1: It's not known about, and we look at intubation. I mean, things that happened in that first year that should never have was [26:02 - 26:03] Speaker 0: Yeah. Absolutely. [26:03 - 26:21] Speaker 1: Giving people, anyone 60 who was intubated had a ninety five percent of never being unintubated because they were dead. We had people dying in nursing homes deprived of treatment that was available. Horrible things that no [26:21 - 26:46] Speaker 0: one Sometimes simple oxygen wasn't available. No. The amount of people that should should have survived this is One of the things that came to my mind reading the book, Robert, is the degree to which a lot of this was predictable. Okay. Partly based on brilliant pandemic plans that were just scrubbed and chucked out at the drop of a hat, but also on basic science. [26:48 - 26:57] For for example, if we take some repurposed drugs, let let let's take what Wendy Hoy, professor Wendy Hoy talks about this in her chapter. Leading medical professor. [26:57 - 27:12] Speaker 1: One of the most senior physicians in Australia and one of the most delightful of people you could meet. She's been forced into retirement by virtue, essentially, of early retirement because Wendy should never have retired. Hi, Wendy. [27:13 - 27:18] Speaker 0: And widespread research, First Nation peoples in Australia [27:19 - 27:20] Speaker 1: Remarkable woman. [27:20 - 27:40] Speaker 0: Genetics, nephrologist of course. Similar work in The United States. You can talk to her basically indefinitely. Anyway, she mentions hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. Now I know the answer to this question, but let me ask you anyway. [27:40 - 27:44] Have you got any experience as a doctor prescribing hydroxychloroquine? [27:46 - 28:49] Speaker 1: Well John, you don't know it, but I'm a clinical immunologist. A clinical immunologist, well, we have a few more tools now because we've got monoclonal antibodies, but for the bulk of my practice, we had steroids, we had hydroxychloroquine, anti inflamma we had a few things, and intravenous gamma globin, we did have a few things. But hydroxychloroquine is an amazing drug, and what a lot of people don't realize is that, well, of all, hydroxychloroquine is a derivative of quinine, which comes from fever bark, you know, back in Peru, when the Spaniards were and the Spanish missionaries found that there was a time an Indian in Peru got fever, they'd take which was malaria, they'd take quinine, and that's how the story developed. And chloroquine so it went from quinine to the first chemical that was made that was a little safer than quinine, which was chloroquine, and then because chloroquine has some problems, we got hydroxychloroquine, and so we had this this transition. And so young doctors like me could use hydroxychloroquine. [28:49 - 28:52] Speaker 0: So the hydroxychloroquine is safer than the chloroquine? [28:52 - 29:18] Speaker 1: Yeah. Yes. You get less complications, less complications. So the interesting thing was that back because it was a fever drug, in the nineteen eighteen, nineteen pandemic, flu pandemic, the Spanish flu, so called, a number of doctors, including Burroughs, Burroughs Welcome, were using flu and wrote about sorry. Were using [29:19 - 29:23] Speaker 0: Hydroxychloroquine. Oh, quinine. Yeah. Sorry. It wasn't it wasn't invented then. [29:23 - 29:24] That's right. Quinine. Yes. [29:24 - 29:51] Speaker 1: Hydroxychloroquine. They had quinine and claimed significant benefit. Now, yeah, the data seems to be lost in the Burroughs Welkom Foundation somewhere, but but the but it's he he he published this, that he he noticed a benefit. And and so it wasn't surprising that when the Chinese started screening drugs as soon as Mhmm. They found this, you know, the the pandemic began Mhmm. [29:51 - 30:20] In Wuhan, they screened. They did a great job. And the drug that stood out in the test tube was chloroquine hydroxychloroquine. And so it wasn't surprising that, a lot of people started using this, and of course, the story is it's an incredibly effective drug. A magnificent study has come out just since after the book was published, showing a randomized controlled trial, everything that people have been screaming for. [30:20 - 30:38] But the publication of that study was held up for three years. Three no one would publish it for three years until the pandemic was over and they thought no one would really notice it. Oh, wait. I tell you, can you believe that? [30:39 - 30:50] Speaker 0: Sadly, yes, I can. The the the sheer cynicism is distressing. And there's plausible mechanisms of action for hydroxychloroquine, is there? [30:50 - 31:02] Speaker 1: Well, yes. Traditionally, it's been shown to change the acidity of vacuoles within the cell that are critical for viral reproduction. Yeah. And for various other things. Yeah. [31:02 - 31:41] What again, as a result of COVID, smart chemists started looking, and one of the arguments that we used against the hydroxychloroquine as an effective drug was, oh, well, it only works well inside the cell. These clever people found that hydroxychloroquine bound to a protein imagine, here's the cell and the virus is binding, it's got to get inside the cell to use it as a factory to make lots more virus. It needs a transporting protein, and the hydroxychloroquine binds to this protein and stops it putting the virus inside the cell. [31:41 - 31:44] Speaker 0: So it's a good competitive inhibition, essentially. [31:44 - 31:57] Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. Inhibiting the the reproduction of the virus before it could get into the machinery of the cell to take it over, you know, like a para parasitically take over the the function of the cell. [31:57 - 32:00] Speaker 0: And this is known biochemistry. This is not speculation. [32:00 - 32:06] Speaker 1: I know that. This is published this in a in a Yeah. A recognized, you know [32:07 - 32:12] Speaker 0: It's a recognized science. Yeah. Then then, of course, we've got the zinc, iron ore effect as well, haven't we, channeling [32:12 - 32:13] Speaker 1: Yeah. [32:14 - 32:15] Speaker 0: Zinc into itself. Think that's [32:15 - 32:55] Speaker 1: the interesting thing about very interesting thing, and I think, if you like, a metaphor for the whole of the COVID experience, which I hope comes out in our book, is that you've got a number of drugs that are repurposed, that have been around, basically a biological origin. They come from ground up bugs or ground up trees or bark or whatever. And these are defensins, these are molecules that actually are there to protect against systems that can't have the luxury of developing antibodies. They've got more primitive systems. [32:55 - 32:57] Speaker 0: Trees and bacteria, for example. [32:57 - 33:37] Speaker 1: Well, some bacteria. And so they have to produce chemicals like quinine and like ivermectin, both of them come from those sources, that have multiple sites within the cell. And so what they're doing by and even though we now know that hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin both have a function at the surface of the cell. They've got multiple spots within the cell, so they make the cell less capable of acting as a factory for the virus. Whereas, the antivirals, which of which there are two main ones that most people have seen and heard of. [33:39 - 33:44] Molnupiravir and I've got a mental block. I'll think of it. [33:44 - 33:48] Speaker 0: So have I. Yeah. Yeah. Anyway, the two. Remdesivir. [33:48 - 33:51] Speaker 1: Yeah. That's right. No. Not remdesivir. No. [33:51 - 33:54] This is the the ones that you can actually take by mouth. [33:54 - 33:55] Speaker 0: Oh, right. Okay. Alright. [33:55 - 34:39] Speaker 1: And they only affect the viral actually coming and attaching to the cell. Both those drugs have now been shown not to be effective. In large studies, one done with 20,000 people for molnupiravir in England, I don't even think they use molnupiravir in England, if they do, they shouldn't, Paxlovid, I'm sorry, is the is the other one we're talking Yeah. And Paxlovid has just been shown beautifully by the original people who did the study purporting to say that Paxlovid worked. Doing it paid for, sponsored by the, by Pfizer, and it had zero impact. [34:39 - 34:57] Zero impact. And, of course, they had to publish it in very small print in an obscure journal. And yet, people are still paying in this country $1,000 $1,000 for each pop when it's doing nothing to have a significant benefit on their outcome. [34:57 - 35:02] Speaker 0: Well, if industry data shows it has zero effect, it might be even worse than that. Who knows? [35:02 - 35:19] Speaker 1: Well, who knows? Well, of course they do have side effects. So they're not meaningless. These drugs that you're getting prescribed at the moment, pushed by the pharma companies, are not anywhere near as good as the cheapy drugs costing a dollar a pop. Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. [35:19 - 35:24] I'm prepared to argue with anyone about that, but no one's accepted the challenge. [35:25 - 35:32] Speaker 0: There's no question hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin are both effective in COVID and probably multiple other conditions. [35:33 - 35:33] Speaker 1: Absolutely. [35:33 - 35:35] Speaker 0: If they're given at the right early stage. [35:35 - 36:00] Speaker 1: Well, I'm using it very effectively in patients with post vaccine damage. In fact, there's a chapter in the book where I talk about the whole business of post vaccine damage and why it comes about and how it fits with the genetics, I've even got a picture of the very first patient that I treated on the graph showing resolution of symptoms. [36:00 - 36:09] Speaker 0: And dramatic resolution of symptoms in a large proportion of I've had the privilege of meeting some of your patients who [36:09 - 36:10] Speaker 1: Yeah, that's right, you have, yes. [36:10 - 36:41] Speaker 0: Could concur completely with what we've just said. And the other thing that struck me about this, more a philosophical point really, but man made drugs tend to focus that particular reaction or that highly specific bit there. Whereas these whatever you like, God made created natural molecules, have got multiple modalities of action. I mean, Gustav Gleich was looking at, I think it was thalidomide based one. And and the the authors actually said, stop giving us new mechanisms. [36:41 - 36:45] We've got too many. There's so many multiple mechanisms. [36:45 - 36:57] Speaker 1: Sense though, doesn't it? That that you've got a plant, and it doesn't know what pathogen is going to attack it. So it has to be in place a mechanism that's broad. And so rather it it's very clever. It said, look. [36:57 - 37:18] We can't pick every bug, every bacteria, every virus that might come our way. We'll just simply make ourselves in the plant less able to do what those outside pathogens wanna happen. We won't let them take over our machinery. We'll block them. And so you've got these multiple, changes. [37:19 - 37:47] Speaker 0: Which is consistent with your own research as well, of course, giving oral or bacterial preparations that stimulate, up upgrade the mucosal immune system altogether rather than a specific vaccine for that and a specific pill for that. We've got this just give us a bit of background about that. Just briefly, Robert, on that one. Because basically, this is I think what you and Gustav Gleich have done on this is nobleizable, but it's just been ignored. [37:48 - 38:36] Speaker 1: No. Okay, well, very briefly, my view is that as an immunologist and a clinical immunologist, that all the various different vaccines you wanna use against an inhaled virus, which is likely to be the usual pandemics that we see, flu, COVID, etcetera, they attack a system of the immune, process that is different to the one you inject the vaccine into. Yep. And so the bottom line is that it's the biology of the process that's gonna dominate the outcome, not whether you use a messenger RNA vaccine, a DNA vaccine, or a squashed up virus or whatever. Yeah. [38:36 - 38:52] It's the limitations are set by the biology of that interplay between the virus and the local immune response and the suppression of immunity that goes with that to prevent overactive inflammation in the airways, full stop. [38:52 - 38:52] Speaker 0: Yeah. [38:52 - 39:11] Speaker 1: So my group, we we said, initially, we we didn't say this, but we said this through COVID when we realized what was happening, that you're never ever going to have a fantastic virus against a pandemic. Very I mean, it's gotta be Vaccine. Fantastic vaccine. Yeah. Sorry. [39:11 - 39:34] A fantastic vaccine Yeah. Against a pathogenic virus coming in like this. I mean, something might happen that changes that view, and I hope it does. But at the moment, that's how it is. What perhaps we need to do is look at why is it that if a hundred people get COVID, ninety eight percent of them will just get a cold, a minor problem. [39:34 - 40:04] Two of them, two percent will get a serious disease. And so we developed the idea that why can't we find out what makes a person get bad disease and let's make that person be like the person who gets good disease. Yep. And we we we actually work that out on on work we've been doing over the last forty years, actually. That it's the delivery of the immune system to the airways, which is less effective in about twenty, twenty five percent of people. [40:05 - 40:52] And you can correct that delivery with a very simple mechanism, and that is feed the stimulus, happens to be from the microbiome of the airways, a particular bacteria. We kill it, we feed it, and all of a sudden, the numbers go up, and the people if you've got bad lungs and you get lots of chronic bronchitis, you stop coughing, you stop getting acute exacerbations. If you've got reasonably good lungs, but you're prone to getting cough a cold's going to your chest, you know, you get a cold and you're coughing up mucky sputum, then it stops that. So we we shift the resilience of the airways. It's so simple, but but it's but people don't sort of get it, and people don't want to invest in a a kill bacteria because it's so simple. [40:52 - 41:07] Yeah. So we're trying very hard. We're we're getting people we're hoping people can get this message and realize that they're actually they could financially do quite well out of it, I suspect, if they do invest. Well, But that's where it's at. [41:08 - 41:32] Speaker 0: So the number of people I've seen die from exacerbations of chronic bronchitis and pneumonia, Often at a relatively young age and and and the idea that this is, you know, to to give one vaccine to prevent one particular bug, but then of course you might get an infection with another bug and that's gonna be useless. But yours is is yours affects it upgrades the entire mucosal system. [41:32 - 42:01] Speaker 1: It up regulates the responsiveness. In fact, in people with COPD, chronic airways disease, it's the only medication that reduces admission to hospital by fifty percent. The $100,000,000,000 industry taking aspirin treatment and people taking it because they get a little bit of symptomatic relief, does basically nothing about preventing serious disease, and yet we can change that. Yep. Up to fifty percent in eight randomized controlled trials for those who follow the COVID story. [42:01 - 42:08] Speaker 0: Yeah. And and Gustav Gleich likewise has the the data for his systemic upgrade of of the t cell response. [42:08 - 42:11] Speaker 1: Yeah. Also with nonspecific, outcomes. [42:12 - 42:41] Speaker 0: Yes. We With a wide range of outcomes from from cancer to common colds and influenza and, personally, my t cells could do with all the help they can get, thank you very much, but, but we're not they're simply not available infuriatingly as we've covered in previous videos, but basically regulators aren't into well, it appears that regulators in this country have deliberately blocked simple things that are, how could I put this, safe and effective? [42:42 - 43:17] Speaker 1: I think, basically, biomedical science is trained to think in a a very specific way. And I I look at when I was in working in North America, PhD students, not so much in Canada where I was, but certainly a lot of parts of The United States, they would become unbelievably knowledgeable about a tiny weeny bit of a virus or a little bit of an antibody. But they would specialize even going through medicine. And I think we we were lucky in Australia. We had the British system and the Canadians had the British system. [43:18 - 43:19] And I guess [43:19 - 43:21] Speaker 0: The old British system. [43:21 - 43:28] Speaker 1: Well, it was a great system, and we inherited we had to know how to take out an appendix, believe it or not, how to deliver a baby. [43:28 - 43:30] Speaker 0: Well, I thought that's pretty handy if you're in [43:30 - 43:30] Speaker 1: the army. [43:30 - 43:30] Speaker 0: Wanted to [43:30 - 43:32] Speaker 1: be an immunologist. [43:32 - 43:32] Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah. [43:34 - 43:39] Speaker 1: Had five names. The first one was named after me. I I I proudly can say. [43:39 - 43:48] Speaker 0: Wow. Congratulations. Fantastic. Yeah. One of the phrases that came up was was cognitive dissonance in society. [43:50 - 43:53] People are genuinely confused now, aren't they? [43:54 - 43:57] Speaker 1: Yeah. It's brainwashing, isn't it? [43:58 - 44:00] Speaker 0: Information control. [44:00 - 44:24] Speaker 1: It's just a term for me. I think we say cognitive dissonance because it sounds a bit more technical than the phone was. But I've got so many medical friends that I mean, they humor me. They they they're nice to me about it, but I know they don't believe me. And I know that it's not me so much that no one wants to look at the science, which is just getting stronger and stronger. [44:24 - 44:42] Exactly. Because I don't know what drives the psychology of cognitive dissonance, but the big pharma companies really did a job on us and did it very well. Look, we've got I'll tell you a great story if I [44:42 - 44:43] Speaker 0: I haven't Please do. [44:43 - 45:15] Speaker 1: In this country, we've got every university's tied into a system that's gonna make them a lot of money, mainly with Moderna, a company which seems to be doing very poorly elsewhere in the world, but they do very well out here. And they've poured money into, you know, including, you know, a $100,000,000 here and there. And they opened a factory at Monash University where Yeah. I got my PhD, so I've to be very careful what I say. They might take it back. [45:16 - 45:23] And they opened they opened this with a promise that they would be making a 100,000,000 doses of vaccine a year. [45:23 - 45:25] Speaker 0: 100,000,000 As as a boost. [45:25 - 45:49] Speaker 1: That's a lot of arms. Yeah. And they had the premier of Victoria opening this. This is just a few weeks ago or a month, maybe two months ago. And she got up and she said, well, every mother, every mother in Australia is gonna be so they're going to know the word RSV, respiratory syncytial disease virus, because guess what? [45:49 - 45:56] Moderna's making this terrific new messenger RNA vaccine for the babies. Now [45:56 - 45:57] Speaker 0: Babies and children. [45:57 - 46:15] Speaker 1: You'd be aware that very cleverly, they've been bringing in this messenger RNA vaccine through the older people, suddenly discovering these, some of us physicians hardly knew existed, that everyone gets RSV all the time, but suddenly it became a life threatening disease requiring a vaccine. [46:15 - 46:15] Speaker 0: Yep. [46:15 - 46:49] Speaker 1: And, so gradually it's come down in age, and they were doing a trial in infants. Now, any immunologist who knows the stories, it can go back to the seventies and eighties, knows that the one, infection you don't fiddle with, and play around with the IgG antibody, is RSV because they had catastrophic outcomes with some kids even dying, getting very serious RSV infections through antibody promoted serious infection. [46:49 - 46:51] Speaker 0: Yep. Yep. Yep. I think it [46:51 - 47:21] Speaker 1: was the day after the premier got up and said, every mother is gonna know about this this disease. Terrific. The next day, in very small print, in an obscure journal, Moderna said, we're putting the study on pause. And I love this wonderful word, pause. And the reason was, incidentally, twelve point five percent of the injected infants got life threatening RSV infection in them. [47:23 - 47:24] You know couldn't make it [47:24 - 47:28] Speaker 0: I mean, point five percent, you couldn't make it up. [47:28 - 47:44] Speaker 1: It's one in eight. One in eight. One in eight kids just pick as soon as they picked up the infection, instead of getting better as the vaccine was supposed to make, they got life threatening infection. They got promotion of infection, and that's one of the the stories that, of course, comes out of the whole COVID era. [47:44 - 47:51] Speaker 0: And that's the whole thing that, you know, if they come to ask you a couple of years ago, you could have told them that. You know, there's so much here that could be anticipated. [47:51 - 47:54] Speaker 1: Knew about it. Yeah. Totally predictable. Totally predictable. [47:54 - 48:01] Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah. We could go on all day, Robert. I know. But but I mean, really All night. [48:01 - 48:04] All night. Yeah. All night for you. Sorry. Yeah. [48:04 - 48:09] Yeah. You're so far behind or are you ahead? I think you're ahead actually. Australia. [48:09 - 48:10] Speaker 1: I mean, [48:10 - 48:16] Speaker 0: the the the future, Robert. Where where do we go? [48:17 - 48:43] Speaker 1: Oh, dear. Well, I I think I'm hoping that some of these big law cases that are occurring now, again, across the vaccinated world, we have two or three in Australia, I hope they win that that you can win. So far, they've been shut down, by clever lawyers. I don't know. I won't go into why I think they're shut down, but there's a glimmer of hope that some of these cases now are proceeding. [48:43 - 49:05] I think it's only going to be some dramatic event that get it gets attention, so it gets into the mainstream press. The mainstream press is changing. There are articles coming out that that are good. There was an article showing that Paxlovid doesn't work. And it was quite you gotta like this too, John. [49:05 - 49:07] Wait. One second. I wanna show you something. [49:07 - 49:07] Speaker 0: Please. [49:18 - 49:33] Speaker 1: Here we are. I've kept this. So the story about Paxlovid came out, and it was published in the Sydney Morning Herald, which is a fairly left wing paper in this country. [49:33 - 49:33] Speaker 0: Uh-huh. [49:33 - 50:07] Speaker 1: And the next day the next day in another newspaper, here is a full page advertisement by, in very small print, I think it says Pfizer, saying, look. If if you stay ahead of COVID, you know, be ready to fight back. Know you are eligible for antiviral medications. This is unbelievable. And my wife was traveling in a the metro trains in Sydney at the same time. [50:07 - 50:21] She said, there's huge advertisements in the train. Go and buy this useless drug that actually can cause you some problems. People have actually died as a result of taking Paxlovid, as you know. But isn't that wonderful? Wonderful. [50:21 - 50:29] I'm gonna put it up. I'm gonna get it framed actually. Yeah. Inside the Sydney Morning Herald article that states, it doesn't work. [50:31 - 50:36] Speaker 0: Yeah. Some inconsistencies there, think it's it's safe to say. I mean [50:36 - 50:38] Speaker 1: Just a calamitic. [50:40 - 50:43] Speaker 0: I I mean but you say that that this is getting back [50:43 - 50:44] Speaker 1: to the questions sort [50:44 - 50:45] Speaker 0: of litigation aspect. [50:48 - 51:26] Speaker 1: But look, look, the the comment you made a few minutes ago about cognitive dissonance, that family practitioners have been hit with this so much that they believe and they don't see well, the article in the paper was in pretty small part of the paper, but it was there. But they probably don't see that, and they they have these drug reps coming and saying, look, you know, this is a fantastic drug. Quote some minor study somewhere that says it's marginally beneficial. Molnupiravir is even worse. Yep. [51:29 - 51:31] Can you get it in England? I [51:31 - 51:34] Speaker 0: believe it has been used. I don't know if it still is. [51:34 - 51:52] Speaker 1: Yeah. Mean, it's certainly every second patient 60 who goes off to the doctor with what gets this $1,000 drug prescribed for them because the family practitioner doesn't realise that the data on ivermectin is so good. [51:54 - 52:11] Speaker 0: Yep, and the just blind following of the guidelines. So I agree with it, the legal side can do some things, but really you would hope for a return to basic science, application of basic science, learning from empiricism, learning from clinical practice. [52:12 - 52:21] Speaker 1: But John, institutions and the universities are being bought. They're part of this complex. [52:21 - 52:24] Speaker 0: And the journals are so compromised now as well. [52:24 - 52:38] Speaker 1: And the journals are compromised terribly. Yeah. I've written a no. I better not say this because they haven't actually knocked it back yet. So I might tell you about this later. [52:38 - 52:38] Yeah. [52:39 - 52:46] Speaker 0: Yeah. The she she we'll we'll just say for now that there's certainly more to come on this story, but at the moment, it does sound a bit a bit a bit depressing. Anyway [52:46 - 52:48] Speaker 1: Test for a major journal. [52:48 - 52:59] Speaker 0: Yeah. Forewarned is forearmed. Get the book. Well worth it. Prophets go to vaccine injured people of whom sadly there are many. [53:01 - 53:18] Truth and reconciliation, an honest understanding of the past is really necessary to move forward. And and this this is a significant contribution to that. Let let's hope there's more to come. But for now, professor, as always, great great, really great to talk to you. Thank you so much. [53:18 - 53:21] Speaker 1: Very nice talking with you, John. [53:21 - 53:21] Speaker 0: Thank you.