January 27, 2026 • 72 mins
Leighton is on summer break, so we are highlighting some of his favourite guests from 2025.
Emeritus Professor Robert Clancy is a leading Australian immunologist and pioneer in the field of mucosal immunology.
He is known for his research and development of therapies for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, commonly known as emphysema.
“Covid through our eyes”, edited by Robert Clancy, explains how Australian governments and health systems complied with instructions from the USA, to enrich multi-national drug companies.
“Immunologists, pharmacists, doctors and other professionals expose harm and loss caused by a seriously misguided response”.
Clancy doesn’t pull his punches — he’s articulate, honest and even entertaining. There is much to learn from his commentary, both past and future.
File your comments and complaints at Leighton@newstalkzb.co.nz
Haven't listened to a podcast before? Check out our simple how-to guide.
Listen here on iHeartRadio
Leighton Smith's podcast also available on iTunes:
To subscribe via iTunes click here
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:09):
You're listening to a podcast from news talks it B
Follow this and our wide range of podcasts now on iHeartRadio.
It's time for all the attitude, all the opinion, all
the information, all the debates of the now the Leyton
Smith podcast powered by news talks it Be.
Speaker 2 (00:28):
So we are approaching the end of the best of
twenty twenty five. One or two to go, and then
we're back to what you might call normal, although I'm
not sure there is such a thing.
Speaker 3 (00:39):
I'm looking at a book that's been put.
Speaker 2 (00:42):
Together by a couple of well more than a couple
of people, but it features many writers, many people of
authority in their field. Let me give you an idea.
The concerned physician, scientist, the journalist, the pharmacologists, the immunologist,
the vaccinologists, the oncologists, the statistician, the physicians, the medical leader,
(01:08):
the lawyer, the economist, and this considerable number more. The
book was structured by Professor Robert Clancy, who is an
emeritus professor leading Australian immunologists and pioneer in the field
of mucosal immunology. He is known for his research and
(01:31):
development of therapies for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease commonly known
as emphysema COVID. Through Our Eyes is the title of
the book. It is edited by Robert Clancy, explains how
Australian governments and health systems complied with instructions from the
USA to enrich multinational drug companies. Pharmacists, doctors and other
(01:55):
professionals expose harm and loss caused by a seriously misguided response.
Clancy are going to assure you does not pull his punches.
He's articulate, he's honest, and he's even entertaining. There much
to learn from his commentary, both past and future. I
enjoyed thoroughly talking with Robert Clancy. It was difficult to
(02:18):
get off the hold with him in the end because
he was having a good time as well. He loves
a good chat. However, here is the interview the book
Through Our Eyes, the interrogated Robert Clancy, Emeritus Professor. Clancy
(02:49):
has an international reputation in the study of infection of
the airways and gut, the way the body processes infection,
and the development of vaccines to prevent or modify infection.
He was awarded a Doctor of Science by the University
of Newcastle for his studies on infection and the immune
response of mucosal surfaces. He is a senior clinical immunologist
(03:13):
with an ongoing involvement in the management of immune disorders.
Now that's a short one. If you want a longer one,
I could read you. I could read you just a
little bit of this. Professor Clancy, in the team's groundbreaking
research into chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, concentrated on the link
between the guts and the lung and was able to
provide evidence that the best way to create immunity against
(03:36):
infection in the respiratory tract was to stimulate the gut
immune system, whereby these activated cells migrate to the lung
and make antibodies against organisms responsible for the infection. Professor
Clancy developed the vaccine broncostat at the University of Newcastle
in nineteen eighty five. The broncos Stat vaccine reduces attacks
(03:59):
of acute bronchitis to a degree of ninety percent. Professor
Clancy is emeritus Professor at the University of Newcastle School
of Biomedical Science and Pharmacy. And there's a whole lot more,
but it's time to say welcome to the Late Andsmith Podcast.
Very glad you agreed to come on. Thank you very
much for having me great pleasure. I know that you
had a long connection with New Zealand. I'd like to
(04:23):
start with you advising us of how strong that was
and how long it lasted.
Speaker 3 (04:29):
Well, I would like to think it continues. I've I
guess I've been Look. I've never seen a difference between
New Zealand and New Zealanders and Australians except on the
rugby field, and that is a huge disappointment to me.
(04:51):
We'd make a great team, although I don't think we'd
have too many members from this side of the ditchenet.
Speaker 4 (05:01):
When I started the.
Speaker 3 (05:03):
Department, when we back again the new Medical School in Newcastle,
I had to make a number of appointments and a
lot of those appointments were my New Zealand colleagues and friends.
I think one of the things that I've known for
a long period of time is that health professionals are
extremely well trained in New Zealand. No they're well trained
(05:24):
here too, of course, but in New Zealand they are outstanding.
If you look at my old department that I left
in Newcastle when I retired, two of the three senior
people in New Zealanders. My closest research colleague for twenty
(05:45):
five years was doctor Gerald Pang, who was New Zealand trained.
The head of my diagnostic laboratory was a New Zealander.
So I can't get away from New Zealanders, and I
don't want to because they're good people.
Speaker 4 (06:01):
So yeah, I did a lot of work in New Zealand.
I was.
Speaker 3 (06:09):
Examiner for the Medical School. Obviously, the professional bodies that
I belong to are not Australian, they're Australian and New Zealand.
The College of Physicians through to the immunology thing. I
was one of the three that began clinically minology in
Australia and that's sort of overflowed and included New Zealand.
(06:31):
And that involved a number of trips and discussions and developments.
So my whole professional and personal life has been as
with so many people in Australia, I think I'm talking
to one at the moment, guilty.
Speaker 2 (06:45):
So you've done a lot of backwards and forwards and
I think that's a fine thing. The College of Physicians
that you just mentioned, which is which is binational, is
it still the organization that it used to be.
Speaker 4 (07:02):
No, no, no, it's.
Speaker 3 (07:05):
When I became a member than a fellow of the
Royal Australasian College of Physicians. It was a very different organization,
but then medicine was very different. What happened and what
has happened subsequently is the age of specialization. And so
(07:26):
we had a college that essentially represented physicians as opposed
to surgeons or obstetricians. The surgeons would have their college,
the consultant physicians would have their, and then as physicians
we became a heart specialist, brain specialists, joint specialists, and
all the specialty organizations, including clinically monology developed and looked
(07:50):
after the professional needs, and that took away from the
College of Physicians the importance of the college, and the
college was essentially left in a skeletal form. Prior to
this age of specialization, the most prestigious position in the
country would be the president of the Royalis Ostillation College
(08:13):
of Physicians. And now I don't even know the name
of the people who are the presidents because they're essentially
a stamping organization to say you've undergone assessment, you are
now passed to become a physician. So it's really a
gateway to become a physician, and it does very little
(08:34):
else but the great sadness, and I'm not sure if
this is what you're alluding to, is that it's allowed
individuals to creep in that have personal agendas and use
the college for their own purposes. Whereas I think a
number of us have believed over a long period that
the college must have at a more important role and
(08:58):
rekindle I think some essential aspects of what it used
to have. And this battle has gone on now for
at least ten fifteen years, doesn't seem to be any
closer to being ended.
Speaker 2 (09:13):
I think that there's more than just what we've mentioned
so far, in various fields, including engineering, just as an example,
where the where the organization has been taken over and
pushes a well, one could say, pushes a political agenda,
if not a financial one, or both together, and it's
(09:35):
it is exceedingly disturbing.
Speaker 3 (09:37):
I'll give you.
Speaker 2 (09:38):
I'll give you one example that was probably the first
one that I saw that I noticed here in New Zealand,
and that was and damn it, I'm going to have
to reneg on his name because it escapes me.
Speaker 3 (09:52):
On the spur of the moment.
Speaker 2 (09:53):
But the position is exactly what I'm what I'm about
to tell you that he was involved with climate matters.
He was set up by somebody with an agenda, a
disgusting one, and he it was under a great deal
of stress, and he wasn't that old, and I interviewed
(10:13):
him a few times. And when he died unexpectedly, stress
was considered to be a great contributor to that passing.
And I've never forgotten it, and I've never forgiven it,
and it will be a curse on the individual who
was involved, I trust. Now, speaking of speaking of people
(10:38):
that we either know or don't, there's one person who
I want to make mention of now because he's no
longer with us, of course, and that is a professor
Thomas Barrodi.
Speaker 4 (10:49):
Now.
Speaker 2 (10:49):
I interviewed him on it was some time back. I
interviewed him on the twenty sixth of August of twenty
twenty in podcast number seventy eight. And I tried more
recently to get in touch and fell foul of my goal.
And you can tell us why Tom died. As you
(11:13):
probably know, two or three weeks ago. Tom and I
had worked together for about thirty years. Tom was probably
one of the brightest people I've come across. He was
certainly the finest gastroenturologist I've worked with. He had an
extraordinary capacity to see outside the square. And I think
(11:34):
it really is not unlinked to what I was talking
about a few minutes ago, that what has happened in
medicine is that we've become constrained by bureaucracy to fit
within someone's perception of what the rules and regulations of
treating this condition or that condition is. Whereas Tom looked
(11:54):
at the patient, he looked at the problem and tried
to solve that problem, which usually meant that he was
managing the person outside of some strict guideline. And medicine's
a lot more than guidelines, and I think we've seen
the ultimate of guidelines on how bad they became in
the recent COVID experience. Well, I'd like to think we
(12:19):
learned from it, but both you and I know it's
a slow learning process.
Speaker 3 (12:23):
But back to Tom. Tom. Tom was the sort of
person that is a one off. Not everyone liked Tom
because Tom was always openly honest. He would say what
he believed, which often would upset particularly people running the
(12:45):
standard line. His popularity was in fact greater outside of
Australia than it was inside of Australia. You know, there
are many that believe he should have shared the Nobel
Prize because he was the guy that proved that the
Helica bacter caused peptic assis.
Speaker 4 (13:02):
Now many of your older listeners or watches.
Speaker 3 (13:07):
Would recognized that the scourge of medicine until twenty five
years ago was peptic oci disease. Twenty percent of men
would have a duodenal ussa if you were an interners
I was many years ago. You knew that when you
went to sleep at night, you'd be waken up with
someone with a bleeding or perforated ulcer.
Speaker 4 (13:28):
It was.
Speaker 3 (13:29):
It dominated our working lives, and we used to think
it was always due to acid and enzymes digesting holes
in the stomach and the duodenum. And along came two
very smart guys in Perth who found these organisms, and
they found an association between the organisms and peptic aucas,
(13:51):
but they couldn't prove they caused it, but the association
was strong enough and important enough for them to get
the Nabel Prize, which I totally concurred with. So they should,
But it was Tom Barodi that sat down and started
mixing and matching different antibiotics, coming up with the famous
(14:11):
triple therapy that actually caused the permanent eradication in a
quantitative and qualitative way of the helicobacter. And it was
only by getting rid of the organism and showing that
the person's also didn't come back that you could prove
the cause. So that was Tom, and then he went
on to develop the modern approach to the so called
(14:37):
microbiome of the gut, which is the bacterial content of
which there is something like a trillion different bugs sitting
there and they have huge impact on both the disease
of the gut and disease of the whole body.
Speaker 4 (14:53):
And Tom was the one who.
Speaker 3 (14:55):
First really put in play the important role of the
microbiome and its manipulation in management of disease.
Speaker 4 (15:05):
With transferring healthy.
Speaker 3 (15:08):
Feces two unhealthy people, he used to call them pooh transplants,
which of course upset a lot of people the very term.
Speaker 4 (15:17):
But that was Tom.
Speaker 3 (15:19):
But I went to conference just three nights ago and
it was extraordinary. It was just totally on the intestinal
microbiome and pooh transplants. Because pretty much every hospital now
in Sydney, every major hospital is doing them. It saves
the lives of people with seed to ficial disease, which
(15:40):
is very common, and changes the lives of many other people.
Speaker 4 (15:44):
So that was Tom.
Speaker 3 (15:46):
And then he moved on to Crohn's disease, which many
of you would have heard of, and he took what was.
Speaker 4 (15:53):
Around and went back.
Speaker 3 (15:55):
Rather than saying, let's not control the inflammation, because that's
not really getting it. The core inflammation is a response
to the cause, he went to the cause and started
treating the bacteria. Other people done that, but Tom made
at work and came up with his triple therapy for crome.
So you know, the contributions of one man to three
(16:16):
major issues in Guard Hills is just unbelievably, unbelievably important. Well,
he wasn't what you'd call old either. Well, you know,
he was mid seventies, bought.
Speaker 2 (16:33):
In nineteen fifty. Yeah, And and he was very when
I interviewed him, he was very enthusiastic to try and
spread the word from his perspective. And I had a
great deal of a great deal of respect for it
because I did a bit of background study. I liked
what he had to say, and I followed up on
(16:54):
it and it was leading me in only one direction,
but he.
Speaker 3 (17:01):
Said, is there anything you can do? Well?
Speaker 2 (17:03):
He basically asked me if there was anybody I could
put him in touch with in New Zealand, you know
where he could be of assistance. And I made an
inquiry or two and I was told, don't bother. They
weren't interested, they didn't want to know.
Speaker 4 (17:18):
That'll be right, and.
Speaker 3 (17:19):
The same the same.
Speaker 2 (17:20):
Of course, he got treated the same in Australia. Now,
can you explain to us these things have been discussed
generally over the last four or five years, but we've
not heard from you before, and I think we've reached
a pinnacle. So I want your opinion on such things.
Speaker 3 (17:39):
How did it? How did it get to that point
where somebody is qualified as Thomas Barrodi as you and others,
but you, you, I think, are the leading to were
treated as outcast. Yeah, it's no one's actually asked me
that question before, so let me try to give you
(18:01):
an answer. First of all, Tom and I are very
different people. I always used to see my Tom and
I were good friends, and I work and I still work.
I do a clinic in the Center of Digestive Diseases.
Although my early training was in gasturology, I've now moved
away from that and I just do clinically monology, and
(18:22):
even there now I'm trying to set up just a
clinic for post COVID vaccine damage. And that where you
just mentioned was his operation, am I right, Yeah, that's true.
Tom began the Center of Digestive Diseases in Sydney a
lot back in about nineteen eighty, maybe a bit earlier.
And so first Tom and I are very different. I
(18:48):
don't see myself as an outcast. I have a good
relationship I think with pretty much all my colleagues, certainly
most of them.
Speaker 4 (18:58):
They don't agree with me, but they won't argue with me.
Speaker 3 (19:01):
And I think this is the interesting thing, that there's
a thing called cognitive dissonance, or some people might call brainwashing,
that I never understood how powerful this was and how
interested parties can coordinate such an event. I can talk
(19:21):
to friends of mine who are family practitioners, and until recently,
none of them would want to even talk about the
fact that maybe we made mistakes in the COVID era.
In fact, I was talking to my own family practitioner,
and I gave her a copy of a book. We'ret
and I mean it's changing, but ever so slowly, but
(19:43):
there is still this resistance. So Tom, I think, was
a little more of an outcast, probably than I am,
for a lot of reasons. One is that i've always
One is I haven't tried to take on the establishment
outside of using argument of science and evidence. I haven't
(20:08):
tried to take on the person. I haven't got involved
in legal cases. There are things that Tom actually got
involved in, quite nothing that was wrong. It's just that
it created some degree of difference between him and some
of his colleagues. I used to call myself Tom's mind
because I'd say, Tom, don't do this, don't do that.
(20:30):
You can't do this if you want to achieve an outcome.
So it's very complicated. Maybe I'm more of an outcast
than I think I am. I don't think I am.
But certainly my view is not one that's widely shared.
Speaker 2 (20:48):
I would have thought by now there would have been
a growing number of sharers.
Speaker 3 (20:54):
I think there are, and in fact, a group called
AMPS has started. I think it's in Australia, well, certainly
in Australia. I don't belong to it, but I have
many friends that are involved that have formed as a
result of COVID, involving many many health professionals, many many doctors.
There are a great number of medical people and health
(21:16):
professionals that share the view that we didn't get things right.
I mean, let me give you one quick example. When
COVID hit us, we had a plan. Now, this is
a plan that illustrator in New Zealand evolved over eighty
ninety one hundred years as a result of us independently
(21:37):
assessing the problem using the experience.
Speaker 2 (21:41):
Can I just interrupt there just for a second, don't
lose your place. But was that not virtually a worldwide plan? No,
it was an Australian plan we had, and well I
would know had a plan which was very similar. But
we developed our own plan.
Speaker 3 (22:01):
I was part of the discussions and involvement and it
was a very good plan. In fact, it was a
plan not unlike the Great Barrington Decoration which came later
from three leaders in UK and the United States. But
the plan suddenly disappeared and was replaced by a narrative,
(22:24):
and the narrative was built around protecting an experimental genetic
vaccine that, for all intents and purposes, had never been
given demn ended up being given to more than half
the world's population, and has never ever been shown to
be as good as all better than a good old,
ground up vaccine that we've been dealing with for eighty
(22:47):
ninety years for influenza. This is and then to protect
that experimental vaccine, and this is my main point. Part
of the plan was that you screen what medications you'll
have that just might be helpful against the pathogen causing
the pandemic. In this case, you know, the COVID virus,
(23:10):
and you give that to as many people as you can,
even though it may only be of marginal benefit. It
was better than nothing.
Speaker 4 (23:18):
Well, all of.
Speaker 3 (23:19):
A sudden, my profession and as a result of instructions
from bureaucrats and politicians and a few rather really informed
so called medical people that appeared on television on a
regular basis, we were told you can't possibly you know,
it's horse medicine. It's terrible stuff. And I was looking
(23:40):
at the data saying this is ridiculous. Is a saving life?
We could have saved so many lives in Australia and
New Zealand. It's as simple as that. And of course
the evidence, now, there was always evidence they worked, there
was always evidence they were safe, there was always evidence
they were very cheap and available, but we couldn't use
(24:02):
They even brought in Queensland in Australia. In Queensland they
brought in a rule that if a doctor prescribed hydroxy
chorquin a drug which every doctor has been prescribing for
sixty seventy eighty years, a lack with no issue, then
they potentially could be jailed.
Speaker 4 (24:21):
I mean, that's how bad it got. Now. That woke
me up.
Speaker 3 (24:26):
Now, the point I'm now going to make is that
very good evidence for all of these things is suddenly
starting to appear, evidence that was obtained four or five
years ago, but it's been held up by including the
people who did the work and certainly the journals. They
wouldn't publish anything that said they are any good. But
(24:47):
now it's over. Fantastic papers are appearing for say, hydroxychlorum
with five thousand people showing highly effective preventative effects after
the event. And it wasn't just hydroxychloroquine either, No, it wasn't.
There was ivermectin followed the hydroxychloricon, which is clearly the
(25:10):
best drug for treating COVID still is. Isn't it interesting
that the two industry drugs which came under the table,
which have got no effect at all, It's quite clearly
demonstrated in randomized controlled trials, still used at one thousand
dollars a pop by most of the family practitioners, and
(25:32):
that went straight through the registration process.
Speaker 4 (25:35):
I mean, that is criminal. Criminal?
Speaker 2 (25:37):
Was there, shall we say, was there such a thing
as what we might call the power of power? That
was that was introduced very rapidly into the into the scene.
And by that, I'm talking about money, and I'm talking
(25:58):
about influence, and I'm talking about the ability of people
to make huge sacrifices if they pursued the course that
you're discussing. But was it was it driven from the
top on a global on a global stage. Well you
know the answer to that, and the answer is, of
course it was. I think what happened in Australia and
(26:21):
New Zealand, as far as I can see, is that
for the very first time we lost control of our
medical decision making. If you look back in history, New
Zealand and Australia top class medical countries.
Speaker 4 (26:36):
We do things very very well.
Speaker 3 (26:38):
We have extremely good people, We make our own decisions,
we use the best information we can get. But on
this occasion we had a narrative imposed upon us, and
it came percolated down through big industry. I mean, you're
aware that Pfizer, for example, would make a million dollars
a billion dollars profit in a year from its vaccines
(27:01):
and a little less from its anti viral treatments. That's
unbelievably large. And what they did is in my country
and I'm not sure if in New Zealand, but certainly
here they've essentially bought the academic organizations. I'll give you
(27:22):
one example, Iver Metnan, the drug you were too about
was first. This is an interesting story that you may
not have heard. Iver Mecden was first shown to be
effective at killing the COVID organism by very good scientists
at Monash University. And she published this data very early
in nineteen nineteen twenty and it became well known a
(27:45):
few months later she was shut down by the university.
Unfortunately it's my university because I got a PhD from
Monash University.
Speaker 4 (27:54):
But she was shut down.
Speaker 3 (27:58):
What I didn't realize is that she'd gone ahead and
done a little study on giving iver mecdan the people
exposed to to COVID way back then, and surprisingly it
was just published about three or four weeks ago, a
month ago.
Speaker 4 (28:20):
She can now publish it, you see.
Speaker 3 (28:22):
But weeks after she was shut down, Monash University signed
an agreement with Madina Maderna, one of the two big
companies making the vaccines for I think it was something
like three hundred million dollars, huge amount, and that must
have been in play at the time that she was
releasing it was, of course it was. Of course it was.
(28:44):
Now let me expand on that even a little further.
There was a huge play a couple of months ago
when the premiere of Victoria, who is a rather controversial
figure at the moment, she opened the new manufacturing exercise
(29:06):
at Monash to make Messengerna with the purpose of replacing
our existing vaccines. It's hard to believe this is actually happening.
And she got up and she said something which was
rather stupid. She said, every mother is going to be
so they're going to learn the word respiratual sin city
(29:26):
or virus disease, because right, we're about to bring out
this fantastic vaccine that's going to save the children and
it's going to change their lives. About four or five
days after that, there was a tiny little notice that
Maderna brought out in an obscure publication somewhere that very
(29:49):
few people saw, saying they're put on hold their trial
in children for the RSV virus because eighteen percent of
the kids were in hospital with serious life threatening RSV
disease eighteen percent of those vaccinated with the Messenger and
a vaccine. Now, that is not surprising. That is predictable
(30:11):
and that is what we're facing.
Speaker 2 (30:13):
So is it is it really on hold or do
you think it's dead?
Speaker 3 (30:17):
Oh, it's not dead. No, The only thing it's dead
is some of the kids who are going.
Speaker 4 (30:20):
To get it.
Speaker 3 (30:22):
What was the advantage to Maderna to doing that in Victoria. Well,
that's a good point, you'd have to ask them. They
seem to have taken over the Australian institutions because it's
not just Monash is a key one, but certainly there
are structures being built in Sydney at mcquarie University for
(30:42):
the production of Messenger RNA vaccines, Nearly all the universities
in New South Wales are tied into a system of
profit that will benefit from these activities. I suspect the
same occurs in Victoria, and a very good in the
book that we're published, which is COVID Through Our Eyes,
(31:07):
a very good individual who's been working in press for many,
many years did follow the money in Australia and identified
how it is all linked up with.
Speaker 4 (31:21):
The Messenger RNA story.
Speaker 2 (31:23):
So out of that book on page forty six, subhead
do mRNA vaccines protect against COVID nineteen infection?
Speaker 3 (31:31):
Yes they do, Yes, they do, But there's a writer
to that any vaccine they don't do it any better. Well,
put it this way, no one has ever shown that
we needed to go anywhere else other than the traditional
route for making the vaccine for COVID. There is not
(31:52):
even the argument that was so much quicker is invalid
because by the time the Messenger RNA were on the
market with all the money behind them, a month or
two behind it, the Chinese and Australian vaccine producers use
traditional methodology for an antigen vaccine. We're also on the
market and the Australian vaccine production was completely shut down
(32:18):
here in New Zealand and became the standard vaccine for
countries like Iran. They were smart enough to realize that
it was And they're not seeing long COVID, you know,
the type of long COVID we see after vaccination, and
they're not seeing the increase in mortalities that we're seeing
(32:40):
with the Messenger RNA for very good reasons. Does mRNA
have a future? Well, you mean, do I think it
should have a future or do I think.
Speaker 4 (32:49):
It will have a future.
Speaker 3 (32:50):
Well, let's go both. Okay, I think it will have
a future. And look, I'm not against Messenger RNA having
a future provided the problems they have, which are extensive,
are sort of out. I don't think the Messenger RNA
is needed for vaccine production. I think where a bigger
case can be made for individualized tuba tumor production, although
(33:15):
there are many other alternate ways of approaching tumor immune
suppression these days. But what's going to determine it is
not you and me. It's going to be money and
political power and at possibly, as we look at the moment,
hue great human cost.
Speaker 2 (33:35):
So I'm looking at a I'm looking at a headline
on the front of a magazine vaccines fear and collapsing
immunity by your good self, can you explain what that means?
Speaker 3 (33:46):
What it's about.
Speaker 2 (33:47):
So I'm looking at a headline that says, vaccines ain't
vaccines the consequences of the mrn A disaster.
Speaker 3 (33:55):
What have you written there?
Speaker 4 (33:56):
Okay? What I wrote there?
Speaker 3 (33:58):
That particular article was written by me fairly recently for
two reasons. Well, the main reason was that I am
not an heavy vacca. I'm very supportive of vaccines that
are valuable, and I wrote the article to point out
that we mustn't throw the baby out with the bathwater,
(34:21):
because that's what some people are starting to do. I
think the anti vaccines are hopping on to a valid
issue with the COVID messenger RNA vaccines and extrapolating that
two measles, mumps, you name it, when in fact, that
is not a very good thing to do. So I
wrote that largely to point out that.
Speaker 4 (34:47):
We have to be very careful about not.
Speaker 3 (34:51):
Throwing out all the vaccines with just a messenger RNA methodology.
The second thing I put in that article was I
summarized the problems with the a very up to date summary,
and the main aspect that you were a referring to
was that if you look at vaccination against airway infections,
(35:17):
you are moving, you are vaccinating, injecting the vaccine into
the body whole, whereas you're trying to protect against a
virus that's not coming into the body whole. It's coming
into the airways, which has its own segregated so called
mucosal immune system. So the injected vaccine will never prevent
(35:42):
you getting infected or passing that infection on to somebody else.
And that, of course was completely misunderstood at the beginning
of the COVID pandemic, and they were basically saying, we
must be vaccinated, we must have mandates so that we
(36:02):
can stop the passing on of covid, and any benefit
it has there is so marginal it's not worth considering.
What the vaccine does is that it prevents or contributes
the prevention of that virus escaping from the mucosal compartment
(36:23):
into the body whole, which is going to cause more
severe disease and death. And it does that fairly efficiently
until the elephant in the room, which is reactive suppression,
chimes in of course, if you think about it, the
role of mucosal immunology is to control a number of
(36:45):
bacteria that are lining up and contaminating the airway and
the gut it's full of bacteria, whereas inside the body,
one bacteria is enough to cause septocemia and kill you.
And so you have a different role for the injected
type of immunization, which is sterilizing community to mucosal immunity,
(37:07):
which is about control.
Speaker 4 (37:09):
And to get control you have.
Speaker 3 (37:11):
To have a two way mechanism involving suppression, so it
doesn't otherwise if you have the systemic immune system going
for sterilizing immunity, when you're breathing in millions of bacteria
every minute, then you're going to blow up like a
hand grenade coming in. So you must have a suppression mechanism. Now,
(37:31):
this suppressor mechanism becomes dominant the more you stimulate somebody.
And so what we were doing with very unplanned booster
vaccinations was pouring in stimulation together with people being exposed
to the COVID virus, and so the tilt went to
(37:52):
favor suppression rather than protection. And so if you look
at the big studies done for example in Quebec in Canada,
which is probably the best. Instead of having eighty percent
protection against going into a hospital and older people, which
we did get for a few months in twenty twenty one,
it's now down to fifty percent and it lasts two months.
(38:16):
For the rest of the rest of the vaccine cycle.
As new variants come in, you get zero or little
or negative suppression. And I should have I wished I
had prepared a bit better and sent you the graph
that was in this particular paper from Quebec. It's so
illustrative showing that for eighty percent of the vaccine cycle
(38:39):
you're getting essentially little, no or negative protection. Negative protection
means that you get more infections, more hospitalizations than you
would get from the people who were in the non
vaccinated control group. And that's what I was talking about,
that we're getting what we don't want. I'm sure that
(39:00):
I saw that graph.
Speaker 4 (39:02):
And it wasn't and it was.
Speaker 3 (39:05):
In that It's not in that quadrant. It's in the
article which they put on the web. That's where I
saw it.
Speaker 2 (39:12):
Yeah, And when I printed it, I always go print friendly,
so I knock them out because I've only got I've
got to got black print anyway.
Speaker 4 (39:23):
But you know that you know the graph I'm talking
about it.
Speaker 3 (39:25):
Yes, yes, I do.
Speaker 2 (39:26):
It's very scary, isn't it. There's a lot that's scary.
But in answer to your question directly, absolutely, you know.
Speaker 3 (39:34):
I contacted Sarah Carrara, who's the chief. I haven't met her,
but I wrote to her and we actually had an exchange.
She didn't answer my first two emails, and I wrote
and said, come on, I'm a professional.
Speaker 4 (39:46):
You're a professional.
Speaker 3 (39:47):
And I said, you know, I think your work's the
best in the world. Of course, she's followed the epidemiology
right through from twenty twenty one. But I said, what
you're showing, don't you think it's pretty confusing? And she said,
oh no, I think the vaccine's terrific. And I said,
have you really looked their own data? And she stopped
(40:11):
answering after that, You embarrassed her. I wasn't trying to
embarrass her in any form. No, no, no, But was
that the reason for the note. I don't think anyone
else had sort of had said, hey, wait a second,
what you're showing are the problems, not the answers. I
can't understand how somebody can not be aware of that.
(40:31):
We'll tell you that there's another guy who's involved. He's
a very different sort of person. He works for the
Cleveland Clinic and he's been doing exactly what Sarah has
been doing. He's an Indian chap he's an infectious disease physician,
and this is very interesting. He was the first to
show this negative immunity. And when he showed it very
(40:53):
early in he found that the people who had three
or more vaccines were getting more infections than the people
who had less than three or more, and he got
dumped on by all the fact checkers and I saw
he answered by saying, this is the data. I don't
understand it. So I wrote to him and we have
(41:14):
an active two way email exchange and he's a great guy,
and he thanked me for pointing out the immunology. He said,
you know, we infectious these physicians, we do not understand
the immunology. And if you look at who's running these
programs in New Zealand and Australia, they're infectious to these
physicians who are very good at treating infections, but they're
(41:36):
not immunologists. And this guy has and the scariest thing
about my friend of the Cleveland Clinic is he's looking
not at this is thirty to fifty thousand people who
work for the Cleveland Clinic, not a few. And he's
now looked at the latest flu pandemic, not pandemic, but
the flu season with the standard flu vaccinations. In the
(42:01):
same populations have been getting the COVID vaccines and for
the first time ever, twenty seven cent of the vaccinated
people had more flu infections than there was a twenty
seven percent increase in flu infections in the vaccinator group
compared with the non flu vaccinator group. In other words,
(42:22):
this immune suppression looks as though can spread to affect
other outcomes.
Speaker 2 (42:28):
Right, So the immune repression is a new phrase, all right.
Speaker 3 (42:35):
The Nobel Prize was given this year strangely for that
true for im okay, all right, But when I say
when I say in the new phrase, it hasn't been
banded about too much publicly has it been prior to this?
Speaker 4 (42:51):
Not at all? Because no one wants to know it exists.
Speaker 3 (42:53):
It doesn't fit the narrative exactly, although I did get
a Nobel prize.
Speaker 2 (42:58):
That's exactly my point. Well, here's another good question, then,
based on all of the above, how come it won
the Nobil Prize. You would have thought that with all
going on behind the scenes that you're discussing, and there
must have been much of it, then you'd have to
be I'll turn it into a question, would you have
(43:19):
to be pretty brave to award the Nobel Prize for it?
Speaker 3 (43:23):
Or can I answer that by telling you about the
Nobel Prize the year before. The Nobel Prize the year
before was given to two people who had got the
prize by inserting into Messenger RNA. Many people watching though
there are four bases, and it's all about a coding
of rearranging these bases, and to make it more stable
(43:46):
and lasts longer, they changed one of the bases, which
is called urrosiallt using pseudo uridine. And without that they
couldn't have made the Messenger RNA vaccine that got the
Nobel Prize in twenty twenty four. Within weeks of them
getting the Nobel Prize, the Cambridge Group showed that by
(44:10):
putting this pseudouriitine into the Messenger RNA it called slippage.
In the reading, you can imagine the Messenger rena.
Speaker 4 (44:18):
Goes into a cell and it's got to be read.
Speaker 3 (44:20):
The information's read to make a new protein, the spike protein,
which then stimulates immunity, and in doing that, it's called
a plus one slippage, which means that twenty twenty percent
of people who were immunized with the messenger RNA vaccine
were producing abnormal proteins in the blood. Abnormal proteins. Some
(44:44):
of these abnormal proteins have the ability to catalyze a
process called amyloid deposition. The Japanese around the same time
suddenly found a significant increase in the report of certain
aspects of dementia, which is caused, we believe by amyloid deposition.
Now I'm not saying all this, I'm simply saying that
(45:07):
there's these red flags that are appearing that no one
wants to see as red flag, saying stop, let's work
this out, because too many things are happening that we
don't understand. But the Nobel Prize was refuted within weeks
of it being awarded the following year, I think it's
wonderful that they went and awarded it to the very
(45:29):
thing that they're stimulating with their Messenger RNA vaccines. Because remember,
you do not control the dose of anigen when you
put in a genetic message, Because it goes to every
cell in the body, every well can become potentially a factory.
Whereas a tetanus vaccine or any of the normal vaccines
is a tiny little bit of measured anigen that you
(45:51):
stick into your arm and goes to your regional lymph nodes.
Totally different situation. And when you don't control the anigen,
you get a more pronounced tolerance or downregulation affect you
to suppression.
Speaker 2 (46:04):
Let me, let me just refer to a few things
I scribbled down and you've just targeted one of them,
and you'll understand mRNA has no targeting system.
Speaker 4 (46:16):
True.
Speaker 3 (46:17):
So what does that mean, Well, what it means is
that any cell messenger RNA, if you just put ordinary
messenger RNA into the body, it gets broken up and dissipates.
And so they had to do two things to make
sure it got into cells so it could translate its
message into making the spike protein adigen.
Speaker 4 (46:38):
And so they did two things.
Speaker 3 (46:41):
They changed one of the bases, the pseudourinine, which we
talked about a minute ago, and they encased it in
what's called a lipid nanoparticle. Which has a very powerful
effect at helping it get into a cell. And so
potentially every cell in the body can take up messenger
RNA when it's delivered in this particular format. So the
(47:02):
messenger RNA itself doesn't have a target other than a
cell to act as a factory. And once it does that,
it puts the Any cell that makes the spike protein
is going to have that spike protein stuck on its
surface as a foreign protein. And when you get a
foreign protein, the body says, well, we'll make an immune
response to that. So is it such a surprise that
(47:24):
you get like an autoimmune response. The T cells come
along and destroy the cell that's making the spike protein,
and you get myaciditis, you get brain problems, problems potentially
anywhere in the body, which is what obviously we've been
seeing for four years now.
Speaker 2 (47:43):
It's amount of interest the talking of myocarditis. Is there
any any period of time in which that will happen
or must happen, or is it something that can extend
its availability? If you understand what I mean, for well,
(48:05):
almost eternity.
Speaker 4 (48:06):
We don't know. We don't know. I mean, how long
is a piece of string?
Speaker 3 (48:10):
We know that in studying from Yale, which is a
highly reputable group in the Yale University States, they were
finding they were finding spike protein floating around in the
blood of people with chronic post vaccine problems. Two. They
stopped looking at two years, and they were finding it
two years later. So we know that people have post
(48:36):
mortems from heart attacks and things like this years later
and they're finding spike protein and T cell responses to
that in the tissues. We don't know how long it
can stay in some people. What about IgG four? What
about it? What do you want to know about it?
Anything you can tell me, No, how long is piece
(48:57):
of string? You know, it's interesting. A lot of people
who know nothing about the immunology of this disease have
suddenly found IgG four is increased, and it's all part
of the tolerizing process.
Speaker 4 (49:09):
Remember, let's go back to you.
Speaker 3 (49:12):
Inhaling a virus, we call that an antigen because it's foreign.
It's no different to inhaling a pollen. Now, if you
inhale pollens, some people will get asthma or hay fever,
which is an exaggerated immune response. Some people don't now
the way, if you go to analogist and ask for treatment.
(49:35):
More often than not, he's going to say, I'm going
to give you a set of injections, and that set
of injections is the pollen adigen, and so you give it.
And what you're doing is stimulating the balance we talked
about a balance between protection and suppression. And the more
you inject the antigen, the more suppression you get, and
(49:55):
you turn off the symptoms of asthma and hay fever.
And people say that's terrific. There's no real difference between
giving people every six months or so a shot of
COVID messenger RNA. And remember you're not controlling the ad
engine dose, so it's continuing to be made. You're pouring that.
(50:16):
You're doing the same thing as the allergis is doing.
You're turning off the immune response, which means you get
more infections, and you're getting this tolerance which seems now
as though can overflow to other biological systems.
Speaker 2 (50:30):
I scribbled down you understand that. I'll say, no, I do,
But if you want to say it again, go for it. No, No,
why don't you give me your intermation.
Speaker 3 (50:40):
No I didn't get it quite in that world.
Speaker 4 (50:43):
No, No, I'm not being nasty.
Speaker 3 (50:45):
I just people do not understand this very simple biological
principle that's been around since since one hundred years.
Speaker 2 (50:53):
Right now, that's I mean, this is why I just
gave you IBG four and then I head after that
IgG four, I scribbled, I scribbled more shots bad. Right,
The more shots you get, the more you're going to
you will go to get or more likely you're going.
Speaker 3 (51:11):
To get crook. Exactly what Sarah carraras in the Quebec
studies and so of the Cleveland clinic. They're shown exactly
this in large and large number, thousands and thousands of people.
And that's because you've destroyed your immunity. No, you're not
destroying your immunity. You're changing the balance of positive and
(51:31):
negative because that's what the mw cosal immune system is
all about. Very different to the sterilizing immunity inside the body.
What happens you spread the suppressor cells throughout the body.
A fantastic study has just come out. I saw it yesterday,
perfect timing, where they've actually looked analyzed the impact of
(51:55):
getting coronavirus infections through life as a cornersing a cold.
The COVID is simply a coronavirus that's been manipulated one
way or the other into one, it's more likely to
invade the body. And so by having coronavirus infections, you're
priming the person. And this woman has done a PhD
(52:18):
in the States showing this is exactly what's been happening.
And the people who are primed with antibody and immunity
to coronavirus is because they've had them in the past.
If they get into hospital and they've been vaccinated, they've
got a greater chance of dying. Now, that is very
scary stuff, and it's showing exactly what we have been
(52:39):
talking about, and it's now been shown in a molecular fashion.
Speaker 2 (52:45):
Well, you've fulfilled my wish in answering the question.
Speaker 3 (52:52):
It was I didn't ask the question about IgG four though,
I just IgG four is one of four subclasses of
the IgG, the main antibody in blood, and the way
in which these T cells operate to suppress or activate
is by helping the antibody, making cells work and making
(53:14):
them make better and better antibody. As you get more
and more stimulation by vaccines or lots of covid or
allergy shots, then the T cell changes the pattern of
impact on anybody making and shifts shifts it to an
(53:34):
IgG four which has a counter effect on more protective
IgG antibodies. And so it's part of this toleerzing process
induced by the T suppressor cells.
Speaker 2 (53:48):
That's as simple as that. So I want to ask
you this question and everyone will get this. There are
still ads on messenger shots and people are responding to them.
I don't know in what numbers, but not as big
as they would have once upon a time.
Speaker 4 (54:04):
I know that.
Speaker 2 (54:05):
But the ad is usually accompanied by safe and effective.
Your take on.
Speaker 3 (54:14):
That, well, you know what might take is, but I
want you to share it.
Speaker 4 (54:19):
Okay, No, I'm sorry. I'm not meaning to be flipping.
Speaker 3 (54:25):
They are not They are not safe, and at this
stage they're not particularly effective. In fact, they're counter effective.
You can be worse off. I mean, I have friends
that tell me how they've had five or six or
seven vaccines and they can't understand it why they're so
sick with COVID. They ring me up for treatment, and
(54:49):
I say, well, of course you're going to get more COVID.
So vaccination with messenger RNA vaccines are not safe. There's
a study that just came out from South Korea, which
people should be aware of, and that is they compared
the benefits, the outcome benefits from comparing a Fireser Messenger
(55:11):
RNA vaccine with a NOVA with the antigen vaccine from
what is it Nova something, and the kids who were
getting the antigen vaccine had more protection than the kids
who were getting the Messenger RNA simply because you don't
get the same degree of suppression with the antigen vaccine.
(55:35):
So that's the first data of direct comparison that exists,
and it did not favor the Messenger RNA vaccine. And
yet where in New Zealand can you get the what
is it? I've got a metal block on the name
of the company that makes the Nova. No, no, there's
(55:58):
fires from are doing to make the Messenger RNA. And
then there's a company called they bring out an anigen
vaccine which we used to be able to get but
we can't get now in Australia, I can't recall I stopped.
Speaker 2 (56:10):
Listening and reading. Now's the time that now's the time.
I'm just going to say that I watched this morning
the discussion you had with the dark Horse podcast whatever
it is. But it's a it's a video the dark Horse.
Now I didn't have time to go back and catch
(56:32):
the name of the guy who runs it.
Speaker 3 (56:35):
Can you record it?
Speaker 4 (56:37):
Yeah, it's Brent Bret.
Speaker 3 (56:40):
Brett Brett does it doesn't matter, but yes, he's quite
he's quite a big podcaster in the States.
Speaker 2 (56:49):
So at the end of it, or towards the end,
he said, what we must do is actually take the
example of COVID, where we've gotten as close as we
are ever going to get to to seeing the dysfunction
of our system, and we should analyze what took place.
How did we allow ourselves to be marched in this direction,
(57:13):
to apply these remedies, to ignore other remedies that actually work.
How did that happen. If we can get to the
bottom of the story of COVID, we will know how
to cure our system. But they're going to fend off
that investigation with everything they've got.
Speaker 3 (57:30):
You know, that's a very very accurate statement. I'd forgotten
he said that, but I couldn't say it better myself.
Speaker 2 (57:38):
See, we've got these inquiries going on in both Australia
and New Zealand which are all a joke, exactly waste
of space and money. If you've got something useful to say,
you're not asked to say it. I know people fall
into that category. So having dealt with that, the WHO
and I was on top of this move by the
(58:01):
wahow up until more recently when we took a holiday
and forgot everything that was going on.
Speaker 3 (58:08):
Much.
Speaker 2 (58:09):
What's your reaction to the changes that the WHO is
flogging with regard to the next crisis and the one
after that.
Speaker 3 (58:19):
Well, the first thing is to realize that WHO is
not what it used to be. It's always been a
political organization, but what's happened is that then it is
now essentially run by outside vested interests that are not
just governments. They're heavily funded by private industry and private individuals.
(58:46):
They have this worldview which seems to support their own
profit motivations.
Speaker 4 (58:54):
I mean, even looking at this as benign.
Speaker 3 (58:56):
A way as you can, you can't have one size
fit all, which is essentially what they're trying to propose.
Speaker 4 (59:05):
The one size fit all pretty concerning.
Speaker 3 (59:09):
But you know, to have an organization like the WHO
with a track record which is nothing short of appalling
over the COVID era telling you in New Zealand, and
us in Australia, how to run our medical services, and
how to prepare for the next facts the next it's.
Speaker 4 (59:28):
Laughable if it wasn't so serious.
Speaker 3 (59:31):
And we're about to put in play from January one
our own CDC in Australia. God only knows how that's
going to function. It'll be hand in hand, I assume
with the whhow and you and I aren't going to
be listened to?
Speaker 2 (59:47):
Well, there's no reason why I should be, but every
reason why you should be. Did you ever meet Ashley Bloomfield? No,
I don't know, Actually Bluefield, don't know the name. He
was in charge of everything here during COVID, basically, and
he scored a knighthood through it. He sold all the
(01:00:10):
things that we've talked about that are wrong.
Speaker 4 (01:00:14):
Now we've got a few of those.
Speaker 3 (01:00:15):
Yeah, well we had your center too.
Speaker 4 (01:00:18):
Don't forget. I'm sorry, ohouldn't laugh?
Speaker 2 (01:00:23):
Well, it's healthy to laugh, you know. Well, finally, let's
just talk about the book for a moment or two.
You mentioned it earlier, COVID Through our Eyes an austrated
story of mistakes, mistreatment and misinformation. Now at this point
I'm going to be accusative and I'm going to suggest
that one of the mistakes you made was not including
(01:00:44):
at least one chapter on New Zealand.
Speaker 3 (01:00:47):
You really should have. Yeah, a good point.
Speaker 2 (01:00:51):
Edited by Professor Robert Clancy and doctor Melissa McCann. Now
there are nineteen chapters in Part one.
Speaker 3 (01:01:01):
Part two.
Speaker 2 (01:01:02):
Personal Encounters doesn't doesn't have a chapter number, and it's
a book that I believe anybody who is interested in
this particular subject should get their hands on. It's one
of the better ones. He starts off with what this
book is about, finishes with the futurists, that is he
(01:01:24):
being Robert Clancy, and in between there are numerous people
in various areas, including Gigi Faster, who we had on
the podcast way back in twenty one on Podcast one
three two. How did I remember that? And it's a
book that will answer a lot of questions I believe.
Speaker 3 (01:01:44):
Am I wrong? I don't know if I think it
puts questions, It identifies what we do know, It gives
some ideas of things how we can do things better.
It's a bit hard for me to be too critical
of different aspects, but no, what we've tried to do
(01:02:04):
is to tell our experience from different perspectives. No one
was told what to write. They all had free reign
to write what they wanted to write. There's a certain
consistency of views, as you would note, and some people
have got different ideas and views. But by and large,
it's an indictment of a process that we went through.
(01:02:28):
It's an indictment of the way in which it was
run and the outcomes. Our failure, I think, the failure
of government to honestly assess what went wrong and if
they liked what went right, is extremely disappointing because our
government and it seems I thought your government would be
(01:02:50):
more open and more objective. Well, no, I think we did.
We held our great hope for the New Zealand government.
Oh yes, that's what I'm laughing at. Yeah, and I
think you've let the team down a little. But you know,
quiries we had were amazing. I knew some of the statisticians,
(01:03:14):
for example, looking at excess deaths. The excess death business
is seriously concerning. The Japanese have come out with They've
done what no one else has been able to do,
and that is look at excess deaths in the vaccinated
versus the non vaccinator, and they show that the excess
deaths is essentially confined to the vaccinated group, and there's
(01:03:36):
a delay of several months, which means that the early
studies looking at what's going on would miss the bulk
of the exces deaths. And they looked at twenty one
million people. You know, this was not just a group
of a couple of hundred.
Speaker 2 (01:03:52):
This book takes up the story of the actual medical
response to COVID nineteen. In contrast to the plan. COVID
in Australia is a narrative in fifteen stages. It's want
to refer to stage number ten Australia's Therapeutic Goods Administration,
the TGA, which we share with you.
Speaker 3 (01:04:12):
No, well, you've got your own. They talk to each other.
Speaker 2 (01:04:15):
Well, I think the weight of numbers might win out anyway.
Fast tracked genetic vaccine approvals with scanty supporting data at
every level. These vaccines have been used in medical practice
and better fitted the definition of gene therapy than their
classification as vaccines. But it was the the TGA and
(01:04:40):
the genetic aspect of it that I wanted to I
said I was going to finish on the last on
the last point, but I want your opinion if you
if you care to share it, if you have one,
with regard to what is going on here at the moment,
with the the therapeutic and genetic aspect of life. And
(01:05:01):
the prime example I utilize is that they're doing away
with the contents of a whatever is in a can.
You've got a can of beans. There's nothing to read
on the back to tell you how it's come about,
or detail about it, or whether it's whether it's been
fiddled with along the way. Why are they doing that,
(01:05:23):
you tell me, I mean, that's extraordinary. I mean, I
think we're moving into an era where subtle changes in preparation,
subtle constituents put in can have a major health outcomes.
And I mean, I'm not an expert in the area,
but you know, I recently went to a talk on
(01:05:47):
some of these plastic materials that are in our water supplies,
and no one has a clue what they do. There's
no real evidence they do anything, but they might. I
think that we're finding these things.
Speaker 3 (01:06:00):
If you don't identify what we're eating in cans and whatevers,
we're never going to know any answers. It's a bit
like not telling people that the vaccines, a messenger RNA vaccine,
what's the difference? Just say this is a vaccine for COVID.
Speaker 2 (01:06:17):
All right, So let me suggest there is a connection
between the who what eliminating the contents and the weather
come from, et cetera. Inside a can of whatever it
might be or a packet may have something to do
with the World Economic Forum and their goal.
Speaker 4 (01:06:38):
I would not be at all surprised.
Speaker 2 (01:06:41):
I'm not I'm glad you said that, because I'm not
saying it is I'm saying that the opportunity there is
there to assume that it may well be.
Speaker 3 (01:06:50):
I wouldn't be at all surprised. I think it's consistent
with the general thoughts in the area exactly. Very concerning.
Last question, where do you go from here with your
with your work? Well, maybe four next week, so I'd
(01:07:13):
like to think where we go. I'd like to think
that if nothing else I can. At a personal level,
I am particularly concerned about people who have got vaccine
messenger RNA vaccine damage. So I'm setting up a small
clinic where I see such patients. But what I'm trying
to do is set up a program that is easily
(01:07:36):
transportable to the people who will see a lot more
because we're making a huge difference in the outcomes by
treating them with ivermectin. About sixty seventy percent of these
people their life changes. In fact, last week I had
an email from a patient complaining it had one week
of I've amectin. The guy had terrible fatigue, he said,
(01:07:56):
he said, I've been reborn.
Speaker 4 (01:07:58):
He said.
Speaker 3 (01:07:58):
My wife has asked me to go to the doctor
because she thinks I've got mania because she hasn't seen
me like this for so long. Now, that's an extraordinary outcome,
But most of the patients are benefiting. And yet no
one wants to treat basins this way because the drug's
got such a bad name through what happened at a
(01:08:20):
political and company level through COVID. And yet it's the
highest binding chemical to COVID spike protein that exists, and
it's very effective at a personal level.
Speaker 4 (01:08:35):
That's what I'm going to do.
Speaker 3 (01:08:37):
At a more generic level, I'm hoping that a few
other people can do what I've been doing and come
from a basic science evidence viewpoint of mucosal iminology, which
very few people seem to have that specialty interest.
Speaker 2 (01:08:54):
Well, there will be people who will be asking me,
how do I find you? How do they do you have?
Do you have any response?
Speaker 3 (01:09:03):
Look, I get emails from people every day at a
half dozen, dozen, twenty. I can't answer them. I don't
know what to say to these people because I've got it.
You won't believe this. I've got someone from Canada coming
out to see me because they cannot get with terrible
post COVID vaccine damage, just total fatigue, total brain fog,
(01:09:27):
and no one will treat them with. I've emectin, So
he's coming out to see me in Sydney. I said,
don't do that's crazy, But that's how sad the situation is.
I can't I'm only seeing eight people every second week
now because I said, I've got other things to do.
(01:09:48):
I'm trying to find other doctors that will do this.
I'm talking with a couple of people at the moment,
but they're dead scared. They don't want to prescribe, even
though it's totally legal. I've a mectin because they get banned.
You know, there are people here that haven't worked for
four years because they legally prescribed. I've amectan g good GPS,
(01:10:10):
probably the same in New Zealand.
Speaker 2 (01:10:11):
Well, we've got doctor shortages here. That's the insanity of
it is. There are still people, as far as I'm aware,
who lost their lost their jobs, not just in the
medical field but in others because they wouldn't they wouldn't
be assaulted. And it's crazy when when there is a
(01:10:32):
shortage of fireman for instance, just as an example.
Speaker 3 (01:10:36):
Yeah, well the current economy wills probably sort that out
a bit.
Speaker 2 (01:10:41):
Robert, it's been great talking with it, seriously enjoyable, entertaining
and in places and informative.
Speaker 3 (01:10:48):
Well, it's been very nice from my perspective to talk
to an Australian New Zealander trans Tasman trans Tasman. It's
the only trans we except these days. So thank you
and may we talk again sometime.
Speaker 4 (01:11:03):
It would be a great pleasure. Nice talking to you, lad.
Speaker 3 (01:11:20):
Well.
Speaker 2 (01:11:20):
I think you can tell that he's a good man.
He is a great man actually in my opinion, and
the people who joined forces with him to publish this
book deserve to be commended. There are so many books around,
aren't they that you'd love to read. Haven't got the time,
haven't got the money, whatever it might be, but you've
got to get your hands on some of these because
(01:11:41):
they're so very very informative, and information this day and
age is more important than ever. So we got one
more to go from the best of the year, and
then we shall rejoin the usual program. So whatever is
left of your holiday or might be, I just say,
(01:12:02):
enjoy it and life will return to normal in a
couple of weeks.
Speaker 1 (01:12:09):
M Thank you for more from Used Talks at b
Listen live on air or online, and keep our shows
with you wherever you go with our podcasts on iHeartRadio
You're listening to a podcast from news talks it B
Follow this and our wide range of podcasts now on iHeartRadio.
It's time for all the attitude, all the opinion, all
the information, all the debates of the now the Leyton
Smith podcast powered by news talks it Be.
Speaker 2 (00:28):
So we are approaching the end of the best of
twenty twenty five. One or two to go, and then
we're back to what you might call normal, although I'm
not sure there is such a thing.
Speaker 3 (00:39):
I'm looking at a book that's been put.
Speaker 2 (00:42):
Together by a couple of well more than a couple
of people, but it features many writers, many people of
authority in their field. Let me give you an idea.
The concerned physician, scientist, the journalist, the pharmacologists, the immunologist,
the vaccinologists, the oncologists, the statistician, the physicians, the medical leader,
(01:08):
the lawyer, the economist, and this considerable number more. The
book was structured by Professor Robert Clancy, who is an
emeritus professor leading Australian immunologists and pioneer in the field
of mucosal immunology. He is known for his research and
(01:31):
development of therapies for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease commonly known
as emphysema COVID. Through Our Eyes is the title of
the book. It is edited by Robert Clancy, explains how
Australian governments and health systems complied with instructions from the
USA to enrich multinational drug companies. Pharmacists, doctors and other
(01:55):
professionals expose harm and loss caused by a seriously misguided response.
Clancy are going to assure you does not pull his punches.
He's articulate, he's honest, and he's even entertaining. There much
to learn from his commentary, both past and future. I
enjoyed thoroughly talking with Robert Clancy. It was difficult to
(02:18):
get off the hold with him in the end because
he was having a good time as well. He loves
a good chat. However, here is the interview the book
Through Our Eyes, the interrogated Robert Clancy, Emeritus Professor. Clancy
(02:49):
has an international reputation in the study of infection of
the airways and gut, the way the body processes infection,
and the development of vaccines to prevent or modify infection.
He was awarded a Doctor of Science by the University
of Newcastle for his studies on infection and the immune
response of mucosal surfaces. He is a senior clinical immunologist
(03:13):
with an ongoing involvement in the management of immune disorders.
Now that's a short one. If you want a longer one,
I could read you. I could read you just a
little bit of this. Professor Clancy, in the team's groundbreaking
research into chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, concentrated on the link
between the guts and the lung and was able to
provide evidence that the best way to create immunity against
(03:36):
infection in the respiratory tract was to stimulate the gut
immune system, whereby these activated cells migrate to the lung
and make antibodies against organisms responsible for the infection. Professor
Clancy developed the vaccine broncostat at the University of Newcastle
in nineteen eighty five. The broncos Stat vaccine reduces attacks
(03:59):
of acute bronchitis to a degree of ninety percent. Professor
Clancy is emeritus Professor at the University of Newcastle School
of Biomedical Science and Pharmacy. And there's a whole lot more,
but it's time to say welcome to the Late Andsmith Podcast.
Very glad you agreed to come on. Thank you very
much for having me great pleasure. I know that you
had a long connection with New Zealand. I'd like to
(04:23):
start with you advising us of how strong that was
and how long it lasted.
Speaker 3 (04:29):
Well, I would like to think it continues. I've I
guess I've been Look. I've never seen a difference between
New Zealand and New Zealanders and Australians except on the
rugby field, and that is a huge disappointment to me.
(04:51):
We'd make a great team, although I don't think we'd
have too many members from this side of the ditchenet.
Speaker 4 (05:01):
When I started the.
Speaker 3 (05:03):
Department, when we back again the new Medical School in Newcastle,
I had to make a number of appointments and a
lot of those appointments were my New Zealand colleagues and friends.
I think one of the things that I've known for
a long period of time is that health professionals are
extremely well trained in New Zealand. No they're well trained
(05:24):
here too, of course, but in New Zealand they are outstanding.
If you look at my old department that I left
in Newcastle when I retired, two of the three senior
people in New Zealanders. My closest research colleague for twenty
(05:45):
five years was doctor Gerald Pang, who was New Zealand trained.
The head of my diagnostic laboratory was a New Zealander.
So I can't get away from New Zealanders, and I
don't want to because they're good people.
Speaker 4 (06:01):
So yeah, I did a lot of work in New Zealand.
I was.
Speaker 3 (06:09):
Examiner for the Medical School. Obviously, the professional bodies that
I belong to are not Australian, they're Australian and New Zealand.
The College of Physicians through to the immunology thing. I
was one of the three that began clinically minology in
Australia and that's sort of overflowed and included New Zealand.
(06:31):
And that involved a number of trips and discussions and developments.
So my whole professional and personal life has been as
with so many people in Australia, I think I'm talking
to one at the moment, guilty.
Speaker 2 (06:45):
So you've done a lot of backwards and forwards and
I think that's a fine thing. The College of Physicians
that you just mentioned, which is which is binational, is
it still the organization that it used to be.
Speaker 4 (07:02):
No, no, no, it's.
Speaker 3 (07:05):
When I became a member than a fellow of the
Royal Australasian College of Physicians. It was a very different organization,
but then medicine was very different. What happened and what
has happened subsequently is the age of specialization. And so
(07:26):
we had a college that essentially represented physicians as opposed
to surgeons or obstetricians. The surgeons would have their college,
the consultant physicians would have their, and then as physicians
we became a heart specialist, brain specialists, joint specialists, and
all the specialty organizations, including clinically monology developed and looked
(07:50):
after the professional needs, and that took away from the
College of Physicians the importance of the college, and the
college was essentially left in a skeletal form. Prior to
this age of specialization, the most prestigious position in the
country would be the president of the Royalis Ostillation College
(08:13):
of Physicians. And now I don't even know the name
of the people who are the presidents because they're essentially
a stamping organization to say you've undergone assessment, you are
now passed to become a physician. So it's really a
gateway to become a physician, and it does very little
(08:34):
else but the great sadness, and I'm not sure if
this is what you're alluding to, is that it's allowed
individuals to creep in that have personal agendas and use
the college for their own purposes. Whereas I think a
number of us have believed over a long period that
the college must have at a more important role and
(08:58):
rekindle I think some essential aspects of what it used
to have. And this battle has gone on now for
at least ten fifteen years, doesn't seem to be any
closer to being ended.
Speaker 2 (09:13):
I think that there's more than just what we've mentioned
so far, in various fields, including engineering, just as an example,
where the where the organization has been taken over and
pushes a well, one could say, pushes a political agenda,
if not a financial one, or both together, and it's
(09:35):
it is exceedingly disturbing.
Speaker 3 (09:37):
I'll give you.
Speaker 2 (09:38):
I'll give you one example that was probably the first
one that I saw that I noticed here in New Zealand,
and that was and damn it, I'm going to have
to reneg on his name because it escapes me.
Speaker 3 (09:52):
On the spur of the moment.
Speaker 2 (09:53):
But the position is exactly what I'm what I'm about
to tell you that he was involved with climate matters.
He was set up by somebody with an agenda, a
disgusting one, and he it was under a great deal
of stress, and he wasn't that old, and I interviewed
(10:13):
him a few times. And when he died unexpectedly, stress
was considered to be a great contributor to that passing.
And I've never forgotten it, and I've never forgiven it,
and it will be a curse on the individual who
was involved, I trust. Now, speaking of speaking of people
(10:38):
that we either know or don't, there's one person who
I want to make mention of now because he's no
longer with us, of course, and that is a professor
Thomas Barrodi.
Speaker 4 (10:49):
Now.
Speaker 2 (10:49):
I interviewed him on it was some time back. I
interviewed him on the twenty sixth of August of twenty
twenty in podcast number seventy eight. And I tried more
recently to get in touch and fell foul of my goal.
And you can tell us why Tom died. As you
(11:13):
probably know, two or three weeks ago. Tom and I
had worked together for about thirty years. Tom was probably
one of the brightest people I've come across. He was
certainly the finest gastroenturologist I've worked with. He had an
extraordinary capacity to see outside the square. And I think
(11:34):
it really is not unlinked to what I was talking
about a few minutes ago, that what has happened in
medicine is that we've become constrained by bureaucracy to fit
within someone's perception of what the rules and regulations of
treating this condition or that condition is. Whereas Tom looked
(11:54):
at the patient, he looked at the problem and tried
to solve that problem, which usually meant that he was
managing the person outside of some strict guideline. And medicine's
a lot more than guidelines, and I think we've seen
the ultimate of guidelines on how bad they became in
the recent COVID experience. Well, I'd like to think we
(12:19):
learned from it, but both you and I know it's
a slow learning process.
Speaker 3 (12:23):
But back to Tom. Tom. Tom was the sort of
person that is a one off. Not everyone liked Tom
because Tom was always openly honest. He would say what
he believed, which often would upset particularly people running the
(12:45):
standard line. His popularity was in fact greater outside of
Australia than it was inside of Australia. You know, there
are many that believe he should have shared the Nobel
Prize because he was the guy that proved that the
Helica bacter caused peptic assis.
Speaker 4 (13:02):
Now many of your older listeners or watches.
Speaker 3 (13:07):
Would recognized that the scourge of medicine until twenty five
years ago was peptic oci disease. Twenty percent of men
would have a duodenal ussa if you were an interners
I was many years ago. You knew that when you
went to sleep at night, you'd be waken up with
someone with a bleeding or perforated ulcer.
Speaker 4 (13:28):
It was.
Speaker 3 (13:29):
It dominated our working lives, and we used to think
it was always due to acid and enzymes digesting holes
in the stomach and the duodenum. And along came two
very smart guys in Perth who found these organisms, and
they found an association between the organisms and peptic aucas,
(13:51):
but they couldn't prove they caused it, but the association
was strong enough and important enough for them to get
the Nabel Prize, which I totally concurred with. So they should,
But it was Tom Barodi that sat down and started
mixing and matching different antibiotics, coming up with the famous
(14:11):
triple therapy that actually caused the permanent eradication in a
quantitative and qualitative way of the helicobacter. And it was
only by getting rid of the organism and showing that
the person's also didn't come back that you could prove
the cause. So that was Tom, and then he went
on to develop the modern approach to the so called
(14:37):
microbiome of the gut, which is the bacterial content of
which there is something like a trillion different bugs sitting
there and they have huge impact on both the disease
of the gut and disease of the whole body.
Speaker 4 (14:53):
And Tom was the one who.
Speaker 3 (14:55):
First really put in play the important role of the
microbiome and its manipulation in management of disease.
Speaker 4 (15:05):
With transferring healthy.
Speaker 3 (15:08):
Feces two unhealthy people, he used to call them pooh transplants,
which of course upset a lot of people the very term.
Speaker 4 (15:17):
But that was Tom.
Speaker 3 (15:19):
But I went to conference just three nights ago and
it was extraordinary. It was just totally on the intestinal
microbiome and pooh transplants. Because pretty much every hospital now
in Sydney, every major hospital is doing them. It saves
the lives of people with seed to ficial disease, which
(15:40):
is very common, and changes the lives of many other people.
Speaker 4 (15:44):
So that was Tom.
Speaker 3 (15:46):
And then he moved on to Crohn's disease, which many
of you would have heard of, and he took what was.
Speaker 4 (15:53):
Around and went back.
Speaker 3 (15:55):
Rather than saying, let's not control the inflammation, because that's
not really getting it. The core inflammation is a response
to the cause, he went to the cause and started
treating the bacteria. Other people done that, but Tom made
at work and came up with his triple therapy for crome.
So you know, the contributions of one man to three
(16:16):
major issues in Guard Hills is just unbelievably, unbelievably important. Well,
he wasn't what you'd call old either. Well, you know,
he was mid seventies, bought.
Speaker 2 (16:33):
In nineteen fifty. Yeah, And and he was very when
I interviewed him, he was very enthusiastic to try and
spread the word from his perspective. And I had a
great deal of a great deal of respect for it
because I did a bit of background study. I liked
what he had to say, and I followed up on
(16:54):
it and it was leading me in only one direction,
but he.
Speaker 3 (17:01):
Said, is there anything you can do? Well?
Speaker 2 (17:03):
He basically asked me if there was anybody I could
put him in touch with in New Zealand, you know
where he could be of assistance. And I made an
inquiry or two and I was told, don't bother. They
weren't interested, they didn't want to know.
Speaker 4 (17:18):
That'll be right, and.
Speaker 3 (17:19):
The same the same.
Speaker 2 (17:20):
Of course, he got treated the same in Australia. Now,
can you explain to us these things have been discussed
generally over the last four or five years, but we've
not heard from you before, and I think we've reached
a pinnacle. So I want your opinion on such things.
Speaker 3 (17:39):
How did it? How did it get to that point
where somebody is qualified as Thomas Barrodi as you and others,
but you, you, I think, are the leading to were
treated as outcast. Yeah, it's no one's actually asked me
that question before, so let me try to give you
(18:01):
an answer. First of all, Tom and I are very
different people. I always used to see my Tom and
I were good friends, and I work and I still work.
I do a clinic in the Center of Digestive Diseases.
Although my early training was in gasturology, I've now moved
away from that and I just do clinically monology, and
(18:22):
even there now I'm trying to set up just a
clinic for post COVID vaccine damage. And that where you
just mentioned was his operation, am I right, Yeah, that's true.
Tom began the Center of Digestive Diseases in Sydney a
lot back in about nineteen eighty, maybe a bit earlier.
And so first Tom and I are very different. I
(18:48):
don't see myself as an outcast. I have a good
relationship I think with pretty much all my colleagues, certainly
most of them.
Speaker 4 (18:58):
They don't agree with me, but they won't argue with me.
Speaker 3 (19:01):
And I think this is the interesting thing, that there's
a thing called cognitive dissonance, or some people might call brainwashing,
that I never understood how powerful this was and how
interested parties can coordinate such an event. I can talk
(19:21):
to friends of mine who are family practitioners, and until recently,
none of them would want to even talk about the
fact that maybe we made mistakes in the COVID era.
In fact, I was talking to my own family practitioner,
and I gave her a copy of a book. We'ret
and I mean it's changing, but ever so slowly, but
(19:43):
there is still this resistance. So Tom, I think, was
a little more of an outcast, probably than I am,
for a lot of reasons. One is that i've always
One is I haven't tried to take on the establishment
outside of using argument of science and evidence. I haven't
(20:08):
tried to take on the person. I haven't got involved
in legal cases. There are things that Tom actually got
involved in, quite nothing that was wrong. It's just that
it created some degree of difference between him and some
of his colleagues. I used to call myself Tom's mind
because I'd say, Tom, don't do this, don't do that.
(20:30):
You can't do this if you want to achieve an outcome.
So it's very complicated. Maybe I'm more of an outcast
than I think I am. I don't think I am.
But certainly my view is not one that's widely shared.
Speaker 2 (20:48):
I would have thought by now there would have been
a growing number of sharers.
Speaker 3 (20:54):
I think there are, and in fact, a group called
AMPS has started. I think it's in Australia, well, certainly
in Australia. I don't belong to it, but I have
many friends that are involved that have formed as a
result of COVID, involving many many health professionals, many many doctors.
There are a great number of medical people and health
(21:16):
professionals that share the view that we didn't get things right.
I mean, let me give you one quick example. When
COVID hit us, we had a plan. Now, this is
a plan that illustrator in New Zealand evolved over eighty
ninety one hundred years as a result of us independently
(21:37):
assessing the problem using the experience.
Speaker 2 (21:41):
Can I just interrupt there just for a second, don't
lose your place. But was that not virtually a worldwide plan? No,
it was an Australian plan we had, and well I
would know had a plan which was very similar. But
we developed our own plan.
Speaker 3 (22:01):
I was part of the discussions and involvement and it
was a very good plan. In fact, it was a
plan not unlike the Great Barrington Decoration which came later
from three leaders in UK and the United States. But
the plan suddenly disappeared and was replaced by a narrative,
(22:24):
and the narrative was built around protecting an experimental genetic
vaccine that, for all intents and purposes, had never been
given demn ended up being given to more than half
the world's population, and has never ever been shown to
be as good as all better than a good old,
ground up vaccine that we've been dealing with for eighty
(22:47):
ninety years for influenza. This is and then to protect
that experimental vaccine, and this is my main point. Part
of the plan was that you screen what medications you'll
have that just might be helpful against the pathogen causing
the pandemic. In this case, you know, the COVID virus,
(23:10):
and you give that to as many people as you can,
even though it may only be of marginal benefit. It
was better than nothing.
Speaker 4 (23:18):
Well, all of.
Speaker 3 (23:19):
A sudden, my profession and as a result of instructions
from bureaucrats and politicians and a few rather really informed
so called medical people that appeared on television on a
regular basis, we were told you can't possibly you know,
it's horse medicine. It's terrible stuff. And I was looking
(23:40):
at the data saying this is ridiculous. Is a saving life?
We could have saved so many lives in Australia and
New Zealand. It's as simple as that. And of course
the evidence, now, there was always evidence they worked, there
was always evidence they were safe, there was always evidence
they were very cheap and available, but we couldn't use
(24:02):
They even brought in Queensland in Australia. In Queensland they
brought in a rule that if a doctor prescribed hydroxy
chorquin a drug which every doctor has been prescribing for
sixty seventy eighty years, a lack with no issue, then
they potentially could be jailed.
Speaker 4 (24:21):
I mean, that's how bad it got. Now. That woke
me up.
Speaker 3 (24:26):
Now, the point I'm now going to make is that
very good evidence for all of these things is suddenly
starting to appear, evidence that was obtained four or five
years ago, but it's been held up by including the
people who did the work and certainly the journals. They
wouldn't publish anything that said they are any good. But
(24:47):
now it's over. Fantastic papers are appearing for say, hydroxychlorum
with five thousand people showing highly effective preventative effects after
the event. And it wasn't just hydroxychloroquine either, No, it wasn't.
There was ivermectin followed the hydroxychloricon, which is clearly the
(25:10):
best drug for treating COVID still is. Isn't it interesting
that the two industry drugs which came under the table,
which have got no effect at all, It's quite clearly
demonstrated in randomized controlled trials, still used at one thousand
dollars a pop by most of the family practitioners, and
(25:32):
that went straight through the registration process.
Speaker 4 (25:35):
I mean, that is criminal. Criminal?
Speaker 2 (25:37):
Was there, shall we say, was there such a thing
as what we might call the power of power? That
was that was introduced very rapidly into the into the scene.
And by that, I'm talking about money, and I'm talking
(25:58):
about influence, and I'm talking about the ability of people
to make huge sacrifices if they pursued the course that
you're discussing. But was it was it driven from the
top on a global on a global stage. Well you
know the answer to that, and the answer is, of
course it was. I think what happened in Australia and
(26:21):
New Zealand, as far as I can see, is that
for the very first time we lost control of our
medical decision making. If you look back in history, New
Zealand and Australia top class medical countries.
Speaker 4 (26:36):
We do things very very well.
Speaker 3 (26:38):
We have extremely good people, We make our own decisions,
we use the best information we can get. But on
this occasion we had a narrative imposed upon us, and
it came percolated down through big industry. I mean, you're
aware that Pfizer, for example, would make a million dollars
a billion dollars profit in a year from its vaccines
(27:01):
and a little less from its anti viral treatments. That's
unbelievably large. And what they did is in my country
and I'm not sure if in New Zealand, but certainly
here they've essentially bought the academic organizations. I'll give you
(27:22):
one example, Iver Metnan, the drug you were too about
was first. This is an interesting story that you may
not have heard. Iver Mecden was first shown to be
effective at killing the COVID organism by very good scientists
at Monash University. And she published this data very early
in nineteen nineteen twenty and it became well known a
(27:45):
few months later she was shut down by the university.
Unfortunately it's my university because I got a PhD from
Monash University.
Speaker 4 (27:54):
But she was shut down.
Speaker 3 (27:58):
What I didn't realize is that she'd gone ahead and
done a little study on giving iver mecdan the people
exposed to to COVID way back then, and surprisingly it
was just published about three or four weeks ago, a
month ago.
Speaker 4 (28:20):
She can now publish it, you see.
Speaker 3 (28:22):
But weeks after she was shut down, Monash University signed
an agreement with Madina Maderna, one of the two big
companies making the vaccines for I think it was something
like three hundred million dollars, huge amount, and that must
have been in play at the time that she was
releasing it was, of course it was. Of course it was.
(28:44):
Now let me expand on that even a little further.
There was a huge play a couple of months ago
when the premiere of Victoria, who is a rather controversial
figure at the moment, she opened the new manufacturing exercise
(29:06):
at Monash to make Messengerna with the purpose of replacing
our existing vaccines. It's hard to believe this is actually happening.
And she got up and she said something which was
rather stupid. She said, every mother is going to be
so they're going to learn the word respiratual sin city
(29:26):
or virus disease, because right, we're about to bring out
this fantastic vaccine that's going to save the children and
it's going to change their lives. About four or five
days after that, there was a tiny little notice that
Maderna brought out in an obscure publication somewhere that very
(29:49):
few people saw, saying they're put on hold their trial
in children for the RSV virus because eighteen percent of
the kids were in hospital with serious life threatening RSV
disease eighteen percent of those vaccinated with the Messenger and
a vaccine. Now, that is not surprising. That is predictable
(30:11):
and that is what we're facing.
Speaker 2 (30:13):
So is it is it really on hold or do
you think it's dead?
Speaker 3 (30:17):
Oh, it's not dead. No, The only thing it's dead
is some of the kids who are going.
Speaker 4 (30:20):
To get it.
Speaker 3 (30:22):
What was the advantage to Maderna to doing that in Victoria. Well,
that's a good point, you'd have to ask them. They
seem to have taken over the Australian institutions because it's
not just Monash is a key one, but certainly there
are structures being built in Sydney at mcquarie University for
(30:42):
the production of Messenger RNA vaccines, Nearly all the universities
in New South Wales are tied into a system of
profit that will benefit from these activities. I suspect the
same occurs in Victoria, and a very good in the
book that we're published, which is COVID Through Our Eyes,
(31:07):
a very good individual who's been working in press for many,
many years did follow the money in Australia and identified
how it is all linked up with.
Speaker 4 (31:21):
The Messenger RNA story.
Speaker 2 (31:23):
So out of that book on page forty six, subhead
do mRNA vaccines protect against COVID nineteen infection?
Speaker 3 (31:31):
Yes they do, Yes, they do, But there's a writer
to that any vaccine they don't do it any better. Well,
put it this way, no one has ever shown that
we needed to go anywhere else other than the traditional
route for making the vaccine for COVID. There is not
(31:52):
even the argument that was so much quicker is invalid
because by the time the Messenger RNA were on the
market with all the money behind them, a month or
two behind it, the Chinese and Australian vaccine producers use
traditional methodology for an antigen vaccine. We're also on the
market and the Australian vaccine production was completely shut down
(32:18):
here in New Zealand and became the standard vaccine for
countries like Iran. They were smart enough to realize that
it was And they're not seeing long COVID, you know,
the type of long COVID we see after vaccination, and
they're not seeing the increase in mortalities that we're seeing
(32:40):
with the Messenger RNA for very good reasons. Does mRNA
have a future? Well, you mean, do I think it
should have a future or do I think.
Speaker 4 (32:49):
It will have a future.
Speaker 3 (32:50):
Well, let's go both. Okay, I think it will have
a future. And look, I'm not against Messenger RNA having
a future provided the problems they have, which are extensive,
are sort of out. I don't think the Messenger RNA
is needed for vaccine production. I think where a bigger
case can be made for individualized tuba tumor production, although
(33:15):
there are many other alternate ways of approaching tumor immune
suppression these days. But what's going to determine it is
not you and me. It's going to be money and
political power and at possibly, as we look at the moment,
hue great human cost.
Speaker 2 (33:35):
So I'm looking at a I'm looking at a headline
on the front of a magazine vaccines fear and collapsing
immunity by your good self, can you explain what that means?
Speaker 3 (33:46):
What it's about.
Speaker 2 (33:47):
So I'm looking at a headline that says, vaccines ain't
vaccines the consequences of the mrn A disaster.
Speaker 3 (33:55):
What have you written there?
Speaker 4 (33:56):
Okay? What I wrote there?
Speaker 3 (33:58):
That particular article was written by me fairly recently for
two reasons. Well, the main reason was that I am
not an heavy vacca. I'm very supportive of vaccines that
are valuable, and I wrote the article to point out
that we mustn't throw the baby out with the bathwater,
(34:21):
because that's what some people are starting to do. I
think the anti vaccines are hopping on to a valid
issue with the COVID messenger RNA vaccines and extrapolating that
two measles, mumps, you name it, when in fact, that
is not a very good thing to do. So I
wrote that largely to point out that.
Speaker 4 (34:47):
We have to be very careful about not.
Speaker 3 (34:51):
Throwing out all the vaccines with just a messenger RNA methodology.
The second thing I put in that article was I
summarized the problems with the a very up to date summary,
and the main aspect that you were a referring to
was that if you look at vaccination against airway infections,
(35:17):
you are moving, you are vaccinating, injecting the vaccine into
the body whole, whereas you're trying to protect against a
virus that's not coming into the body whole. It's coming
into the airways, which has its own segregated so called
mucosal immune system. So the injected vaccine will never prevent
(35:42):
you getting infected or passing that infection on to somebody else.
And that, of course was completely misunderstood at the beginning
of the COVID pandemic, and they were basically saying, we
must be vaccinated, we must have mandates so that we
(36:02):
can stop the passing on of covid, and any benefit
it has there is so marginal it's not worth considering.
What the vaccine does is that it prevents or contributes
the prevention of that virus escaping from the mucosal compartment
(36:23):
into the body whole, which is going to cause more
severe disease and death. And it does that fairly efficiently
until the elephant in the room, which is reactive suppression,
chimes in of course, if you think about it, the
role of mucosal immunology is to control a number of
(36:45):
bacteria that are lining up and contaminating the airway and
the gut it's full of bacteria, whereas inside the body,
one bacteria is enough to cause septocemia and kill you.
And so you have a different role for the injected
type of immunization, which is sterilizing community to mucosal immunity,
(37:07):
which is about control.
Speaker 4 (37:09):
And to get control you have.
Speaker 3 (37:11):
To have a two way mechanism involving suppression, so it
doesn't otherwise if you have the systemic immune system going
for sterilizing immunity, when you're breathing in millions of bacteria
every minute, then you're going to blow up like a
hand grenade coming in. So you must have a suppression mechanism. Now,
(37:31):
this suppressor mechanism becomes dominant the more you stimulate somebody.
And so what we were doing with very unplanned booster
vaccinations was pouring in stimulation together with people being exposed
to the COVID virus, and so the tilt went to
(37:52):
favor suppression rather than protection. And so if you look
at the big studies done for example in Quebec in Canada,
which is probably the best. Instead of having eighty percent
protection against going into a hospital and older people, which
we did get for a few months in twenty twenty one,
it's now down to fifty percent and it lasts two months.
(38:16):
For the rest of the rest of the vaccine cycle.
As new variants come in, you get zero or little
or negative suppression. And I should have I wished I
had prepared a bit better and sent you the graph
that was in this particular paper from Quebec. It's so
illustrative showing that for eighty percent of the vaccine cycle
(38:39):
you're getting essentially little, no or negative protection. Negative protection
means that you get more infections, more hospitalizations than you
would get from the people who were in the non
vaccinated control group. And that's what I was talking about,
that we're getting what we don't want. I'm sure that
(39:00):
I saw that graph.
Speaker 4 (39:02):
And it wasn't and it was.
Speaker 3 (39:05):
In that It's not in that quadrant. It's in the
article which they put on the web. That's where I
saw it.
Speaker 2 (39:12):
Yeah, And when I printed it, I always go print friendly,
so I knock them out because I've only got I've
got to got black print anyway.
Speaker 4 (39:23):
But you know that you know the graph I'm talking
about it.
Speaker 3 (39:25):
Yes, yes, I do.
Speaker 2 (39:26):
It's very scary, isn't it. There's a lot that's scary.
But in answer to your question directly, absolutely, you know.
Speaker 3 (39:34):
I contacted Sarah Carrara, who's the chief. I haven't met her,
but I wrote to her and we actually had an exchange.
She didn't answer my first two emails, and I wrote
and said, come on, I'm a professional.
Speaker 4 (39:46):
You're a professional.
Speaker 3 (39:47):
And I said, you know, I think your work's the
best in the world. Of course, she's followed the epidemiology
right through from twenty twenty one. But I said, what
you're showing, don't you think it's pretty confusing? And she said,
oh no, I think the vaccine's terrific. And I said,
have you really looked their own data? And she stopped
(40:11):
answering after that, You embarrassed her. I wasn't trying to
embarrass her in any form. No, no, no, But was
that the reason for the note. I don't think anyone
else had sort of had said, hey, wait a second,
what you're showing are the problems, not the answers. I
can't understand how somebody can not be aware of that.
(40:31):
We'll tell you that there's another guy who's involved. He's
a very different sort of person. He works for the
Cleveland Clinic and he's been doing exactly what Sarah has
been doing. He's an Indian chap he's an infectious disease physician,
and this is very interesting. He was the first to
show this negative immunity. And when he showed it very
(40:53):
early in he found that the people who had three
or more vaccines were getting more infections than the people
who had less than three or more, and he got
dumped on by all the fact checkers and I saw
he answered by saying, this is the data. I don't
understand it. So I wrote to him and we have
(41:14):
an active two way email exchange and he's a great guy,
and he thanked me for pointing out the immunology. He said,
you know, we infectious these physicians, we do not understand
the immunology. And if you look at who's running these
programs in New Zealand and Australia, they're infectious to these
physicians who are very good at treating infections, but they're
(41:36):
not immunologists. And this guy has and the scariest thing
about my friend of the Cleveland Clinic is he's looking
not at this is thirty to fifty thousand people who
work for the Cleveland Clinic, not a few. And he's
now looked at the latest flu pandemic, not pandemic, but
the flu season with the standard flu vaccinations. In the
(42:01):
same populations have been getting the COVID vaccines and for
the first time ever, twenty seven cent of the vaccinated
people had more flu infections than there was a twenty
seven percent increase in flu infections in the vaccinator group
compared with the non flu vaccinator group. In other words,
(42:22):
this immune suppression looks as though can spread to affect
other outcomes.
Speaker 2 (42:28):
Right, So the immune repression is a new phrase, all right.
Speaker 3 (42:35):
The Nobel Prize was given this year strangely for that
true for im okay, all right, But when I say
when I say in the new phrase, it hasn't been
banded about too much publicly has it been prior to this?
Speaker 4 (42:51):
Not at all? Because no one wants to know it exists.
Speaker 3 (42:53):
It doesn't fit the narrative exactly, although I did get
a Nobel prize.
Speaker 2 (42:58):
That's exactly my point. Well, here's another good question, then,
based on all of the above, how come it won
the Nobil Prize. You would have thought that with all
going on behind the scenes that you're discussing, and there
must have been much of it, then you'd have to
be I'll turn it into a question, would you have
(43:19):
to be pretty brave to award the Nobel Prize for it?
Speaker 3 (43:23):
Or can I answer that by telling you about the
Nobel Prize the year before. The Nobel Prize the year
before was given to two people who had got the
prize by inserting into Messenger RNA. Many people watching though
there are four bases, and it's all about a coding
of rearranging these bases, and to make it more stable
(43:46):
and lasts longer, they changed one of the bases, which
is called urrosiallt using pseudo uridine. And without that they
couldn't have made the Messenger RNA vaccine that got the
Nobel Prize in twenty twenty four. Within weeks of them
getting the Nobel Prize, the Cambridge Group showed that by
(44:10):
putting this pseudouriitine into the Messenger RNA it called slippage.
In the reading, you can imagine the Messenger rena.
Speaker 4 (44:18):
Goes into a cell and it's got to be read.
Speaker 3 (44:20):
The information's read to make a new protein, the spike protein,
which then stimulates immunity, and in doing that, it's called
a plus one slippage, which means that twenty twenty percent
of people who were immunized with the messenger RNA vaccine
were producing abnormal proteins in the blood. Abnormal proteins. Some
(44:44):
of these abnormal proteins have the ability to catalyze a
process called amyloid deposition. The Japanese around the same time
suddenly found a significant increase in the report of certain
aspects of dementia, which is caused, we believe by amyloid deposition.
Now I'm not saying all this, I'm simply saying that
(45:07):
there's these red flags that are appearing that no one
wants to see as red flag, saying stop, let's work
this out, because too many things are happening that we
don't understand. But the Nobel Prize was refuted within weeks
of it being awarded the following year, I think it's
wonderful that they went and awarded it to the very
(45:29):
thing that they're stimulating with their Messenger RNA vaccines. Because remember,
you do not control the dose of anigen when you
put in a genetic message, Because it goes to every
cell in the body, every well can become potentially a factory.
Whereas a tetanus vaccine or any of the normal vaccines
is a tiny little bit of measured anigen that you
(45:51):
stick into your arm and goes to your regional lymph nodes.
Totally different situation. And when you don't control the anigen,
you get a more pronounced tolerance or downregulation affect you
to suppression.
Speaker 2 (46:04):
Let me, let me just refer to a few things
I scribbled down and you've just targeted one of them,
and you'll understand mRNA has no targeting system.
Speaker 4 (46:16):
True.
Speaker 3 (46:17):
So what does that mean, Well, what it means is
that any cell messenger RNA, if you just put ordinary
messenger RNA into the body, it gets broken up and dissipates.
And so they had to do two things to make
sure it got into cells so it could translate its
message into making the spike protein adigen.
Speaker 4 (46:38):
And so they did two things.
Speaker 3 (46:41):
They changed one of the bases, the pseudourinine, which we
talked about a minute ago, and they encased it in
what's called a lipid nanoparticle. Which has a very powerful
effect at helping it get into a cell. And so
potentially every cell in the body can take up messenger
RNA when it's delivered in this particular format. So the
(47:02):
messenger RNA itself doesn't have a target other than a
cell to act as a factory. And once it does that,
it puts the Any cell that makes the spike protein
is going to have that spike protein stuck on its
surface as a foreign protein. And when you get a
foreign protein, the body says, well, we'll make an immune
response to that. So is it such a surprise that
(47:24):
you get like an autoimmune response. The T cells come
along and destroy the cell that's making the spike protein,
and you get myaciditis, you get brain problems, problems potentially
anywhere in the body, which is what obviously we've been
seeing for four years now.
Speaker 2 (47:43):
It's amount of interest the talking of myocarditis. Is there
any any period of time in which that will happen
or must happen, or is it something that can extend
its availability? If you understand what I mean, for well,
(48:05):
almost eternity.
Speaker 4 (48:06):
We don't know. We don't know. I mean, how long
is a piece of string?
Speaker 3 (48:10):
We know that in studying from Yale, which is a
highly reputable group in the Yale University States, they were
finding they were finding spike protein floating around in the
blood of people with chronic post vaccine problems. Two. They
stopped looking at two years, and they were finding it
two years later. So we know that people have post
(48:36):
mortems from heart attacks and things like this years later
and they're finding spike protein and T cell responses to
that in the tissues. We don't know how long it
can stay in some people. What about IgG four? What
about it? What do you want to know about it?
Anything you can tell me, No, how long is piece
(48:57):
of string? You know, it's interesting. A lot of people
who know nothing about the immunology of this disease have
suddenly found IgG four is increased, and it's all part
of the tolerizing process.
Speaker 4 (49:09):
Remember, let's go back to you.
Speaker 3 (49:12):
Inhaling a virus, we call that an antigen because it's foreign.
It's no different to inhaling a pollen. Now, if you
inhale pollens, some people will get asthma or hay fever,
which is an exaggerated immune response. Some people don't now
the way, if you go to analogist and ask for treatment.
(49:35):
More often than not, he's going to say, I'm going
to give you a set of injections, and that set
of injections is the pollen adigen, and so you give it.
And what you're doing is stimulating the balance we talked
about a balance between protection and suppression. And the more
you inject the antigen, the more suppression you get, and
(49:55):
you turn off the symptoms of asthma and hay fever.
And people say that's terrific. There's no real difference between
giving people every six months or so a shot of
COVID messenger RNA. And remember you're not controlling the ad
engine dose, so it's continuing to be made. You're pouring that.
(50:16):
You're doing the same thing as the allergis is doing.
You're turning off the immune response, which means you get
more infections, and you're getting this tolerance which seems now
as though can overflow to other biological systems.
Speaker 2 (50:30):
I scribbled down you understand that. I'll say, no, I do,
But if you want to say it again, go for it. No, No,
why don't you give me your intermation.
Speaker 3 (50:40):
No I didn't get it quite in that world.
Speaker 4 (50:43):
No, No, I'm not being nasty.
Speaker 3 (50:45):
I just people do not understand this very simple biological
principle that's been around since since one hundred years.
Speaker 2 (50:53):
Right now, that's I mean, this is why I just
gave you IBG four and then I head after that
IgG four, I scribbled, I scribbled more shots bad. Right,
The more shots you get, the more you're going to
you will go to get or more likely you're going.
Speaker 3 (51:11):
To get crook. Exactly what Sarah carraras in the Quebec
studies and so of the Cleveland clinic. They're shown exactly
this in large and large number, thousands and thousands of people.
And that's because you've destroyed your immunity. No, you're not
destroying your immunity. You're changing the balance of positive and
(51:31):
negative because that's what the mw cosal immune system is
all about. Very different to the sterilizing immunity inside the body.
What happens you spread the suppressor cells throughout the body.
A fantastic study has just come out. I saw it yesterday,
perfect timing, where they've actually looked analyzed the impact of
(51:55):
getting coronavirus infections through life as a cornersing a cold.
The COVID is simply a coronavirus that's been manipulated one
way or the other into one, it's more likely to
invade the body. And so by having coronavirus infections, you're
priming the person. And this woman has done a PhD
(52:18):
in the States showing this is exactly what's been happening.
And the people who are primed with antibody and immunity
to coronavirus is because they've had them in the past.
If they get into hospital and they've been vaccinated, they've
got a greater chance of dying. Now, that is very
scary stuff, and it's showing exactly what we have been
(52:39):
talking about, and it's now been shown in a molecular fashion.
Speaker 2 (52:45):
Well, you've fulfilled my wish in answering the question.
Speaker 3 (52:52):
It was I didn't ask the question about IgG four though,
I just IgG four is one of four subclasses of
the IgG, the main antibody in blood, and the way
in which these T cells operate to suppress or activate
is by helping the antibody, making cells work and making
(53:14):
them make better and better antibody. As you get more
and more stimulation by vaccines or lots of covid or
allergy shots, then the T cell changes the pattern of
impact on anybody making and shifts shifts it to an
(53:34):
IgG four which has a counter effect on more protective
IgG antibodies. And so it's part of this toleerzing process
induced by the T suppressor cells.
Speaker 2 (53:48):
That's as simple as that. So I want to ask
you this question and everyone will get this. There are
still ads on messenger shots and people are responding to them.
I don't know in what numbers, but not as big
as they would have once upon a time.
Speaker 4 (54:04):
I know that.
Speaker 2 (54:05):
But the ad is usually accompanied by safe and effective.
Your take on.
Speaker 3 (54:14):
That, well, you know what might take is, but I
want you to share it.
Speaker 4 (54:19):
Okay, No, I'm sorry. I'm not meaning to be flipping.
Speaker 3 (54:25):
They are not They are not safe, and at this
stage they're not particularly effective. In fact, they're counter effective.
You can be worse off. I mean, I have friends
that tell me how they've had five or six or
seven vaccines and they can't understand it why they're so
sick with COVID. They ring me up for treatment, and
(54:49):
I say, well, of course you're going to get more COVID.
So vaccination with messenger RNA vaccines are not safe. There's
a study that just came out from South Korea, which
people should be aware of, and that is they compared
the benefits, the outcome benefits from comparing a Fireser Messenger
(55:11):
RNA vaccine with a NOVA with the antigen vaccine from
what is it Nova something, and the kids who were
getting the antigen vaccine had more protection than the kids
who were getting the Messenger RNA simply because you don't
get the same degree of suppression with the antigen vaccine.
(55:35):
So that's the first data of direct comparison that exists,
and it did not favor the Messenger RNA vaccine. And
yet where in New Zealand can you get the what
is it? I've got a metal block on the name
of the company that makes the Nova. No, no, there's
(55:58):
fires from are doing to make the Messenger RNA. And
then there's a company called they bring out an anigen
vaccine which we used to be able to get but
we can't get now in Australia, I can't recall I stopped.
Speaker 2 (56:10):
Listening and reading. Now's the time that now's the time.
I'm just going to say that I watched this morning
the discussion you had with the dark Horse podcast whatever
it is. But it's a it's a video the dark Horse.
Now I didn't have time to go back and catch
(56:32):
the name of the guy who runs it.
Speaker 3 (56:35):
Can you record it?
Speaker 4 (56:37):
Yeah, it's Brent Bret.
Speaker 3 (56:40):
Brett Brett does it doesn't matter, but yes, he's quite
he's quite a big podcaster in the States.
Speaker 2 (56:49):
So at the end of it, or towards the end,
he said, what we must do is actually take the
example of COVID, where we've gotten as close as we
are ever going to get to to seeing the dysfunction
of our system, and we should analyze what took place.
How did we allow ourselves to be marched in this direction,
(57:13):
to apply these remedies, to ignore other remedies that actually work.
How did that happen. If we can get to the
bottom of the story of COVID, we will know how
to cure our system. But they're going to fend off
that investigation with everything they've got.
Speaker 3 (57:30):
You know, that's a very very accurate statement. I'd forgotten
he said that, but I couldn't say it better myself.
Speaker 2 (57:38):
See, we've got these inquiries going on in both Australia
and New Zealand which are all a joke, exactly waste
of space and money. If you've got something useful to say,
you're not asked to say it. I know people fall
into that category. So having dealt with that, the WHO
and I was on top of this move by the
(58:01):
wahow up until more recently when we took a holiday
and forgot everything that was going on.
Speaker 3 (58:08):
Much.
Speaker 2 (58:09):
What's your reaction to the changes that the WHO is
flogging with regard to the next crisis and the one
after that.
Speaker 3 (58:19):
Well, the first thing is to realize that WHO is
not what it used to be. It's always been a
political organization, but what's happened is that then it is
now essentially run by outside vested interests that are not
just governments. They're heavily funded by private industry and private individuals.
(58:46):
They have this worldview which seems to support their own
profit motivations.
Speaker 4 (58:54):
I mean, even looking at this as benign.
Speaker 3 (58:56):
A way as you can, you can't have one size
fit all, which is essentially what they're trying to propose.
Speaker 4 (59:05):
The one size fit all pretty concerning.
Speaker 3 (59:09):
But you know, to have an organization like the WHO
with a track record which is nothing short of appalling
over the COVID era telling you in New Zealand, and
us in Australia, how to run our medical services, and
how to prepare for the next facts the next it's.
Speaker 4 (59:28):
Laughable if it wasn't so serious.
Speaker 3 (59:31):
And we're about to put in play from January one
our own CDC in Australia. God only knows how that's
going to function. It'll be hand in hand, I assume
with the whhow and you and I aren't going to
be listened to?
Speaker 2 (59:47):
Well, there's no reason why I should be, but every
reason why you should be. Did you ever meet Ashley Bloomfield? No,
I don't know, Actually Bluefield, don't know the name. He
was in charge of everything here during COVID, basically, and
he scored a knighthood through it. He sold all the
(01:00:10):
things that we've talked about that are wrong.
Speaker 4 (01:00:14):
Now we've got a few of those.
Speaker 3 (01:00:15):
Yeah, well we had your center too.
Speaker 4 (01:00:18):
Don't forget. I'm sorry, ohouldn't laugh?
Speaker 2 (01:00:23):
Well, it's healthy to laugh, you know. Well, finally, let's
just talk about the book for a moment or two.
You mentioned it earlier, COVID Through our Eyes an austrated
story of mistakes, mistreatment and misinformation. Now at this point
I'm going to be accusative and I'm going to suggest
that one of the mistakes you made was not including
(01:00:44):
at least one chapter on New Zealand.
Speaker 3 (01:00:47):
You really should have. Yeah, a good point.
Speaker 2 (01:00:51):
Edited by Professor Robert Clancy and doctor Melissa McCann. Now
there are nineteen chapters in Part one.
Speaker 3 (01:01:01):
Part two.
Speaker 2 (01:01:02):
Personal Encounters doesn't doesn't have a chapter number, and it's
a book that I believe anybody who is interested in
this particular subject should get their hands on. It's one
of the better ones. He starts off with what this
book is about, finishes with the futurists, that is he
(01:01:24):
being Robert Clancy, and in between there are numerous people
in various areas, including Gigi Faster, who we had on
the podcast way back in twenty one on Podcast one
three two. How did I remember that? And it's a
book that will answer a lot of questions I believe.
Speaker 3 (01:01:44):
Am I wrong? I don't know if I think it
puts questions, It identifies what we do know, It gives
some ideas of things how we can do things better.
It's a bit hard for me to be too critical
of different aspects, but no, what we've tried to do
(01:02:04):
is to tell our experience from different perspectives. No one
was told what to write. They all had free reign
to write what they wanted to write. There's a certain
consistency of views, as you would note, and some people
have got different ideas and views. But by and large,
it's an indictment of a process that we went through.
(01:02:28):
It's an indictment of the way in which it was
run and the outcomes. Our failure, I think, the failure
of government to honestly assess what went wrong and if
they liked what went right, is extremely disappointing because our
government and it seems I thought your government would be
(01:02:50):
more open and more objective. Well, no, I think we did.
We held our great hope for the New Zealand government.
Oh yes, that's what I'm laughing at. Yeah, and I
think you've let the team down a little. But you know,
quiries we had were amazing. I knew some of the statisticians,
(01:03:14):
for example, looking at excess deaths. The excess death business
is seriously concerning. The Japanese have come out with They've
done what no one else has been able to do,
and that is look at excess deaths in the vaccinated
versus the non vaccinator, and they show that the excess
deaths is essentially confined to the vaccinated group, and there's
(01:03:36):
a delay of several months, which means that the early
studies looking at what's going on would miss the bulk
of the exces deaths. And they looked at twenty one
million people. You know, this was not just a group
of a couple of hundred.
Speaker 2 (01:03:52):
This book takes up the story of the actual medical
response to COVID nineteen. In contrast to the plan. COVID
in Australia is a narrative in fifteen stages. It's want
to refer to stage number ten Australia's Therapeutic Goods Administration,
the TGA, which we share with you.
Speaker 3 (01:04:12):
No, well, you've got your own. They talk to each other.
Speaker 2 (01:04:15):
Well, I think the weight of numbers might win out anyway.
Fast tracked genetic vaccine approvals with scanty supporting data at
every level. These vaccines have been used in medical practice
and better fitted the definition of gene therapy than their
classification as vaccines. But it was the the TGA and
(01:04:40):
the genetic aspect of it that I wanted to I
said I was going to finish on the last on
the last point, but I want your opinion if you
if you care to share it, if you have one,
with regard to what is going on here at the moment,
with the the therapeutic and genetic aspect of life. And
(01:05:01):
the prime example I utilize is that they're doing away
with the contents of a whatever is in a can.
You've got a can of beans. There's nothing to read
on the back to tell you how it's come about,
or detail about it, or whether it's whether it's been
fiddled with along the way. Why are they doing that,
(01:05:23):
you tell me, I mean, that's extraordinary. I mean, I
think we're moving into an era where subtle changes in preparation,
subtle constituents put in can have a major health outcomes.
And I mean, I'm not an expert in the area,
but you know, I recently went to a talk on
(01:05:47):
some of these plastic materials that are in our water supplies,
and no one has a clue what they do. There's
no real evidence they do anything, but they might. I
think that we're finding these things.
Speaker 3 (01:06:00):
If you don't identify what we're eating in cans and whatevers,
we're never going to know any answers. It's a bit
like not telling people that the vaccines, a messenger RNA vaccine,
what's the difference? Just say this is a vaccine for COVID.
Speaker 2 (01:06:17):
All right, So let me suggest there is a connection
between the who what eliminating the contents and the weather
come from, et cetera. Inside a can of whatever it
might be or a packet may have something to do
with the World Economic Forum and their goal.
Speaker 4 (01:06:38):
I would not be at all surprised.
Speaker 2 (01:06:41):
I'm not I'm glad you said that, because I'm not
saying it is I'm saying that the opportunity there is
there to assume that it may well be.
Speaker 3 (01:06:50):
I wouldn't be at all surprised. I think it's consistent
with the general thoughts in the area exactly. Very concerning.
Last question, where do you go from here with your
with your work? Well, maybe four next week, so I'd
(01:07:13):
like to think where we go. I'd like to think
that if nothing else I can. At a personal level,
I am particularly concerned about people who have got vaccine
messenger RNA vaccine damage. So I'm setting up a small
clinic where I see such patients. But what I'm trying
to do is set up a program that is easily
(01:07:36):
transportable to the people who will see a lot more
because we're making a huge difference in the outcomes by
treating them with ivermectin. About sixty seventy percent of these
people their life changes. In fact, last week I had
an email from a patient complaining it had one week
of I've amectin. The guy had terrible fatigue, he said,
(01:07:56):
he said, I've been reborn.
Speaker 4 (01:07:58):
He said.
Speaker 3 (01:07:58):
My wife has asked me to go to the doctor
because she thinks I've got mania because she hasn't seen
me like this for so long. Now, that's an extraordinary outcome,
But most of the patients are benefiting. And yet no
one wants to treat basins this way because the drug's
got such a bad name through what happened at a
(01:08:20):
political and company level through COVID. And yet it's the
highest binding chemical to COVID spike protein that exists, and
it's very effective at a personal level.
Speaker 4 (01:08:35):
That's what I'm going to do.
Speaker 3 (01:08:37):
At a more generic level, I'm hoping that a few
other people can do what I've been doing and come
from a basic science evidence viewpoint of mucosal iminology, which
very few people seem to have that specialty interest.
Speaker 2 (01:08:54):
Well, there will be people who will be asking me,
how do I find you? How do they do you have?
Do you have any response?
Speaker 3 (01:09:03):
Look, I get emails from people every day at a
half dozen, dozen, twenty. I can't answer them. I don't
know what to say to these people because I've got it.
You won't believe this. I've got someone from Canada coming
out to see me because they cannot get with terrible
post COVID vaccine damage, just total fatigue, total brain fog,
(01:09:27):
and no one will treat them with. I've emectin, So
he's coming out to see me in Sydney. I said,
don't do that's crazy, But that's how sad the situation is.
I can't I'm only seeing eight people every second week
now because I said, I've got other things to do.
(01:09:48):
I'm trying to find other doctors that will do this.
I'm talking with a couple of people at the moment,
but they're dead scared. They don't want to prescribe, even
though it's totally legal. I've a mectin because they get banned.
You know, there are people here that haven't worked for
four years because they legally prescribed. I've amectan g good GPS,
(01:10:10):
probably the same in New Zealand.
Speaker 2 (01:10:11):
Well, we've got doctor shortages here. That's the insanity of
it is. There are still people, as far as I'm aware,
who lost their lost their jobs, not just in the
medical field but in others because they wouldn't they wouldn't
be assaulted. And it's crazy when when there is a
(01:10:32):
shortage of fireman for instance, just as an example.
Speaker 3 (01:10:36):
Yeah, well the current economy wills probably sort that out
a bit.
Speaker 2 (01:10:41):
Robert, it's been great talking with it, seriously enjoyable, entertaining
and in places and informative.
Speaker 3 (01:10:48):
Well, it's been very nice from my perspective to talk
to an Australian New Zealander trans Tasman trans Tasman. It's
the only trans we except these days. So thank you
and may we talk again sometime.
Speaker 4 (01:11:03):
It would be a great pleasure. Nice talking to you, lad.
Speaker 3 (01:11:20):
Well.
Speaker 2 (01:11:20):
I think you can tell that he's a good man.
He is a great man actually in my opinion, and
the people who joined forces with him to publish this
book deserve to be commended. There are so many books around,
aren't they that you'd love to read. Haven't got the time,
haven't got the money, whatever it might be, but you've
got to get your hands on some of these because
(01:11:41):
they're so very very informative, and information this day and
age is more important than ever. So we got one
more to go from the best of the year, and
then we shall rejoin the usual program. So whatever is
left of your holiday or might be, I just say,
(01:12:02):
enjoy it and life will return to normal in a
couple of weeks.
Speaker 1 (01:12:09):
M Thank you for more from Used Talks at b
Listen live on air or online, and keep our shows
with you wherever you go with our podcasts on iHeartRadio
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Bleep! with Ana Navarro
Fear thrives in silence and confusion. Ana Navarro rejects both. Her voice is an antidote to today’s chaos. Her new podcast, Bleep! with Ana Navarro, takes on today’s most pressing issues with the voices most connected to it: decision-makers, political leaders, cultural shapers, and people on the frontlines of the story. The conversations acknowledge the emotions we all feel—despair, sadness, fear— but emerge with knowledge, perspective, and hope. The belief is simple: fearless dialogue can transform fear into courage, and courage into change. When fear dominates the headlines, this show digs deeper. Because information, debate, and conversation don’t just ease fear, they give us power to shape the future.
Hey Jonas!
Hey Jonas! The official Jonas Brothers podcast. Hosted by Kevin, Joe, and Nick Jonas. It’s the Jonas Brothers you know... musicians, actors, and well, yes, brothers. Now, they’re sharing another side of themselves in the playful, intimate, and irreverent way only they can. Spend time with the Jonas Brothers here and stay a little bit longer for deep conversations like never before.