Looking back on the last five years
A roundtable discussion with a group of expert medical scientists and doctors
At this time of five year anniversaries of the various events of Spring 2020, this insightful roundtable discussion1 is well worth a look.
The discussion — transcribed below, with additional links and comments — speaks for itself.
The presenter is Eddie Hobbs, who is well-known in Ireland, with RTE being Ireland’s equivalent of the BBC. His bio reminds me somewhat of Martin Lewis:
Hobbs is also the author of Breaking The Silence: On The Return Of Totalitarianism:
[Eddie Hobbs] You’re very welcome to what’s going to be a very interesting discussion with a group of expert medical scientists and doctors who’ve joined us from the United Kingdom…
Ros Jones… a consultant paediatrician with a special interest in infectious disease for newborns, and who set up the Children’s Covid Vaccine Advisory Council (CCVAC)
Clare Craig… a fellow… of the Royal College of Pathologists [for] 15 years, and a specialist in cancer
Jonathan Engler… a doctor… a lawyer and…an entrepreneur. He has a special interest in… clinical trials from early in his career
Gerry Quinn… a post-doctoral researcher, specialising in microbiology and immunology
And Liz Evans, a former NHS doctor… CEO of the UK Medical Freedom Alliance (UKMFA)
Further biographical information on the participants can be found here.
[Eddie Hobbs] I want to try and bring this down to brass tacks… Clare… imagine for a second that we’re back 20 years ago… roughly around 2005. So you’ve gone back in a time machine and we’re just setting off to go forward now to 2024. And over that period, in 2009, the World Health Organisation changed the definition of a pandemic. It reduced down the morbidity levels and the fatality levels as part of the definition. So it really became about infectiousness…
mRNA… Moderna started off in 2011… mobile phones are [becoming] ubiquitous... People are getting information coming at them [at] a rate of knots… And [as you travel forward in time] you arrive in [2020] and you see a global lockdown, which was completely contrary to the science of 20 years ago when it comes to a respiratory virus. You see cancellation culture left… right and centre… doctors losing their licence. We, one of them here, Dr Gerry Waters, contesting that vigorously. We see… the cancel culture absolutely rife, and censorship on platforms like TikTok and YouTube. We also see the use of… PCR tests at a very elevated cycle, which creates almost like a phantom… report on infectiousness.
So you’ve arrived into that. We’ve just landed [from 2005], and you’re asked, “What do you see?” Describe it to me. Is this a pandemic? And if it’s not a pandemic, what is it?
[Clare Craig] Yes, there’s so much that has changed in that time. I think it’s really important to reflect on that. And things like… the way the media works and… medical journals… they’re not as independent as they used to be. And we haven’t even got the same political opposition that we used to have. So every level of dissent has been broken, as well as the free speech level.
And in terms of [how] people [might respond], I remember very vividly at medical school when we were learning about respiratory viruses, being told, “You cannot control a respiratory virus.” That was the… bottom line of the lecture. You cannot control a respiratory virus. They spread through the air. And so the idea that people would start to try and control one is laughable… If I was from 2005, I would just laugh because it’s such an extraordinary thing to pretend you can do. And so... seeing people covering their faces with masks... there is that… 1918 period when people did that, but there was a massive campaign against it. They showed that it didn’t work, and they won… Why are we pretending a hundred years later that that might work?
So yes, I think I would just be taken aback… I think [from a 2005 perspective] it would be considered a kind of hysterical reaction… And we can… live through where that came from. The fear that drove that way of thinking… we all were witnesses to it. We were all affected by it. And… having a government that is going to deliberately terrify their population is a very dark place to be… What you should see from people in authority at a time of crisis is them telling everybody not to panic and to calm down. And we saw the opposite.
The weaponisation of behavioural psychology is described in more detail e.g. here:
And here:
[Eddie Hobbs] And Ros… what do you then see in the 20-year gap that suddenly is different when it comes to ethics… and informed consent?
[Ros Jones] Well, before I [get to] that… I was a second year medical student in 1967 at the time of the Hong Kong flu. And there were 80,000 extra deaths in the UK. So population-wise — because obviously the population’s bigger now — that was a lot of deaths. Do I remember anything about it at all? No. I’ve got an email group with my colleagues and we had this thing buzzing round… “Can anybody remember it being busier at work? Did we have to wear special clothes…?”
Here is a reminder of the Office for National Statistics figures for the deaths in England and Wales in 2020 in the two months prior to the instruction to stay at home, during which time covid had reportedly been circulating:
2020 also stands in stark contrast to e.g. 2018 and 2023, which saw tens of thousands of excess deaths in January, February and March. And little by way of suggestion that healthy people should stay at home:
[Ros Jones] It was a slightly busy winter, and I think just on an ethical point of view… if I got called in… every day at work, I’m seeing kids with infections. If I got called into a child with meningococcal sepsis, I wouldn’t say, “Oh hang on, I can’t see them till I've got my PPE, my hazmat suit. You just [went] in and you did what needed to be done. You’d put a drip up, you’d put a tube down. You never thought about your own personal safety at all. And the parents would be in the room holding their hand.
I had a friend whose 8-year-old got covid, and they had been so frightened by [the] propaganda machine that they put this 8-year-old in their bedroom for 10 days, alone, and they did their meals [in] the microwave. They put a meal on a tennis racket, and [the mother] would hold it out, tap the door, then step back so the child could open the door and reach out… so they didn’t get less than their two metres social distancing — between this mum and her child who was ill. I just don’t recognise the ethical place that we’re in, at all… how fear propaganda makes people panic and take completely irrational decisions.
[Eddie Hobbs] And Gerry… you made a point [earlier about the] unknowns about the interface between this new [vaccine] technology… the first time it’s been [used on] a global basis… and our DNA. And you’ve just stepped off the time machine and suddenly you’re looking at this and you’re… scratching your head saying, what is this… technology?
[Gerry Quinn] 2005… actually, there was some kind of technology out then… Back in 1999 there was a famous program for introducing genetic technology, but one of the subjects died, so they put a moratorium on it. And then they continued, maybe around 2010… And they thought they had fixed some of the technical hitches — call it technical hitches… And then two people died in the experimental trial, and then the other eight were hospitalised immediately. So… nothing… has been experimentally proven.
[Eddie Hobbs] And Liz, at the end of the Second World War, you had… a meeting all about what happened when the Nazis were experimenting, and they were just trampling over proper medical ethics at the time, to put it mildly. And… I didn’t know anything about the Nuremberg Code until I started to research all this. And there it was… number one [of the ten points]… informed consent. There has to be informed consent.
The ten points of the Nuremberg Code can be viewed here:
[Eddie Hobbs] And… as one of the contributions from the floor this morning said, there [were] 23,000 doctors registered with the Irish Medical Council. And, only about 10 of them stood up. And they allowed informed consent to be trampled to death. I mean, could you have envisaged that happening… 20 years ago?
[Liz Evans] No. And I think [that] because the Nuremberg code was from the trial of the Nazi doctors, and basically, at the end, they said, “Informed consent of the individual is absolutely essential. There can be no fraud, deceit, duress, coercion.” So it was very much… it has to be freely given. So yes, I think if you then arrived in 2024 you’d be like, “What happened to the doctors?” And I think… I would have thought I [had] landed in some dystopian novel… George Orwell, didn’t he write about this… Have we just arrived in some Brave New World, or 1984…?
But it feels like humans aren’t very good at learning from history…. and actually, doctors were… one of the biggest adopters of joining the Nazi party.
According to this 2018 article in the American Journal of Public Health, doctors in Nazi Germany were “leaders in eugenics and ‘euthanasia’”:
And according to this 2012 article in the International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, more than half of all German doctors became early joiners of the Nazi Party:
[Liz Evans] The way we are trained [as doctors]… I think we… easily… go along with the establishment. And then you’ve got this arrogance, this hubris… it is doctors playing God, isn’t it? Believing that, if we do enough things, that we can literally control the outcome of a natural process. And I think this is why we have the Hippocratic Oath, which is to first do no harm, because there’s a recognition that doing anything can often be… worse than doing nothing. And often the cure is worse than the disease. And I think that’s exactly… the mistake that has been made again.
In [terms of] history… when people look back, they’ll say, “What happened?! People lost their minds… How could you leave your grandma or your child to die alone? For me, that was just red flag… red flag. When have doctors ever closed their doors and said, “I’m not seeing my patients because I’m scared of them… they might infect me”? I remember taking blood from HIV patients. We had a specialist ward when I was training, and you knew that if you got a needle stick, you could catch what at the time was incurable. But you never held your the patient responsible for protecting you. You just knew you had to be careful. And there was always a risk. And doctors have always known it.
It’s like people who climb up on the top of roofs… there’s a risk they could fall off, but they still do their job. We can’t eliminate risks. And I think it’s this arrogance to believe that we can create a sanitised society where there is no risk… that has caused catastrophic collateral damage... way worse than if we’d literally done nothing… I think we’d be in a very different place today, and there would be a lot less suffering going on.
[Eddie Hobbs] Jonathan, you have a colleague in PANDA… Nick Hudson… I actually have something that he has said quoted in something I’m writing at the moment…
[Jonathan Engler] What other people have called Hudson’s razor… he didn’t come up with that phrase… somebody else did. The full formulation is that if there’s something presented as a global problem, for which only a global response will do… and anybody who speaks out against it is censored, then you know it’s a scam.
See e.g. the two-minute clip of Nick Hudson featured in this post:
Q. Do you think there is a parallel between covid and climate?
Yes, let’s take a step back.
The general rule of thumb, that I believe everybody should adopt, is that if any problem is being presented as a global crisis, then it is a scam. And the pattern that we are confronted with is really the fabrication of global crises. The presentation either of non-existent problems or small local problems as being general global crises. That fabrication, followed by the assertion that the only solutions that are permissible are global ones that require a global authority, global control. That is the general pattern that we are up against.
The covid policy response was one of those. Look at what happened to countries like Sweden or Tanzania who tried to push back against… the new orthodoxy.
The climate crisis, or climate change crisis, is another example, where we are told that the biggest threat to the world is this molecule CO2, and that an increase in the level of this molecule will cause an increase in temperature, and that that temperature increase will be bad for us, and that the only thing that we can do is consume fewer fossil fuels and less energy. That is fitting the pattern exactly.
The other things you can observe… Instead of presenting science as an ongoing evolving activity, it is presented in terms of static knowledge, consensus. And you see the cancellation and censorship of dissident voices rather than engagement with them. These patterns are proof of a scam. That is what people need to understand. Whenever something is presented as “the science”, as a consensus, it is a scam. You do not have to go and get engaged with in all of the minutiae of the scientific principles and the models and the measurements at all. You can know with absolute certainty that you are dealing with a scam when dissent is suppressed.
[Eddie Hobbs] This is a question for the panel broadly… Do you think then… that the Nuremberg Code should be enshrined into international laws…? Is that the solution? Because… this could all happen again, couldn’t it?
[Liz Evans] Well, it kind of is… Medical ethics are the framework that upholds every person’s right to decide what happens to their body, and to have informed choice, and not to be coerced into anything. And we have that in the NHS constitution in the UK… we have it in international law, we have it in professional codes of practice. Doctors and nurses have professional codes of practice where they have to practise informed consent. So it’s already there… [but] people have just ignored it, and nobody has gone after people who have broken informed consent.
[Jonathan Engler] It’s worth appreciating the limits of legal mechanisms and legal structures. If you think [about] what happened from 2020 onwards, basically it didn’t really matter what the structure of governments was. You had codified legal systems like Europe. You’ve got common law legal systems like the UK, Ireland, Australia, and so on. You’ve got dictatorships, you’ve got constitutional systems like the US. Basically, governments learned how to weaponise propaganda, and that basically just makes everybody do what they want. So it’s very important not to focus on legal mechanisms to prevent this happening again. What really prevents this happening again is to reveal the utter ridiculousness of the story that everybody was told.
[Eddie Hobbs] But as a lawyer… when you look at, for example… my note here on the 23rd August, 2021… the FDA in America — the Food and Drink Administration… coinciding with the exact day that the Pfizer vaccine was launched, said, of a medicine that was being repurposed, quite successfully in many parts of the world… which was ivermectin… said, and I’m quoting here, “You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it.”
[Eddie Hobbs] This is the regulator of the US industry interfering in the market to promote a vaccine from a pharmaceutical company. What did you make of that?
[Jonathan Engler] Well, obviously the regulators [are] completely overstepping the mark there... I have mixed opinions about repurposed drugs generally, because I don’t believe there’s anything serious enough to require repurposed drugs in the first place.
[Eddie Hobbs] Can I pause you there? Why would you say that? That’s a very interesting comment. Are you suggesting that the pandemic was more of a phantom event than it was a real event?
[Jonathan Engler] No, I’m just saying that… as Liz said… had we done nothing, we probably would have noticed very little…
As noted earlier, before we were ordered into panic mode on 23rd March 2020, deaths in England at Wales were close to (or below) normal levels. Despite the fact that covid had reportedly been circulating at least since the end of January.
[Jonathan Engler] You’ve got to remember that we completely flipped on its head the way that anybody with any respiratory illness was treated. And of course the signal of whatever it was that had been detected was… there beforehand. Wherever it’s been looked for, it’s been found beforehand. And during a period where people were being treated normally, and health systems were working normally, there [were] no excess deaths or reports of any unusual illness at all.
So one has to question whether or not it was actually the response to the perception that there was something around that actually caused the harm.
But that notwithstanding, the story about the FDA and ivermectin is relevant because it shows you the mindset, which was that, “Nothing is going interfere with us — us [being] the regulators… and the government and the establishment — being the ones who “got us out of the pandemic” by the rollout of [an] “essential vaccine”. And of course, it was important for legal reasons in the US… for the emergency use authorisation [for the vaccine that] there was no alternative [treatment]. So that was… almost certainly what was behind that.
[Eddie Hobbs] In other words, they couldn’t have got the vaccines over the line if existing medicines could be repurposed to deal with the problem, and therefore ivermectin was targeted and hydroxychloroquine was targeted.
[Jonathan Engler] That’s essentially it. And you can have that view of the dynamic, how that played out, regardless of what you think about ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. It shows you what their mindset was, which was to get this drug [the so-called covid vaccines] out on an EUA and get it into as many arms as possible, and thus be shown to be saviours.
[Eddie Hobbs] One question that I find very, very interesting is the global response to a respiratory virus was to let it go through, and to protect the most vulnerable. Stop me now, if I make a mess of this... I’ll throw this to the panel in just a second… remember… I have no medical background at all… And then suddenly there’s a pivot to going for a kind of a Chinese-style lockdown. And that was suddenly just accepted, and everybody was locking down, with very few exceptions really in the West. And I’m asking… “How did we get from the accepted science… how do we go from treating it the conventional way… as opposed to just basically locking down the West…?”
It was a very dramatic lockdown… Italy, in March 2020. And before we knew it, Ireland was in the longest lockdown in Europe. 90% of the population had been jabbed, many several times… believing it was the patriotic thing to do. I described [the Irish media] as Pravda at the time. And that was to put it mildly… it was cancellation culture… Ireland was the extreme example of a very hard clampdown on [anyone] counter-narrative.
I wonder to what degree Ireland’s media were involved with initiatives such as the Trusted News Initiative:
[Eddie Hobbs] So how did we go from all of these medical experts and scientists, who understood this stuff, getting into a lockdown? Explain that to me.
[Jonathan Engler] I don’t… actually think we know what… power dynamics are at play… at a geopolitical level. But… if you think about it in terms of a programming event that has gone on for several decades, and you think about what’s happened in the last few decades… You get this rise of what you might call… progressive politics. And in progressive politics there is a belief that you can control… things. And it’s going back to what Liz was saying, this idea — it’s not just in medicine; it’s in all aspects of our lives — that we can control through things, through social engineering. You could ask the same question… “Where did this Net Zero thing come from?” It’s completely mad and it doesn’t make any sense, and it’s going to destroy the world’s economy.
Maybe this 2010 TED talk had something to do with it…?
[Jonathan Engler] And also, where did the idea [come from] that… people can just flick a switch and change the agenda, and so on. And… planned managed centralised economies as well. So… this has all been building for several decades and become accepted while the Overton window has moved leftwards. So now the idea of free markets… and actually that gender is immutable… these things are now seen as heretical, fascist statements, but 20 years ago would have been pretty mainstream.
A couple other comments about the pandemic notions… I don’t know if anybody's noticed, but obviously since… 2000, and the advent of high-throughput sequencing, we have had an extraordinary number of “pandemic/near pandemics”.
Those observations fit with the use of the word “pandemic” since 1900:
NB the y-axis represents a percentage of total words used
[Jonathan Engler] So we’ve had SARS, MERS, H1N1 and so on. And I don’t think it is coincidental that we have had a whole industry hunting for viruses using new technology they don’t really understand… And then we’ve had these... near-miss pandemics, which all fizzled out because they presumably weren’t given enough marketing support, like the current [covid] event was.
And… other things that have happened, obviously… the rise of medication culture, which I think is important… as well. Over the last 20 years we’ve reached a situation where virtually everybody, as far as I know… everybody of my age, and I’m nearly 60… virtually everybody is on multiple medications… on statins. In the US, about 20% of adults take an SSRI inhibitor… antidepressant. These are quite complex, powerful medications. In the UK I think that the figure is more like 15%, but that’s still an astonishing number of adults taking drugs basically year on year.
And not a few children.
For more information on SSRIs, see e.g. this post:
[Jonathan Engler] So the culture has been very much towards “Technology will solve this problem.” And now we see it with Ozempic… there’s a headline in the Telegraph…
The government is going to consider Ozempic for unemployed people because they think that unemployed people don’t get a job because they’re overweight. I don’t where this logic comes from, but it’s insane…
Ozempic is a weight reduction medicine….semaglutide… the thing that everybody's going mad for at the moment… middle-class people getting private prescriptions for these injections and losing — and quite rightly losing — a lot of weight. But no long term data on the effects…
[Liz Evans] I think I could add to that because I was thinking the thing that’s changed is Big Pharma is now bigger than many countries’ GDP…
With revenues totalling around $1.6 trillion, the pharmaceutical industry’s size is apparently “now comparable to countries like Spain, Mexico, or Australia”:
[Liz Evans] They have vast amounts of wealth. And I think what has happened is they’ve moved from a business model where they treat sick people… So you have a sick person. And… in a population you only have a limited number of sick people. So you have a limit in your profits. If you can move that into getting healthy people to take drugs long-term... your profits have just risen exponentially.
And so vaccines, obviously, are basically the mass medication of healthy people, who may or may not ever benefit. And… you can never prove for an individual whether they benefited from their jab, in the same way that if you have high blood pressure and you take a high blood pressure pill, you can see if your blood pressure comes down… so you know if you’ve had a benefit.
[Jonathan Engler] But actually… mild to moderate hypertension, there’s no evidence of that reduction…
[Liz Evans] Yes, but what I’m saying [is] at least you have a parameter… This mass medication of people with long-term drugs… things that require boosters or, like this Ozempic, weekly [injections] for the rest of your life… [Big Pharma is] laughing all the way to the bank. And that gives you immense power. And money is then easily used to influence the media, governments, regulators, academic journals, medics.
I think that’s what’s going on… all of this “pandemic period” has actually… while it’s caused huge damage to the public… it’s benefited big pharma. They’ve just... created the biggest-selling product of all time, with vast, vast profits beyond our wildest dreams in 2005. So I think that’s where we’ve got to start looking, and how we can calm that system down and put proper controls around it.
[Clare Craig] Can I just make a contribution about that pivot in 2020… Likewise, I can’t tell you why it happened. I can tell you it was very strange that it happened, and it happened everywhere and it happened at about the same time. But what’s key for people to understand is that we had pandemic plans that had been established with experts over decades that set out what you should do in this circumstance. And the key to that is that they’re written in a calm environment, when people are being rational. And these were completely disregarded.
Here is a link to the World Health Organisation’s 2019 document Non-pharmaceutical public health measures for mitigating the risk and impact of epidemic and pandemic influenza. This is a snapshot from page 3:
[Clare Craig] And what these plans stated was that you don’t shut the schools. You don’t do very much at all. The main campaign was “Catch it, Bin it, Kill it.” It was a using tissues campaign. That was the main thrust of it… and there was a big emphasis on stockpiling antibiotics, because they knew — it was an influenza plan — that the real risk from a respiratory virus isn’t so much the virus as the bacterial pneumonia that you end up with in the end. And so antibiotics were critical to that. And what we saw happen in 2020 was that antibiotic prescriptions fell through the floor.
Here is the data from OpenPrescribing, which shows NHS prescriptions in England:
Denial of antibiotics. To comply with “covid protocols” such as the document NG163, COVID-19 rapid guideline: managing symptoms (including at the end of life) in the community, which is no longer available on the NICE website, but can be viewed e.g. here (archived version) or here (pdf, c/o this related article).
Something similar also happened in other countries.
[Clare Craig] They were way lower than normal levels, which means that people with other conditions weren’t coming to get their antibiotics, let alone the people with pneumonia. And of course when that happens, you’re going to see extra deaths because people aren’t getting medical care the way they were.
And there were other ways people weren’t getting medical care the way they were… There were the blanket “Do Not Resuscitate” orders where hospitals wouldn’t take anyone in if they had a “Do Not Resuscitate” order. And there was the people being told to stay home if they had a fever or cough… patients were being denied healthcare, and some of them died when they were told that… And if you… tell your ambulance staff, “11% of you are staying home,” that comes with a mortality rate. You can’t do that without that having an impact on death.
And then of course there were the end-of-life medications, which were used at record levels. And that also comes to the mortality rate, even if the intent wasn’t there… even if people thought they were saving lives. We had protocols that said to use those drugs.
[Eddie Hobbs] And then if I can just pivot then into a very interesting part… of this morning’s discussion… what didn’t happen in the Roy Butler coronary examination was the use of a couple of tests... The one that stood out for me was the German test from Dr Burkhardt which can identify the spike protein presence in human organs, especially in the brain. And also this causality test from Bradford Hill.
Neither of those seem to be used by coroners, despite the fact that we were told we should follow the science… Joe Biden was telling us to take the covid jab. And [saying] you won’t get covid. Our own gang was saying it over here as well. Our Deputy Prime Minister or Tánaiste recently gave a medal to Anthony Fauci. I thought he should have been brought up to Dublin airport and put on a plane to some place like Nuremberg. But when you look at that, and you now look at the… evidence [we heard] this morning that there was no excess deaths in the Republic of Ireland in 2020… but suddenly it starts off very, very dramatically in 2021, 2022, 2023, and growing into 2024. This is very serious data, and it’s hard data. And it was very well explained this morning…
The excess death data for Ireland evidently shows a similar pattern to that for England and Wales featured e.g. in this post:
[Eddie Hobbs] And I just want to say, how can we end up in a situation… we’re back now to the medical profession… because these are doctors that are doing this… [where] somebody’s going in and doing an autopsy on somebody who’s died within days of taking a vaccine, and the actual tests to connect it to the vaccine are not being used by coroners. Can you explain that to me?
[Clare Craig] Yes. I think we have a problem with how deaths are diagnosed and how causation is attributed in medicine. We don’t have these tests that you’re talking about. They don’t exist in the labs. They could exist in the labs, but there’s nobody driving it forward. And so we don’t have the means to do that...
[Eddie Hobbs] When you say “we”… you’re talking about Britain and Ireland, or just globally?
[Clare Craig] Globally… Otherwise we could send it away elsewhere. When you diagnose a death, you take the evidence that you have, and you build a picture and you decide what the most likely cause of death is. And it seems that, when it’s a vaccine-related death, there are certain bits of evidence that are being ignored… The fact that somebody’s been sick from the point they had their vaccine, and then dies when they were otherwise healthy afterwards… that’s a very important piece of evidence. And when you look in the doctors’ reporting systems for vaccine-related deaths, people readily dismiss these deaths as being random, sudden cardiac deaths… you go into the detail, and you read the stories that these doctors have written about these deaths. And almost every single time these patients had symptoms in the lead up to their death. And [so] that’s not a sudden cardiac death. It doesn’t happen like that with sudden cardiac death. And people are just ignoring the details. They don’t want to look at them.
But I think it’s also worth making this point about medical causation... you referenced the Bradford Hill criteria. Now, Austin Bradford Hill is a man who worked with Richard Doll on the relationship between smoking and lung cancer. And they had to fight for decades against the tobacco companies to get that relationship recognised. And that’s because, with medicine, when you’re proving causation, it’s the breadth of information that gives you that understanding…
There isn’t something you can say, “Well, that’s why we know it causes it. It’s not one thing.” [Bradford Hill and Doll] were the ones that really pushed forward this understanding of the breadth. And so they said, “Well, you have to have a serious correlation.” As in it’s not just a tiny relationship. It’s not causing a bit of an increase. It’s causing a serious increase, which we have for cardiac deaths in these vaccines. They have to have this correlation that you see repeated in different regions and different places. And we’ve got that with the vaccines…
A summary of the Bradford Hill criteria can be found e.g. here (slide 12):
[Clare Craig] It has to be something that you can show a mechanism for. There has to be a biological understanding of why that might happen, which we have… One of [the criteria is] a bit trickier. There has to be… previous types of similarity. So they could say… asbestos caused cancer, and that’s a little bit tricky with the vaccines, but you don’t have to fulfil every single one of [the criteria]. One of them is reversibility. And again, we haven’t yet seen it reverse, which is because some of the heart conditions that are being caused [are] a process of damage that leads to ongoing harm. And so we need to wait and see if it’s going to have any reversing in the future.
But I do think that that smoking analogy is a really important one, because you see how things that have important public health impacts get fought by commercial interests, and that people don’t want to admit it. And the people who are trying to call it out often are treated quite badly over it. And then it becomes accepted knowledge. The people used to always call out Greece and Japan as reasons why lung cancer [wasn’t] related to smoking, because these were two countries with a high smoking rate that didn’t have much of a lung cancer problem. And what we see here is people picking on these… examples and trying to use that as if it overturns all the rest of the information. And it doesn’t.
[Liz Evans] And I think the other thing when it comes to… tobacco science and looking at the impact of these massive industries, we should all have had a massive red flag going when we learned that the pharmaceutical industry had demanded and been granted immunity from liability for harms. What other product… across the whole of society... What car [manufacturer] doesn’t have to pay damages if its [product is] faulty and causes your death or your injury? We don't accept that with anything else, or with any other drugs in fact. It’s only with vaccines. And now particularly these vaccines.
And I just remember this quote from… the AstraZeneca CEO… in the summer of 2020. It had come out in the mainstream that they were being granted immunity. And they said to him, “Why are you asking for immunity for liability? And he said, “As a company, we simply cannot take the risk if, in four years time, some side-effect comes up that we had not anticipated. It would not be financially prudent.” And I was like, “Hang on a minute. You are not taking a risk with your money, but you are asking people to take a risk with their health and their lives? That’s not fair.”
[Liz Evans] And obviously it was a significant enough risk that they demanded [immunity]. They said, “We’re not going ahead unless you give us immunity.” So that indicates a significant level of risk that they were taking to their profits or… to facing multiple lawsuits. Why was… our health, the public’s health, not given the same… consideration and importance as their profits?
[Eddie Hobbs] So when it comes to looking at what was known, what was written on… the vaccine bottles… and what was generally known… about covid at the time… can you just explain to me… how the vaccines were given to children when the children were 18,000 times less at risk than than older adults. And they were more at risk to the known declared side-effects of the vaccine than they were to covid… Can anybody explain that to me?
[Ros Jones] Oh, I would love to be able to explain it. It… completely baffles me how my fellow paediatricians aren’t as appalled as I am about this. And I think it highlights the one and only thing that the governments did effectively (I won’t say right, because right is not the word) — and that’s fear, isn’t it? The propaganda machine was extremely efficient.
And somehow they frightened the older generation to the point where they were frightened of these tacky children who come in with snotty noses, which actually [is] fantastic… they showed that if you live in a household with children, you were less likely to get seriously ill with covid. So far from children being a threat, they were actually a protection…
And yes, how could we get on to the situation where in society — [in] which normally adults protect children — we were expecting children to protect adults…. beyond belief, to be honest.
[Clare Craig] There was a time back in 2021 when we were concerned that it might keep going down the age groups. And we would say as much… they’re going to end up vaccinating the children. And we were called “conspiracy theorists” for that...
[Liz Evans] We [the UKMFA] wrote a letter in February 2021 to the government, because we could see that happening…. And we wanted to get ahead of the game and tell them, “Whatever you do, you cannot roll this out to children.” And… we were right, because we were being called “conspiracy theorists” and [people were saying] “Oh no, that will never happen.”
We’ve got that [letter] published, dated, end of February 2021, saying, “I hope you’re not going to roll this out to the kids, but this is all the reasons why you shouldn’t… the fact that children have a lifetime ahead of them, so there’s a massive responsibility with giving them anything, because long-term effects of drugs and vaccines can be 10, 20 years. You may not see any impact on, for example, fertility for another 10 or 15 years, when that generation moves into the period of time when they are going to try and have a family. And by then it’s too late, if you’ve given it to a whole generation, and then you discover there’s this terrible side-effect…
It was completely against the precautionary principle… There was no informed consent… nobody was told, “There are unknown risks here.” And actually, by then, there were known risks: clotting… you wouldn’t even risk putting it into a child given the stuff we did know at that point, which was quite a lot.
[Eddie Hobbs] And Gerry, you were making that point as well this morning… about the unknown unknowns… that here we are with a technology… a new thing that’s going into our bodies, 5.5 billion people were jabbed with it… a lot of it based on the new mRNA technology — I’m just focusing on that — and there was no “off” button for it…
For further context, see e.g. these posts:
[Eddie Hobbs] As I understand it… the mRNA was being delivered [and] the [metaphorical] taxi driver was basically these lipoproteins. And they were only supposed to go as far as the injection site. Well, that was a lie. It looks as if it was distributed throughout the body.
[Gerry Quinn] There [were] early… Japanese studies that were… suppressed, and a lot of people couldn’t really translate the studies, but [they] showed that it was distributed throughout all the organs of the body [including the ovaries]…
This is a snapshot from p45 of an Australian Government document dated January 2021 and titled Nonclinical Evaluation Report for the BNT162b2 [mRNA] COVID-19 vaccine (COMIRNATY™) (often called the Pfizer vaccine, although it was actually developed by the German company BioNTech):
[Gerry Quinn] And that’s particularly concerning for people having kids, and people with vulnerable organs… But I don’t know why it didn’t appear in the mainstream [media] that it travels… but obviously, immunologically, if the vaccine lands on any cell, your cell will be destroyed, because the immunity will attack that cell. So it might, if it landed on the heart… start attacking the heart. If it landed on your reproductive organs, it [would] start to attack your reproductive organs. So yes, obviously there was no “off” button to the technology.
And also… because of the manufacturing technology of the vaccine itself… it translates it into a protein… But sometimes that translation slips, and when it slips it makes a different protein, so it’s other foreign proteins…
[Eddie Hobbs] So what you're saying is that the technology brings an instruction to the body to do something, and that another instruction could be given by accident?
[Gerry Quinn] It’s not… by accident. It’s a design. So [earlier] I was talking about the people that died in the very initial trials… in 1999, maybe 2010. So they tried to fix that by engineering the vaccine…. with something called a pseudouridine [a synthetic component which degrades much more slowly than the natural equivalent]… and humanising the sequence. But that had a knock-on effect. And this analogue base they added in causes a slippage in the translation of the protein. So that produces a different protein, or… different segments of protein. And these different segments of protein have unknown effects… and there’s not just one of them. There’s quite a lot of them…
[Eddie Hobbs] So should they not have brought out the vaccine and said, “Look, this thing is going to have unknown effects”…
[Gerry Quinn] I remember from my reading some time ago… about the SV40, which is simian virus 40, and that this was part of the development of polio vaccines back in the early 1950s… before DNA was even discovered. And we’re now finding some studies seem to be indicating that at least some of the [covid] vaccines have this stuff in it. Is that correct…? This SV40 is linked to cancer, isn’t it…?
[Clare Craig] SV40 is from this [simian] virus, and this virus has a protein, which we know is cancer causing. That sequence for that protein was not in any of the vaccines. What was in the vaccine was what’s called the SV40 promoter. So that’s a bit of a sequence that says, “Make me.” So it’s referring to making that protein, but it wasn’t the protein itself...
Now that promoter shouldn’t have been in the vaccine. And the sequence that was the Pfizer vaccine… they submitted a sequence to the European medical regulator saying, “This is what the vaccine looks like.” And with these sequences, you can put them through a computer machine, and it will look at different parts of it and label them up saying, “Well, this bit does that, this bit does that, this bit does the other.” And the SV40 promoter would have been labelled up when they did that. But somebody edited it out, and they gave the European Medical Agency… a map of what was in that sequence with the SV40 edited out. But they also gave them the full sequence data so they can say they disclosed it, but they didn’t really disclose it.
And that SV40 promoter shouldn’t have been there. It had no purpose being there, because there were other promoters that said “make me” about the spike protein. And another promoter that said “make me” about an antibiotic, which was… another step in the manufacturing because it’s made in a bacterial vat.
So yes, the SV40 sequence should not have been there, wasn’t declared to the regulator, and any bit of DNA that says “make me” has a potential — hypothetically — of causing cancer. Because cancer is when you have unregulated growth of a cell. And if you have a bit of sequence that ends up inside your cell, that ends up saying “make me” about something that makes your cell grow… that’s a cancer risk.
For more information, see e.g. this article:
And so that’s why people have raised the concern about cancer in respect of this. And what we haven’t yet seen happen, which… really urgently needs to happen, is that people who’ve had cancers after the vaccine… those cancers need to be sequenced and studied in a laboratory to see if that is what’s happening in these cancers. That’s a big unknown that remains. And I’m not saying that this [vaccine] has caused lots of cancers. I’m just saying that there’s a huge question there that needs investigating.
For an update on the above, see e.g. this presentation from Kevin McKernan, CSO and Founder of Medical Genomics:
[Eddie Hobbs] But is there any evidence… I just stumbled across some stuff coming out of Japan… [Prof] Fukushima… an oncologist… seems to be quite concerned.
[Clare Craig] Oh, absolutely. And he’s not the only one. There are plenty of professionals who, in their oncology work, have raised concerns around the types of cancers they’re seeing, the age at which they’re seeing them, the stage at which they're presenting… they’re presenting very late on in their patients… the rate at which they’re progressing, the fact they’re occurring so soon after booster doses. And all of that is information that I take seriously. You might dismiss it as anecdotal, but every bit of anecdote… that’s where we start with science. You start with observing something, and they are observing this phenomenon.
Here is Prof Fukushima:
The paper to which Hobbs refers has been retracted. According to the journal website, “The Editors-in-Chief have been made aware of several concerns regarding the scientific credibility of this article. A comprehensive post-publication editorial review is being conducted to determine if any action is required.”
Hmm.
A summary of the issues can be found in this article from Rebekah Barnett which is well worth reading:
See also e.g. the presentation — re covid vaccine boosters driving cancers — from UK oncologist Angus Dalgleish featured here in this post:
![[III] Exposing the UK Covid-19 Inquiry (Module 4)](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!tPE_!,w_140,h_140,c_fill,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep,g_auto/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F347c54ef-43c0-4f45-adcb-ba4498b2674f_872x838.png)
[Clare Craig] No significant excess mortality was observed during the first year of the [covid] pandemic (2020). However, some excess cancer mortalities were observed in 2021 after mass vaccination with the first and second [covid] vaccine doses, and significant excess mortalities were observed for all cancers and some specific types of cancer (including ovarian cancer, leukemia, prostate cancer, lip/oral/pharyngeal cancer, pancreatic cancer, and breast cancer) after mass vaccination with the third dose in 2022.
Now what we see in the data is that, at least in England and Wales, there is only 1% excess for cancer mortality. [But] there shouldn’t be an excess [at all] because we’ve had a lot of death. And when you've had a period with a lot of death, there should be a deficit, where you’re not seeing as many cancer deaths anymore. And [yet] we have a 1% excess. And the trouble is that, when we’ve had a lot of death in the old, then the deficit in the overall mortality can be hiding a problem in the young. And so that also needs to be investigated: what is happening with the young, and what [is] happening with these rare cancer types? And is there a cause to look at here?
[Ros Jones] There certainly seems to be an increase in cancers of unknown origin, which again is odd, because most cancers… particularly with modern technology… you’ve got better and better able to work out… where this thing has originated… what tissue it’s originated [from]… [These recent cancers of unknown origin] are just so vague. You can’t say whether it was from the colon or the liver or the… it’s just of unknown origin, which is very odd.
[Eddie Hobbs] But when state services themselves are not differentiating as between harm and deaths, in particular caused by people that were vaccinated versus those that weren’t vaccinated, how are we ever going to get to the bottom of it?
[Clare Craig] The point is, we could, right? With cancer patients, we have biopsies and we have samples, and we have tissue, and we have evidence… The bit that’s missing is the ability to test those things. But… while we don’t have [the] ability to test them, we do have the ability to store them for testing later. And so… I think it’s really important that we are storing them, and that we start to set up the testing. We need to be testing and asking this question. And of course it’s a question people don’t want to know the answer to. That’s the problem.
[Liz Evans] Because you need the will, don’t you? You need the medical profession to admit there could be a problem. And I think that’s the next stage… that’s a big stage. If we can get the medical profession to feel it’s acceptable to say, “There might be a problem here and we need to look into it.” And I think that’s the big barrier we are… facing at the moment, because people just want to forget. I think it was so traumatic for everybody. Wouldn't it be easy just to... pretend that never happened, and just move on? And I think that’s where a lot of people are, especially those who participated, maybe those who are… not that well themselves now... because most medics, remember, had the jabs... they were in that system. They believed it, they took it. They also had their ethical rights overridden... They were being heavily coerced to have the vaccines. And I think they were in quite an abusive environment. And we know, just from human psychology, people who are abused then become abusers. They then — I guess — thought, “Well, I didn’t have any rights. I had to take this to keep my job… Everyone was asking me every day, ‘Have you had your jab yet?’ And [we were] told, ‘Maybe you won’t be able to work.’ So everyone else can have it...” I think we’ve… got to go in with some… compassion.
But to try to get people back connecting with their humanity and with their ethics… you’ve got to ask, “Was this right or wrong?” Nobody ever asked that with any of these decisions. It was just, “This is how it’s going to be.” And I think when you start to make decisions without bringing in morality, without bringing in ethics, without saying, “What’s the fruit of this?” — you know, you judge a tree by its fruit… I’ve just put together a slideshow which we recorded yesterday.
But just looking at some of the pictures of what it looked like to have children in playgrounds two metres apart, and elderly people… not being able to touch people through a window… just looking drawn. It was so obvious that what was being done was wrong, because you could see the pain, the suffering, the cruelty. And I think this is where we’ve got to say to people, “We’ve been through a massive trauma, but now we’ve got to… take stock and… we need to be grown-ups about this, and actually try to make things right, rather than pretending it never happened.”
[Ros Jones] Jonathan was mentioning the fact we’ve got into a society where we just over-medicate everything. We've got to give people back some sort of trust in our own bodies and our immune systems. You were saying about the children… they didn’t need [the vaccine] and they shouldn’t have been made to feel they should take something to protect their granny.
But the other thing is that they have a fantastic immune system anyway. And there was a suggestion… I was on a television interview with some professor of vaccinology, and he was saying, “Oh, but the vaccines give you better immunity than natural immunity…” Well, you think, “All these children are going to catch. [And] once they’ve caught it, where’s the big problem? Then they will be protecting Granny.”
And I pinned this bloke down and I said, “I’m very puzzled because I was taught that vaccines were science’s best way of trying to copy what our bodies have done for millennia. So if the body can’t make a decent immunity to this covid virus, then nor will the vaccine. But please, if you’ve read something, send me the reference, because the last thing I want to be doing is putting out wrong information.” But did he send me the reference? Did he heck.
[Eddie Hobbs] We had in Ireland… our mainstream media… was dominated by one group called… I call them the Zero Covidistas. And they were getting an awful lot of airplay, like, “We’re going to have zero covid.” It was like Ardern declaring that New Zealand was going to be quarantined from the rest of the world… It was a disaster.
But one of the things that really jumped out at me as a… peculiarity is that pregnant women were being told, “Stay off alcohol, avoid certain foods etc.” And then they were being told, “Oh, by the way, take this jab.” As a lay person looking at that, that made absolutely no sense to me because pregnant women were getting completely confused. The natural instinct was to protect their child. And they were being told at the same time, “Take the jab. Line up.”
Now I know, and I did it myself… I asked for information…. “What’s in it? What’s it going to do?” [And] blank.
[Clare Craig] I think, if we remember back to 2020, there were some very heart-wrenching stories of pregnant women dying. And you can’t think really of anything more tragic than a pregnant woman dying. And it really… pulled on a lot of heartstrings, and gave people quite a distorted impression of what was going on.
Because in retrospect, there were extra women who died. There were more maternal deaths than usual. In the UK there were, depending on the way you read it… nine or ten extra deaths. And of those nine or ten extra deaths, one was white, the rest were from ethnic minorities… Three of them were drug users. Almost all of them died post-natally. Almost all of them had appalling post-natal care. So… they delivered their babies, and then they were basically abandoned.
This post provides snapshots of how pregnant mothers — and their babies and loved ones — were being treated in the UK in 2020:
[Clare Craig] The demographic that I was describing there is a demographic who were at much, much higher risk of maternal mortality in the first place. But this was presented as being a risk to every pregnant woman. And today pregnant women are being told they’re at that kind of risk.
Now if we imagine that there was a magic juice vaccine that could definitely prevent every single one of those deaths, some of which were “with covid” anyway… if we pretend a vaccine could prevent those deaths, even if they weren’t caused by covid, you would need to vaccinate 29,000 pregnant women and expose 29,000 babies to prevent one death. Now that’s all you need to know…
And as you were saying, pregnant women are told not to have… soft cheese… One of the things pregnant women are told not to do is to go in a hot tub. And the reason you’re told not to go in a hot tub is because there is an association between fever in pregnancy and anomalies in the baby. And obviously a fever is not just heat. There’s all sorts of good things going on in your body when you have a fever. These products cause pregnant women to have fevers at really quite a high rate. And yet they’re exposing women to this, to prevent what…? Everything is so completely imbalanced…
The pregnant women’s story really has no legs. And when you look at what happened when the vaccine rollout started in pregnant women, the number of pregnant women with covid on intensive care rocketed… the number of pregnant women with covid who were dying rocketed, because they were having these products.
And… in Scotland they saw a spike in neonatal deaths. And they saw two spikes with each big rollout of vaccines to pregnant women. And then, in total, there were about 33 babies who died in the period of these spikes. So to investigate this, and to see which of the mums were vaccinated, would not have taken a huge amount of work. And Public Health Scotland refused to do it. They said that they did not want to do it, because doing so might… increase “vaccine hesitancy”. So they were more interested in the overall vaccine rollout than the safety and the lives of those babies.
This article has more details, including the data:
[Eddie Hobbs] I’m just going to ask you one last question. And it’s a tricky one, but I think it’s an interesting [one that], based on discussion so far… naturally asks itself…
We know that there’s a huge amount of cognitive dissonance knocking around in the medical profession and the political profession, and all the professions responsible for not standing up. We now know there’s data coming through on vaccine harm and excess deaths around the world from various sources. There’s peer-reviewed scientific studies coming out. There’s almost… I wouldn’t say an avalanche, but there’s quite a significant flow now, of information. And it’s irrefutable that there are significant questions at the very, very least, that have to be asked about the management and behaviour of all of the aforementioned professions, and what happened.
So the question then is, the World Health Organisation tried to land its Pandemic Agreement treaty in Geneva on the June Bank Holiday weekend, and failed. It then tried to make massive changes to the International Health Regulations 2005, and failed, especially on the area of trying to remove consent… And they’re now pushing it back through the UN, so… they’ll be back for more. And we’ve had the attempt to create a fake… in the meantime… the monkeypox… that didn’t really take off.
So the question really is, “Can they try it again?” I mean try it again and be as successful as the last time. Or do you think that there is a significant volume of people now beginning to wake up to this? They mightn’t be here. They mightn’t be participating in dialogue on social media. But in your experience, do you see a change, or do you think we’re as vulnerable now as we were four years ago?
[Liz Evans] I think we’ve got a massive issue with this WHO and other… global bodies’ power grab. They are trying to become the de facto governing body for health for the whole world. And it’s so obvious… and they’re trying to do it… they’ve got multiple different treaties and regulations and pacts. They’re trying to do it in many different ways, and they’ve got this One Health agenda. And the issue with One Health is it isn’t just about infectious disease, it’s about anything that can impact human health… to do with animals, to do with the environment, to do with plants… anything. And they can call an emergency. And then these regulations come into force. And even if they’re not legally binding, countries, governments and health authorities use them as an excuse.
So we see this Northern Ireland proposed bill that was put together…
For more information, see e.g. this post:
[Liz Evans] It said at the beginning we are seeking to strengthen the powers in a health emergency and to come in line with the WHO International Health Regulations. So governments needed very little excuse to try to increase the power of public health. They’re sort of working in lockstep with the WHO to try to create all these little rules, but nobody’s actually asking, “Where’s the evidence this is actually going to help a single person?”
We look at the micromanagement that has happened over the last four years, and it’s in the papers every day, even in the mainstream… the catastrophic damage it’s caused to everything, to the economy, to education, to mental health, to physical health, to the healthcare system generally. Everything is just falling apart as a result of what we’ve done. And there’s not a shred of evidence that any of those measures that came in, whether it was the vaccines, the lockdowns, the masks, the closing of schools… had any positive impact on the morbidity or mortality from what they were calling covid.
So surely at this point we can say, “Well, we’ve tried that experiment. That didn’t work. How about next time we try very much less or nothing? How about we restrict the power of the State, and actually just let people use their common sense.” Because people care about their families and their neighbours. People are quite sensible. You’ll know when someone comes to your house, and you go to the door and you answer the door, and they go, “Oh, I’ve got a cold.” And they step back, and you just step back. It’s just instinctive. That’s what human beings do. And we don’t need to do any more than that. We don’t need to tell people how to behave as adults.
Unexpected Turns homepage
The most-read articles can be found here
For some reason, the video link didn’t work for me in Safari, but it was viewable using Google Chrome