Hello, I'm Charles Mallett with Auk column interview and today I
have with me Shaz Khan, who has recently written the ultimate
vaccine timeline. And my opener to Shaz is going
to be to say, well, Shaz, we we live in an age of the
prerequisite for almost any sort of discussion, debate, question
or answer is that the person need be an expert.
Now, you're not an immunologist or a vaccinologist or an
epidemiologist or any of the above or below.
You are not, in this particular regard, considered an expert.
Why does that make you a suitable person to be looking
into a subject like this? Well, thank you so much for
having me, Charles. But first of all, I never
planned on looking into this subject, to be quite honest.
I mean, as you said, I'm no expert.
I don't work in the field of science or in medicine.
I've always been interested in science.
And through my work in marketing and communications for the last
20 years, it's it's come up often that we've used scientific
language to sell products because it sounds good.
But I basically got into this 10 years ago following my father's
death, which I believe was provoked by a flu jab.
Obviously, I'll never have any way of proving it, but it just
asked, it just got me asking questions.
And I knew nothing about vaccines at that point.
And I came from a pretty neutral standpoint where I believe what
I was told as well in school, which is vaccines save lives.
They saved us from smallpox and polio.
But in the last 10 years, I can say I've spent well over 10,000
hours looking into this subject. And I've been looking in
libraries, in the National Archives, not just on Google or
on the Internet. I really, there were a lot of
books that I read in the beginning.
I think the first one I read was Dissolving Illusions by Doctor
Suzanne Humphries and Roman Bistrianic and I, I, to be quite
frank, there were a lot of things in there I really had
difficulty believing. And that's why I went to the
libraries, into the National Archives, because I just was a
bit astounded by the fact that we could have been lied to on
such a massive scale. So I never intended to write a
book. When I started research, it was
really just a personal project. But the more I came across
outrageous documents within the National Archives, the more I
said to myself, this has to be documented and has to be shared
with the public so that they can see what the document, I mean,
the government documents say, which are buried in the National
Archives. I mean, they're in the public
domain, so anyone can get access to them.
But I got access to documents through Freedom of Information
requests. So documents from the 70s and
the early 80s and I, I think they're often closed for 100
years. So we still have to ask for, for
more recent stuff. But I would say I'm, I'm
actually not an expert. I don't claim to be an expert,
but I have spent, as I said, well over 10,000 hours on this
issue. I don't have any skin in the
game. I'm not even a parent.
So this isn't even like a, you know, initially do I vaccinate
my, my kids or not? It really was just following
what happened to my father and then just being a geek about it
and being shocked and outraged by what I discovered.
Yeah. Well, I mean on the the way in
which you went about sourcing and going through all the
information that you refer to is something I definitely want to
come back to because I think that in itself is a fascinating
story. And now what what I would like
to go into, although obviously a challenging and emotional
subject, but I think the specifics around what it was
that you believe did lead up to your father's death and how it
was dealt with, I think are very crucial to your story and indeed
your further investigation. Would you mind just going over
what did happen and and how it was, as you say, with an open
mind that you started to consider what you did consider?
Of course. So, so I'm, I'm, I'm based here
in Switzerland, but my father is in the UK under the NHS system.
I to be quite honest, I was estranged from my father so I
hadn't spoken to him in a while, but I found out from a family
friend that he was in hospital and he was seriously ill.
So I rushed over to the UK to go and see him.
So I had no idea that he'd received a flu vaccine at this
point, I just knew that he'd been diagnosed with stage 4 lung
cancer, non-smoker. He was a pretty relatively
healthy guy, 70 years old and within 24 hours of being
admitted to hospital he lost the ability to speak and he lost the
ability to walk. So it was a very very quick
downslide and it was only after he passed away, which was
literally 4 weeks after I went to see him in hospital, which is
when he was admitted. So he died on the 4th of
February 2015. I found out from my stepmom that
in November he'd received a flu vaccination.
Now I know didn't know anything about vaccines, but in my
understanding you don't give vaccines to people who are sick.
So if you died of stage 4 lung cancer at the beginning of
February, chances are you would have been sick in November and
shouldn't have received a vaccine.
I didn't know exactly what brand he got so I just looked at all
the package inserts that I could find and I was quite horrified
to find out that he that it's acknowledged that there are new
logical reactions following the flu vaccine.
And what didn't add up with my dad and why I started asking
questions is when he was in hospital with stage 4 lung
cancer, he didn't have any respiratory issues.
He didn't have any breathing issues.
He only had neurological issues and inflammation in the brain,
which for me, again, again, I'm no expert, but for me, if
someone's got stage 4 lung cancer, they have trouble
breathing. I've I've seen another friend of
mine with a father who had a who was a chain smoker at stage 4
lung cancer and he had problems breathing.
But my dad had none of that. It was all neurological.
And when I did discover the package inserts themselves
declared that neurological side effects from vaccine, flu
vaccines are known and acknowledged, I hope was pretty
shocked. And obviously we know the NHSUK
system of you get what, 5-10 minutes with your, your GP if
you're lucky. So if you do go in there with a
cuff and that you say you're not feeling good and it's the season
of the flu, what are they going to do if you're over 65 is give
you the flu vaccine, no questions, no real delving into
what else is going on. And 5-10 minutes is really not
enough to have a, a consultation with your GP.
So that was his situation. And as I said, I have no proof.
We'll never have any proof that that did.
But since I have speak been speaking out about the flu
vaccine, I've been quite not interested.
It's quite interesting to notice that a lot of people have
stories around the flu vaccine, either getting super sick
afterwards or, you know, transmitting the flu to other
people. The flu vaccine I, I spoke a lot
to hairdressers because I believe that they have a lot of
gossip in the neighborhood. And believe me when you bring up
the question of flu vaccine, I've had people in the backroom
who just heard flu vaccine and stardly perked up and said and
had a story to share where they all said basically that they'd
never get enough flu vaccine because it made them more sick
than they had ever been. So anyhow, I digress.
But that was the reason why I basically started going into
looking into vaccines because as I said, I, I had no knowledge,
but I had a lot of friends who were having children at the
time. And I noticed that they were
sick a lot. And it just kind of was strange
because I don't remember being like when I was, I was a child
of the late 8, late 70s, sorry. And I don't remember kids being
that sick. And I had the measles, I had
chicken pox, I didn't have mumps.
But I remember those childhood diseases and I remember the the
parties you would get like get them all infected while stay
young. And I, it just didn't make sense
that nowadays kids have got all these strange allergies, chronic
diseases, ADHD, asthma. So, So yeah, that basically
started the journey 10 years ago.
And here I am with a book now that I've put it in a try to put
it in a, in a, in a documented form, because there are lots of
books on vaccines. They really are.
But I found that on the historical level, apart from
dissolving illusions, there weren't that many that really
delved into the history of it. And from a perspective of what
we found in government archives and also catalogues, like I had
no idea that back in the early 20th century, we had vaccines
against acne, against pneumonia already.
We did have some flu vaccines against influenza, but they were
bacterial based because we still didn't, didn't have the
understanding of viral disease at that point.
And I, I was quite shocked. I was really naive.
I was very naive when I started my journey.
So, but but yeah, so that obviously this personal story,
like for many others, is what drove me to start researching
more. Yeah, I mean, you know,
obviously awful that those were the circumstances that did cause
you to start looking that way in the 1st place.
That's the conclusion you arrived at.
As you say, not only will you never be able to prove it, but I
sincerely doubt that anybody on the other side of the fence
would try to do anything that would suggest that you were
right. As in any of the any of the
medics, any of the pharmaceutical companies.
It is of course well documented that hospitals do prescribe or
incorrectly prescribe medications, that there are
awful lot of things that go wrong in hospitals.
Were there other things that you looked at in addition to the to
the flu vaccine or sort of alongside it or was it in a way
the sort of the blindingly obvious stand out thing that had
happened? Well, at the time, as I said, I
didn't know he, he'd received the flu vaccine when he was in
hospital. So my interest in health in
general did start in 2009. So before his passing and I was
very much learning about nutrition and understanding how
much nutrition can help our, our health issues, help my health
issues. So when he was in hospital, I
didn't know about cancers. Like try to avoid giving him
sugar. Like, I mean, the NHS system
again, very good people trying to do the best they can with a
broken system. But he was in the cancer ward
where basically there was there was people with jaundice and
people incredibly sick in his ward.
And they were passing out white bread sandwiches with ham and
cheese and white tea and coffee. Like the worst things you can
possibly serve people who were trying to get better and heal.
So at the time, my brother and I, who were both quite, quite
annoying for the doctors, I think, as we put like signs on
my, my, my dad's bed, like, you know, no sugar, no white sugar,
no white flour, try to avoid any inflammatory foods, etcetera.
And doctor basically kind of made us out to look like we're
crazy. But he did actually get a little
bit better at one point to where they almost proposed
chemotherapy, but then they kind of backtracked and, and said
they weren't going to offer him anything but just Hospice care.
So as I didn't know during the whole time he was in hospital.
I really learned, I think at the funeral when my when we were
sitting around the table with my stepmom and my half sister and
we were trying to understand what had happened and how he'd
gone down so quickly. And then my stepmom said, yeah,
I don't know why he got that flu jab.
He never gets the flu jab. I don't know why he got that flu
jab. And I was just like, what?
Because my dad's, I mean, my dad was Indian, was one of those who
never went to the doctor. He was quite a stubborn man and,
and had old, you know, grandma, also a grandma.
What's the word formulas for when he did get sick?
So he really did barely go to the doctor.
And it was very surprising for his, his wife and for me that he
would go and get a flu jet. But there you go.
That's that's what happens when you only have 5-10 minutes and
that's all the doctor offers you and you're looking for help.
Yeah, no, exactly. And I mean, of course, in the
anecdotal, but the coincidence of people who have lived long
healthy lives who have also said that they've never had any
interaction with the medical establishment is one that really
can't be ignored. However, it's so difficult to
explain that, especially to a health service, as you say, who
feeds apparently sort of on loop exactly the things you describe,
you know, white bread and and sugar.
I mean, the, the idea that the National Health Service really
has anything to do with health in the genuine sense is, is, is,
I would say, totally inaccurate. Now you've talked about your
book, what sets it apart? And I think especially in the
last five years, the subject of vaccination has become an
incredibly hot, divisive and very sensitive topic.
But to go back to where we perceive it all started, where,
where do you go back to? And, and I mean sort of first of
all in the medical sense, but then of course all importantly
in the in the commercial sense. And are those two different
things? That's an interesting question
because the commercial aspect I didn't realize already started
the end of the 19th century. We had a lot of vaccines on the
market. And back in the days, there were
absolutely no regulations. There was absolutely no, you
know, kind of licensing that you needed even to put a product on
the market. So I believe in 1910 already, I
mean, in the US they already had that, that Biologics Act that
came into place, 19-O2 as a result actually of injury
following vaccine campaigns. But it still wasn't a sure thing
In the UK. I'm not it was harder to find
actual legislation on how they were controlling the quality and
the purity of products they put on the market, but they were
products on the market basically.
So the commercial aspect has basically started already since
beginning of the beginning end of 19th, beginning of the 20th
century, definitely was accelerated in the mid 20th
century with I would say biotech industries with the fact that we
could be much more sophisticated than the development of
vaccines. And of course, as we all know in
the US, what was a huge factor for them was the 1986 Childhood
Vaccine Injury Compensation Act, which essentially allowed
vaccines to be brought to market and the manufacturers had no
liability. So as before, the financial
incentives were pretty low because there wasn't much market
for profit. And then what profit they were
making was getting eaten up by by lawsuits of people who were
filing, filing damages because there were a lot of damages,
especially after the DTP vaccine.
It was the one that had the highest insurance because it was
the most reported to have neurological damage and serious
neurological damage where they were paying out millions.
So after this 1986 act, even though in Europe we didn't have
the same legislation, it seemed to influence how manufacturers
in Europe were were also given the cycle liability.
I mean, in in Switzerland it was covered under the epidemics law.
So any vaccine that came out is automatically kind of covered on
the epidemics law and automatically there is no
liability by the manufacturer unless you can prove that the
product is defective or that there was an intent to create a
dangerous product, which anybody will know is incredibly hard to
prove. I mean, you need discovery in
the 1st place to be able to go through all the documents from
the Pharmaceutical industry. And that's not really done
anymore, especially since this 1986 act.
But the commercial aspect has has is over 100 years old.
And I would just say that it accelerated, I would say, in the
mid 20th century with the polio vaccine, which was probably the
first that we had such a media hype around.
And that kind of, I would say, how do you say instilled this
idea that vaccines save us, save us from disease, save us from
these infections? And it was so mediatized.
And like worldwide, everyone who knew who Silk was, it's the
first time that anyone really know a scientist.
You know, I don't think there's any other scientist who said so
much, maybe Einstein. But then here in Switzerland, he
was half Swiss. Anyway, I digress, sorry, but I
would believe that it's definitely the mid of the mid,
yeah, mid 20th century. Then with these liabilities that
were given well liability free, sorry, that was given to the
Pharmaceutical industry and then biotech, biotech industry when
it came into the 70's, the 80s, that allowed a huge amount of
innovation to be created around vaccines based on genetic
engineering. Because now we were able to go
and tinkle with the actual genetic code of these viruses
and the bacteria and create genetically modified organisms.
And then the first hepatitis B which was based on a genetically
modified Organism and came out in 1986.
And that basically just like you know, they are patents, the
amount of money they can make that changed everything.
The pharmaceutical for the Pharmaceutical industry who are
making vaccines, that was a lot more profit to be made.
And here today's is where kind of where we stand, where we're
still in that. And it's obviously been
accelerated with this whole mRNA technology which they they say
they want to now use that for the flu vaccine.
They're looking into it for other diseases.
I've even seen an mRNA acne vaccine in progress through
Sanofi. So this allows them to make more
money with the patents, with the, you know, the exchange of
intellectual, intellectual light, intellectual property.
Sorry. And and yeah, that's where we're
at at the moment. So if we don't kind of like step
back and make sure that the authorities actually recognize
the injuries already, which is one of the big problems we're
having here, we're going to move forward to this, this absolute,
I would say, explosion of genetic products that are sold
as, you know, vaccines, but they're not vaccines by how we
understand them because they change definitions.
And that's something I've also seen in the research, which has
been very instrumental, is the changing definitions of diseases
of, of names, the changing of definition of immunity.
All these influence how we perceive this market of vaccines
and in the, you know, the protection against infectious
disease, which is ultimately what it's supposed to be about.
Yeah, well, that's exactly, I mean, there's so many, so many
things to to pull out of that your response just there.
But I think the, the one that we should go into is the
terminology. What what was the, you know,
what was the vaccination for in the 1st place?
And of course, the, the approved sort of narrative version is, is
Edward Jenner with Kyle Box and, and this sort of suggestion that
illness could be transmitted from 1:00 being to another,
which is something, again, that was a novel concept.
And there's still huge controversy surrounding that
very issue today. But, but now we are in an era
where it seems that there are vaccines for absolutely
everything. And, and you know, you've just
referred to an acne vaccine. I don't know if anyone's ever
suggested that's transmissible from person to person, But you
know, we go back to this thing of what, what, what actually is
it and what is vaccination? And of course then the other
thing that the, the delivery method, I mean, interesting when
you talk about the National Health Service and what they
feed to people and this sort of this step away from nature.
Of course, in nature, anything that penetrates or punctures the
skin is doing harm. You know, whether it be a sea
urchin or a porcupine or a thorn, they're trying to do
harm. And yet we've accepted that we
should receive something that's meant to be beneficial in the
same method. I mean, that might be something
sort of outside where you've looked, but it is just
interesting to note that that is how we actually receive until
now. I know there are ways in which
this is going to change, but but let's just go back to the sort
of, you know, the Jenna period and the whole idea, you know,
vaccination and or inoculation. I mean, what actually is it?
What's it meant to be? Well, it's interesting because
in many ways it kind of resembles homeopathy and people
might like their ears perk up when I say that.
But there was there was also a homeoprophylaxis, which was
understood as you're giving the information of the disease in a
controlled manner in a tiny dose to inform the body in a
controlled manner in a small dose so that they can build up
an immunity when they're next exposed to it.
So I mean, that's the concept of vaccines basically as as we
understand it, but that's also kind of the concept of
homeopathy, homeoprophylaxis at least.
But obviously people will laugh and say, well, there's nothing
in homeopathy, you can't measure anything, etcetera, because the
information is so small anyway, but that we can discuss about
how limited sciences by what they can and cannot measure.
But vaccination the day of Jenner was, was obviously not in
an injection because they didn't even have syringes back then.
It was, you know, it was a scrape, A scrape into to the to
the arm usually. So you scrape an open wound and
you you kind of put the pus in. And nobody really knows what was
used as vaccines in the early days.
Even even scholars who have spent like their whole
professional career trying to understand exactly what was
used, they don't know. So we think it's cowpox.
It's also horse grease. So you can imagine how unsafe it
was and, and how unsanitary because back in those days, we
obviously didn't have sanitation, we didn't have
disinfectant, we didn't have antibiotics, a lot of things we
didn't have that people seem to forget back in the days
vaccination came to life. It was a dangerous, risky
procedure in itself. And yet still it was mandated
and we still didn't understand how it worked.
So, so Fast forward to pastor, for instance, it was the next
big, let's say vaccinologist, shall we say, who developed the
rabies vaccine famously. I mean, the whole Pasta
Institute came about because of rabies vaccination.
It was basically a place to go get a rabies vaccine.
That's how it started. Obviously they had chicken
cholera vaccine. They also developed anthrax
vaccines, but they weren't very much used.
And those were primarily for animals.
And then we had the toxide vaccines that came along and it
wasn't until about the 1940s, nineteen 50s that we started
doing the systematic kind of mass producing plastic syringe
based vaccination campaigns. So it was a jet injector, which
was much cheaper and was easier as well to do the typical
vaccine campaigns in Africa where you just want to, you
know, jab them like they're, they're cattle basically.
And it's interesting that nowadays when you look at the
literature, they're really trying to focus on oral
vaccinations like rotaviruses, oral typhoid at one point was
oral, if I'm not mistaken, and use the Makosal immunity because
they realize that injecting into a muscle is not actually putting
the viral information where it needs to go, where you can build
up an immunity, which is usually the mucosal lining of of your,
your intestines, your stomach, your respiratory system.
So they're looking more into mucosal vaccines.
And it's interesting about mRNA because mRNA was was looked
initially as hopeful solution for, for cancer patients, which
admittedly cancer patients are already sick.
Some of them have no other options.
So when you're talking about an mRNA vaccine or product
inoculation for a for a potentially terminal disease, I
think they should be doing the research and I think it's great
that they were were using that. But then to flip it and say
we're going to use it for infectious diseases in healthy
people. Knowing that the first human
clinical trial for an infectious disease using MNRMRNA technology
was in 2014 by Cure VAC in Germany, only on 101 people.
And the results at the end of 2017 weren't even that favorable
to three years later or four years later.
To go and put that en masse on people, including children and
pregnant women is just crazy. But but yeah, I mean, we have
different types of vaccines. We have oral vaccines.
Now they're talking about the needle free vaccines where it's
like a patch animals, they get sprayed, they have aerosol
vaccines because obviously it's not always so practical to
inject every single one of them. So you can spray a vaccine into
the air and then through the respiratory system, the animals
will will will absorb it. I mean in France, in Europe,
sorry, I'm not sure about in the UK if it's past as well.
But there's the first self amplifying mRNA vaccine which
has been permitted called Kostyov, which is really
concerning because the mRNA is designed to self amplify in the
body. So you don't actually know when
is when is there, is there an off switch?
Does it stop creating those toxic proteins?
Then your antibodies are supposed to develop a response
against. So that's, it's quite
concerning. But the technology itself and I
would say the philosophy itself of vaccination is, is, you know,
it makes sense. But where we've gone with it,
we've turned it into this massive market.
We don't look at health anymore as an outcome.
We just look at these surrogate markers, which are these
antibody levels in the blood or sometimes your T cell levels.
But we don't really have better health as a result in my
opinion. And, and I can see this when I
look at kids around me who are vaccinated.
I think that's the thing that that is what I'd like to just go
back into because a lot of people will be familiar with the
graphs that show the decline in smallpox.
And that those are always presented by people who are
trying to demonstrate the vaccination against smallpox
worked. And those that are looking at it
perhaps in a different way would say, yeah.
But if you look at where the vaccine came in, the decline in
smallpox incidences, and I do caveat this with of course, that
all statistics can be manipulated any which way, but
nonetheless, there are, it's very easy to demonstrate with a
graph depending on where you start it, that yes, the small
smallpox vaccine absolutely did away with smallpox.
Or the smallpox vaccine came in at a time where changes to
hygiene, sanitation, nutrition, you know, all sorts of other
factors came in and made it look like the vaccine may have played
a part or indeed made it look like the vaccine made absolutely
no difference or indeed created harm when none had previous
previously existed. Where do you sort of fall on on
that particular issue? Well, this is interesting
because there were lots of scientific experts back in the
days already who were highlight highlighting the issues with
smallpox vaccination and the manipulation of statistics,
especially in the UK. By, I mean, again, definitions
are very important here because you can usually the most
reliable statistics are mortality statistics.
But still it depends on the definition of certain diseases.
I mean, if you change the definition of disease, then
that's going to affect your statistics.
And I've noticed that's kind of like a playbook thing that is
happening a lot, especially with measles and polio.
Yeah, smallpox vaccination was already highlighted as being an
issue with this, how the statistics were held, the fact
that if they knew someone, because it was smallpox, you
could tell if someone had ever received a vaccine because they
usually had a scar. So they would be more inclined
to diagnose something that looked like smallpox.
But because the person had a scar to prove that they had
received inoculation against smallpox, they'd call it
something else. So there was a lot of that.
And in the book that I have put in about 50 years worth of
eminent scientists and doctors who who highlight these issues
with this, the way statistics were held, Alfred Wallace is one
of the main ones who spoke out publicly and then who was
ridiculed. That's the same playbook as well
that we see today. Anybody who does speak out
against the orthodoxy is ridiculed.
They discredit it and basically try to ignore all their previous
accomplishments scientifically. There were many, many.
I mean, Charles Creighton is another example, who was asked
to write the entry of the British Encyclopedia at the end
of the 19th century. And when he investigated and did
a deep dive, he was again shocked to discover there was a
lot of manipulation, a lot of also financial interest because
vaccinators were making money for every injection that they,
they gave. And he, he wrote that in that
the, in the British Encyclopedia.
I mean, they, they changed that entry a few years later, but and
he was discredited as well, despite being a very eminent
epidemiologist. So you see this already like for
100 years ago. So it's really history repeats
itself. So until we break the cycle of
this repeating itself as we're going to continue.
Because if you think in the 1800s and then scientists
already weren't being listened to and we're already
highlighting issues, problems with the smallpox vaccination
and say it wasn't a smallpox vaccine that reduced smallpox.
I mean, The Who says it was eradicated in the end of the
1970s. That would be after like over
100 years of use. How practical and useful is
this? Small is this vaccine that takes
over 100 years of several doses? Because it wasn't just one or
two doses. It was, I mean, people there had
received up to 789 doses in a lifetime.
And every time there was an epidemic, they said that you
have to get revaccinated. You have to get revaccinated.
How useful is a vaccine if it takes that long to get rid of
the disease? And then you're not taking into
consideration the fact, yeah, we had better sanitation.
Yeah, we had antibiotics. Yeah, we had better, better
living conditions and working conditions.
And there was there was something else with the smallpox
vaccine was interesting. It's already in the end of the
19th century, the symptoms of variola.
There was variola minor and variola major.
And variola major was the one that had a high mortality rate
up to 30%. And then variola minor, which is
the one that was already predominant in the 19th century
and beginning of the 20th had a lower mortality rate.
And it was called Alastrum, which I believe was the
Portuguese named it that. So already that time smallpox
was way less serious, but it was unfortunately was, it could be
defigoring. It could for especially a woman,
you'd leave pox scars. So yeah, and it was
inconvenient. And yeah, there was always a
risk for children, but it wasn't the same deadly disease.
It was, it was like a century before that because of, you
know, various factors. Also, as I said, working
conditions were better. Sanitation was getting better.
So all that had its influence as well.
And, and often I would say vaccines take credit for, or
they try to take credit for other changes, notably the
introduction of antibiotics or the introduction of certain
sanitary practices. And I remind anybody listening
here in Switzerland, our public health office was called the
Office of Public Hygiene up until 1975, and then it changed
its name to the Office of Public Health.
And I think that was actually quite telling, that change.
It's very telling and and this strikes to the heart of I think
so much of the environment surrounding this nowadays, which
is that people are by and large utterly unaware of what you're
describing. That the history, even going
back a couple of decades, it's people have just been slowly but
steadily brainwashed by the incredible media campaigns that
get pumped out surrounding all of these sort of vaccination
initiatives. And, and in actual fact, you
know, what I'd just like to go back to is, is the in the UK,
the Vaccination Act of 1853, which mandated the smallpox
vaccine on, on all infants. You know, I think that's, there
are things like that that are completely forgotten.
And when you talk about breaking the cycle and we see now, of
course, that with the commercial interests since, say, the
beginning of the 20th century, which you describe alongside
that, of course, you know, a responsible government says, oh,
no, don't worry, it's fine, we'll regulate it.
And and again, OK, well, how will you do that?
Well, we'll, we'll set up an agency that's funded by the
manufacturers of the products and then see what they say.
So, you know, here in the UK, we have the Medicines and
healthcare Regulatory agency. I've missed out the medical
devices, but the MHRA and I mean, but by any description, I
mean that that is corrupt. I mean the, the, the way in
which it's done is absolutely corrupt.
There's no possible way that they can give an objective view
on it. And with that in mind, and also
the the process of sort of so-called emergency
authorizations and whatnot, how do you envisage a way in which
the cycle can be broken either in so far as mass vaccination
campaigns are sort of stopped or that people just have a better
idea of what's going on? I think it's going to be bit of
both and I think obviously during COVID we saw that because
as you said in 1853 when they they want to mandate the
smallpox, they did mandate the smallpox vaccine on on I believe
it was they had to be in the first year of life vaccinated.
That's what triggered the anti vaccine movement back in the
days. That's what tried all these
these groups, these parents, these scientists who got
together and said, hey, we're not having that.
And they managed to, I mean, it took a while, but they didn't
manage to get it revoked and repealed.
At least have conscientious objection and force the
government under the the guise of the royal Commission to do an
investigation into the injuries following and and deaths
following the smallpox vaccine. So it, the fact that they pushed
the public into a, in a, in a, in a, in a between a rock and a
hard place is what actually encourage people to start
speaking out and informing other people.
And the same thing with kind of COVID like I have here in
Switzerland. I'm, I'm working with a, a group
of medical professionals who before COVID never questioned
any vaccines. And because of what they did
with COVID pushing, we never had mandates here in Switzerland,
but there was definitely coercion.
Because of that, they now question the whole schedule and
they question the safety of all of them because of what the
government did with COVID. So it really kind of backfired,
I would say, by them trying to push this vaccine.
And they did. I mean, they were successful on
getting on to billions of people.
They have created. They've eroded trust in public
institutions in a major way. So that's, that's already, I
would say something encouraging in the sense that people now are
asking questions and that's going to maybe hopefully avoid
the situation ever happening again next time there's a
pandemic and the health institutions have less trust.
I mean, it'll be interesting to see what happens in the US with
Kennedy, what he's trying to do, what the influence on Europe is
going to, because at the moment it's just Kennedy's a crazy anti
vaxxer. Anything he does in the US
doesn't isn't taken seriously. To be quite honest, the
perception I see here in Switzerland and yeah, people in
people. I mean, in the UK there are no
vaccines which are obligatory. And the same in Switzerland.
In the States, they have a different it is mandated for
school attendance. But in the UK and in
Switzerland, consumers also now have a choice.
It's like if we don't want to take a product, we have a choice
to say no. And then if enough of us stand
up, they can't push us because what, are they going to fill up
their jails with all of us? I mean, they can't do that.
They can try to fine us, which is what they did, I believe, in
Austria, but they had to, they had to again, stand down with
the fines because it didn't, it didn't pass.
There were way too many people who were revolting against it
and people who did get fines, which is simply immediately
contesting them. I mean, we got fines here in
Switzerland if you're walking around without a mask, but no
one got fined if you didn't get a vaccine.
Like I think in Austria was even up to €500.
So it's ridiculous. But it didn't last long.
They tried. They really are trying in any
way possible to coerce people into this.
But by coercing, they've done more damage because now there's
way more trust issues within the medical establishment.
I can tell you there are lots of doctors I know who will not
touch another vaccine for themselves, for their family, or
even for their patients. I mean, they have to be very
careful because here, I guess, like in most places, if, if a
patient denounces their doctor saying, hey, my doctor suggested
I shouldn't get the flu vaccine because I, you know, it's not,
it's not effective, which I mean, I went to Oxford
University and they said that themselves.
Then a doctor could potentially get into trouble because he's
not following the official health recommendations.
But I think we also need to allow doctors to go through the
potential repercussions that they might get from the health
authorities because they realize if they go all the way to the
end, if they make it and they they stay in their course.
The government hasn't got much to prove that vaccines really
are safe and effective and the best way to prevent infection,
especially not for the flu. I mean, the flu is, I went to
Oxford University for a vaccinology course back in
October 2019 and I didn't actually remember and recall,
but I had Neil Ferguson as one of the teachers.
So the famous statistician from Imperial College.
Now pretty much everyone I spoke to admitted the flu vaccine was
30% effective if you're lucky. And I kind of was standing there
going, But how are we why are we pushing this on the medical
professionals? Like here in Switzerland, if you
don't get a if you don't get a flu vaccine, they make you make
wear a mask. And then anyone who does have a
flu vaccine has got their little, you know, their virtue
signaling badge saying I've got the flu vaccine when in case
they actually could potentially be transmitting it more easily
because the vaccine is not effective anyhow, Sorry, but why
are we giving it to pregnant women?
And the answer was it's better than nothing.
And for me, health, I mean, that's just showing that they
just want to push products on people.
It's not about health because sometimes doing nothing is
better than pushing an experimental, not so effective
product that hasn't actually really been monitored in
pregnant women over the long term.
And neither has the pertussis vaccine, which would get to
pregnant women. And now I've just checked now
there's a fourth one, Abrevisio, which is being also pushed on
pregnant women from 28 weeks in the UK and in Switzerland to
prevent against RSV. Pregnant women are being
bombarded by that. It makes no sense.
But again, the, the people's power is what is I think the
most important. People do not forget you have
the choice to say yes or no. And if anybody is pushing you
into the to it like an employer, get him to sign a sheet saying
that he will take responsibility for any side effects or any
problems that you have as a as a result, which is what some
people did during COVID and and their their employers backed
off. Yeah.
I mean, you know that that was a dire period for a lot of people
for all sorts of different reasons, actually, you know,
even the people that did believe there was a sort of existential
threat presented by a novel illness or not, whichever way
you looked at it, the the changes that were made to
people's lives on mass were almost universally awful.
And one of the things that's come out of that is, like you
say, there are a lot of people who are within the medical
profession who have in effect had their eyes opened, They've
turned their backs on on this and the other.
But there are also a lot of people who have in effect
doubled down and the language that's being used around this
particular issue and continues to be used by the media.
You know, if you if you exactly like you say, you've got this
suggestion that that that a pregnant woman should take
something because it's better than nothing.
I mean, pretty much the weakest argument you could possibly make
when the outcome could be death. But sort of associated with that
we, we see language like if you don't take a vaccine, it's not
just that you don't take it, you've refused it or you're
hesitant about it. Now, that is always run
alongside the, certainly in the UK, vaccination campaigns that
make absolutely no allusion to the possibility that any of this
could be harmful. You know that the current NHS
campaign for autumn vaccines is called Stay Stronger.
All the imagery they use on social media features cartoon
characters. And it's always a, you know,
it's a parent with a child as though exactly like you say with
the sort of white bread and sugar thing, as though, yeah,
well, it's just going to make you healthy, isn't it?
The because so the what I'm getting to is that the the
medical profession is part of it.
But of course, all of this is actually sewn up by media and by
advertising. Have you seen a change in the
wind direction as far as media are concerned or or are they
just too closely in meshed with the pharmaceutical companies?
I guess it depends what means you're looking at.
I mean, I look the equivalent of the BBC here in Switzerland,
which is the RTS, which is also kind of like state controlled
and paid by the taxpayer. It seems like they're getting
desperate. So the messaging, like we have
our association, we usually didn't bother making complaints
against the press because we noticed that there actually
wasn't much consequence and it would take like 2 years before
you would get a decision. And by that time people
forgotten what you were talking about.
So that made no point. But we've noticed especially
during the immunization, the world immunization, which in
April of this year, there was a lot of disinformation that came
out of our mainstream media and we actually called him out on
it. And we're, I mean, it's again a
slow process, but we're going through the process of calling
them out because we don't think it's acceptable.
They weren't transparent about the fact that it was basically
promotion for The Who during that World Immunization week.
They were, you know, scaring the population against polio,
scaring the population against measles, using all these scare
tactics to try it. And and also saying that
basically people who, who are hesitant against vaccines are
responsible for the increase in disease.
So you're also creating kind of like a, a hate and
discrimination against a certain group of people.
So I think they're, they're making mistakes because they're
going too far and they're being, I think it's for me, it seems
like. I see it as a positive thing
because it's, it's desperation and, and going to the point of
actually being completely dishonest with your public,
which is also going to further about public health.
I mean, public confidence is a proof to me that they, they
don't have much else. They don't really have science
on their side. They don't really have the
arguments on the side, hence why they have to use fear.
I, I, I have to laugh because, sorry, I was looking at my, my
collection the other day and I actually have a Peppa Pig gets
vaccinated book. Now, I know this is nothing to
do with like a high level discussion, but it, for me, it
showed how they're indoctrinating kids already from
a young age, like, and, and it said, it just said vaccines keep
you healthy. And that was it.
There was no other explanation. And that's, I mean, that's not a
scientific claim anyone can make because it's never been studied.
Do vaccines really make us healthier?
And that's the big question that Kennedy is trying to get to the
bottom of in the in the US because there's so much chronic
disease. I mean, even here in
Switzerland, we have a fantastic healthcare system, but yet we're
opening hospitals specifically for children who have chronic
diseases and cancer, autoimmune diseases where behavioral
issues. So I, I think they're getting
desperate because I think they're losing people.
I mean, they still are the majority, like still are the
majority of people who believe that vaccines are safe and
effective and we should get all of them and trust our government
authorities. But there are more and more and
I would say over 30%, maybe even 40 who are really, really not
having any of it and especially in France.
And why is that? Because the government mandated
11 vaccines after there was a petition from the people who
were just asking them to take aluminum out of the vaccines.
Because Sanofi used to do vacc vaccines well before it was
called Sanofi. It was as to bester, WHO, MELU,
they used to do vaccines with calcium phosphate as an
adjuvant, which is still approved as an adjuvant, but
nobody uses it. And because there was a petition
to get aluminum out of some of the vaccines, especially like
DTP, and the response was to make 11 vaccines obligatory and
obviously leave aluminum in most of them.
Uh, now France is one of the biggest vaccine hesitant
countries in Europe. So it, it does backfire when the
government tries to push on people.
But I think the media, especially nowadays is kind of
running out of arguments of just using fear and you're ridicule.
And that's the only thing that they have as the early arsenal
because they can't really address the actual scientific
arguments that people who are questioning vaccines bring up.
Like typically why don't we use saline placebos?
Why don't we do long term studies?
Why don't we do an unvaccinated versus vaccinated study?
All these questions they don't really want to address, hence
they use fear. And that's going to, it's going
to work against them, especially after COVID.
Yeah, 11 would hope so now in the hope that there will be
people listening to this who've come into it like you were years
ago sort of open minded and and hadn't really thought one way or
the other. Just just quickly on aluminium
and calcium phosphate, what what, what is, what are the
issues with those two things? So aluminium is is probably the
oldest, what is the oldest adjuvant that we've been using
since the 1920s. It's used in the vaccines to
basically bolster the immune response because they noticed
that often when they were trying to inject certain products
wouldn't actually have any effects.
So they needed something that they knew was inflammatory,
which what aluminium is, and they use aluminum phosphate and
aluminum hydroxide principally in ADTP vaccine, hepatitis B,
Prevnar. I'm missing lots of vaccines,
but this is the aluminum salt that they used since the early
days. Now back in the 50s, I believe,
fifty 60s in France, they obviously noticed that aluminum
was creating some problems and they were looking for other
alternatives, other mineral based adjuvants and they looked
at calcium phosphate. Calcium phosphate was used in
France manufactured by a Melu the Astute pastel sorry, and was
used in their base vaccine. So the DTP polio they they have
the triple DT polio Coclus, which is pertussis was was later
combined and it was it was a quite successful adjuvant.
It was a little bit more expensive than aluminum because
aluminum is dirt cheap. So when and again, forgive me
my, my memory is exactly not exactly correct, but I believe
it was when Astute Pastel bought Melio or the other way round,
Melio bought Anschu Pasteur. They sold calcium phosphate was
costing them more and he decided to stop using it.
So they went back to just using aluminum.
Aluminum, sorry, because it's cheaper.
And so that's why calcium, sorry, calcium phosphate was
phased out of those French produced vaccines.
As far as I know it wasn't produced in the US or in any
other countries, but it was just a price issue.
But today, as I said, still can be used by any manufacturer who
decides they want to use a safer adjuvant because it's an organic
adjuvant that had less reactivity than aluminum, which
we know is highly reactogenic. But they it was a it's a price
thing. And that's often, unfortunately,
many of the decisions are made based on prices.
And for the DTP shot, those who know a little bit about the
wholesale, a seller discussion that from the 90s, we started
using the a cellular version because it was less reactogenic
and we abandoned the wholesale pertussis, which was really
reactogenic and probably why the DTP was getting so much, so many
lawsuits for neurological damage.
They still use the wholesale DTP in Africa, in Asia, in South
America, UNICEF still orders them and distributes them on a
massive scale, on a massive scale.
So why are we using these more reactive vaccines in these
countries? It's because they're cheaper and
obviously there's less surveillance in these these
developing nations or low, low income nations, as they call
them now, low to middle income nations, but it's they, they
shouldn't be allowed. I mean, sorry, I, I get really
upset. I want to think about just the
finance like it's we're talking about pennies and these, these
Pharmaceutical industry, obviously we know they make
billions of dollars. I mean, Pfizer, Sanofi, Merck,
GSK, they make billions and people who say that vaccines
don't make billions, I'm sorry, but that's not the case anymore.
It used to be maybe back in before the 80s, but now they
make billions. And obviously the COVID vaccine
has made over $86 billion for Pfizer in in the space of four
years. Prevnar has made about 50.
That's probably sorry, made about 80 billion as well.
Since it's been released in 2000, Gardasil has made over $50
billion. And these are companies who
don't have to pay out a penny for injury or damages.
So it's, you know, and plus the government markets their
products and the government mandates their products in some
countries. Yeah, it is deeply shocking, and
to the outsider it it is apparently so obvious when when
one's skates it away. It is also something you're
never going to read in Peppa Pig because the propaganda campaign
surrounding it is, is so, so well, sort of packaged and
delivered. But on that, on the finances,
because let's say, let's just let's just scrape away all the,
all the sort of apparent health benefits, whatever it is about
money. I mean, that is obvious to
anyone who spent more than 5 minutes reading the instructions
or all the, you know, ingredients of a vaccine or what
it may do or indeed looking at any evidence of what it could do
health wise. It is about money.
Now this is going to be perhaps a difficult question to answer
because I'm asking you in a general sense.
But whilst you've got the pharmaceutical com companies run
by people who are driven by a mania concerning profit above
all else. And actually when one thinks,
sorry, just on on the returns one gets.
I mean, Bill Gates is a very good example of somebody who's
not shy about saying he's at a 20 fold return on his investment
in vaccines. You know, he giggles every time
he says it, which is sort of repellent at the same time as
being astonishing. But so you've got that, that
tier of people who are driving the finances of the system and
indeed greasing the skids where the regulatory agencies and
bodies are concerned. But to make all of this happen,
of course, you need people who are at least in some capacity,
sort of scientists or chemists, biologists.
And is it, is it at all plausible that none of them has
any idea what's going on? I mean, you know, we, we cite,
let's let's consider Andrew Wakefield, for example, who did
what he did because he, he went to have a look at something that
he thought nobody else was having a look at.
How, how are we to regard those people who are, I mean, there
are many, many, many of them who sort of who make this happen.
Should it be blindingly obvious to them that this is happening
Or, or is there some mechanism by which they are completely
sort of blinded or blindsided? I think there are unfortunately
a lot of people who completely blinded and blindsided.
And and it's also it's an ideological construct.
I mean, when you I mean, I'm not even in the field, but it was
hard for me to go through the process of realizing, Oh, crap,
like what we've been told about vaccines, It's not true.
Or, you know, they've been hiding information.
Someone who spent their whole career working in vaccinology,
working on developing vaccines because they really want to help
people. I mean, there are lots of people
who work in farmer, who work in relic trade agencies, who even
work for The Who, who really are good people looking to make a
difference, a positive difference to help people.
And it's incredibly, I can imagine so crushing to realize
that, OK, maybe I was wrong. And there are some brave
scientists who will, who will, who will leave the field because
they're just completely disgusted.
There were others who would just pretend it's not happening
because they, you know, they have a mortgage to pay, they
have a kid in college and all the rest of it.
And there are some who believe what they're saying.
They, honestly, they think that people who highlight injuries or
problems after vaccines are crazy and need to be silenced.
Now, is it because they're being so conditioned and brainwashed?
Perhaps? I don't know.
I mean, when I was in Oxford, again, it's interesting because
I was the only known scientist in the room.
And I'm, I'm doing a, a course on vaccinology with PhD
students, with scientists with regulatory agent people.
And Wakefield came up and actually at a lunch table, I
said, well, has anybody actually read 1, his original paper and
2nd the lawsuit against him And nobody had.
And here I am sitting in a room with scientists and they haven't
even read the source document. They just, they just based their
opinion based on the media, based on what Brian Dear said in
the Sunday Mail or the Times. And nobody has gone to look at
the actual paper because people are still saying that.
Oh, he said there was a connection between autism and
vaccines. He never said that.
He suggested a possible link that warranted further
investigation. And that in itself you've not
allowed to say. I mean, I think the big mistake
that, well, big mistake that the what what pissed off the
industry was when he went to the press conference and said you
should get the individual vaccines and not the MMR because
we don't have enough safety data.
I think that was what they didn't like and hence why they
pulled off the single vaccines off the market six months later.
That wasn't Wakefield who did it.
That was the Pharmaceutical industry who took the choice
away from Barron's. It's shocking to discover a lot
of scientists don't actually read.
They don't have time or they don't have the interest or they
only want to read the abstract. They don't want to read the
actual, you know, the, the, the whole report.
And, and yeah, I, I even had at that table when I was again in
Oxford, APHD student who, ironically, who was working on
the microbiome, who said I'd rather have autism than measles.
And my mouth dropped because on top of it, she told me she got
the measles after she had the vaccine.
So she'd had measles, she'd had the vaccine, and yet she's still
standing there saying she'd rather have autism than measles.
And I mean, she wasn't a parent at that point.
She was too young. Well, she could have still, but
there are some ideas in people's head which just don't make any
sense. And you have to ask, is it just
because her condition that way? It's because they're they want
to make sure they stay in their their lane because that's
science is publish or perish. It's unfortunately become in
itself also corrupted by money, corrupted by interest.
You have to stay in in in the lane if you want to get your
funding, you want to get your grants and you want to be
acknowledged by your peers. And I used to be really, you
know, have the imposter syndrome that I don't have a PhD or
anything. And I'm still talking about a
subject like this. But I've seen people with two
PhDs who get absolutely discredited and completely
demounted, dismounted because they're talking negatively or
criticizing vaccines. It doesn't matter how much like
scientific clout you have, you're still going to get bashed
down by those who are trying to protect the industry.
There's a lot of money in it. I mean, if you look at the
amount of vaccine conferences there are in the world and all
the, I mean, now with the biotech industry, it's gigantic.
You're probably talking about like millions of people hired
from the factories to, to the developing scientists to the
distribution to the marketing companies.
It's massive. It's absolutely massive.
And yeah, sorry, I may have lost a little bit the, the, the chest
of the question, but I think it's an ideological construct
that has to be a little bit broken with, with honesty and
with truth. But it's going to be hard for
some. It, it absolutely is.
And that's it. You, you articulate that that
sort of tsunami of pressure coming the other way, I think
very, very well. And your those anecdotes about
people just taking it as read that Wakefield did or said or
wrote whatever without ever checking.
And indeed, somebody making that remark about measles and autumn,
absolutely staggering. But they, anecdotal as they are,
they absolutely encapsulate the, the, the, the situation and what
you're describing now with the, the sort of, you know, financial
resources and, and the messaging and everything else.
What I want to ask you is how the heck did you get your book
out? Because not only have you
managed to publish it, but, but prior to that you were asking
for the release of data and documents and whatnot that was
in effect, to some degree classified.
And given the sensitivity and all the stuff we talked about up
until now, how did you make that happen and, and, and what were
the challenges? Well, I have to say, people who
work in libraries are very friendly, very helpful.
And I, as I said, because a lot of things I was reading in books
I didn't believe, but I decided to go to the libraries.
I started obviously in Switzerland because that's where
I was based. But then I, I, I invested in a
research trip in the UK and I started with the British Library
looking for the historical documents and then the National
Archives to find out what the government had said.
Now anybody can walk into National Archives in Kew Gardens
in London and you know, they do a keyword search, you know, the
Committee of safety on Medicines, 1980.
I'm really interested to find out what this is going to come
out with the MMR vaccine. It's precisely when Wakefield
had that whole episode with social autism scare.
And then you, you make a request.
Sometimes the documents are closed and they will, they make
a consideration if they open them because you've made a
request even though it's before the 100 year mark.
I mean, I've seen documents closed for 100 years for for
privacy reasons, but obviously when they they do make them
available, sometimes the names are listed.
So often these people are dead and they're not, you know, alive
anymore. But anybody can walk into the
National Archives and do that. I didn't have to do anything
special. The only pushback was some
documents I asked for, I didn't get, I didn't get permission.
Like I didn't get permission from the work compensation
document because the work compensation scheme had a lot of
information about vaccine injury within the hospitals.
And the one, for whatever reason, they didn't give me
access to that. So, but I can try again later.
So that information is available.
And in the US as well, in the UKI have to give you kudos
because when they say Freedom of Information, it really is free,
contrary to Switzerland where you have to pay for it and you
pay sometimes up to 100 francs an hour for whatever you're
asking for. And how did I get my book
published? Well, I was very fortunate that
because I was involved in this organization since 2021, so
which is called Reinfor Sante. We were basically a coalition of
doctors and medical professionals and health
professionals who were thinking that, well, if we get together,
we'll have a stronger voice together to counter what's going
on about COVID, these ridiculous policies, you know, preventing
treatment, et cetera. Didn't quite go that way, but at
least we found each other. We felt less isolated.
And in that context, I met up with a few people and I end up
going to a conference in Stockholm in 2023.
And during that conference in Stockholm, I was able to sit
down with Robert Malone and his wife Jill.
And I actually had a prototype of my manuscript with me.
He'd obviously just come out with that book Government Lies
My Government Told me that was printed with Skyhorse.
Skyhorse was actually probably the the, the publisher.
I was like hoping I would be able to approach for this book
because again, it's not a book that exists already.
It's really a compendium on a chronological basis of
historical facts on vaccines. It's over 2 thousand 1300 facts
on vaccines and Robert Malone and his wife were were
interested in my project and saw how much work I put into it.
I had two different manuscripts because I had one on vaccine
safety and then one knows the timeline and he immediately
acted basically like my agent. He, you know, he contacted Tony
Lyons from Skyhorse and said, Hey, I've got this, this this
person here who, who's written this book, you should take a
look at it. And then I sent the manuscript
to Tony Lyons, Skyhorse and the rest is history.
But I mean, obviously it's a, it's a long process getting a
book published. And I understand why people self
publish as well, because the, you know, it, it gets out
quicker. But for me being a a new author
as well, I mean, I, I've, I've self published a book on the
virus, which was the first book I wrote because I thought if
people were less scared of the virus, of viruses, then they'll
be less inclined to go and get injected with, with whatever
we're told that we can inject. But it was, it was that it was
making good connections, meeting the right people at the right
time, basically that helped me to get this book out.
And obviously Tony Lyons and then Zoe O'Toole, who's a very
important editor at Children's Health Defense, looked also at
the manuscript and because she was also enthusiastic about it
and said, Hey, this is an addition to information that we
have on vaccines. It's not just like saying
something we already know or it's regurgitated.
And thankfully, with her help, we were able to get the final
draft and get it to print. Amazing story.
I mean, I don't know what you'd say this week.
It strikes me that had you not had those connections you
describe and you'd gone to a publisher cold did, what do you
think the outcome would have been?
I think I would have been. I mean, I did go to do a writing
course a couple of years before and I was told that if you don't
have a Doctor Who's writing it with you, forget it.
We're not interested. So that that would have been a
serious handicap. Obviously, as I'm not a
physician or a scientist. If I hadn't had an associate, if
I hadn't written a book, Co written it with someone who was
in science, I don't think I would have been able to get any
interest. I still would have set my
manuscript off to, to Skyhorse and, and see what my chances
were. But it's true.
The other publishers I contacted in the UK when I did my, my
course with Bloomsbury, I believe it was Bloomsbury.
Bloomsbury I think it was. Sorry, they, they, they set out
right and we're not going to look at it unless you have
you're Co writing with a scientist or a doctor.
OK. Wow.
Well, yeah, no surprise there. I suppose I'm just just going
back to your the book you just showed up.
It's very easy to make a case for the marketing of vaccines or
indeed other medical products and indeed the sorts of control
mechanisms that we saw put in place in 2020 almost all around
the world as being predicated on the threat presented by
something that is transmissible. Going back to your original
position on vaccines that are being open minded, it is the
very existence or indeed the sort of pathogenicity of what is
described as a virus, something that you've looked at at all
sort of in relation to your vaccination research.
Absolutely. I actually started with this
book on the viruses before I went and did the, the book on
the vaccines because I mean, I, I, I, I never wanted to do such
a, a large, dense book and I wanted to do something that was
more friendly and approachable to, to parents.
And I actually started with a virology course at the
University of Columbia learning about viruses because I, I
again, knew nothing about viruses and was interested about
the whole domain of virology. How do we define a virus?
You know, what are the categorizations?
And again, I found out was like, whoa, it's massive.
Like there are big zillions of viruses we have no idea about.
And we're just focusing on the ones that we think cause disease
and not looking at everything else.
So yes, I, I actually, I would say part of the vaccine research
was looking at viruses because a lot of vaccines are obviously,
as we know, against viral infections.
And I would say the majority of them now are against viral
infections. I mean, Gardasil is HPV is a
virus. COVID obviously is a virus.
The flu is a virus. You've got RSV is a virus.
And I think there are more going to come out and the way they
can. Again, I say they, but I say the
authorities create this fear that no, viral infections are
what make us sick, not looking at any other factors like
environmental factors or what else is going on, you know,
you're immune, depressed or etcetera.
I think it's important that people understand that viruses
are as important as epic as bacteria.
And the imminent scientists, again, it's not me saying this,
but imminent scientists who have dared to say that viruses are
super important to, to the evolution of humanity, to
evolution of life, that there is no life without viruses.
We shouldn't be fearing them. We should understand them
better, Absolutely. But we have like simplified the
concept just so it scares the crap out of people instead of
educating them on what are viruses and the fact there are
so many of them that we only know a small amount.
And how do we check for viruses? Because they're invisible.
Nobody's nobody. Neither you nor me have actually
seen one, and most people have never and never will see one
because it's simply not in the capacity.
And we haven't got access to an electron microscope.
And even if we did, we're not even sure we'd be able to
isolate 1. So there's so much fear and
ignorance around the issue of viruses and that fuels the
vaccine uptake and that fuels the whole debate of, you know,
you have to get a vaccine because this, I mean, we have
now this Frankenstein COVID variant.
I mean, they call it Frankenstein already.
They should tell you something, but they're always going to be
able to come out with new variants because that's the
nature of viruses. They mutate.
There's going to be different strains, but they're able to use
every strain as a, as a fear mongering device to again, try
to get people to to vaccinate. And it's really frustrating
sometimes because people are still so, so, so have so much
confidence in the public health authorities.
And unfortunately, the public health authorities, as we've
mentioned this, not just the regulatory agencies have maybe
got vested interest, but the public health authorities as
well. I've discovered very high up
people in our infectious disease department were being paid by
Merck whilst they were working for the government.
And this is just kind of like, OK, you know, no one, no one is
scandalized by this. No one sees it as a potential
conflict of interest. But when you have got the profit
motive behind potential products that you can sell, when you
scare people that that breaks down the whole real discourse
you're going to have about health.
Because as you in the UK, you didn't see, I mean, here in
system, we didn't see any communication during COVID
about, you know, how to stay healthy, how to how to boost
your immune system, keep your vitamin D levels.
No, they told us vitamin D has there's no significance in
health. I mean stuff which is just
scandalous. So viruses, I think you cannot
look at vaccines without looking at viruses, just as you cannot
look at vaccines without looking at biological weapons because
that's also a huge part of of how vaccines have been developed
is through military dual use research into biological
weapons. So those are those kind of like
go part and parcel when you're doing analysis or an in depth
research into vaccines. But I highly, I mean, I do
highly recommend that people go and understand a bit more about
viruses because they're only going to come out with more of
them and try to use the scare tactic and information is power.
And if you don't get scared anymore, then you're impervious
to to their propaganda, which is again, what it is.
I mean, you're saying stay stronger with like kids
animations. It's it's they're really talking
down to us like we're idiots. And they've been doing that for
a long time with everything to do with vaccines.
Even here in Switzerland, they use like little cartoons to try
to explain things to us because, you know, people are too stupid
to understand it otherwise. But they they don't give correct
information. They don't empower people with
the information about health because ultimately that's the
most important resource we have after our time, if not maybe
more important than our time, because our time is is worthless
if we don't have health to optimize the experience.
Yeah, exactly. No, you make you make very, very
good points on the way in which fear is first of all sort of
constructed or confected and then and then weaponized.
And in fact, I mean, this will be the case everywhere, but it's
so obvious in the UK that the people who fund or produce the
pharmaceutical answer of the same people who are funding
research into what are described as emerging diseases.
I mean, it's, it's just so blindingly obvious.
And again, the, the sort of narrative surrounding the idea
of a virus and what it may be and what it may do has again,
interestingly, created a, a sort of resurgence in the terrain
theory. You know, exactly what you were
talking about the, the environmental considerations.
So it will be very interesting to see where this goes.
Now what that brings me to, and I think we'll have to sort of
conclude on this is, is what would you advise or recommend or
suggest that people can do? Because this is exactly, you
know, going back to the sort of the hairdresser conversation or,
you know, what flu vaccine people do get, rightly so, very,
very emotionally charged and philosophically too about this.
And yet, you know, we spoke about the Victorian period in in
England when there was the National Anti Vaccination
League, but it exists no longer. There are, you know,
organizations that have countering this sort of thing as
part of their remit. Is that to your knowledge, you
know, and organizational organizations that are
specifically sort of single issue on on this kind of thing
or just in general terms, you know, what would you recommend
to people to do to to help push the swing the pendulum the other
way? I imagine there are local
parents groups which are specifically dealing with issues
of vaccination. I mean, I'm looking more at the
general health groups which look at health as a larger, in like a
larger perspective, larger image.
Which obviously the World Council of Health is, is one of
the main ones which is based in the UK, which has done fantastic
work, have fantastic resources on our website.
This is a Children's Health defense, not just about
vaccines, about health in general, but I think the most
important thing for parents, for grandparents, because everyone
is, is touched by the subject vaccines.
Now, even if you're an adult, they're going to push you to get
the flu vaccine or they'll push you to get your update on your
tetanus. I think it's really important
that people read. And if they don't like reading,
then what could watch your documentary or, or I mean,
obviously there's faxed, which is documentary specifically
about the cover up in the CDC about the, the unpleasant
statistics on autism and vaccines.
But there are loads of documentaries out there.
There are great books. I would especially recommend
Dissolving Illusions, as I said, by Suzanne Humphreys and Roman
Bistrionic. I also very highly recommend
this book by Aaron Suri, who is a fantastic attorney in the US
who's worked with ICAN, who has written a fantastic book where
he's got again, he's a legal background.
So he he looks at evidence from a court legal perspective.
And I think that people need to have conversations and not be
afraid to have difficult conversations, but to ask
questions because I've had a lot of people who are, you know,
very strongly opposed to vaccines and they'll get
accusatory. Like all they're doing is
they're doing that la, la, la. I think if you're going to have
a conversation, which is productive, you need to ask
questions. Well, what do you think we
should put in our body? What do you think is, is, you
know, does it make sense to be putting these products in this
and don't you think that we should be testing all these
vaccines on the schedule before we recommend them to babies?
I think that's the way forward is entering into a dialogue with
questioning, with humility, with no accusations, but not being
afraid to have those conversations cause a lot of
people just shut up about those conversations, 'cause I mean,
I've, I've lost friends on this journey.
This is obviously, but that's OK.
You know, life is about change, So, and it's important to have
these conversations. It's important not to censor
yourself. And I've been doing that for
years. Why I would censor myself
because I didn't feel like I should say anything because I'm
not a scientist or anyone. But I think conversations are
important and it's OK to disagree.
We're not all going to agree on the same thing, but I think
we're all, if we can all agree that the health of our children
and of ourselves is our most important resource and we don't
want to threaten that. And, and if we're going to,
we're going to try and do everything we do to preserve it
basically. So, But people have to spend
time reading because no matter how much you listen to someone
just telling you something, if you don't actually go through
the process of understanding and realizing yourself, it's not
going to have the same impact. And often, unfortunately, that
happens through tragedy. So either, you know, a vaccine
injured kid and the parent who suddenly realizes, or in my
case, you know, my dad. So, but yeah, I think it's
important that we have open conversations, even if we know
we're going to disagree, but be humble and to ask questions.
Absolutely. Very, very good advice, which I
think will be passed far and wide.
And you talk about being humble now you have been far too humble
because I noted in your list of resources you didn't talk about
your own book, but you're going to have to do so.
No, no, the ultimate vaccine timeline.
I mean, it's very obvious from the discussion we've had that it
is incredibly thorough, and it sounds like exactly the sort of
thing that anyone who's listened to this interview not only
should read, but should tell others about.
Where can we get your book, Shaz?
So my book is available on Amazon I believe in the UK.
I'm not sure there's other big platforms in the UK.
But I'm also a very ardent supporter of local bookstores.
So if you do have a local bookstore where you want to
support, order in because they can order it from their
distributor. But otherwise Amazon is probably
easier. And yeah, it's the vaccine.
I I also recommend getting little tabs because it is dense
and I think there will be certain parts that you might
want to refer to back. But but yeah, that that's where
you can get it in the UK and I believe in mainland Europe.
Perfect. I'm sorry.
No, that. Well, that's great.
That's really useful. Now what about any other
websites, social media? Is there anywhere else that we
can sort of follow what it is you're continuing to do?
So I have a website that accompanies the book which I'm
updating slowly with with a new material is called the ultimate
vaccinetimeline.com. I also recently started a sub
stack where you can follow me, which is called Indie
researcher, so Indi eresearcher.substack.com.
And then I have a website where I publish information about
health in general, but not vaccines, and that's called
Health Science simplified.com. So yeah, I'm not, I'm, I'm not
very social media active, but those are the places where I
share information, where if you want to reach out to me and
contact me, you can and, and yeah, that's it.
Lovely. OK, And for those of you dashing
for a pad and paper, don't worry about all these will be written
down in the notes that accompany this interview.
And on that note, we we will have to draw to a close.
But it Shaz, it's been a fascinating journey through not
just the research and indeed the results of your book, but but
also the stories that have sort of bookended it and indeed the,
you know, the issues that you continue to to confront and your
message. So thank you so much for joining
me at UK column and I and I really do wish you well with
with everything that you're, you know, doing in life and and in
particular with the book. Thank you so much and thank you
for everything that you've been doing with the UK column.
And also I read your personal story I thought was very
interesting about your your background and why you left the
police force. And I want to thank you for
everything that you're doing. So thank you very much.