Nikolai Petrovsky, developper of COVAX-19 COVID-19 vaccine, on Australia's Pandemic Response, with Senator Alex Antic (YouTube)

One of the best overviews of different types of Vaccines and why mRNA gene therapy may be the riskiest of all. 

DG - JUN 22, 2024 

Based with Senator Alex Antic - 3.45K subscribers

Apr 16, 2023

Professor Nikolai Petrovsky is an accomplished immunologist, vaccine developer, and clinical researcher with decades of experience in his field. He holds a double degree in medicine and surgery and completed his PhD in immunology. He has also contributed over 220 peer-reviewed articles to academic journals. In 2002, Professor Petrovsky founded Vaxine, an Australian biotech company specialising in vaccine development, which developed a COVID-19 vaccine called COVAX-19 which was authorised for emergency use in Iran. In this episode of BASED, Professor Petrovsky shares his expertise in vaccine tech and viruses and his views on Australia’s COVID-19 pandemic response.

Transcript - edited by  chatCPT


Transcipt (raw - from YouTube):


well I'm pleased to introduce our first guest on my new podcast based with Alex antic Professor Nikolai petrovsky a man

qualified to discuss viruses and vaccines if there ever was one Professor petrovsky graduated from the University

of Tasmania with a bachelor of Medical Science in 1979 and a double degree in medicine and surgery in 1982. he

completed a PhD in Immunology focusing on cytokine regulation in health and disease and from 1998 to 2004 Professor

petrovsky was the director of the National Health Sciences Center in Canberra the clinical research organization by the way where he

conducted clinical trials and he's been the director in the department of diabetes and endocrinology in Flinders

Medical Center in South Australia ever since now in 2002 he founded an essay-based biotech company specializing

in vaccine development and trials and since then he's played a key role in the

development of many vaccines and has contributed to over 220 peer-reviewed articles tools to

various academic journals as well as holding editorial positions for various other scientific journals such as open

Immunology journal the Journal of vaccines and vaccination and more recently Professor petrovsky developed a

vaccine which has been authorized for emergency use in Iran for covert 19.

there's much more that could be said but welcome to the podcast

you have the esteemed honor of being the first guest on our podcast so it's and also the crash test dummy for it so so

welcome and I brace in for the inevitable inevitable ride but I want to

ask you a heap of questions now it won't surprise you that uh that there's there's a fair bit of cover because of course there's a lot of history and all

this but I want to start off tell me about your vaccine that you created what

is it up to what's the status what's the LIE of the land okay so our vaccine is

What are the effects of the Covid Vaccine

is now an approved product in the Middle East we've delivered with our partner

synergen 8 million doses so which is no mean fee

um and you know the great thing is that we've we've seen very positive

Effectiveness particularly against preventing severe disease which is what

we're trying to achieve with these vaccines we shouldn't be pretending they stop infection or transmission they

never did they never will probably like at least the current generation but what

they are very good at is stopping people who are at high risk from getting severe disease so so that's what we showed with

our vaccine and along with that we had great safety data yeah and you can't over emphasize that you know what kills

most vaccines is not whether they work but are they sufficiently safe to give to Millions if not billions of people so

safety is everything in the vaccine world and so you know we're obviously

very reassured that having handed out millions of doses we haven't seen any of

the problems that have been at least theoretically associated with some of the other vaccines particularly the the

heart inflammation the myocarditis yeah you know the severe blood clots and what

we call Central vein thrombosis which can lead to death um and and then some of the autoimmune

problems like Guillain-Barre syndrome so so you know again we never rest on our

Laurels you know the job is never done what we can say is that you know we've

given it to millions of people and we haven't seen any of those signals and is there the process was dealt with by the

regulatory body of the country that's using it now that yeah so so the the way

it works is that each country has their own regulator they all work in

essentially the same coordinated way they ask the same questions

um and typically you go to the regulator of the country in which you've done your

major what we call pivotal phase three study which is in our case was just over

16 000 people were in the study and so because the regulator in that country is

intimately involved in that study so they actually can see the data as it's

being generated so if there's nothing being hidden and so they obviously have a lot of confidence that it's not just a

dossier being given to them but they've seen inside the study they've seen what's been happening they've talked to

the investigators and therefore they have the confidence that yes this is all working as it should and so not

surprisingly you get bad approval there first and this is a very vigorous process a very rigorous and vigorous

process in in and a similar one to other countries as you say in this country I mean it's you know it's a carbon copy if

you like so if it's past this test it's passing any tests no no exactly so so

um you know because people always ask well maybe Regulators in some countries operate to different standards

um and you know if you go to say a developing world country I mean um you

know do their Regulators operate at a lower level right it actually is quite the opposite in reality what you find is

that the the smaller the country the more nervous the regulator is

um the harder a time they give you the more questions they ask and the longer

they take and so ironically often Australia will be and and you know the

U.S Europe will be the first countries to approve a new product

um because in a way they're more confident it's not that they hold things

to a higher standard um in fact you could argue what we've seen at least with covert is is they've

done the opposite that maybe they've held things to a lower standard yeah um than what people are expecting but it

isn't true to say that you know you get an approval outside of those three countries that somehow at a lower level

yeah it's almost counterintuitive in a sense isn't it and I want to get back to the approval process and some of the other stuff you've mentioned on there

before but just about in terms of your and don't foolish don't feel um you know shy about telling us but I wanted people

to understand the significant expertise and background 220 peer-reviewed study is that that you've authored or been

co-authored of but just a little snapshot of the history and uh and you know your qualifications to get to this

point like you you've got a world-class background in my view well thank you for that

Nikolais background

um you know it's been a long journey so so you know I did my PhD some uh well

two to three decades ago um it's too long it's in the last century

so so you know it was before a lot of people the uh you know who I guess are

in the audience were born um and uh after that you know I I was a

practicing clinician and I remain a practicing clinician which is why to me safety is everything yeah

um because you know we want to look after people and we don't want to do harm but I was passionate and fell into

developing vaccines after my PhD 25 or so years ago

and fortunately I was successful in obtaining funding from the U.S government which is unusual because we

are not a us-based Enterprise or my team is here in Australia so we're one of the few groups in the world that the

National Institutes of Health in the US fund outside of the US now we would hope

to to think that means we must be doing something really special and maybe the

first time they funded us people would say well that was a fluke it was after 9 11 and you know George Bush was trying

to really move vaccine signs forward but you know we have been continuously

funded by them for the subsequent 20 years in larger and larger amounts and

and I think in total now it's over 50 million dollars that they've put into our program so U.S government the US

government not not the Australian government the U.S government we're an Australian outfit yeah a little bit

unusual but but again it is what it is what it is um but you know uh as a

consequence we've been fortunate to be able to use that funding from the US to

develop vaccines against the SARS coronavirus in 2 2003 that was one of

our first programs very successful protected animals against a lethal infection we then had the opportunity to

apply it in 2009 you may recall we had the thing called

the swine flu pandemic wonders severe and it spread and everyone got it but it wasn't severe and

What is a pandemic

again people confuse pandemic or the label of pandemic with severity and

lethality and in fact there is no connection so a pandemic is is a new

virus that is going to infect very large numbers of people in multiple countries so it's more about a new virus spreading

through Global populations then it is a virus that's 80 percent lethal or one

percent lethal or in the case of covid-19 currently you know well under 0.1 percent lethal The lethality doesn't

come into the definition yeah um and and so you know when we worked with SARS and

then we worked with the swine flu in 2009 we actually had the first vaccine

in the world in humans three months after start of of the swine flu pandemic

so we were first in the world yeah what do you think again yeah that would be something to celebrate and

Fastest human vaccine development in human history

that would give you Kudos and that was the fastest human vaccine development in

human history yeah like it was like around three months you know between discovery of the virus and when we were

starting our trials at Flinders very successful trials um you know and and subsequently we did

the most coronavirus in camels uh successful vaccine again another coronavirus so when it came to covid-19

we've done this so many times before to us you know we said look this this is

self-obvious we need to be diving in here and and making a good vaccine based

on all these good vaccines that we developed in the past so so to us it it

it wasn't something totally new you know we'd had all this background experience

so we thought we we sort of have a duty to to produce a vaccine and produce a

really safe and effective vaccine because we probably know more about this than anyone in the world to without sort

of trying to sound egotistical because we've been doing it for 20 years we've been doing it in humans for 20 years we

know what we're doing we have the tools all we need is is the assistance and and

we can get this out there and giving it to people so that was the motive to to push off and your vaccine is quite

Types of vaccines

different to some of the others I just just for a bit of background what can you just break down the main types so the main types of of vaccines in in the

technology brackets okay so let's do it by by sort of age of the technology so

the very original vaccines over 100 years old uh what we call the

inactivated viral vaccines and so in this case you take the virus sarskov 2

and you infect cells with it they make lots more virus you then purify that

virus you kill it with something like formalin or a chemical that will kill the virus and that's now your vaccine in

fact most of the vaccines in China and in India are actually that hundred year

old technology and that compound that's left or that that material that's left then tricks the immune system into

thinking they're producing the reaction the immune reaction yeah because you're you're giving the virus it can't it

The immune reaction

can't sort of make you sick because it's been killed but it has all of the hopefully features that the immune

system can recognize and make antibodies too that will neutralize the real virus

now it's as I say it's a very old technology it does have a few problems

um one one is that um because you're working with the real virus you have to have very high level

um biosecurity around your manufacturing facilities now there is no manufacturing

facility really in Australia that could do that at Large Scale right

um and and so it was very limited I mean there were facilities in China and India obviously

um but not many other places but so that that's the sort of traditional flu vaccines you know the seasonal flu

vaccine that a lot of people get that's how it's made by CSL in Melbourne they grow up the virus in their case in eggs

kill the virus and you just inject people with that killed virus to the

dead virus vaccine that's why so that's one then the the next one you know in

What is recombinant protein

terms of of I guess age is is in fact the one approach we're using which is

called recombinant protein right so in this case what what we're doing is we

identify from the virus which the virus is made up of lots of different proteins

and other components but generally there's just one protein which is the

protein the virus uses to attach to your cells which which is key to to the

ability of the virus to cause the infection and so if we can just identify

that one protein we now actually synthetically make that protein so we

know we don't deal with the virus at all we're just making a single protein from the virus and then we're now injecting

you with that protein so your body will recognize the protein and make the antibodies that now can actually

recognize and block the virus so that's for instance the Hepatitis B vaccines

the human papilloma virus vaccines a lot of the childhood vaccines are based on

that synthetic protein technology these are done with insects so the the difference is yeah the bugs yeah so so

How does it work

so um we only need one cell from an insect so these are immortalized cells so we

don't work with the the moths themselves but so this this cell was taken from a

moth 30 or 40 years ago and it's been growing ever since in a broth so it's an

immortal cell line and so if you look at it we just have a big vat of broth and

in it are floating just these single cells and and so we then infect those

cells and get the gene of the spike protein into those cells and those cells

are now tricked into to producing and secreting lots of that protein which we then purify so the beauty of this

technology is it's unbelievably safe because you're just working with a

protein you're not working with a virus or anything else it's highly pure so it doesn't have a lot of side effects in

terms of you know making people get feeders which you can get with inactivated viral

vaccines they tend to be a bit dirty as we call them so it's not unusual to get

some people having quite a high fever for instance after it whereas really

don't see that so so it's a very pure defined safe and effective process

um and and so we thought and I've always thought that that is the best approach you know the challenge is not many

people can do it it's really tough to make a synthetic protein because

proteins are big and they're complex right even though you're tricking these insect cells to make them you still have

to purify the protein you still have to make sure the protein is all folded in

the right way which which is is not easy is that a technical thing or is it a

infrastructure thing or is just just it's a knowledge thing it's a tech yeah

Is it a technical or infrastructure thing

so it's Technical and knowledge if you have all the conditions right if you know what you're doing which obviously

we believe we do because our vaccine has been highly effective now you know sanofi which is the biggest vaccine

company in the world was given seven billion dollars by the U.S government to

do exactly what we've been doing and they didn't get it to work they're right

so they're they're vaccine hadn't been approved right they'd had to go back to

the drawing board and try and fix some of the problems despite having unlimited

resources yeah and here we are with a tiny team completely

you know a year in front of them because we knew what we were doing and we got it

right I was going to ask you that question so you put that down to just that's just knowledge that's that's IP yeah it it it's in it's it's the people

and and um you know they those companies have tens if not hundreds of thousands of

Staff but you know we we have like 15 staff yeah but in some ways as long as

those 15 people that really know what they're doing or even a few of those people really know what they're doing

they can achieve more than 10 000 people who are all in a big organization but no

one really knows what they're doing sound like you're talking about a bureaucracy there to me I would never we

would never say that a bureaucracy would be inefficient of course so because there's so many good ones I can't name

Viral vectors

any of them um anyway putting that aside so also from there we've got uh now Victor I'm gonna jump the gun yeah no so

so so the next um category which has been around for a number of years now is

what we call the viral Vector viral vectors and so what we're dealing with here is

live viruses which always you know as a clinician

always makes me a little bit uneasy because whenever you're dealing with

live things there's unpredictability right you know you have a dog it's a

live thing you might say my dogs friendly in its tame and it will never do something wrong and then it bites

someone yeah you know I mean inherently live things are unpredictable yeah and so live

viruses even you know when they are genetically modified Vector there's always an element of uncertainty and it

might be small but you can never extinguish it and so most clinicians are

I think to a whole are prepared to accept you know yes this this has been

characterized but they'll they're always just that little bit nervous nervous about it but so so what we we have here

with the viral vectors and I think again the important thing here is we had

completely new vectors that that were being used so if you've had a viral

vector and you've been using it for 30 or 40 years you you've grown to understand its behaviors and that builds

confidence I I think again where a lot of nervousness came

um with with what was happening in covert is completely new vectors were

being used for the first time and so the uncertainty around that is is much much

larger yeah um and so you know we suddenly saw after the vectors were rolled out so these are

the adenoviral vectors like AstraZeneca you know we saw this side effect of um


you know thrombosis um and idiopathic thrombocytopenic

purpura which which is is loss of platelets in association with blood clotting completely unexpected that was

linked to the vector because we now know it's occurring with the different adenoviral vectors out there it's not

occurring so much with any of the like the inactivated or the recomb protein it is occurring a bit with the MRNA which

is interesting there is an increased risk of thrombosis that's sort of not been as prominent as myocarditis but

it's there but but again the problem is you use something for the first time

with not a lot of knowledge about it you know it can come back to bite you

and I think that's what we saw with the vectors yeah who would have thought and mRNA well finally yeah finally the the

newest and and uh technology none of us was expecting to see uh we'd all worked

with it yeah because you you know a bit about this here you've worked with mRNA vaccine

technology so as well places anyone to tell us all about it um what's the history first yeah all right well so so

mRNA um was really introduced around about 15 years ago

with an idea of gene therapy so an idea of treating people who have genetic

diseases if you can inject them with mRNA then that mRNA will program their

cells to make the missing protein that say causing the genetic disease because most genetic diseases are lack of a

particular protein because the Gene's not working so mRNA was really was never

introduced or thought of that it was going to be a vaccine technology it was a gene therapy technology

and so it was it was rolled out by a number of companies and they went into

human trials with it as a gene therapy where and unfortunately it it had

failings and one of them being that if if you're

mRNA vaccines

going to give a gene therapy you have to produce or replace that protein you know

indefinitely and the Mr RNA gets the cells to express

the protein you know for weeks now we know at least months but but almost

certainly not for 10 or 20 years so you're going to have to have multiple doses it was only you know in in the

last five years or so that company and particularly moderna sort of repurposed and said oh we think

we can maybe make a vaccine with it and at that point we said oh okay we we

better look at this technology you know and assess it ourselves because maybe we

need to be at The Cutting Edge and and move over so we we developed our own

mRNA vaccines we tested them uh ultimately we decided no it's it's it's gonna it's too early it's not effective

enough there's too many unknowns particularly on the safety side it's going to take 10 or 15 years to collect

the safety data um you know I'm hoping to be retired in that time you know for for a pandemic

you want something reliable that's certain and recombinant proteins the only way to achieve that so yeah so we

actually put it to the side said maybe in 10 or 15 years it will be ready for

for Prime Time Maybe not maybe you know maybe it won't work but it isn't ready

now so you know and many of us in the field came to the same conclusion so we

were the most stunned of all when you know 12 months later and and they're saying give it to everyone give it to

the whole world's population we're going so hey guys like I'm getting really nervous here hold fire um so it just

explain what that actually does because I mean people you know it's got technical stuff but but in essence that is a

um it's it's an injection filled with this mRNA which is a messenger RNA

compound or I'm using the wrong language uh which which based basically tell cells to produce a spike protein to

produce the uh produce the well what's the word I'm looking for a compound that looks like the virus or yeah so it's

Genetics 101

very so I think just just to explain genetics 101 properly so our cells um or

or the way our genetics is based we have DNA which is a whole an alphabet that

encodes all of our genes and that DNA inside our cells has to be turned into

RNA which is like a a a reading off one alphabet and translating

it into a second alphabet um and and then the RNA tells ribosomes

which are these protein complexes to make proteins right and and that makes

our cells it makes us makes us what we are yeah so mrnas is a again an alphabet

or a a string of letters in a code that are all strung together it's formed by

sugars but but in essence it translates DNA into a set of instructions that

tells ourselves what proteins to make right so if if we take any mRNA even a

foreign error mRNA and get it inside the cells the cells can't distinguish the

foreign mRNA from the MRNA that's in there all the time that's giving it instructions so we're tricking the cell

now to make you know any protein when it was gene therapy it was trying to get

them to make a protein that should they should be making anyway in the case of a

vaccine essentially you're tricking the cell to make the spike protein that would otherwise be made by the virus and

then that back then causes the immune reaction body thinks it's had it before and you have the same effect and you

know what you have you have a dumbing down of the effect of the virus when you catch it so so yeah so what what

What happens when you inject a protein

essentially we do when when we make a protein we inject it stays outside your

cells the immune system the cells the immune system particularly the the phagocytes eat that protein right

um and then they they they present it to what we call T and B cells which are the

cells that say ah this protein is foreign must be associated with a virus

or pathogen of some sort so we better make an immune memory like make

antibodies and T cells that recognize it when you when you do it with mrnas or the MRNA itself isn't recognized per se

it's just an alphabet so it's a program and so that program gets inside the

cells those cells make the spike protein which now gets into the surface of the cells into the membrane and gets

secreted from the cells and at that point it gets recognized by the immune system but it's not it's it's similar

but it's not equivalent to injecting the protein from the outside because now the protein is inside your cells yeah which

which is very very different very different and and yeah and very complicated as well um there's obviously

a whole range of things that come to that but I'm just interested in the actual virus itself I mean obviously a

lot have been made of the origins um but I think I'm right in saying that you developed a view pretty early on

about the origin of the virus if I'm right in saying that yeah so so one of

The origin of the virus

the the things we've been doing for 20 years is is we were the first real adopters of artificial intelligence in

in this field and again that's one of the reasons we've been successful in getting support

um from the US is we're always trying to stay at The Cutting Edge so so when when

the you know this new description of a new virus occurred in China we knew nothing about it they knew nothing about

it no one had even got an isolated virus but they managed to sequence it and get

its alphabet you know so you just got a big string of of alphabet we actually used our

artificial intelligence to translate all of that to work out what actually was in

the virus um and you know the idea then was you know and we did we designed the vaccine

based on an alphabet we no one had even characterized the virus at that point

but alongside that we thought well is there anything else we can do with our artificial intelligence that might be of

of interest and of use and we because at the time there was a lot of debate going

on where did this virus come from you know and everyone assumed it came from an animal source as did we the wrongly

flame friend Pangolin ah yes yes we'll get to that so so so we thought well

The model of the virus

this is great we we have have you know a model of the virus in in our computers

um and then we can model all of these different species of animals and then we can actually determine in in our

supercomputers well what what species of animal matches best with the virus

because that's that would that will give us a good idea of where where this virus came from so we looked at a whole range

of of different animal species that might have come from including the pangolins that they're there but we we

also looked at civet cats which were the sorts of um SARS uh cold one yes uh you

know we looked at bats and then we we did the usual you know cats dogs cows

you know um and and and and and basically then analyze what was the best match for the

virus right right at the start of the virus humans came out on top

that that was not what we were expecting and so you're scratching your head say

A perfect human virus

so this is a perfect human virus that didn't come from humans

that that presents a fundamental conceptual problem how did it how did it know how to become a perfect human

pathogen if it had never seen a human and so you start to think well is there

any evidence that was circulating in humans just not recognized and and

certainly you know even within that first few weeks there was no evidence this this virus had been circulating in

China or anywhere else you know unrecognized to adapt to humans so so you're thinking then well how else

could it adapt to a human if it wasn't in a human now these are just these are just sort

How else could it adapt

of you know thought experiments so no presumptions and we're going well what about if if it had been in a

culture with a human cell or with a monkey cell you know you know it could

adapt in in the culture just like we do with our insect cells you know people

you know can have cell cultures of human cells we all use them in our Labs what about

if if this virus you know somehow got into a culture well and and they don't

know it's there that they're culturing the human cells the virus is being carried along and and and this happens

and this is again um not something unique a lot of cell cultures 50 years after people have been

working on them they suddenly identify a virus as being there for the last 50 years

you know propagating in those cells they just weren't aware of its existence it's silent you know so we thought well no

Perfect explanation

that's a perfect explanation because it doesn't even require a human to know it's happening

it could be just you know uh you know as some cells from a penguin which were

infected by the virus were cultured in the same lab as had some human cultures

the virus managed to cross over just because it cross-contamination so so

we're suddenly going okay so a lab this could have come from a lab not saying

anyone has deliberately made this virus but it's completely logically consistent

with everything we knew about this virus it was it was perfectly human adapted

day one you know I mean you know it it has these features that suggested it's

been adapted on at least human cells if not humans um you know are there any labs where it

could have come from Well turns out Wuhan has the major labs in the world

um that work with coronaviruses and coronavirus samples you know from

pangolins from combats that have human cell lines you're going okay well that's

pretty plausible again not suggesting any knowing human involvement but just

looking logically then you say well where did the the pandemic start you know was it in the vicinity of

any lab that this might have come from and then you realize that you know the Wuhan Institute of virology for instance

is is only a couple of kilometers from what appeared to be the very epicenter

of the outbreak and on the same train line it's one train stop from the epicenter and you go so you know someone

got infected in the lab again accidentally went home on the

train line to the next stop got off went to buy some groceries at the the wet Market to make dinner you know

transmitted the infection to a store worker there who then transmitted it to

to people and you go okay this is all plausible it's it's not a conspiracy theory

um all you're trying to do is break things down and say you know is is is this

Is this possible

possible or or is is it not is there any evidence to support or not so so we

entered into this completely innocently saying well we've got this great

modeling data which to this day no one has refuted on the and in fact all of

the subsequent experiments that were done in China and other places established that all our modeling was a

hundred percent correct yeah that you know there was no species that showed a

better fit to this virus than humans so so again none of that's in dispute we

again were open-minded about how to explain that observation so we said

let's publish this this should be really high profile you know everyone's going to want to see this

we would just knocked back the time and time it was being censored you know this is a scientific paper not

making any assertions no conspiracies we're going what what's going on we've

now submitted it to you know nature or all of these leading journals and it's sometimes bouncing in 24 hours basically

we have no interest in this and you're going there's something going on really something going on at a level we don't

understand this is not a coincidence you know it was very rigorous the paper you

know we had had experts look at it and critique it know it and as I say and all

the experimental data fitted it and yet we couldn't get it published it took us over a year to get and this was really

important data early in the pandemic you know it they managed to sabotage it so

by the time it was published you know it was almost old hat yeah right see what I

mean but it was obviously quite deliberate and at that point we started to realize we're up against something

we'd never seen before I mean there's so many questions that arise out about I just want to I don't know if you can

How do we know

feel comfortable answering this but how do we know that same sort of freezing effect is not happening on adverse

effects and other sort of studies that are being done have been done might be done through the similar Journal line at

the moment I mean well we know okay that's not it's not a question I know multiple authors now around the world

because you know we obviously have ended up connecting to people and sharing stories and this is systematic censoring

and I know you know obviously it's happened in social media I think Elon

Musk and Twitter have exposed the level of which has been operating because yeah but also it's just like it's been

happening in social media it's been happening at the very core of the scientific establishment you see this is

the thing I think that people need to understand is just how much of this has been buried over the course of the pandemic but beyond the the criticism I

always get I'm jumping off track here but I don't want to do that but the criticism I always get was will show me the peer everyone knows the term

reviewed now every layperson like me now knows the term peer reviewed so we all use it uh show me the peer reviewed X

you know data and the reports and all that sort of stuff we know now from what you're saying and from other evidence

that we say that this is actually getting physically buried beginning with what you're describing but also studies

on adverse effects of the current round of vaccines I mean that's a real thing it's it's a very real thing and and when

Why was the research buried

you say buried so you know our research was was finally published in under peer

review there was nothing wrong with it but they managed to hold it up for over

a year so during that time no one has access to that information so when you say you know they're saying well show us

the peer review data all they have to do is hold it up for a couple of years and by then everyone's forgotten and moved

on so it was a very deliberate campaign you know not necessarily to stop it ever

being published you know but it was to stop anything that they didn't want being published during that time for the

first year or two during which they were trying to push a singular agenda and

they were trying to censor anything that questioned that agenda and that

narrative and I think that's applied to across medicine science social media it

was totally coordinated yeah and I again no surprises and we even know where it

comes from because you know there were workshops that just decided to do this that were held before the pandemic

started and this is just the game plan that they had already decided they were

going to enact you know if and when there was a pandemic so so it's not a conspiracy

theory you know this was a strategy yeah that's public that that's been laid out

How has the vaccine been applied

that's there for everyone to see how it's been applied has been horrific because I think at the time they were

thinking you know we're going to have a global pandemic billions of people are going to be dying they were thinking a

scenario that is a million miles away from what we've been dealing with for

the last three years unfortunately you know they've again they they when they

were planning this they didn't say oh but we have to modify this if billions of people are not dying because what

we're planning to do is take away everyone's rights globally right we're

basically going to to you know have a totalitarian system where people have

individuals have no rights doctors have no rights scientists have no rights

because we're trying to save Humanity well Humanity wasn't at risk you know let I say it in the last three years yes

people have died with covert Humanity has never been the only thing we've been

at risk of is is what's happened by this totalitarianism because that is scary

and that can have long-term consequences that may be much more horrific for Humanity than SARS cov2 sarskov 2 is a

problem but but it's not going to eradicate Humanity yeah about getting it into balance this was

never in Balance the the things they had decided they were going to do was so out

of balance with the problem we were dealing with that I think the consequences of their actions have been

catastrophic the consequence of the virus actually are probably quite benign by comparison let's talk about that so

the virus itself so we've got multiple strains that have come through and I've used my lay eyes to look at one of the you know there's this there are sites

that track the various and it all gets a bit too complicated for me as at the point of having to type in the uh the

website address but it's a very complicated chain family tree of variants and so on and so forth and they

they go on some become variants of concern some don't but we start with the original strain yes let's talk about

that how how dangerous and virulent was that and actually there was one question I wanted to ask you on the way through

there which is in your mind a person that's a single person that's

exposed to a virus in a lab um does that person walking out into the

community um unrestricted have a real Prospect of spreading the

virus in the manner it is purported to have happened so for example if a lab worker was exposed to the virus went out

did his shopping as he previously described is that a plausible scenario for a global pandemic is it enough to

leak in that manner no so so so what's really interesting and and you know bird

Whats really interesting

flu is the classic example so here is is Avian Influenza highly lethal you know

if you get infected by a sick bird then you know your chances of dying from that

infection are around 50 to 60 percent yeah

um but it hasn't caused the pandemic so so what happens is each time you know a

bird sick bird person comes in contact they they get infected

um they they have a high risk of dying they get very sick but they don't transmit and so that's because it's

still a bird virus it's not a human virus that's what's different about covert it was a perfect human virus

before the first infection in humans so it's not a normal pandemic virus anyone

who claims it is is not telling the truth most pandemic viruses so they're trying to cross over between species and

they try and they try and they try and bird fluid's been doing it for 20 years now

so we've had several thousand people die but never has it found the trick of

being able to now cross from one person to another it hasn't look because that that's that requires human adaptation

and if it's only caused a few thousand human infections there haven't been enough opportunities for it to to find

the trick of spreading from Human to human so so if a lab worker gets is working

with a bat and you know again that was what was happening in Wuhan and some

people said oh that must be how it happened it was a bat infected a human well that's in fact humans you know in

rural villages we know in China and other places with lethal viruses and some people in the village may die

but again those bad viruses can't transmit human to human so the

plausibility that this was a lab worker getting infected by a virus from another

species that are culturing doesn't cut it the probabilities are infinitesimally low the only way you can

plausibly say this could happen is if they took the bat virus put it into human cells culture it with the Union

Hills and adapted basically taught it how to infect human cells which now

gives it the ability to spread human to human that is what has to have happened and

what you know many people now believe did happen whether it happened deliberately or whether it happened

accidentally it still had to have happened that way there was no plausible

explanation for how this came from a wild animal got into the middle of Wuhan

you know with no one seeing anything adapted to humans and then started a

global pandemic is it plausible for one we're taking aside where it started from

the a person that's infected with it in the lab from wherever it came from then walking out into the community unawares

is that a plausible scenario for a pandemic just a global pandemic to start is there enough

A plausible scenario for a pandemic

um spread from a single person walking around for a you know oh absolutely no so if someone's walking around with a a

transmissible human to human and we know I mean we we actually know

the statistics so with Wuhan an infected person infected 2.5 is what we call the

r naught so what the r naught tells you is how many people on average does an

infected person infect so the the Arnold of Wuhan was calculated in by the you know from the

number of people infected in China over time so it was around 2.5 so one infected person so one infected lab

person got infected by their culture right on average would have transmitted

it to 2.5 people so those you know but it could be more it could be 10 or it

could be one yeah that average 2.5 now you think oh that doesn't sound that

can't start a global pandemic in fact billions but we're talking exponentials here so if you put you know 2.5 to the

power 10 you know what what number do you get if if you put 2.5 to the power

64 yo you have a number that is greater the number of grains of sand that exist

on this planet you know what I mean that's just 64 transmission right right

right so it's like 64 doublings now now you

know that happens say you you you know you infect someone and with with we know

with the Wuhan strain it was about a week before people became infectious so so the doubling time is a week

so the first week it's one person the second week it's two the next week it's four the next week it's eight sounds low

go a few more doublings and you're now a thousands so from the timeline that we expect from

when we when when we think it came from walked out of the lab or whatever to to where it ended up in February of

Timeline of the pandemic

2020. they all marry up that's all yeah so so if you walk work but backwards

from what we believe to be the true numbers in China and unfortunately the numbers from China have never been

believable right but from from other estimates that we can make of of what

was happening in um sort of January 2020 you can sort of

do your halvings and work them when was the first case and when you do that and

you can also do it genetically by looking at genetic variations but whenever you do that you map it back to

September 2019 so sometime around September 2019

the very first person walked out infected and from there it

all fits beautifully with the mathematics and so that first strain in terms of how dangerous was it the the

very first the one that walked out so so again um you know we we saw a lot of

Misleading data

misleading data um and so what you have to remember is at that very early time point

when you're talking about number of people infected from which becomes the denominator well how many people are

infected how many died you do that ratio it gives you what we call the case fatality rate

so but the problem was that you know they were only looking at the people who

were in hospital so the sick people and assuming they were all the cases and of

those cases say five percent were dying so they said oh the case fatality rate you know it's pretty high five percent

you know that that's scary um not quite in SARS or MERS or

um you know uh pandemic influenza sort of scary but pretty significantly one in

20 people dying the problem is that wasn't a true number because you know

they're only looking at the very sick people and using them as the denominator not everyone who was getting infected

and that's why the Chinese numbers are so important and the fact that they are completely unreliable is so important

because that's how we were getting our denominator when we now look back and say okay so the Chinese were claiming

you know there was a hundred cases and in reality there was maybe you know 5

000 cases true you know including people who didn't have symptoms or people who were not going to see their doctor and

now we divide the same number of you know 50 deaths by now you know five thousand and we go actually the case

fatality rates 0.1 percent oh not much different to seasonal Foods depression

and and so those early big numbers on case fatality rates were completely

misleading and allowed this pre-ordained campaign of censorship right and

totalitarian sort of control over the narrative to be rolled out because it

was rolled out on the Assumption this is this is highly lethal virus but in in

truth it was and again it was a whole series of Comedy of Errors the fact that

Chinese were not giving true numbers meant people were calculating the wrong

fatality rate because they're all calculating their own fake case fatality right they they made the wrong decisions

yeah and and so so all of this happened who would have thought who would have thought the Chinese Communist Party

would get their numbers wrong that's extraordinary to me that statement um on that subject then sort of the

progressive uh incarnations of variations mutations then have become even less

virulent as they as they you know as they've gone obviously Omicron was a mild strain but even the Delta and I

think the beta strain as well no so so in fact arguably so beta and and Delta

Transmissible variants

and and Gamma and you know again there's a family tree there's a whole lot in there in the middle there

um you know they were much more transmissible than Wuhan right so

progressively with each step their transmissibility basically doubled so

the r naught is going from like 2.5 from Wuhan to Beta you know around four Delta

um five six armacron is just blown it's now the most transmissible human virus

that exists even even greater than measles we've never seen anything like this yeah um before

so they're more transmissible in those early ones no they they

actually if anything The lethality maybe went up right but but we were starting to get truer numbers of our denominators

so the reason the case fatality rate looked to be reducing was not because

the virus itself was more benign going to Beta And Delta probably was actually

more virulent but we were getting better senses of what the true denominator was

because we were starting to get tests so we got the PCR test we could go and look for people who were infected but weren't

symptomatic and so suddenly we're getting a better denominator and so ironically I think yeah that early case

fatality rate coming down was was again just a false nature of the numbers the

virus was getting more lethal and probably Delta was the most lethal of of all of the variants we've we've seen

but you know then we had had a big step down to Omicron where clearly it was a

lot less it was more transmissible but less lethal than than Delta and there

were probably a number of factors not just the virus at that point in time that were contributing to that lower

lethality Because by the time Omicron came on the scene in a lot of countries

in fact at least 50 percent of the population had already been infected by

these earlier variants so of course they're not even if they get Omicron which they still could they weren't

going to get very sick very secure so that might artificially make Omicron look more benign but if you'd never been

infected and got Omicron and you were over 80 the mortality rate is not that

different to Delta yeah and so you know the the idea Omicron is completely

benign is again a bit misleading yeah okay because it's still killing people yeah of course it's only but it's

killing the people who are the most vulnerable yep yep if you or I well I'm

sure we've probably everyone in this room and everyone in Australia has now had Omicron I mean that's what the

statistics shows yeah if we test um and uh we're all here we're all well

you know maybe we had a day off work maybe we didn't have a day off work you know I mean it is a pretty benign

infection and so I mean obviously it does have that effect on the the elderly we'll get to the issue of the you know


the risk benefit analysis of making younger people take an experimental therapy will perhaps come to that in a

minute but just in terms of that I know this is a really complicated area It's probably hard to distill down but is

that what you'd expect for a for a mutation sequence for a virus like that is that is there anything unusual about

the way in which this is mutated this virus or is that as expected and and and

do they burn themselves out these viruses um so no they don't burn themselves out unfortunately

um they do adapt so yes this was all completely predictable when we were predicting this you know in the first weeks of the pandemic that you know this

will mutate it's an RNA virus RNA viruses always mutate flu as an RNA

virus every year you have to have a different vaccine we're already predicting vaccine failure

before we even had a vaccine no one was interested in listening unfortunately

but the science again wasn't you know it wasn't rocket science because we we

understand the nature of these viruses and although sarskopf 2 was a new

variant of of these types of viruses it it still behaves like other

coronaviruses other mRNA viruses so the fact it's formed all of these families are completely predictable and expected

the fact that it it may attenuate which becomes become less lethal is is

interesting because it it some people would imply that will always happen but in fact it doesn't so so the way viruses

evolve is that they are looking to become as established as they can in a

new population if they kill too many people that takes away potential hosts yeah it's not good

that you know they may burn themselves out if they kill most of humanity who's there left to infect so so a virus like

Ebola you know that has 80 lethality May well it's you know almost certainly will

How does a virus affect its lethality

attenuate if it has enough opportunity to get then it might reach a perfect

sweet spot for the five percent mortality then there's no benefit going

lower than that because losing five percent of your hosts so what got 95

left so the idea of virus will attenuate itself away out of existence as a nonsense yes yeah if if it's too lethal

it will attenuate itself to a point where it's not killing too many hosts um and and so it still has feeding

ground and that's where it will generally stop like influenza so influenza you know the

current H1N1 came from the Spanish influenza same virus yeah right this is its prime originally 100 years later

so Spanish influenza probably killed 20 of people it infected you know the the

H1N1 that causes seasonal flu you know it's around point one percent yeah um so

it's it's found a sweet spot yep and over the last hundred years it it goes up some years it will cause point three

percent mortality in a bad year where it's it's found in a different mutation some years it will cause less but it's

around its Sweet Spot yeah and so covert we predicted is going to follow the same

Trend it will find a sweet spot um where The lethality is not going to

deprive it of the host and at that point it will probably vary vary into variant

and season it could go up or it could go down but it's not probably going to go

to 100 lethality and it's certainly not going to go to zero percent lethality the issue I think probably that's most

of interest to people is this one of adverse effects um and I mean there's different

different arrays the different ranges of of ways in which you can tackle that as a big topic but we're talking about the

MRNA vaccines in particular I think also the AstraZeneca the viral Vector ones had its own but

um what are we seeing and why and are we seeing any more awareness in the in the

community the medical community and the general Community think about some of the problems that have Arisen we've seen you know a range of now admitted Adverse

Events coming from some of these therapies I talk about Pfizer and moderna in particular

um is the sort of is the is the scientific Community the medical community

are they understanding this or where is it up to so I think whenever we're talking about

you know safety um of vaccines everyone needs to understand

that it's it's really a question of risk benefit so there is no such thing as you know

a perfectly safe drug um or a perfectly safe anything yeah I

mean it's not perfectly safe to walk across the road um or walk out the door or even be in

your house might so so we shouldn't never pretend and

unfortunately that's what's happened in the last three years we we should never pretend that that's an absolute there's

such a thing as this is absolutely safe it's not it's you know the the question you

should be asking is is the proven benefit of what we're proposing to do

here outweigh the potential risks

and normally that's a decision that would be taken by someone expert in the

area for an individual yeah because every individual has a different benefit

and they have a different risk so it all has to be done at the individual level that's why we created doctors you know

no that's that is actually why we have doctors otherwise why don't you go to a chemist and just pick up a prescription

for what you think you need yeah well the the answer is by the way yeah yeah

well you know but but the the the reason we we don't allow that you know is because you know

even if it's a cholesterol lowering drug that you know is considered safe

relatively it has side effects unfortunately it could kill some people

um the benefits again are going to be very different I mean the benefit of cholesterol lowering in a 60 year old

guy with with angina is dramatically higher than would I give it to a 10 year

old perfectly healthy child you know I if I did I should be struck off because

there the risk even though it's small you know the cholesterol lowering drug

is not going to kill every child yeah it it might you know kill one in a million but there is the benefit is is zero and

and therefore that that is completely unjustified for for someone to to give a

cholesterol lowering drug to a healthy young child all right same drug they are actually culpable if they don't give it

to the 60 year old guy with angina yeah same drug you know same safety profile

um very different benefits um and and in one the benefit massively

outweighs the risk in the other the risk massively outweighs the benefits that's

the same true of vaccines but we're not hearing it we're not being told that we're not allowed to discuss that you

know body such a apra who said we're not going to allow doctors to actually comment on that or discuss the whole

concept of risk benefit that this vaccine may be a benefit in that individual but in this individual you

know young healthy child there is no way that you can claim that

the benefits outweigh the risk and that's the case in uh you know the younger groups the sort of the the you

know more five to 45 perhaps or even even a different range but perhaps not so much in the 80 year old bracket where

there might be more of a call so I mean that is really interesting is that that that age group that youth age group that

appeared to have had a a higher problematic rate with this vaccine we're seeing you know we we showed it through

an Fri the presentations the cardiac Wards in South Australia spiked in those age groups around the times of the the

injections becoming uh online the risk benefit in those groups must be

minimal oh sorry it must be it's sort of you know like I think we're trying to say that the

risks probably outweigh the risks outweigh the benefits of the yeah would that be a fair statement

well again that needs to be assessed at the

individual level right and and so we can't generalize and that's why doctors don't generalize they they ask you a

medical history they assess your your risks and they assess the benefit known benefits and they make the calculation

on every patient they see they're making a new calculation they're not going yeah

we you know I don't need to see you take this like yeah

um a doctor will spend a lot of time making getting the information that they

need to to make that so so so the same is true of a vaccine yeah they're a drug

it's a drug and and so you know what should be happening is someone needs to

be individually making that risk benefit assessment who has access to the right information the true information not you

know information claiming well this is safe and effective well that's not information that that that's propaganda that's a

slogan because because it should say well the benefit is you know this will reduce your risk of say death from

covert in a young person from 0.001 even if it was a 50 reduction it

would go to 0.0005 and they go but so you're saying my risk even if I don't

have the vaccine is 0.001 that's not much of a risk is it but you

know in terms of the virus but so what's my risk of getting a side effect from the vaccine oh well maybe that's one

percent oh so you're telling me now my risk of getting a side effect from the vaccine

is a hundred or a thousand times my risk of getting a serious consequence of the

infection oh in well in that case I I think I'll I'll pass completely legitimate personal decisions

yeah because you know they they given the the true information which is not being given in fact it's been suppressed

and then they're making a decision now some people have a risk adverse say look I you know yeah look I I accept that

they are the numbers but I'm going to give it a go anyway just like someone who's told your chance of winning

tattslotto is millions to one it's pointless buying a ticket they're given

those facts and they go well I know that but I'm going to do it anyway and so some people might make

that decision and have a vaccine even if the risks overall probably outweigh the

benefits other people of course are going to logically say well no given that information

I'm going to choose for my personal you know body it's called bodily autonomy we

all have a right to determine what goes into our bodies I'm actually going to pass on this occasion I might change my

mind if the virus becomes more virulent or if a vaccine's brought out that has

less side effects but right here and now based on on the actual facts the science

I'm going to make a decision about me that is what that's what every human on

this planet should have a right to do and it's been taken away that that is a dreadful situation yeah I totally agree

with that and um just in terms of the uh of the the process then for an approval

this was given provisional approval by the TGA that's a relatively new phenomenon the provisional approach

provisional approval process for the TGA that goes back to 2018 yeah so so this

was something that was introduced um I guess for a range of of scenarios

one was that particularly cancer patients were getting upset that cancer drugs were

showing benefits in clinical trials but then they were being told well the drug

won't be approved for another five years because it has to go through the normal

TGA or regulatory process and that's how long it takes and and they're saying but

I'm going to be dead in 12 months without a treatment and you're telling me I'm not allowed to have a treatment

that's looking very promising because you want to take five years to think about it so they said oh yeah look

politically this is this is really challenging to deal with let's bring in

a process for you know life-saving drugs where where basically we don't have to

wait that five years we we can actually approve them just based on some early data of that looks promising and then

we'll come continue to collect the data after you know subsequently and if it's

if it turns out not to be true we can withdraw the approval and if if it turns

out the drug is is effective and it's safe um you know in five years time it will get a full approval right so so that

that was the the the the scenario in which it was introduced yes it it could

also be used on a vaccine in a pandemic But ultimately it was more driven by the

idea of someone with cancer needing access to a treatment urgently having promising treatments

available but them not being allowed to have it right because of this long regulatory process and so I mean we've

now seen um you know more information coming out about the adverse effects we haven't talked about them very much but they are

things like heart inflammation uh they're things like thrombosis uh blood clots those sorts of things Strokes

autoimmune problems um based on what we've we've seen in there and don't answer this if you don't

like if you like it but are we seeing a framework of evidence that suggests that

these vaccines should be pulled from approval now in your view or the MRNA vaccines in particular are we seeing a

enough evidence now for that provisional approval to be uh to be you know

reconsidered so again go back risk benefit

so you know people calling for something to be approved or something to draw that's not the way to think about them

right because you know you may have a drug that you know is is a lifesaver for

one population and and lethal in another would you say oh because it's lethal in

this group pull the whole drug off the market and don't allow these people to use it as a life-saving treatment that

is not the way the way you look at it is risk benefit what are the risk benefits are there are there groups in the

population that shouldn't have this drug because the it for that population or

group of the population the the risks are so much greater than the benefits so

you know that that it can't be morally Justified and so and yet at the same time you may

have benefits far that greater than risk than others so it's not about is a drug or vaccine approved or not approved

normally with a drug if you look at the fine print you'll find these restrictions are already built in so

we'll say this drug is approved for people over the age of 60. or this drug is approved for people with this

particular cancer so so that is the normal way it's done so the regulator is automatically doing

the risk benefit and then segregating out the people or population where it

believes that doctors should have a choice but still the doctor is the gatekeeper so the regulator is saying

you know here's a cancer drug it could be given to people with lymphoma they're not saying this cancer drug should be

given to people with lymphoma or that this is a really good thing to give to all people with lymphoma what they're

saying is we think that you know there's enough evidence that a doctor should be able to decide you know after looking at

the patient after looking at the the drug and what its benefits and risks are he can decide is it suitable for that

person so we're just we're just giving them the opportunity the regulator isn't saying and a regulator is never saying

except I think we have a regulator who's crossed this barrier in Australia this

drug is safe and effective that is not what a regular a regulator says based on the evidence the company has given us

there's a reason to believe that it's safe enough and effective enough in

potentially in in a in part of the population that an individual doctor should be ultimately in a position where

they can make a decision to give this drug or not so a regulator does not prescribe drugs and they do not they'll

say this to John skerrick or anyone they do not determine whether a drug is safe

and effective because safe and effective is only relevant to the individual to which the drug is being prescribed the

TGA are not sitting with you taking your medical history and then determining

this drug is safe and effective to you yeah only your doctor can do that the TGA card they need to back off and do

what they meant to be doing and I think they've crossed the line in terms of one

of the great um I guess uh push points for mandates in the workplace and

elsewhere was transmission this issue of you know well you're protecting grandma if you take this you know

um just starting from a point before that though vaccines generally now what's the profile on transmission for

regulation vaccines starting back to the the early early adopters is I think there's a there's a conception out there

that that transmission is nipped in the bud by having a vaccine but that's not that's not always the case or ever the

case so so transmission is actually the hardest thing to achieve with a vaccine

so the majority of vaccines are designed to stop the infected person getting

terribly sick all right now if a vaccine is incredibly effective as well as

stopping you getting sick it actually stops you getting infected which is what we call sterilizing immunity and if you

don't get infected you're obviously not going to transmit it right as well as that maybe if the infection

is really mild you'll still get infected but there's so little virus because of the vaccine you don't there's not enough

virus to transmit to another person so so the normal hierarchy is you know a

vaccine you know will be expected to reduce the severity of disease if it

doesn't do that it's not doing anything well yeah it shouldn't be approved right um and and you know and if it achieves

that that's enough to get it approve approved you know our vaccine reduced

you know severe Disease by 78 so you know that's a hard number you know it's

working [Music] um if if you get Downstream benefits like

on on transmission they're not you know prerequisites and they by no means

definite and and it was very clear in the very earliest days of covert and in fact we already knew this because of

similar mRNA or RNA viruses like influenza it was highly liked unlikely

that covert vaccines would ever stop transmission and we had people like you

know Professor Ian Fraser who helped create the HPV vaccine Queensland uh he got I think he got into trouble because

he went to the Press you know very early in the panel and said look I don't think covert vaccines are ever going to work

and certainly they're not going to prevent transmission and then he went silent and in fact it turns out he was

absolutely right and and and the rest of us thought the same you know we're developing these vaccines in in the hope

they prevent death and serious illness and that was all we were really hoping

for because we think even if we get that that would be a big achievement because they even Fraser doesn't even think

we'll get to that point yeah do you know what I mean so none of us were expecting an effect on transmission

from day one why we're still designing the vaccines and then when we saw the first you know clinical data coming out

whether it was the adenovira or vector vaccines or the MRNA vaccines it was

blindingly obvious why was it blindingly obvious these were never going to stop transmission because they're saying oh

you know these are reducing severe Disease by you know 90 percent in those

very early days because they're up against Wuhan which was a weak strain so 90 was good right for severe disease

um but then they will you're digging down into the data and you go oh but where they've measured protection against

infection it's it's 50 percent or less yeah well yes that's a benefit but it

means 50 of people who are vaccinated are still going to get infected 50 of people who are vaccinated even that best

case scenario right back there at the very beginning when the vaccine matched the virus you know it was a weak virus

you know they were picking healthy people to vaccinate so everything was in their favor

still half the people who are getting vaccinated at that time were still getting infected

didn't mean the vaccine was not doing anything but it said it was completely useless proverb because about when you

want to prevent transmission you have to prevent All Transmission you only need one person not to be

protected and the virus will still transmit through the community so the nonsense that came out you know from

some of the institutes in Australia claiming get to 70 coverage and the pandemic's over there will be no

transmission I mean that was ludicrous you know a high school student should

have been able to logically work out that that was a ludicrous assertion that had no scientific basis and I mean this

was part of the issue about mandates in workplaces wasn't it that you know you will protect your workmates in your particularly you're never going to do

that we were never going to do that I mean things that might have actually helped would be what but air conditioning better ventilation those

sorts of things in fact you know um you know the the science as they taught it you know I think I've never

seen science so abused we trusted my whole life you know and and what they claim to be the science which is about

as anti-science as you should get yeah right and the facts that they've tried to put out that they say a scientific

founder had no scientific Foundation yeah but but certainly the science shows that yeah the things that affect an

aerosol transmitted virus uh uh things like as you say ventilation that people

were much more likely to get infected if they're indoors in a closed environment that had poor ventilation the minute

they went outside or if you put in better ventilation their risks of transmission went down I mean again not

rocket science but you know did they invest in improving air conditioning and

and airflows and and looking at that no no no no no we're going to go this other

way it sounds easier and uh the the concept of the pandemic of the unvaccinated then was always a nonsense

well it wasn't just a nonsense I mean it was it it was I think a disgraceful campaign of

victimization and personalization which had no scientific basis whatsoever

um you know it's a form of racism it's just labeling people for the sake of labeling them for political purposes and

let's be honest it was all about the political purpose it wasn't about stopping people dying or stopping

transmission because we knew that what that that assertion was completely false

scientifically do you know what I mean so it was just about I can get political

Advantage by labeling a group of people making them the enemy do you know what I

mean well again in history when that's been done it's it's it's again done for

political purposes and it has enormous implications and ramifications for for

those people you're labeling you know they're going to suffer um and and that is you know how that was allowed to

happen I don't know it was disgraceful it it shouldn't be allowed and and I'm

disappointed more of my medical colleagues didn't speak out against it in fact a lot of them were the ones who

were propagating this false message that somehow unvaccinated people were a

threat to others that was never the case with science doesn't support it doesn't

support it to this day and what they were doing was totally despicable and as

I say those people should be called out and held to account because that that is not the way that you run Public Health

it's I mean the whole thing is has become I mean there's just so many limbs to it now where we're sort of getting I don't want to hold you up too much

longer but I've got just got a couple other questions that I'm really keen on there's been a recent study I think I

just don't know exactly um the name of the journal but I I read an article about it recently about we're

now seeing an ig4 um a problem with the well this suggestion in fact and perhaps you can

give it a level of scientific credibility that I've just killed uh the

um ig4 the the immuno reaction that the suggestion that the vaccine actually may

be causing an immune problem an immunity problem for those that have had one two three four doses Is that real is that a

real thing is it a problem and there's also this sub question then in there about this concept of leaky vaccines

which I hear occasionally and and what it's doing to creating new variants so the yeah the

the situation of igg4 um being induced by mRNA vaccines

specifically I mean is is a fascinating one it's very real so so the science that's published it's peer reviews by

very credible groups um so it's happening was it expected to

happen no what does that tell you we don't know anything about this new technology you know the the claim that

this is an established understood technology that in itself proves the LIE

do I mean this is an experiment it's an experimental technology we still really don't know much about it and what it

might do that's scary and that's why all of us were terrified when this was rolled out

no joke as vaccinologists we're all discussing this in meetings and getting

together and we're all going this is this is super scary we don't think the people who are driving this

the politicians and some of these Public Health people how the clue what they're

doing they they're rolling out a completely experimental treatment where

we have no understanding of what it's going to do or what it might do and they propose in to not just give it

to a limited number of people they're proposing to give it to everyone on the planet and then work out what does it do

and what might it do and you're going this has never happened in human history it's the most insane experiment is

you're putting the whole population in the world potentially at risk and then you go I hope it goes well I hope in 10

years not everyone on the planet kills I mean hopefully that won't happen but

there's no guarantees because this has never been done before this is a completely new technology so when I see

something like you know in the recent months mRNA vaccines are inducing this antibody called igg4

no other vaccines induce igg4 what's igg4 so I know igg4 because I work in

the allergy field so igg4 is an unusual antibody because it's

not designed to protect you against viruses quite the opposite

it's an antibody that that's designed to switch off the immune system

if if you have a protein in your body that doesn't go away because because you

know viruses if if the immune system sees a virus and attacks it

after a while it should go away um if if whatever the immune system

attacking doesn't go away either the immune system keeps attacking forever and that will eventually kill you your

own immune system so the immune system has a mechanism well something stays around too long after I've attacked it I

decide I'm going to ignore it because that's safer even if it turns out to be

some chronic virus and we we do have chronic viruses the reason we don't get killed by our immune system is if

something stays around too long it switches off and igg4 is part of that process so in the allergy field when

we're trying to switch off your allergy to say bee stings we're actually trying to make your body switch over from ige

which causes the the allergy to igg4 which which basically just switches

everything off and you stop having allergic symptoms so it's not something you'd be trying to

design any vaccine to induce maybe an allergy vaccine but not an infectious disease vaccine right the answer is no

one knew this was going to happen because they never studied mRNA in reality in humans before in any detail

it would have been at all possible to know that as a possibility I mean you know with that set of sequences you've

talked about there would is there any way you could have known not unless you'd studied mRNA before

which no one had they claimed they had but they clearly didn't otherwise they

would have told us this is what's going to happen and they didn't yeah a bit like the myocarditis if if you

understood mRNA they would have told us oh mRNA there's probably going to be a

small number of cases of myocarditis because we've studied it before and we know this happens did they tell us that

no because they had no idea because they'd never studied the claim that this technology was well studied and

understood is a complete and utter lie right it had been around it had been

tested in my in a few mice you know and had largely been discarded most people

have decided it's not as I say suitable and and it's not ready and we don't know

enough about it so to now reinvent the whole story and say oh no this was a

really well studied technology that had been tested and we knew it was safe and effective well these are the facts that

are proving the lie because the fact myocarditis wasn't predicted mean you really didn't you weren't

telling the truth when you told us this was a really well studied and well understood technology the fact that

we're seeing all this switching in humans to igg4 which is completely left field means you were lying when you told

us that this was really well studied and well understood it clearly wasn't so these are just signals that are telling

us we still don't really understand this technology now when you say what does a

is that a good or bad thing that the answers we don't know like so many other

things with this technology I can't give you the answer now I can speculate and

say well to me it doesn't look like a good thing because igg4 is not a great antiviral

antibody you know we need igg3 for that now our vaccine fortunately makes lots

of igg3 which is the antibody you want if you want to fight a virus

um what this igg4 is doing we don't know but to me it's a really bad signal one

we don't understand the technology and it may mean as you say unfortunately the

MRNA vaccines are going to give you less and less protection as time goes by and in fact the the

evidence is that that's what we're seeing that you know if you have three four five six doses of mRNA it seems

that the amount of protection you get is more and more transient uh if anything and so you are getting into a law of

diminishing returns is it damaging immune systems in relation to other infections though or other potentially

other or is that so unknown you know for example if you know if you have your fifth booster or is the target you're now touring with I see which

for going for a different day but is that lining people up for you know

potentially for a a weaker immune reaction to the common cold or you know

or something else or you know whatever it might be or is that uh is that something that's just you know just how

can we possibly know we don't know it's never been studied yeah so we're told that this these were studied

comprehensively but unfortunately that was a lie and so we're left with a

situation where I can't answer your question there's no one on the planet knows what the consequences are now

going to be we're just going to have to wait and watch and hopefully collect the

data and see what pans out I mean it's it's it's really scary because the

answer is we simply don't know are we likely to see other left field you know

IG IGG four type um consequence sequelier that we haven't seen yet we don't know about yet is it

possible there'll be you know other things that are emerge I think almost inevitably that will because

again this is a completely different technology to what we've ever used

before like all new technologies you never cease to be surprised at what you

didn't know or didn't expect and it does doesn't apply to medicines it applies to

any new technology like even computers throw up surprises so so again I I think

you know we're in this area of the unknown um where we we you know we we shouldn't

be um presuming anything other than

there will be other surprises with mRNA is genuinely

fascinating stuff and I'm conscious of time I want to ask you this last final question about we're seeing now

fluctuating around the line but between 16 and 17 excess deaths in Australia that's a pattern that's been largely

repeated in countries that adopted the mrnae technology um is it a I mean it is a very unusual

time we all accept in the last two years lockdowns people in their houses people using alcohol and all of your other

things delayed lists in hospitals and all those sorts of things but

the media don't seem to want to join the dots and suggest that somehow there might be a correlation between an mrnae

vaccines and that excess death rate do you have a view on on that or is that

unscientific to draw that though yeah well I think that is that is a bit of a long bow I think I think what's clear is

that they're uh the excess mortality rates are real

um you know those signals appeared about a year ago they've now appeared in most

of the Western countries um you know they they are way off scale

in terms of statistical probability because you know mortality does fluctuate but they're way off scale so

um you know they're real more people are dying than ever before uh what's driving

that and why why it's happened in the last 18 months um at this point you know you can only

speculate about um yeah so we can't say definitively what it is but it you know it is really

happening and it is very very concerning um

I guess the the problem like all these is if you don't allow a particular

question to be asked right so you say I'm going to let you ask questions of is

this because of lockdowns or is this because you know people didn't get appropriate treatment or had too much

out but I'm not going to let you ask that other question I can see you want to ask I'm not going to allow that to

even be scientifically questioned or data collected on it you know that's what I call censorship and scientific

censorship and it has no role in science you cannot shut down one question

because you don't like it and not explore that as a hypothesis so at the

moment your question I would say well it's it's a reasonable hypothesis you know certainly yes the vaccines only

appeared in the last 18 months if excess mortality rates have only increased in

the last 18 months it's a reasonable hypothesis that someone now needs to go

out try and collect data and determine is there support for that hypothesis or

not but no one can say you're not allowed to have that hypothesis that's again saying to a scientist you know

yeah we'll let you have this hypothesis we're not going to let you test that one I mean that is not science that's not

legitimate and and what does that look like in terms of the actual data collection is that is that an easy thing to study in in a from a data point of

view or is that um you know is it a difficult thing to do now do you need autopsies do you need

or is there other other mechanisms you know for those that might be listening to this in the political sphere

um what are the sort of things that should be done that are not being done from the from the public health

um perspective just to study that or is that something for the private sector no no not definitely not the private sector

um so proving causality so showing one event caused another event is is incredibly

difficult um so so the answer is you can only do it by collecting every piece of

conceivable data and I guess I would take you back to the example of of cigarettes and lung cancer

so that went round and round you know for decades with with obviously large

numbers of scientists saying no that's it's there isn't a causal link between smoking and lung cancer and obviously a

cigarette Lobby few you know we're heavily involved behind the scenes in buying those

scientists and you could argue maybe that's now happening you know with the drug industry you know because again

they have vested interests but but it took 20 to 30 years before finally from every conceivable source of data

including you know making monkeys become addicted to cigarettes and smoke their

whole lives and showing you know they were getting increased risks of roller skates with Affairs but no but those

experiments were done because because no one would believe it and of course causing cancer it takes 20 years and so

you know you have to run those monkey experiments for 20 years before you have the data oh actually the monkeys are all

getting lung cancer now but you know so so the answer is it's incredibly difficult you have to collect every form

of data that's conceivable and put it all together and that's not being allowed right now which which is the

concern so as you say yes everyone who's dying after you know so having a vaccine

should have an autopsy yeah that should be the default they're refusing to do autopsy why are they why are they scared

to do autopsies um you know yeah is it

upsetting the apple cart in terms of ever being able to find out you know specifically what that person died from

I mean is it you know well yeah you would never know yeah if you don't do the autopsy you never know that's why in

the old days I mean autopsies were were done on everyone pretty well uh who died certainly in a hospital who died or as a

young person or died in unexplained circumstances unless there was really a obvious cause this person has cancer you

know and finally they've died you know four topsies were routinely done nowadays it's it's it's you know only if

you suspect there's been a murder case or something you know that it's gone to the other extremes but I think here

we're in a situation where we desperately need more data um you know and you know we should be

doing more autopsies no question and particularly in these people where otherwise we can't explain what's

happening yeah and I think you know there was just an autopsy series released from Japan

um you know from from Tokyo just in the last week um where they they are now routinely

trying to to autopsy people who die within a week of vaccination along with

with other people and they've presented a case series of 50 people of which a numbered turn out to have severe

myocarditis they're young males yeah uh with no other disease caused they were

clearly killed by having an mRNA vaccine I don't think you know and then it's so

it's not a fact that this isn't happening what we need to know is how frequent is it you know is it one in a

million where we might say okay that's an acceptable risk you know it sounds bad but but it's acceptable because

maybe we're preventing you know again 10 deaths from from over

but if it turns out that that risk is one in a hundred thousand or or even you

know one in fifty thousand we know that you don't have that risk of dying of

covert so so that becomes really really concerning we need that data we

desperately need it and we're only going to get it by autopsy in these people and determining what is the true frequency

of this side effect let's stop pretending it doesn't happen which unfortunately till recently you know

again regulatory bodies TGA we're telling people there have been no deaths

you know that in Australia caused by myocarditis but that that that was never true and

and now it's been established and they they they're changing the The Narrative and they've now you know accepted one

case that's the tip of the iceberg yeah I mean we need to know what's the true

frequency that this is happening because we can't work how do we inform someone of the risk and benefit yeah yeah if we

haven't quantitated the risk oh we'll just pretend it's infinitesimally small we don't have

evidence to support that in fact the evidence probably goes the other way but we're going to tell you that anyway yeah we're just going to lie to you

because it's in your best interests so you know Public Health now officially has the right to lie I don't think

Public Health should ever have the right to lie just just lie to people to get

people to do what they want them to do that that is not a democracy that's not

a civil society that that is an authoritarian totalitarianism that I

don't think has it any place in Australia if not globally I agree with you now I'd ask you one final question

is there anything that's still around that we haven't blamed long covert on yet is there something that long covert

hasn't caused uh you know change in weather like is there something you can pin it on because I've long covered

seems to be getting blamed for everything and and is it a thing well I'm trying to to find someone who has

long covered I know I know thousands of people who've had covert I haven't yet found one individual who tells me that

they have Lancome so you know when I'm told twenty percent of people who who have covered get long covered I mean

it's complete data rubbish I mean you just survey the people around you you know it's rubbish because you know

everyone's had covered if you don't know anyone with long covered well then that tells you the frequency must be less

than the people you know so if you know 100 people no one's had long covert it means it's less than one percent I

suspect it again is even much lower again than that so yes it's being used

because unscientifically the the the the frequency is being grossly exaggerated

just like we saw with case fatality rates yeah um because they're not using proper

denominators and they're obviously over diagnosing it and they're claiming anyone who has a headache you know a

month after covert has long covert well most of those people were probably having headaches before covert

um you know a lot of of long covert is is again people who have particularly a you know

flu or a serious viral illness it's normal sometimes to take two to three months to recover we don't talk about

long flu yeah you know oh you can't work because you've got long flu yeah I mean like it and yet we know flu actually you

know unically we know it does that to a lot of people that they are incapacitated for much longer than just the week they

have the infection but but again so it's being used for political purposes I'm

not saying that you know some people don't have true

prolonged sort of disability from having an infection just like with influenza

I'm not that's not what I'm saying at all but I'm saying the whole message around Long coverts being

exaggerated for political purposes but I don't think it's founded in the science

or what I've observed you know from the the medical side

um that we're not seeing people you know two three years after having covert who uh incapacitate if they exist

um then then they very very small numbers and and can't be used to justify

taking everyone's rights away from them yeah which is what's happening because these are all excuses at the political

level to take away people's rights let's be honest force people to do what

politicians want them to do for whatever reason because they're not allowed to question those reasons that that again

is not democracy as I know it and and that's why we have to push back and say no the science should be dictating

policy yeah here we have policy dictating science that is never going to

end well well here to that and um look thank you for coming in and thank you

for sharing all that I hope it's a it's very interesting to me I hope people will find it interesting I'm sure they will out there and it's informative as

well I know people are looking for these answers and um so look thank you for taking the time to come in and talk to

us and be the first the first victim of the new podcast you've done well you've survived I think we've survived you've

survived it's uh hopefully we've got it all otherwise we've just been sitting here talking to each other which has

been good as well so thanks again and all the best and we'll be watching with interest uh to see where the your

vaccine goes and uh and uh for your exports in the future so thanks very much it's been a pleasure yeah

appreciate it [Music]