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