Latest / UK Column Radio / Vaccines: An Educated Decision | UK Column Interviews

Transcript

Vaccines: An Educated Decision | UK Column Interviews · UK Column Radio

0:08
Hello, I'm Charles Manic with the UK Column interview, and
0:11
today I have with me Magda Taylor and Magda, first of all,
0:16
a very warm welcome to UK column.
0:18
Thank you for joining me. Oh.
0:19
Charles, thank you so much for inviting me on.
0:21
I've been a follower of the UK column News for many years
0:24
actually, so it's a pleasure. Not at all.
0:28
Well, I think that's a great start for the audience.
0:31
But now to introduce you, I will sort of hand over to you.
0:36
But I will just put it out there that that you have set up and
0:39
been running the informed parent for what's really an awfully
0:43
long time now. But let's just go back to
0:45
establish the the sort of start point.
0:47
What is the informed parent and why did you set it up?
0:51
Well, it's for me. It started in September 1991.
0:57
One evening I happened to be looking through the London
1:00
Evening Standard journal that they published.
1:03
And there was, I opened the page to an article, Vaccination, the
1:07
Hidden Facts. And it was just at the time when
1:11
my second daughter was due for her MMR.
1:15
And I read it. And I've never had this
1:18
experience before, but a huge alarm bell went off in my body
1:22
because I started to think, hang on a minute, what I'm reading
1:26
here, There's so much I never thought about before because I
1:30
think I'm typically most people would just grow up believing
1:34
vaccines have been, you know, eradicating smallpox and various
1:39
other diseases have come down much lower.
1:42
And you're brought up to believe it's a very important thing.
1:46
And it only takes a few seconds. And it's it's you know, it's
1:50
worth that little bit of pain. And of course, when you're a new
1:54
mum, you don't really know much about being a mum.
1:58
You're learning on the job, You're trying to do everything
2:01
right. And so I just followed the
2:04
schedule at the time, which was back in my first daughter was
2:08
1988 when she was born. So this article touched on
2:13
various things about how, you know, there was a huge decline
2:18
before disease, the diseases came before, sorry, before the
2:22
vaccines came in, and also about the ingredients it touched on.
2:27
It also touched on how it comes into your body unnaturally,
2:32
etcetera, etcetera. Then it's mentioned vaccine
2:35
damage, which I'd never really realised it existed, so there
2:40
was all sorts of things. But in those days there was no
2:44
Internet. So at the end it said send a
2:46
stamped addressed envelope to get the suggested reading list.
2:51
Well, I don't think the London even Standard would send that
2:55
same suggested reading list today.
2:58
In fact, I did post it in recent times because most of them were
3:02
books by doctors who had grown to kind of look into the
3:08
subject. And that was, you know, back in
3:11
the 1980s, there were various books coming out then that
3:17
questioned vaccination and what was it actually causing.
3:21
And so I just literally became absolutely determined to go
3:29
through as much information as possible because I'm not the
3:32
type that just reads something and then just agrees with it or
3:36
whatever. So I just literally started
3:40
ploughing my way through the reading list.
3:42
And they were all books you had to buy, specialist books you had
3:46
to order, you couldn't get them in the local bookshop.
3:51
And as I did that, you naturally start talking to people.
3:54
And then someone put me in touch with some health professionals
3:58
who had questioned it and it was, it just started to
4:02
snowball. And about a a few months later,
4:06
some parents contacted me who hadn't had their children
4:09
vaccinated. They'd actually had information
4:13
given to them by their midwives during their pregnancy.
4:18
Independent midwives, I have to say, which I think now barely
4:22
exist because of the system is sort of hijacking all these
4:29
bodies to make everything very medicalised.
4:33
So, so we got together and we, I was the only one out of those
4:39
mothers who hadn't, who'd followed the vaccination
4:43
schedule. The others had, you know, 2 from
4:45
their midwives. The other one was a health
4:47
journalist and she'd studied health, which most doctors
4:52
don't, may I add. And we, we came together and the
4:58
four of us decided, let's set something up.
5:00
The informed parent, we're not saying what you should or
5:05
shouldn't do, we're just saying please look into it and study it
5:10
widely and then make your own decision.
5:14
And that's sort of precisely what we did.
5:15
So September 1992, we set up, it was very small scale.
5:22
We were just photocopying a sort of very basic newsletter to a
5:27
handful of people and, and it slowly sort of spread.
5:30
And you know, we've by the time 92 was a, a, a period of a
5:36
little bit of investigation into the MMR as well.
5:40
There was some coverage. And then 1994, so we'd been
5:46
running about two years. There was a lot of headlines
5:50
etcetera about measles and this triggered off a huge interest.
5:55
So we, you know, we suddenly grew to about 1800 subscribers
6:00
from about, you know, 50, a hundred at the beginning.
6:05
And there were so many parents desperately trying to find
6:10
information as because they'd never, they'd always thought,
6:14
you know, there's nothing to question as I did.
6:17
I didn't, I was thinking what hidden facts.
6:20
So that's how it started and over the years, obviously on the
6:24
Internet came in, there's a lot more access to medical
6:29
literature if you want to do that.
6:31
But I, what I tended to do with the newsletters is just look
6:36
across the world, what sort of articles, information, sometimes
6:40
from medical journals, scientific journals, sometimes
6:44
from holistic practitioners, a huge mix, sometimes from people
6:49
who've experienced vaccine damage with their children.
6:53
So a huge mix and a lot more on health really.
6:58
And then investigating the background in why we do
7:03
vaccination even, you know, because it's all based on the
7:07
germ theory and all these virus theories and contagion theories,
7:12
which when you really start looking into them, you might
7:15
wonder how on earth they've continued all these years.
7:18
So, but that's, you know, it started with just me reading
7:22
something and the others being kind of advised to look into it.
7:28
And but I start I within a few years, it was such a lot of work
7:33
because we were all mothers and etcetera and trying to have
7:37
other jobs. But I decided to carry on with
7:40
it. The others couldn't.
7:42
So I just carried on and here I am 33 years later and although
7:47
sadly the last newsletter is, is, is come just at this moment
7:53
was the last newsletter. I still continue with the
7:57
website and I might start writing articles individually
8:02
and make them available. So I'm, and you know, it's, I
8:07
feel sorry more for the younger parents of today because there's
8:11
huge pressure and the schedule has become enormous.
8:16
Now in the first year, the baby received so many vaccines.
8:21
When I even compare with my daughters who are in their 30s
8:25
and, and even myself, you know, there was virtually no vaccines
8:29
then. Thankfully.
8:31
I'm I'm glad I was born when I was so.
8:36
Yeah. I mean, you know, exactly as you
8:38
say the, the times have changed so much.
8:41
I mean, I think really the, the most, almost the the most
8:43
incredible thing that's dropped out of what you've just said is,
8:46
is that that start point. And here we are in 2026 now.
8:50
And given the sensitivities around vaccination and indeed
8:55
the propaganda surrounding the campaigns that accompany either
9:00
new or existing vaccinations, I think the most remarkable part
9:02
of your story is the fact that the Evening Standard would have
9:06
published such a thing. I mean, it, it seems hardly
9:09
possible looking back. I mean it might be difficult to
9:14
do this objectively, but but do you now consider that that was
9:19
an extraordinary thing for it to have done then or was that was
9:22
that sort of to be expected? Extraordinary because actually
9:26
in those first few years, even up to the end of the 90s, there
9:31
were quite a lot of interest in programmes on BBC, believe it or
9:36
not, Radio 4, You and Yours, Women's Hour.
9:41
I was invited to a few of these breakfast TV programmes.
9:46
They were actually very pleasant to me, the presenters and there
9:50
was discussion and there was admissions about things, but it
9:56
got less and less. So by the end of the 1990s into
10:02
the 2000s, I started to notice changes and, or if you were
10:08
invited often it would be edited out so much that you've actually
10:14
said nothing or you or they took it out of context.
10:17
Or if I was involved on a debate on the radio, I would be the
10:22
only one who was muted. And if there was a discussion
10:26
with a few people, doctors and they only let me say something,
10:30
hello and who I am and bye bye almost.
10:33
It was that bad. And no one else was muted.
10:36
So these are the sort of things I came up against.
10:40
And and then of course when I because when you're just a, an
10:44
ordinary person thrown into ATV or radio programme, it's very
10:50
nerve wracking. And obviously I was, I gradually
10:54
got better at it and then I had less invitations because in
11:00
fact, what was it? One Department of Health,
11:03
Leicestershire, Radio Leicester invited me on and they wanted me
11:07
to debate with a medical doctor from their area.
11:11
This was quite a number of years ago and they refused to come on
11:14
because they said that I came across too credible.
11:20
You'd think they would have actually said, oh, I can't wait
11:23
to speak to this woman and we've put her straight.
11:25
But no, they backed out and just did a recorded message.
11:29
So it's quite interesting. Fascinating.
11:33
Absolutely. It is completely astonishing.
11:36
I would say, Magda, no, given what you've just been
11:42
describing, you know, you'd have to be sort of have taken leave
11:46
of your senses not to realise that that the situation
11:48
obviously has changed enormously.
11:50
And you say that that started to happen sort of towards the end
11:52
of the 90s, early 2000s. It might not be possible to
11:56
ascribe it to one thing, but but what did change and and why do
12:00
you think that did change? I think that actually there was
12:03
a growing awareness creeping in. So the only way they can deal
12:08
with that is that actually put in more pressure bringing out
12:11
more vaccines. They, they own the media as we
12:15
know generally, and it's very easy to put out these headlines.
12:21
It seemed to be like measles. It was almost every so many two
12:26
or three years there'd be these huge headlines.
12:28
Measles is back and your child could die and all these adverts.
12:32
And so I, I know that there was already, as I've said to many
12:39
people, it didn't just start a lot, a lot of people think, oh,
12:42
it was because of the MMR that we started questioning.
12:45
No, we questioned from back in the early 1800s.
12:51
And if anyone cares to really delve into the history, there's,
12:56
I've got a lot of old literature on my website and I couldn't
13:00
believe what I was reading, quite honestly.
13:02
So although there wasn't a kind of movement of of people that
13:08
they would call now anti vaxxers because as this smallpox vaccine
13:14
crept in during the early 1800s, they got to a point where they
13:22
decided to make it compulsory. So in 1853, and by that time
13:28
there was a lot of growing criticism, but the mainstream
13:32
people in charge or charge would always be in control of of what
13:37
was being said or done. But I just wanted to read this
13:42
tiny few words. When they did bring out this
13:46
compulsory vaccination act, The Lancet, which actually started,
13:51
the reason it was called The Lancet was because it was
13:54
supposed to be a critical analysis of medical literature
13:57
and medical procedures. So it was like, so, you know,
14:00
look, cutting away and looking at what this, you know, whatever
14:05
they're working on or some procedure or medical products.
14:12
So this is what they said in The Lancet.
14:14
And this was 1850, three, 21st of May when they brought the
14:18
bill in before Parliament. They just said it in the public
14:21
mind extensively. And in the profession itself,
14:25
doubts are known to exist as to the efficacy and eligibility of
14:30
vaccination. This is the This is the bit.
14:33
The failures of the operation have been numerous and
14:37
discouraging. So if they were numerous and
14:40
discouraging, you'd wonder why they made it compulsory.
14:45
Yes, well, this is exactly it. And of course you know that was
14:48
set along. So I can't remember exactly the
14:49
chronology, but the National Anti Vaccination League was in
14:53
existence, I think maybe not quite by 1853, but that again.
14:56
Triggered it actually. Yeah, right.
14:58
OK. Yeah.
14:59
Once things were compulsory, people started to pull together
15:03
articles written and it was over the next few years there were
15:07
different areas that say the Midlands or the London abolition
15:12
of vaccination and there were various groups in the country
15:15
and, and eventually they all came together as the National
15:18
Anti Vaccination League and many doctors were involved, you know.
15:23
Yes. Well, I think you know, and
15:25
again, this is the thing you're quite right to, to point back to
15:28
the history and this is what I really would like to to get
15:29
into. You've mentioned germ theory and
15:32
the significance that that has in so far as the, you know,
15:36
marketability of, of vaccines is concerned in the 1st place.
15:39
Let's just go back to Jenna and, and you know, the sort of
15:42
narrative surrounding that. I mean, what?
15:43
What is your take on what he was doing and why?
15:47
Well, it's prestige, isn't it, to become a doctor.
15:52
But he he he was mostly speculating.
15:56
And when you read about how they get their medical qualifications
15:59
in, in those days, if it's almost laughable.
16:03
But I think he would it like some of these people.
16:07
They just want to be find something and discover something
16:11
and become famous. And he based all his ideas on on
16:16
myths, local myths. There wasn't any good science of
16:19
any kind. And he did they, you know, there
16:23
were many, many failures. And also, they didn't always do
16:30
the procedure as they should in those days.
16:33
I mean, it wasn't, it wasn't like a needle.
16:36
It was very crude. So they'd be making cuts with a
16:39
Lancet and rubbing in a product. You know, the well with Jenna,
16:44
it wasn't smallpox material that he was rubbing into the the cup.
16:50
He was, he was rubbing in cowpox.
16:52
He claimed cowpox was similar to smallpox.
16:56
I mean, when you, you'd have to spend hours talking about it,
16:59
but when you start looking into it, there's no real, there's no,
17:04
there's no relationship with those two presentations.
17:08
Like smallpox back in the 1600s and even back in the 9th
17:15
century, there was a Persian doctor, then Raz's.
17:20
I mean, he he considered it that it was just the body expressing
17:25
toxicity, cleansing, purging the body and that these rashes, they
17:31
had to be allowed to come out. They were cleaning up the
17:33
system. And then in 1600s we have the
17:38
English Hippocrates, Thomas Sydenham.
17:41
And he said something very similar.
17:44
And he said even then, now this is smallpox in 1600s, you think
17:48
everyone was dropping down dead with it, the way we've been
17:51
brought up. But he, he actually this, I have
17:54
to say this bit, he thought the danger of smallpox was too much
17:59
interference and who by the medical people.
18:03
He said how it's clear to me from all observations that I can
18:08
possibly make that if no mischief be done either by
18:13
physician or nurse, it is the most slight and safe of all
18:16
other diseases. And this was in the 1600s.
18:20
And they were, they were talking about mild then.
18:23
I mean, if you're living in squalor, eating very poorly and
18:29
no light and and no proper housing, people do die.
18:34
It's not easy to keep your health.
18:37
So it's it wasn't in those days those even in the 1800s, there
18:43
were a lot of doctors that saw all these what they called
18:47
fevers. So that would cover smallpox,
18:49
typhoid, measles, diphtheria. They were all methods of the
18:54
body trying to clear the system to get better, to get returned
18:58
to homeostatis when you you're in good health as such.
19:03
And if you don't allow that process to happen, then it will
19:10
stay in the body and make you sicker.
19:11
So acute in childhood, for instance, if they're suppressed,
19:17
they become chronic and chronic leads to adulthood problems.
19:21
And then as you get older, you're starting to look at
19:24
cancers and degenerative because the body never cleared itself
19:28
out. It's you know, and when we hear
19:32
about all problems, some children, you know, die of this,
19:35
that and the other, they don't die of those conditions.
19:39
They die of their living conditions where they are war
19:43
zones, etcetera. And they also die of too much
19:46
interference like Thomas Sydenham mentioned, you know,
19:50
suppression, suppressing the fever, giving them antibiotics,
19:56
et cetera, et cetera. So there's so many aspects that
20:00
are done almost in the the opposite way round to how they
20:05
should be and how we've all been in modern times led to believe
20:09
that all these things are are out there to get us, you know,
20:15
and. I think also with the history,
20:18
Jenner himself, he didn't, he wasn't into the germ theory.
20:21
He was just speculating about local myths.
20:25
It was the germ theory came later with Louis Pasteur.
20:29
And that was very much at the end of the sort of later part of
20:34
the 1800s when you're also seeing big companies like, you
20:39
know, the oil industry looking for ways of, of entering the
20:47
sort of medical world. And I'm sure all your, your
20:51
listeners know about all those aspects.
20:54
But so they, they wanted to medicalise every aspect if they
20:59
could. And Louis Pasteur fortunately
21:02
came along and, and again, if people take the time to read
21:06
about him, there are many books now about his fraudulent
21:11
experiments and how he he just kept tweaking everything until
21:17
he got the result he wanted. He apparently, and when
21:21
apparently he did, he held two different Diaries, one the
21:25
public diary of his experiments and one that was a private
21:29
diary. And there is a book written
21:31
about that as well and uncovering how he twisted things
21:35
or plagiarised other people and then presented various theories
21:43
that people latched onto because it suited he knew the right
21:48
people. He's if we can say to the world,
21:52
oh, there's germs that are going to get you, but don't worry,
21:55
we've got this vaccine to protect you, then, you know,
22:00
you've got a big marketplace out there.
22:02
And so we all grew up, you know, not it's worse now.
22:07
But, you know, even when I was a child, all the ads saying germs,
22:11
you know, let's kill them all 100% whatever.
22:15
And you know, you, you do think, oh, you know, everything around
22:19
you might harm you, you know, so.
22:23
But it's it's very worth, it's much worse now children, you
22:28
know, almost a kind of wrapped in cotton wool a lot of the
22:32
time, you know, they're not they're not letting them run
22:35
around playing out in in the nature and they're stuck in
22:40
front of screens mostly, I think these days, by the looks of it.
22:45
Yes, I mean, you know, the, the correlation really is impossible
22:48
to ignore or it shouldn't, shouldn't be ignored.
22:51
And, and and I think this is, you know, so much to do with
22:53
what we're talking about correlation and and causation.
22:56
First of all, the, the book about pastor and his his own
23:01
personal diary entries. What?
23:03
What? What's that book called?
23:05
Do you remember? Yes, it's the private life of of
23:10
Louis Pasteur, but I, Professor Geisson GEISONI, have got a
23:17
copy. It's rather expensive.
23:20
I have to will warn you. No, I mean, I, I know people
23:23
will be interested in this and particularly in sort of, you
23:25
know, printed material. So I'll put a I'll put a note
23:29
about that in in the notes below this interview.
23:32
Yes, I mean, Professor Guison actually he studied over 10,000
23:36
pages of of the Diaries because the what happened was they
23:39
weren't the private one, wasn't meant to be public.
23:42
But I think it was a great, it was either a grandson or a great
23:45
grandson that actually donated it to the Paris Academic
23:49
Library. And so it was then available.
23:52
And that's when this professor did all his, his investigation.
23:58
But there were there the name that people don't know about is
24:02
Bechamp, who was also another French scientist at the time.
24:06
But most people, the average person hasn't heard of him.
24:09
But he, he did a lot more thorough investigation of why do
24:14
we get sick? And he, he, he came to the
24:18
conclusion with after a, a, a lot of intensive study that
24:22
it's, it's not the germ, it's the internal soil of the body.
24:27
And that obviously your internal terrain is, is very much based
24:32
on where you live, how you live, what, what you eat, even your
24:37
emotional situation. If you're surrounded by wars and
24:41
people very agitated, that's not anything that can harm or create
24:49
an imbalance in your health is going to lead to symptoms.
24:53
So the symptoms that we produce generally, unless you've been
24:58
horribly poisoned there and then, I mean, they're the body
25:02
trying to throw stuff out. I mean, either coughing,
25:05
sneezing, rashes, these kinds of sweating, you know, all the
25:09
things where your body is trying to throw whatever the problem is
25:14
out, you know, it's toxicity of some kind, you know?
25:19
Yes, exactly. So.
25:20
And and you know, to your point, well, first of all, I think
25:23
Sydenham's remarks about too much interference, I mean, it's
25:26
incredible here we are now to think of how many different
25:29
things that could be applied to, I mean, midwifery you've already
25:32
mentioned, but well outside of sort of health and medicine.
25:34
I mean, too much interference is sort of the phrase of the year
25:37
really. But thinking about not just
25:41
Jenna, but but anyone who has had a part to play in getting us
25:45
to where we are now. I mean, scientific history is
25:47
littered with ego being the main driver for what's subsequently
25:52
referred to as discovery. Do you get the sense that in
25:57
Jenna's case, it was more than ego?
26:00
I mean, as in, did he see or was he involved in the commercial
26:04
opportunity of inoculation or vaccination as a result of what
26:08
he was apparently striving to prove?
26:10
Well, he did because of his ideas.
26:13
Initially. He did send in various ideas.
26:16
It's all and because they the original ideas he had were a
26:22
little bit extreme because he claimed that that you you
26:25
couldn't just take the cowpox matter from the cow with it.
26:28
It was to do with horses hooves and as well.
26:31
And you're like, it's a bit sounds a bit peculiar, which it
26:35
was, but the medical establishment at the time
26:38
thought it was a bit no, hang on.
26:40
We don't want to watch this with it's got to involve horses,
26:44
hooves and the people working with them.
26:46
And they didn't wash their hands properly.
26:48
Then they milked the cows. It, it sounds ridiculous as I'm
26:52
saying it. This is the sort of science he
26:54
did, but he did when he, when he realised they were jumping on a
26:59
bandwagon of bringing out some kind of vaccination and he was
27:04
the the chap who'd kind of brought it up at that time
27:09
because they didn't like his other ideas.
27:12
He started to change them just to suit because he didn't want
27:15
to lose the grip of all the fame and the money.
27:18
Yeah. Because there were other doctors
27:20
starting to do different techniques saying, oh, you don't
27:23
need to worry about these horses, heels and the
27:25
inflammation from there or it's just the cowpox.
27:29
And he's, he did change his it to suit.
27:32
I mean, he didn't die a happy man.
27:34
You would think that being that he was the the inventor of
27:38
vaccination, he would have died in glory.
27:41
No, he was full of anguish. There was so much criticism by
27:46
then. He, he, he didn't know which way
27:48
to turn. And he was coming up with all
27:50
sorts of excuses as to why vaccination failed so many times
27:56
and not just failed, it made people sick or even killed them.
28:01
I mean, there was so much death. There was another scientist, oh,
28:07
Russell, Alfred Wallace Russell. And he later in the in the
28:16
century and he talked about all the thousands that would have
28:19
died due to this unscientific superstition.
28:26
There were quite a number. There was another professor,
28:29
Charles Creighton. He was, he was just a well
28:33
respected medical person and he was asked, invited to write a
28:38
piece of vaccination in the Encyclopaedia Britannica for the
28:42
ninth volume. And so he was because he was a
28:45
thorough man. He did a proper investigation
28:48
and from starting at a point of thinking vaccines, well, the
28:52
vaccination was wonderful, smallpox vaccination, he became
28:56
a huge critic by the end of it. And so he wasn't, you know, he
29:02
started from a bias of think, believing in it.
29:05
And another doctor. I'm trying to think, oh,
29:08
Professor Cruikshank at the he was a bacterologist at the time.
29:14
He was so surprised that his his Creighton's findings.
29:18
He looked into it as well and he'd joined him in the
29:20
criticism. You know, it's unbelievable.
29:24
And that's just a few, I'm giving you examples.
29:26
There's loads of other really fascinating books, literature
29:32
from that era, doctors who originally believed in it.
29:37
They say we believed in it. They didn't say, oh, I studied
29:40
it thoroughly, they just believed in it.
29:43
Yeah. Well, I'd like to return to
29:45
that, that that sort of idea that that people's state of mind
29:49
can be altered by what they discover and, and to relate that
29:53
to the sort of present day about effectively the the certain
29:56
knowledge that a product will kill people.
29:59
We'll, we'll, we'll come back to that.
30:00
But let let's just just push out a bit further on the on pasta
30:05
again ego with him and just just explain the the significance of
30:11
germ theory in the modern marketing of vaccines.
30:16
It's, you know, effectively it's it's necessity to the the idea
30:20
of vaccination. Well, that's it.
30:22
I mean, if we just, you know, with or even if, well, germs,
30:25
they say where's club? They say germ.
30:28
I mean germ. What does it mean anyway?
30:30
It means something, a seed that's going to germinate.
30:34
It's life actually. But they've they seem to turn
30:39
every word inverted in a way. But germs, they, they club them
30:46
together and they of course they include viruses.
30:49
And as we know, bacteria, yes, bacteria exist.
30:53
They're living organisms. And if they happen to find some
30:58
bacteria growth in an, in someone who's sick, they
31:01
immediately blame the, that germ on that particular set of
31:05
symptoms. Whereas when you look at health
31:11
and how things occur, I mean, the germs we're, we're teeming
31:15
with life in our body and without them, we'd be dead.
31:18
They actually are clean up crew and they, they clean up and
31:23
they, they're scavengers. So often you might get an
31:27
overgrowth of something and when it's cleaned everything up, it
31:30
disappears again because there's no food left for it.
31:33
But it's done us a favour. Viruses are hugely different
31:38
because they came onto the scene more when, well, Louis Passeur,
31:43
for instance, couldn't find a bacteria that he could blame for
31:46
certain illnesses. So he said it must be something
31:49
tiny that I can't see. And then a few decades later
31:54
when they started bringing out electron microscopy, I hate that
32:00
word. And they started to label some
32:07
little tiny nano particles. They thought this must be the,
32:12
the, the something, well, something that's causing it.
32:15
So then they label it virus. But some of the doctors I've
32:19
come across even way back 20 years ago where they were
32:24
looking at what is a virus? Well, no one's actually ever
32:31
actually isolated this nanoparticle and proven it to be
32:37
pathogenic or contagious or anything.
32:40
So all these things have been. It's very poor science that
32:45
you'll find in vaccination particularly that any properly
32:49
conducted controlled science doesn't really exist.
32:53
It's always the science has got to show something that will
32:56
benefit those who are seemingly now or absolutely controlling
33:02
medicine. You know, the industry has has
33:05
hijacked medicine. It's it's not an independent,
33:08
independent thing. It's funded in every way now.
33:13
So with viruses, you could say the real, the true meaning of
33:18
virus is poison. And I would say yes, if you've
33:21
got symptoms that that something shed in say a rash, you could
33:30
say, yeah, it's a rash of delivering the poison from out
33:33
inside the body to the outside. It's it's unbelievable.
33:41
The last well, with the COVID story just before I, I kind of
33:46
got the feeling something was going to kick off.
33:49
But it's incredible that they've used this word COVID.
33:53
It's almost like someone, you know, the World Health
33:56
Organisation, who or whoever will declare COVID.
34:01
It's the word, it's just a word, it's an umbrella term and they
34:05
can label anything as they did in the past with AIDS as well,
34:11
various symptoms that they could capture and, and put it under
34:16
the heading of COVID and a virus.
34:20
In my mind now, after all the years I've looked into it, it's
34:23
basically a little rubbish bag because when cells start
34:28
breaking down, the body's intelligence doesn't want
34:31
rubbish or floating around. So it captures it in little
34:35
rubbish sacks and then it expresses it.
34:39
And then those little rubbish sacks to my mind would be what
34:42
viruses are, what the medical world's call in virus.
34:46
They're not things that have come from the air.
34:49
They're not living even when they say live vaccine, live
34:52
virus, vaccine. Well, is the virus ever live?
34:57
No, it's just them got a few fragments of of DNA or whatever
35:03
it's it's broken down cellular rubbish and you just it's
35:07
captured. So I'm, I, I think with when
35:11
they talk about different strains, well, every single
35:13
person is going to have slightly different rubbish bags.
35:17
You know, it's like if we looked in our Rd we might have some
35:21
similar rubbish but other rubbish depending on what we
35:24
like to eat or whatever is going to be different and it's the
35:28
same with your body. So when they talk about all
35:30
these so called strains, so my mind is just, it's just
35:37
different people's different rub elimination processes, rubbish
35:42
coming from that person. Sorry, it's a bit I'm trying to
35:47
say in a really simplistic way actually.
35:50
Yes, well, I know. And I think you've done exactly
35:52
that. I think I think that's that's
35:54
very well put. And I think that what you've
35:56
articulated there is that first of all, people get ill.
36:00
They always have done, they always will.
36:01
Do your living conditions absolutely or your life
36:04
conditions have an impact on that and on the way in which you
36:09
will recover or if you recover? Indeed.
36:12
Now what I think you've brought out there, which I'd just like
36:15
to go one step further on, is this idea.
36:17
You know, terminology of course is so divisive because you say
36:21
the word virus and it will instantly mean one thing to one
36:25
person. It might mean something
36:26
completely different to somebody else.
36:30
What we haven't done yet is gone that step further in suggesting
36:34
that one person may make another person I'll.
36:38
And given what you've just been talking about, which makes so
36:40
much sense, it's, it's interesting that that element
36:44
needed to be introduced in the 1st place because, you know,
36:47
anyone could think anecdotally at the time that they got ill,
36:50
but nobody else around them was. So in a sense, the necessity to
36:55
try to convince people that they may, they may make each other
36:59
I'll is, is sort of unnecessary. Is it or isn't it?
37:03
I mean, I really, is this just a marketing ploy for an extra sort
37:09
of string to the vaccine bow or, or how, you know, how should one
37:12
look at it historically? Well, with there were like right
37:17
back in the early 1900s, for instance, there were some
37:21
doctors and scientists trying to investigate flu around the time
37:25
of the so called Spanish flu and 1919.
37:31
And they actually wanted to understand the transmission mode
37:36
of flu. And after many, many experiments
37:39
and it's all published, people can look at it.
37:42
They've, they, they came to the conclusion after all the studies
37:46
and they were really intrusive experiments, meaning they were
37:50
put in the samples of, of, of mucus, et cetera, or swabs from
37:57
the throat or into the nasal passages and put in that
38:00
substance into healthy volunteers kind of thing.
38:04
And in all the ones they did, no one got sick.
38:09
And there was a book. Well, there is a book just in
38:13
recent years, Daniel Reuters, ROYTAS, can you, can you catch a
38:21
cold? And he went through many, many,
38:24
many scientific papers where they tried to conduct, where
38:28
they tried to give one person a cold or flu through all these
38:34
different experiments. And they, they didn't work.
38:38
So they said at the end of that first study, the one thing we
38:42
have learnt about this is that we don't understand the mode of
38:46
transmission. I mean, at least actually they
38:49
were more honest in those days. They would actually publish
38:52
things where they're actually saying, whoops, we actually,
38:55
this is strange. We don't know why this has
38:57
occurred, but slowly, slowly, it seems like the papers published
39:01
these days don't really tell you anything.
39:04
They just and most doctors don't wade through all the, the, the,
39:09
the method and the results and everything.
39:11
They might even not glance at the summary.
39:15
They might just glance at the headlines and and apart from the
39:19
fact that most doctors you know, they they're busy and stressed
39:24
and they don't spend time, I'm sure relaxing in the evening
39:29
reading medical journals. If they get a chance to relax,
39:34
they're not the healthiest bunch of people either.
39:37
A few when I was going up to the London School of Hygiene and
39:44
Tropical Health Diseases, they were, it was right near the
39:48
British Museum and I used to go there because there's no
39:50
Internet, so you couldn't go on online to find a study.
39:54
You had to go to a medical library and they let you in at
39:57
that time. They did stop lay people going
40:00
in after a period, but I used to go up there and when I was
40:04
looking at the mortality and charts, et cetera, and all the
40:09
different things that were causing.
40:11
Death. I came to some pages where it
40:14
was talking about alcoholism, drug abuse and suicide, and it
40:20
actually listed the professions who were high in that category.
40:25
And surprise, surprise, doctors featured heavily in all three of
40:29
those. So I used to sort of say tongue
40:32
in cheek, Well, why would you want to go and see anyone in
40:38
that, you know, when they've got that kind of not, you know,
40:42
Anyway, yeah. No, no, exactly.
40:44
Well, look, I think that that takes us on to, you know,
40:47
subject area that we really can't ignore in this discussion,
40:49
which is what happened in 2020 and thereafter.
40:52
And I mean, of course, one of the great surprises to anybody
40:54
who stopped to give it a moment's thought was how little
40:57
doctors do know about certain things.
40:59
One might argue about everything health is the the sort of word
41:04
you've used, but actually as part of their industry, they
41:10
almost universally knew absolutely nothing about
41:12
vaccinations, the history, the supposed efficacy, the harms and
41:17
all of that. Did you sort of see that effect
41:22
take place as in people just realising, not exactly on mass
41:27
but certainly in numbers, that that these, these people, these
41:30
these supposed experts really were well out of their depth?
41:34
Well, yes, even before COVID, there were parents who were to
41:37
discuss vaccination with their doctors and they couldn't
41:42
believe how little the doctor knew.
41:44
And that was, you know, even in the 90s and into the first
41:48
decade of 2000. And I'm trying to, sometimes
41:55
when I've been on programmes in the past, I would be accused of,
41:57
oh, but you're not a doctor, you know, But I always quote
42:01
Professor Heidi Larsson because in 2018, or was it 9, No 19,
42:07
sorry, 2019. So it's just a little bit before
42:11
COVID kicked off, she actually said because she was presenting
42:15
about, you know, the lack of confidence in vaccination and
42:23
talking to these the audience, and she said that doctors are
42:29
lucky if they get more than half a day study on vaccination.
42:34
She said it. So, you know, I like to quote
42:37
these people because they're from the officialdom.
42:41
And she also said that there was growing concern amongst
42:46
frontline health professionals and that, you know, they will,
42:50
they, it was sounding like, what are we going to do?
42:53
Because more and more people are questioning it, including our
42:56
own health professionals. So it's interesting that just a
42:59
few months later, suddenly we get told, oh, there's this virus
43:04
and it's, you know, we're all locking down and, and the, the
43:08
world changed overnight. And I think it they had to kick
43:13
in with something because there was a growing concern prior to
43:18
that and, and it, and they were very successful in many ways of
43:23
controlling people. And many people's lives changed
43:26
after that. And also, sadly, a lot of people
43:29
perished from over either over treatment or, you know, even
43:38
emotionally isolating people from their loved ones.
43:42
It was ghastly to watch and you know, but it did.
43:47
It did wake a lot of people up also.
43:50
So there's more now, isn't there?
43:53
I mean, I find everywhere I go, but I just something comes up in
43:58
the conversation and and people say, Oh, I know, you know.
44:02
Yes, I think on some, yeah, you're absolutely right.
44:05
I think on some level absolutely everybody knows that there was
44:08
something wrong, no matter how fervently they they felt like
44:11
they wanted to support the governments position to
44:13
apparently keep us safe. I think with, with the time
44:16
spent in either conscious or, or subconscious reflection, I, I
44:20
would absolutely agree with you, everybody will concede that that
44:23
there was something was not quite right about that.
44:26
And, and, and this is what I just just to go back to the
44:28
point of, of contagion, because I think what was so very obvious
44:33
about that period 2020, particularly the years 2023 to
44:37
at least 2022 was that had there been the spectre of illness, but
44:44
not one that was transmitted supposedly from person to
44:47
person, then there would have been no premise for stopping
44:52
people from congregating. And, and the effects that
44:56
exactly you're talking about now, interestingly, of course,
44:59
certainly in the United Kingdom, I think I'm right in saying
45:02
that, that none of the supposed vaccines that were put out had
45:08
claims made by the manufacturers that they would stop
45:10
transmission. It was only the government that
45:13
decided that that's what they would say about it, which of
45:16
course was then parroted by the media.
45:19
Am I correct on that? Well, they came out with so many
45:22
things. Yeah.
45:23
I mean, I don't know when they say about transmission.
45:26
I'll give you an example. It's very recent, but it was on
45:30
measles. They say all kind of things from
45:34
the health department. And in one particular letter
45:38
that went out to parents for measles when there was a so
45:41
called rise in cases in recent years, they said that you could
45:46
for transmission, you only need to be near another person with
45:51
measles for 15 minutes and then you could develop it.
45:56
So I thought, oh, where did they get that from?
45:59
So I started corresponding. In fact, I, I wrote it into an
46:04
article for the newsletter back and forth.
46:06
And they all follow each other, you know.
46:09
So this local authority said, oh, we got it from the
46:11
government, such and such like, write to them.
46:14
They sent you all these studies. None of them showed this 15
46:18
minute transmission. And then they try to sort of
46:22
say, oh, you need to go to that person and that person and that.
46:25
You go round in circles and in the end you discover there's no
46:28
paper that shows that. And the only one they kind of
46:33
ended I ended up with wasn't even a study.
46:35
It was a polling it if that's what they use.
46:38
And it didn't mention 15 minutes anyway.
46:40
So it's the same with all this. I think the the main thing, it
46:44
wasn't about transmission. It was about keeping everyone
46:47
separate. Because if you're separate, you
46:49
can't easily congregate and have a conversation and maybe you'll
46:53
actually learn something from the other person.
46:57
They wanted to just keep us all away from each other
47:02
psychologically. You know, I mean, I never wore a
47:04
mask. And but, you know, it's, it's
47:07
creepy actually walking through a town when everyone's masked up
47:12
and, you know, it's people are kind of nervous to be anywhere
47:16
near you. They created, I mean, they did a
47:19
good job of terrifying a good chunk of the population.
47:24
But all these things one says this one says that they change
47:30
their tune the next minute. You know, they're always moving
47:33
the goal posts one minute because even with vaccination
47:37
originally, we're going to eradicate measles in 1980, you
47:41
know, and then it's slowly, well, actually we're not, we're
47:44
just trying to lower the numbers and we're like this and that.
47:48
I mean, measles, for instance, is a, is a childhood acute that
47:53
helps the maturation process as we're growing, you know, and in
47:58
the early years of your life and you develop mentally and
48:02
physically. And it's interesting that with
48:06
things like suppressing these kind of conditions, what we seem
48:11
to have now evolved into a population of a lot of young
48:15
children who aren't developing properly, especially mentally
48:19
now. It's terrifying.
48:22
And people want to read more about the effects of vaccination
48:27
even on just the brain. There's, you know, a book from
48:30
the 80s, Harris Coulter, The Medical Vaccination, the assault
48:37
on the, I think it says American brain, but it would be anyone's
48:40
brain wherever you live. But you know, I've got lots of
48:46
reading lists and etcetera on my site website and you know.
48:52
Yeah, Yeah. Well, let's come to that in in
48:55
just a second. But I think one thing I would
48:57
just like to talk about, because as you say, the goal posts kept
48:59
changing. I mean, in that period in, in
49:01
recent times, it was so very obvious that it was absolutely
49:04
nothing to do with health and that there was a desperation to
49:08
sell this drug untrialed. And of course, the narrative
49:11
even on that change, which is why I asked about the
49:13
manufacturer's claims, because the government, of course, was
49:16
then forced to back down and say that, well, you know, we never
49:20
really said that it would stop transmission.
49:21
But anyway, you should still take it because it will stop you
49:24
from going to hospital, you know, calling into question the
49:27
entire premise for the, for the thing in the 1st place.
49:29
And this idea that that some benefit could be derived as
49:33
though, you know, you would be better off taking thing rather
49:37
than just not having anything. I mean, the the logic was quite
49:40
baffling. What I wanted to ask was, was
49:43
given the extraordinary wealth of sort of published literature
49:47
on the harms that are caused and have been caused by vaccines,
49:51
but not just vaccines, pharmaceutical products as a
49:54
whole, How how is it that public confidence in this very
50:00
obviously ruthless profit seeking multi billion pound
50:05
industry is so high? What do you put that down to?
50:09
Well, I mean, the vaccination is, is, is separate from like
50:13
other medicines because it, it was just pushed always this idea
50:17
of germs causing disease. So we're going, it wasn't a
50:20
medicine as such. It was like, look, you're if
50:22
you're healthy, we're going to keep you healthy by So, you
50:26
know, it's such a strong belief system, but it's hard to let go
50:31
of it. Actually, even when you start to
50:33
study it, you, you, you kind of when I first started to question
50:37
germ theory, which was in the 1990s, I was thinking no one
50:41
else is kind of, you know, I couldn't see any other
50:43
literature about it at the time. And you know, it's hard to undo
50:48
all the even the terminology. For instance, you know, when I
50:52
hear people saying about immune system and immunity, I mean,
50:56
these words all come their terminology from the germ
51:00
theory. What do you need to be immune
51:02
to? And I mean immune if if people
51:06
sell my immune system's down, well, that's your whole body.
51:11
You don't have these separate little areas.
51:13
Oh, that my immune system's great.
51:15
But my brain's suffering or whatever.
51:18
You know, it's crazy talk. And I always refer now if I hear
51:23
the word immune immunity, I just call it health.
51:26
It's our whole body, our health system and we don't need to be
51:30
immune to these so called germs or viruses if they're not the
51:35
course, which I thoroughly believe they aren't.
51:38
And and well, as I said, viruses haven't even actually been
51:42
isolated, purified, characterised and even shown to
51:47
produce disease in another and and or contagious etcetera.
51:52
So, you know, it's hard to let go of all this stuff we've been
51:57
indoctrinated with, even even when you're reading it, you have
52:01
to, you get to points where you're still using some
52:04
terminology or description when you're talking and you think,
52:08
oh, hang on, no, actually, that's not even right.
52:10
You know, So, and it's harder for doctors to do that than say
52:15
someone like me who's apparently a layperson.
52:18
And you know, we, they've been so much more indoctrinated with
52:25
these things and it's their life.
52:27
They might be, have been practising for so many years and
52:30
to let go of it and actually realise and, and take a
52:34
different path is so hard for them.
52:37
Well. That's a really interesting
52:40
point and indoctrination. I'm just wondering whether
52:43
there's a clash or a sort of dividing line, because let's
52:47
say, let's take for example, the so called defence industry,
52:51
where anyone working in that industry absolutely knows that
52:54
the products they're making are going to result in the deaths of
52:56
other people. And they and they, you know,
52:58
they must have had to have squared that with themselves in
53:01
order to conduct that work. Now, if you're supposedly
53:04
working for the health industry in some capacity, whether it be
53:07
at the pharmaceutical end of it or the sort of delivery end, as
53:11
a as a medic, you are in a position where you are saying to
53:15
people that you're doing something to either enhance
53:20
their health or prolong their life.
53:22
When in actual fact, there are very many people, particularly
53:25
at the pharmaceutical entity and WHO, who know perfectly well
53:29
that what they're doing has a, has a, a body count attached to
53:34
it. Now, the obvious explanation for
53:36
that is, is psychopathy. Otherwise, how else would you be
53:40
able to do it? And, and given that that extends
53:42
into, you know, the, the, the sort of senior medical
53:45
fraternity, do you, do you think there is a, a sort of a point at
53:51
which that leeches over into indoctrination or rubs up
53:56
against him? And how, how do you consider the
53:57
the sort of state of mind of the people who are in that position
54:00
and absolutely know about it? Well, yes, I don't know how some
54:04
of those sleep at night. I think the doctors generally in
54:10
my observation, although I don't see them very often myself,
54:15
Well, not at all for myself really, I should say, But other
54:18
people when I, I think there's a disconnect that when doctors
54:23
train even because if they became too attached to every
54:29
patient, they probably wouldn't survive long emotionally.
54:33
So my observation with a lot of things is that they, they have
54:37
got this disconnect. They've just heads down, we do
54:40
this, this is what we give you, blah, blah, blah, and they don't
54:44
that's it. They're very close minded.
54:48
It's very unlikely that any of them, even if you question or
54:52
try to discuss with doctors anything, they don't really want
54:56
to disturb their lives because if they had to suddenly look and
55:00
think, actually, I've just noticed so many have had this
55:03
that and the other since they had that drug or where does it
55:07
leave them? You see, they have no job then.
55:09
And unfortunately, you know, they they, it is about money and
55:13
prestige. In fact, even back in the
55:15
history of Martin, Dr was saying money and prestige prevent this
55:20
to be investigated, you know, so but yeah, it does.
55:26
Certain people like you say when they're working with the
55:28
products and know that it can cause various things.
55:33
You wonder how they sleep at night.
55:36
I mean, one thing they don't do, they're always on about gold
55:39
standard studies for drugs. But when it comes to vaccines,
55:44
when you years back, I had to write, obviously not email write
55:48
to all these drug companies asking for all their controlled
55:52
trials where they were comparing unvaccinated with vaccinated.
55:56
And of course, most of them just did well, they either don't
55:59
answer or they just say, oh, sorry, we haven't got any.
56:03
But the one famous one that they did for BCG, for tuberculosis
56:09
back in the 1968 in India, they did a huge field trial.
56:16
And because prior to that there'd been so many differing
56:21
results in other little studies where they said we can't say if
56:25
this vaccine is effective or not and it was causing problems.
56:29
Even so they did this large field trial and the result was
56:33
so shocking to them. They took 12 years to publish
56:37
it. And it went in The Lancet in
56:38
1980 eventually. And they bad news from India.
56:43
And they said that the group that received, and it was
56:46
thousands and thousands, the group that received the BCG
56:49
vaccine had more tuberculosis in that group than the so called
56:56
placebo who only got saline solution.
57:01
And what did they learn from that?
57:03
They didn't say that's strange, let's do it again and see if
57:06
we've made a mistake. They just ignored it and carried
57:08
on promoting the BCG and it was less than nought percent
57:14
effective. Yeah.
57:16
It's incredible. It's hard.
57:18
When I say these things, sometimes I think people must
57:20
say I'm just making it up. It's unbelievable, everything I
57:25
turn to, well, even now, but even my first decade of
57:29
studying, I couldn't believe what I was reading.
57:32
It does exist, this this material and it is solid
57:37
information. It's not been tampered with.
57:39
It's it's the historical background, but no one, no one
57:44
reads it in the medical world. They're just trained do this do
57:48
that. You get bonuses if you give so
57:50
many vaccines or whatever at your surgery and and it carries
57:56
on, doesn't it? Yeah, it does now.
57:58
I mean the same modus operandi across the board.
58:00
It just keeps railing, railing it, it it's completely
58:02
astonishing. I think astonishing also is the,
58:04
the body of evidence that you have sort of brought together
58:09
over the the years and this amazing thing, you know, it is
58:11
this autumn, it will be 35 years since you first sort of started
58:15
thinking about, about this, which is an incredible record.
58:18
I think my my question about the informed parent, which clearly
58:21
provides an amazing service and as you say, is not dictating.
58:24
It's, it's putting the information out in order that
58:27
people are made able to make an informed choice.
58:30
But I mean, you know, there's obviously a difficult question
58:33
to answer, but how do you regard the impact that the form parent
58:38
has made over the years? Well I I've always for every
58:45
person that's subscribed, even they've got families and
58:49
friends. And so I know over the years
58:51
thousands and thousands have learnt or investigated.
58:57
I've had lovely letters over the years thanking me for helping
59:03
them, Well, not helping them, but just giving them some
59:07
information which they might not have come across.
59:09
Because, you know, when you're a busy mum particularly, you can't
59:13
start investigation things. And so I, all I was doing was
59:17
bringing, I was just doing it for them and then putting it in
59:20
a newsletter so they could, they could read it for themselves.
59:23
So I, I do feel it's, it's been part of the growing awareness
59:30
because it's just, you know, when, like you say, when you
59:34
throw a Pebble into the, the lake and it spreads and spreads,
59:38
yes. And I've met so many interesting
59:42
people over the years, learnt so much and I still keep learning.
59:47
I, I don't think people should ever think they know everything
59:51
about, Oh, I know this subject now.
59:53
There's always something that crops up and you think, hang on,
59:56
how does that work? And I think thinking is is an
1:00:00
important subject and it should it's not taught in school
1:00:04
anymore. Well, schools are dangerous
1:00:06
place in my opinion now, especially now.
1:00:10
I mean, when I was at school, I think it was reasonable.
1:00:12
I was I just, I just missed the 60s.
1:00:16
So born in 1959, but we had the education service system wasn't
1:00:22
wasn't too indoctrinated then and.
1:00:27
Nowadays thinking's you know, not, not allowed almost you
1:00:32
learn this parrot fashion and that's it.
1:00:34
And children will come home and say, but the teacher said this
1:00:37
and blah blah, blah. So and they're even teaching
1:00:40
them now that parents you might have sort of what do they call
1:00:44
them? Oh, I can't remember the term
1:00:46
they use now. Your, your radical parents or
1:00:50
your Oh dear. Some of you, unfortunately have
1:00:52
got radical parents and they believe and they say this and
1:00:56
that. And you must know that this is
1:00:58
they're, they're creating a, a barrier now between even the
1:01:03
child and the, the parent. And, and in recent years they
1:01:07
were paper. I remember a paper saying
1:01:09
something about parents are a barrier to getting all the
1:01:12
children vaccinated. You know what, parents love
1:01:17
their children, they want the best for them and they're seeing
1:01:20
them as a nuisance. Now let's move them out of the
1:01:24
way. Children have the right to
1:01:26
insist on. I want to be vaccinated, mum.
1:01:30
I'm only 5 but I know it's fantastic and it's going to make
1:01:33
me healthy. They're being indoctrinated so
1:01:37
young now. Yeah, I do.
1:01:41
I think, sorry, I'm going to say, you know, with all the
1:01:44
people, not just me and the informed parent, there's been
1:01:47
different people around, around the world doing similar things
1:01:52
or writing books or whatever over the last 100 years.
1:01:57
And they've all but, you know, all between us all.
1:02:01
It has kept a conversation going.
1:02:04
And I think now the conversation is growing as well.
1:02:09
Well, that's terrific. And, and, and just on that note,
1:02:11
I mean, first of all, I think you're absolutely right.
1:02:13
You know, the, the suggestion that we're all extremists and
1:02:16
that the answer is, is division is, is really dire and, and very
1:02:22
cynical. But, but with that in mind, and
1:02:25
given how hard the, the this idea has been pushed that, you
1:02:29
know, you can't talk about it. What's your advice in how to
1:02:35
start the conversation about this?
1:02:37
Just as we round off, I mean, how you know it is such a
1:02:39
sensitive topic? How does one open up that
1:02:43
subject well? I mean, I haven't had too many
1:02:45
situations where someone's become hostile, but if anyone
1:02:51
shows a strong opinion about vaccination, that's saying how
1:02:56
wonderful it is. I, I just say, oh, I'm really
1:02:59
interested. What, what evidence and what
1:03:03
research did you do to come arrive at that?
1:03:06
You know, it's the same with even the COVID.
1:03:08
I've said that a few times. Why do you have such a strong
1:03:11
opinion? And they just look blankly and
1:03:15
it changes everything then because they realise they
1:03:19
haven't got any sort of background knowledge on the
1:03:22
subject at all, you know, and there's a silence.
1:03:27
And usually they don't change the subject.
1:03:29
But if you, if you, if they're open and say, well, tell me more
1:03:34
than yes, you can. And it's like when I ever say to
1:03:38
people, I say, don't actually listen to me or just read
1:03:41
something and believe it. Go and check it out.
1:03:44
You know, that's I'm only here to get encourage you to think
1:03:48
and read and learn and come to your own conclusion.
1:03:51
I don't if your conclusion is different to mine, that's fine.
1:03:54
You know, as long as I'm allowed to make my own decisions in
1:03:59
life. And I know that's I only, my
1:04:02
only regret is that I didn't study it before.
1:04:05
And you know, I know many parents whose children were
1:04:10
severely damaged after a vaccination or even died.
1:04:14
And it's, it's heartbreaking and, and it happens a lot more
1:04:18
than people think. And you know, the more people
1:04:23
that study it, I think we, we could have a much healthier
1:04:26
future. It's not all doom and gloom and
1:04:29
nothing setting concrete as I, I try to stay optimistic about
1:04:33
things. There's a lot of dark forces out
1:04:36
there, but you know, there's a lot of light forces as well.
1:04:40
So who knows but. Good.
1:04:43
Now go. I think that's a, that's a
1:04:44
terrific note to to end on. And indeed your philosophy about
1:04:48
just being able to do what you want to do or to have the
1:04:51
freedom to do that I think is absolutely right.
1:04:53
What I would like you to do, although I will be writing this
1:04:55
down in the notes below the interview, but please just give
1:04:58
the details of the informed parent website.
1:05:01
OK, well it's informed parent.co.uk and you can also
1:05:07
contact me via that and you'll see the art is an archive.
1:05:10
Archive library with the newsletters.
1:05:13
As I said, I just finished doing the final annual subscriptions,
1:05:19
but who knows, you know, things might change and I'll find a
1:05:23
different way of getting information out.
1:05:25
But yeah, I'm very happy for people to contact me.
1:05:31
Good Magda Taylor, thank you very much indeed for joining me
1:05:35
on UK column. Thank you, Charles.