Dr. Clare Craig

Right. It's not that hard to do because we were... I mean, you know, this is sort of a little little miracle that happened whereby huge swathes of the global population did not have the COVID problem until the vaccines rolled out. And you can use that as a control group because the timing of any problem should be different.

For Europe and the USA, which had COVID, well, not all of the USA, actually. You could probably divvy the USA up into regions that did and didn't have much in 2020. But broadly, there were regions that had it in 2020, and there were regions that didn't really have a problem until 2022. There's a two-year lag. So if you're not seeing a two-year lag...

in the side effects of these, you know, in the problems that we're discussing, then it's not COVID. It's something else that everybody had in common, which is the vaccines. And more broadly, you know, when you've got a respiratory virus infection, the respiratory virus replicates in the mucosal epithelial cells lining the respiratory tract.

And those cells, you know, become little virus factories and they replicate and they die. And that makes a bit of a sore area, which causes you to have a cough. But broadly, it all happens on the lining of your lung. And you can sometimes detect RNA in the blood in people who get sick.

But even Fauci wrote a paper in January of this year where he's saying, well, you know, when we detect RNA in the blood, often it is just that. It's just debris from the virus. It's not whole virus particles in the blood. And so the number of people that actually have circulating virus is they would have been really super sick and the tiny, tiny number.

Now, the number of people who've been injected with a product that makes cells all over the body turn into spike protein factories, and then you get circulating spike, that number is enormous. And of course, spike is a pathological protein. And it was, you know, these vaccines had the entire spike sequence. They have 1,273 amino acid protein building blocks. They switched out two only.

And the AstraZeneca didn't switch out any of them. So the entire most pathological part of the virus was being made by cells in the body and was circulating in the blood. So, yeah, that's what caused the problems. You know, I don't want to I understand you being a scientist about it completely. That's how we should approach this.

But actually, when you go back to first principles, it's bluntly obvious it was a vaccine, not the virus.

Right. So I think, I think I have a variety of theories, you know, I'm keeping a lot of theories going because I think we don't know this, you know, the evidence is still accumulating and that's fine. And so the big, the big question is how much of this is from inflammation of the heart?

So the myocarditis story, you know, is bigger than what's been presented by the regulators and how much of it is just bond or coronary artery disease causing infarctions in people. And how much of it is potentially a bit of both actually. So if we take the myocarditis story first, we know that there were people who had myocarditis and got very sick at the time and had to be in hospital.

But what we also know is that when three different studies followed people up prospectively after their third doses and measured what happened to their heart, having just been given a dose, 3% of them had a huge rise in the heart enzyme troponin in their blood, which showed that they had heart damage. So 3% is an enormous figure when you're vaccinating a huge number of healthy people.

So we know that that heart damage was way more than what turned up in hospital. And that what happens when you damage your heart, the cells can't repair themselves. They're gone forever and you get a scar. And of course, the heart has a very delicate electrical system. So any kind of scarring could mean that you short circuit in the future.

And so there is a risk of cardiac arrest forevermore for people who've had myocarditis. And we don't really have a handle on how many people that is and how much of a risk that is. But you would just have sudden cardiac death with no other thing going on. Now, of course, when you have a sudden cardiac death, doctors generally assume it's a heart attack.

And so especially if you're of an age or if you've got other risk factors, they'll say, well, that was just a cardiovascular disease that we see fairly frequently.

And so unless you're doing postmortems and actually really looking into it, those are going to be diagnosed as if they are atherosclerotic, narrowing of the coronary arteries, cutting of the blood supply to the heart, damaging the heart, and then death. And so trying to tease those apart is really impossible with that proper investigation, which hasn't been happening really anywhere in the world.

But we do have evidence that these vaccines cause huge inflammation because of all the circulating spike. There's a lot of inflammation going on in the vascular system. And when you've got inflammation, that is a risk factor for atherosclerosis and narrowing of your heart arteries. So there's a mechanism there for why you would have an acceleration in atherosclerosis.

And then going back to the inflammation in the heart, we don't exactly know how the vaccines were causing that inflammation.

So the kind of regular, the sort of the common myocarditis, well not common, it was always rare, but the myocarditis that we had before these vaccines would be post-viral and you'd have a thing called molecular mimicry where one of the molecules on the virus looks enough like a molecule in the heart that the immune system gets confused and attacks your heart. So that could have happened.

That's potential. The spike has a lot of homology, so a lot of similarity to human protein. So that's a possibility. We've seen in postmortems that the spike protein itself was in the heart muscle. So if you've got this product going in and attacking heart cells directly and expressing a foreign protein, then the immune system is doing its job getting rid of that foreign protein.

It's a terrible idea to give that to people. But the damage to the heart then is just part of that process of getting rid of a cell expressing a foreign protein. But the other thing to understand is that the mechanism, this kind of mRNA, but also potentially the lipid nanoparticles, has been causing problems beyond the COVID vaccines.

So Moderna had a trial with an EBV mRNA where there was a myocarditis problem. And then also there's been HIV mRNA where they're sort of saying, well, you're not allowed to be in the trial if you had a history of myocarditis. Why is that? You know, you're just going to keep gambling with people's hearts like this.

Yeah. Absolutely. And you know, what you said about trying to blame the virus, that's exactly what happened when in 2009, 2010, with the Pandemrix vaccine that caused narcolepsy, they blamed the virus. It's really obvious to try to blame the virus. But if you look at myocarditis rates overall, you say, well, what happened? You know, when was the surge in myocarditis? Nothing happened in 2020.

2020, there was still myocarditis and some of it may even have been caused by COVID, but it was at the same rates. as any other year. So if it was being caused by COVID, then it was replacing other viruses that would have caused it otherwise, right? So nothing happens in 2020. Spring 2021, massive surge in myocarditis and pericarditis.

And I think some of that surge is young people who, when they had the vaccine, nothing much happened. And then they're exposed to COVID after they're vaccinated and their immune system's like, oh, I know this one. And then it attacks the heart. Oh, that's interesting. I've not heard that theory yet. Not the unvaccinated.

Right. So, I mean, they seem to just have free reign to do any kind of crazy experiment at the moment. And the idea that these vaccines are meant to be protecting us from a virus. So you say, well, what is a virus? You know, virus is an encapsulated code. that can replicate. That's what a virus is. And now we've got so-called vaccines, which are encapsulated code that can replicate.

You're like, well, at what point are you giving people the vaccine? At what point are you just giving them a man-made disease? You know, I just think it's a really crazy thought to want to do this. And the mRNA that they use in the first place, we don't know even now how long it takes to degrade.

We don't know what happens to the synthetic nucleotides that were the building blocks of that RNA sequence, whether the cells carry on using it and recycling it and making proteins last longer than they should. We don't know. And yet here they are saying, well, now we're going to have one that can replicate itself.

So I think we should be pulling back massively from this whole platform, not experimenting with crazier ideas.

Right. So just taking that analogy a bit further, the kind of conventional mRNA ones, they enter a cell with the cell actively uptaking them. They don't just sort of drift through like a ghost through the cell wall. The cell takes them up. And so in theory, they can't get back out of the cell.

But we've seen studies showing that vaccinated people for four months at least had little bubbles of their cell membrane with spike attached to it circulating around the blood. Nobody ever looked to see if there was RNA in it, but there were these sort of, you know, pseudoviruses circulating in the blood in the vaccinated people. So if you can get into a cell and you can get out of a cell,

That's like, you know, part of the sequence of what a virus could do. What these replicating ones, one of the differences is, as you pointed out, their capsule is lipid rather than protein. What that means is they haven't got anything on the surface that allows antibodies to bind to say this is something foreign that we need to get rid of.

So they're actually like kind of stealth viral type things because they've got nothing. The immune system can't attack them until they've already done something in a cell. So that in some ways they're even worse than a virus would be. But yeah, the ethics of it is something that has just been sidelined and it's been done very intentionally.

And there are lots and lots of strict and difficult experiments that have to be done in order to do anything to do with genetic therapies. And those were all bypassed on the basis that we were in an emergency and then we were going to call these vaccines. And it's as if the word vaccine has this kind of, you know, all powerful sanctification of a drug when the drug is still a gene therapy.

And it should have had to go through all of the hoops that gene therapy drugs go through. And now that they've done that. they seem to think, well, we can carry on down this path and we don't have to, first of all, go back and do the work on the products that billions of people have had, which have not been done. And second of all, just carry on with these crazy experiments.

So there's sort of fundamental points around checking whether or not a product like that will enter the DNA, what kind of rate at which it will sort of get into the human DNA. And, you know, the sort of thing I was referring to before around how long it lasts and what happens to the nucleotides after the product's broken down.

what it does for fertility and the germline, you know, all of that wasn't done. It wasn't done. And they just said, oh, we didn't do this. And they were quite open about it because they didn't need to lie because the regulators weren't making them do it. And the regulators still haven't made them do it. That's the real scandal. It's not even been done in retrospect.

And I was looking today at something Pfizer said at the time, back in 2021 on their website, when they were talking about how they had a whole team of people who did gene therapy and And they got that team and they just pulled them into the COVID vaccine and worked because they had all the experience of their mRNA technology and their lipid nanoparticles because that is what gene therapy is.

They were the experts in it.

Yeah. And, you know, of course, the story that I was referring to earlier that's been shared a lot is around the DNA that was in these products, which were contaminant DNA. And that DNA included... regions of sequence that tells the surrounding cell machinery to replicate it and make a particular protein.

And if that kind of sequence ends up in your DNA near a whole load of different genes, which are growth genes or replication genes or anything like that, that is a That is a cancer risk. And that sequence should never have been there at all. The DNA should never have been contaminating these vials. The regulator wasn't told about this sequence.

And the sequence would have been through a software that would have labeled up what was identifiable and recognizable within it. And that software would have identified these sequences. But what was submitted to the regulator had had that information edited out. So that's not sort of accident or an oversight.

Somebody has actually said, well, we're not going to tell them that that's in there because it's a bit of sequence that human cells will respond to and that it's not good for humans to have. That's essentially what was going on there. And I think there's something about the DNA, which is a beautiful thing.

And, you know, our DNA does have within it, human DNA, bits of viruses from over the ages that have sort of, you know, changed what we are and who we are. But the idea that humans are now interfering with what is a sort of divine code, if you like, there are reasons that we have very, very strict rules on this because

you can't undo messing around with your DNA and you certainly can't undo messing around with DNA that might end up in the, you know, eggs and sperm and end up in the next generation.

Thanks very much for having me back on.

So the book Expired is really about the story of 2020. You know, we were told all sorts of things that were not based in fact. And it's kind of, it tells a story about where those sort of myths arose. And it's kind of, I dug into the history of it and it was quite fascinating. I really enjoyed writing it.

I love it. I don't think that Jess is wrong. And, you know, the point you're saying there about it, that this is DNA that's actually in a lipid nanoparticle, which would deliver it into the cell with a nuclear localization signal, which drags it into the nucleus. You know, there's all sorts of aspects of it, which are

really not great and as she said they're not very good at getting rid of it yet my worry is if this becomes a story the fact that all of these cardiac deaths have happened will just be forgotten about and you know that both things need to be talked about they're both there's a sort of the thing that has happened that has killed people and there's the sort of ongoing risk together

And so I don't think one story should be dominating over the other. And the cardiac story, I don't feel, I guess neither of them have completely hit home, have they? But I'm just hoping that cardiac story doesn't get buried. I have good news on the subject.

Around the myth of the droplet spread, which was so fundamental to all of the beliefs and all of the policies that came out of that. And it's a book that sort of takes it apart scientifically and shows that lockdowns couldn't have worked.

You know, we're always hearing that they didn't work, but actually they couldn't have worked and they couldn't have worked because the virus is spread through aerosols, which can spread long distance through the air. And that's why the time between any kind of new variant and the spike of a wave is the same time.

And it's why you had spikes rising in rural areas after lockdown, because these waves are not in human control. They can never be in human control. And it was absolutely insane to pretend they could be. And so, yeah, that's what that book really focuses on. It's really about the virus and about the kind of exaggeration of the deaths around the virus and about how the virus spread.

No, no, I agree with her. I think that it was manmade. I think there's plenty of evidence that it was manmade and there's, there's, you know, I, I, There's stuff in that spike that's really nasty. And so, you know, the idea that it would be trying to mimic a human, yeah, sure.

That's really, that's exactly the kind of, you know, that's the hypothesis in the book. It's this problem that we have that when science gets politicized, which it really was back 115 years ago when people were arguing about germ theory and miasma theory, people get really entrenched in their views. And when they're entrenched, they lose the nuance.

They sort of adopt beliefs that aren't quite evidenced. And you have this thing fighting it out. And of course, the germ theorists won. But when they won, they brought some of these un-evidence myths with them. And we're still living with the repercussions of it today.

I am still here. And I just I can't help thinking it's something around scientists seeing that the sort of DNA world is a final frontier and that there's some sort of, you know, we have to do this because this is progress. And I think they've managed to convince a lot of powerful politicians around them that this is progress.

And the reality is that a lot of what they are claiming that these products can do is based around mythology in the first place. So, you know, when Jess is saying, well, people don't need these injections, they never needed these injections. You know, they were never, ever needed. And a lot of the sort of stories told about viruses and about pandemics are mythological. They're not based in fact.

And over time, they become more and more mythological.

scary it's incredible how the numbers escalate over time if you look through history so like 1918 at the time they thought it was about 20 million people who died and that was probably an exaggeration and now people like the welcome trust will say it's 150 million like well what happened there because they could count dead bodies back then you know they're pretty good at that so there is this whole fear-based thing that's driving all of it which is it's not good for us

I'm with you, Jess. You know, fear sucks something out of people. We've had enough of it. And as you say, we just want people to be looking to the future in a more positive way instead of in this reckless way. Just that there are much more constructive things people could be doing with their lives.

Right. And one of the other overlaps, of course, with the whole opioid story is the oxycodone and The name is Purdue, isn't it? The company.

The Sackler company, right. And they had this whole idea about, well, how are we going to sell more of this stuff? We're going to tell people that drug failure is breakthrough pain and you need more of the drug. So when you have failure, you have more of the drug. And of course, that's exactly what was adopted with the COVID vaccines as well. That, you know, the vaccines failed.

What do we need with failure? More of the drug because we have breakthrough infections. Isn't it weird?

Well, no, I was just going to comment on that as well. And I think you're right. And I think one of the things that I've observed over the last few years is this sort of invention of vocabulary that gets used a lot by people in power. So there was the invention of some vocabulary like the term pre-bunking. So pre-bunking is this idea that you can immunize a thought that

So you can give you can take it something that you're worried that people are going to start getting concerned about. And that's, you know, that's going to cause you harm as a powerful person. And you start sharing that. But you muddy the well, you know, you add to it something that's untrue. You can disprove the untrue bit. And then the truth gets discarded along with that.

And then when people meet again, the truth, they think, oh, no, no, I've already looked into that. It's not true. So they gave this a term, right? And what we don't have, what we haven't done is give things terms for the sort of opposite effect and the problems that have been caused. And I think you're right. If we have the right vocabulary, it would really help.

And one of the examples of having the right vocabulary is, is the word infection, right? The word infection gets used as if we all have the same understanding what that means. And actually it's used in lots, to mean lots of different things. So some people will say that you have a COVID infection because you've breathed contaminated air and that's enough to get a positive test.

And so they'll say you've got an asymptomatic infection because you're not symptomatic.

well is that really what we mean by an infection isn't that just breathing air and we all do that all the time and then you know people if people could have the virus enter a cell and their immune system deals with it so they're still asymptomatic and why are we calling that an infection you can't become infectious to anyone else in that scenario when surely the word infection should be reserved for somebody who could infect somebody else because that's what the word infection is a reaction you get from the public if you've got an infection is oh i might get something from you

So we shouldn't be using that word to describe things that are not infectious.

Yeah, and I can't help thinking that a little part of that is that the baby boomers have got to the stage where they're worried about their own mortality. You know, every stage of their life, the world turned itself upside down for their benefit. You know, they were teenagers and they had the sex revolution and they, you know, at every stage.

And here they are approaching mortality and the society is being turned upside down while they're doing it.

Right. So, well, you mean the COVID vaccines? Are we talking bigger than that?

So the thing that's concerning me the most at the moment is that there seems to be, every now and again, like some messaging gets through and you're allowed it on YouTube and people start sharing it and it even maybe gets into some media properly.

And the message that's being shared a lot at the moment, and it's an important message, I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but there's this message going through again and again about the DNA in the jams, right? That message is really penetrating. And I just wonder why that is.

And I can't help thinking that it might be that that's the kind of issue you can say you've solved and then try and resurrect the mRNA platform's reputation and say, well, we've corrected the COVID problem and we're going to keep this platform. And I think there's a lot of other problems with the mRNA platforms.

that have not been heard and that are still being censored because they're problems that are much harder to fix. I mean, this isn't necessarily an easy one to fix, but, you know, it's sort of you could persuade people you'd fix that one.

And so, you know, what I've seen in the big picture, if you just look at what happened when those vaccines rolled out, we had from spring 2021 a massive rise in the working age population, people who couldn't work because they were long term sick. And that kept rising up until 2023. It happened in the USA at the same time as in the UK.

And we had hospitals suddenly being overwhelmed when they had not been beforehand. And they were being overwhelmed in places like Australia that hadn't really had COVID, but they had also had the vaccines at the same time. And then we saw this big uptick in cardiac problems. So we had There's big rise in ambulance calls for cardiac arrests, which has not come back to normal.

A big rise in people turning up at A&E departments with cardiac problems and a rise in excess deaths, which were cardiac deaths. So the biggest problem we've had from these jabs has been a cardiac injury and mortality. And that message hasn't got through. Whereas the problem we've got with the DNA in the jabs, it may well be that these are a cancer risk.

And I think the fear of cancer and the fear of dying and the large number of people who have taken these things mean that that gets traction because people think it might have happened to them. Whereas some of the other problems about injuries, they're not really about the person. The message we're trying to get through to people is most drugs, when they're harmful, don't harm all the patients.

It's always a minority that gets injured. It's not every patient that's injured. And so the message we need to get through to people is stop thinking about what you've done to yourself because it's not helping the situation because you're sticking your fingers in your ears and you're getting scared and you're refusing to listen. Think about what this has done to other people.

If we can please focus on that, then we might actually get somewhere. And I think the cancer story, because it's so emotive, is people are kind of hanging on to that and worrying about that when actually, although I think it might well be real, it's not got the same volume as the cardiac problem, which is big.