58 Comments
Mar 31Liked by Dr Philip McMillan

It makes me want to scream, so many doctors are still saying the v. is safe and effective. Still to many people say that if they wouldn’t have taken the v. they would be dead now and that includes my parents and all the relatives and we are all lying and are stupid and conspiracy theorists and “Querdenker “……. My GP surgery sends me SMS invites to get the v. as I am vulnerable.

Really,…..?!? I prefer to live.

Expand full comment

Phillip..I know I have said this before.....But have you not noticed the whole buisness world has gone subscription based... Not having a customer choose if he likes a product or not before buying.

The Govs of our world are all desperate to have a large pharma complex in their country, to help bail them out of the financial mess we are all in (Pre Covid I might add),

Im sure you are aware we are on the Brink of total financial collapse, our GDPs will never payback the debt in several generations, the US is increasing at 1 Billion every 100 days

Until you accept this was not driven by medical goals, this is never going to make any sence to you

Expand full comment
Mar 31·edited Mar 31Liked by Dr Philip McMillan

The point is that you are analyzing vaccines, while the COVID "vaccines" are the gene therapies, which utilize nanotechnology.

Expand full comment
Apr 1Liked by Dr Philip McMillan

This is correct to argue that parenteral vaccines can’t stop transmission of airborne respiratory infection, and therefore, can’t be mandated, since the only legitimate basis (collective benefit) for compulsory vaccination against airborne respiratory virus – herd immunity – can’t be achieved by means of the parenteral vaccines.

But I would not argue that it is because of a type of antibodies induced by the vaccines (IgG instead of secretory IgA. You would not mention vaccinal IgG in the mucosa of upper respiratory tract (URT), had you known its neutralizing capacity and half-life). I would argue that health integrity in the URT is ensured primarily mechanistically (nasal hairs, mucus produced by goblet cells, ciliary beating of motile cilia, etc.) rather than immunologically. And even sufficiently primed secretory IgA and tissue resident immune cells in the URT would not protect against the infection when the mechanistic part is compromised.

Secondly, the immunological error was not the main defect that corrupted the pandemic response. The idea that public authority, which has not observed the patient can better protect and cure the patient than the GP who knows the patient, has done more harm than the virus itself. This pathogenic idea prevents informed consent, proper diagnostic and evidence-based treatment from normal functioning. Had the public authority retained the role of the GP’s assistant rather than the boss, then primary care would have prevented secondary care overload, need for vaccine passports and lockdowns.

Additionally, the public health authorities will have to admit that fooling (euphemizing) everyone that gene therapy or prodrug is a vaccine causes more confusion than clarity in a drug regulatory sphere. It will take some time to clean up the regulatory mess.

Expand full comment
Apr 1Liked by Dr Philip McMillan

You know I had my GP recommend that I get the COVID-19 vaccine, I was at my computer at the time and had access to all the information that was coming in stating that these so-called vaccines were dangerous. I sat there reading out all the adverse events and all the people that had died and been injured according to the TGA, and do you know I couldn't sway his belief in these so-called vaccines.

These inoculations at best were bio-warfare countermeasures, at worst they were a tool for depopulation. Further I can assure you that the full effects of these inoculations will be felt for decades to come. I don't want an apology, I want justice for the crimes that have been committed against the Australian people and humanity. Let's start at the top with the dictators that refused to listen to the doctors and scientists that were crying out “stop the rollout of these COVID-19 jabs they are dangerous”.

Just saying an apology isn’t necessary, Justice is all I'm chasing.

Expand full comment
Mar 31Liked by Dr Philip McMillan

So igG4 has rendered people immunogically defenceless against further mutations of the virus and this isn't a scandal?

GPs lost their careers daring to prescribe Hdclqne, both useful and very safe because those advising the politicians were hell bent on pushing the vaccine.

The use of the emergency regulations to push mRNA was criminal, especially when concerted efforts like the Great Barrington declaration were demonised.

The result of these short cuts, the subsequent investment of billions into mRNA factories at the tax payers expense.

The rampant inflation caused by "lockdowns" that were never part of any pandemic response plan has crippled both health services and the economies of countries.

The medical professions were cowed into submission to the politicians need to display mastery over a genetically engineered bio weapon.

And now we have eminent oncologists alarmed at a massive resurgence in cancers in all ages groups, what they term "turbo" cancers, and a 10% increase in annual death rates that continues, for years after the gene therapy was applied.

Expand full comment
Mar 31Liked by Dr Philip McMillan

My son is vaccine damaged and has not worked for 2.5 years despite trying numerous treatments including IV drips, hyberbaric oxygen therapy treatment, different diets, Perrin technique massage and triple / quadruple anticoagulants. If the course could help him then I am very interested. Many thanks.

Expand full comment
Mar 31Liked by Dr Philip McMillan

Geert says a tsunami is coming? Is this a new warning? I read his recent posts but I don't recall it described in that term. Perhaps I am being too pedantic.

Expand full comment
Mar 31Liked by Dr Philip McMillan

No access to funds for anything but rent and necessities.

Expand full comment
Apr 2·edited Apr 2Liked by Dr Philip McMillan

Everything went wrong in the beginning of the pandemic, following the complete denial of early intervention protocols to manage the acute upper respiratory symptoms and prevent the progression of the life threatening organic lower respiratory disease. Especially in the vulnerable population with low innate immunity. The situation worsened with the denial of access to primary care and early intervention as a result of mandated lock downs and complete lack of primary care. Resulting in a futile fire fighting mode and overwhelming of critical care facilities among the vulnerable population who could have avoided life threatening complications with early interventions. Thus creating a ground for emergency use authorisation and misleading the implementation of a poorly developed vaccine, using a technology which had questionable safety.

Further the entire population were sleep walked by the experts and medical fraternity into mandating this sub optimal vaccine which failed to prevent infection and transmission but claimed to reduce the severity of the disease. By conveniently redefining the purpose of vaccine after having failed in meeting the much needed and conventional clinical end point of preventing infection and its transmission. To make situation worse, boosters were proposed to meet the drop in antibody titres.

Expand full comment
Apr 1Liked by Dr Philip McMillan

If you want to know succinctly where the experts went wrong in covid ( title), please see my two comments in the previous podcast of this series - on covid misinformation. It was not about any technical misunderstanding or ignorance. Precisely on this point, I would have written about 500 pages of notes highlighting a few simple, common sense medical points. Letters to the Editors, mails to many scientists and experts including Dr. McMillan and in recent months, some prolific engagement in the comments section. I am not a biologist, but an organic chemist and my technical content will have only some chemistry background.

Expand full comment
Apr 1Liked by Dr Philip McMillan

I think teaching "where experts got COVID right" would be a much shorter course.

Expand full comment
Mar 31·edited Apr 1Liked by Dr Philip McMillan

You say "there were benefits. There certainly was protection against severe disease. At least transiently. That was beneficial to reduce pressure on hospital systems."

Have you read https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.03.09.24304015v1?

Does this paper "The extent and impact of vaccine status miscategorisation on covid-19 vaccine efficacy studies" not completely invalidate your point that "there certainly was protection against severe disease"? In my opinion it does. I mean the UK ONS admitted to Norman Fenton in writing a while ago that their flawed data should NOT have been used to make any judgements on vaccinated groups versus unvaccinated groups. And yet scientists did not see that the data was flawed and wrote plenty of papers on the basis of that flawed data. It seems that you are also referring to such flawed data when claiming that "there certainly was protection against severe disease". Can you see your own fallacy after studying "The extent and impact of vaccine status miscategorisation on covid-19 vaccine efficacy studies". Or does it in your opinion not matter that in those vaccine efficacy studies vaccinated patients were misclassified as unvaccinated patients?

Also your claim "That was beneficial to reduce pressure on hospital systems."

What makes you so sure that there was indeed pressure on hospital systems?

Let us look for example at Germany: During 2020 and during 2021 there were only 17 million people hospitalized in Germany annually as opposed to 19 million in 2019. How can one say that there was pressure on the hospital systems, when in fact nurses were laid off and some medical staff were put on short-time work? The analysis from the "Initiative Qualitätsmedizin" that analysed the data of a considerable statistically significant percentage of hospitals in Germany found that not more people were in ICU for influenza like illnesses during the first year of the Covid crisis than in 2019 (https://www.initiative-qualitaetsmedizin.de/monatliche-analyse-jan-bis-nov-2020). In Germany there is also the work of data analyst Tom Lausen that shows that neither ICUs nor hospitals during the first waves were overwhelmed with patients. The German Health Minister Jens Spahn also admitted in spring 2021 in a press conference that neither ICUs nor hospitals were overwhelmed during 2020 and also not in the winter of 2020 and 2021, and that there was in very few hospitals at the most an occasional overload [as is the case every winter during the flu season].

With 2 million less patients being hospitalized per year, and also not more (rather quite a few patients less) being admitted to ICU, it seems really debateable whether there was any pressure on Germany's hospital system. In UK during the first Covid "wave" the nurses also reported that they had plenty of time dealing with a fairly moderate number of Covid patients after the UK government had decided to kick out all those patients who would have probably needed surgery for non-Covid things.

How can one claim that the vaccination reduced the pressure on hospital systems when there was no pressure. Any pressure on hospital systems came mainly down to having to quarantine Covid-asymptomatic patients who had a positive Covid test but had in fact been admitted to the hospital for diseases other than Covid.

How can we trust doctors and experts like you who continue to base their analysis and conclusions on flawed covid-19 vaccine efficacy data?

This is really an enigma to me. Could you not have had a closer look and seen that the data that those covid-19 vaccine efficacy studies are based on is flawed? I mean it is not so difficult to see that there is a miscategorisation. Why are you not mistrusting such flawed data a little bit more? Why do you experts take many claims that are being made at face value without questioning them? If you would ask questions, you would be able to see that this so-called vaccine efficacy data was in fact seriously flawed.

I demand that ALL those studies that relied on those data sets that miscategorized the vaccine status are withdrawn.

I have come to the conclusion that the vast majority of scientific experts are neither scientific nor experts. Otherwise they would by now have been able to acknowledge that their assumptions and claims regarding vaccine efficacy were based on flawed data. They would withdraw their studies in shame. And they would indeed apologize to the public for having made a serious misapprehension thereby misleading the public with regards to Covid-19 vaccine efficacy studies.

Expand full comment
Mar 31Liked by Dr Philip McMillan

Exactly how much will the program cost? Will scholarships be available?

Expand full comment
Mar 31Liked by Dr Philip McMillan

Would this be in layman's terms or for medical professionals? I'd be interested in this, depending on cost, to help with the issues I'm struggling with but I'm not a medical professional.

Expand full comment
Mar 31Liked by Dr Philip McMillan

what opportunities are likely to be opened by course admission? I am interestred in taking debate this EU

Expand full comment