Transcription
Dr. John Campbell, who's also a familiar face on this show, says the evidence is physical; it exists. You can see it, feel it, and put it under a microscope. It's real. He's referring to blood clots being found by coroners, morticians, and those who look after the bodies of the dead. Dr. John Campbell joins me now. Hello, John. Thank you for making time; it's always a pleasure.
Neil: Thank you. What are we looking at? What are we seeing? I think we have footage and imagery to give people a glimpse. It really is like something out of a low-grade novel, Neil, isn't it? You've got this new, or apparently completely new, pathology being found in dead bodies around the world. We know that these strange, mysterious, long, rubbery white clots have been found in bodies in the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia.
Now, I have actually heard about these some time ago, but I didn't realize how abundant they were. Then I was interviewing Major Tom Havland, who's a data analyst in the States, and he's actually reached out to 269 IMERS, with an average of 15 years' experience each, examining about 100 bodies a year on average per person. In the year 2023, 73% of these IMERS have observed these strange white rubbery clots. Really quite incredible. If you take into account the IMERS that didn't see any, it was still in 20% of the dead bodies. It seems to be pretty similar in the United States and in the United Kingdom.
We really don't know what these are; these are a new pathology. As you said in the introduction, this is real; it's not a bad story. These rubbery clots, which can be an inch long or can be up to 30 inches long, are there and have been pulled out of the arterial systems and the venous systems of dead bodies. There are some anecdotal reports of them being pulled out of living bodies by surgeons as well, but we know for sure that in about 20% of dead bodies, these didn't occur prior to 2020. Previously, they had never been heard of. In 2020, some people saw very small numbers, but then lots in 2021, 2022, and 2023.
As someone immersed in the medical world, the medical fraternity, do you get a sense that anyone, anywhere, is putting serious consideration into all of the possible explanations for where something new has appeared in the last handful of years?
John: Not really. I don't get that impression, Neil. In fact, the way that post-mortems are done—well, firstly, there are fewer post-mortems done in the United Kingdom at the moment, and I believe in the United States as well. But the way they're done, they take out blocks of organs and don't really analyze the vascular system in that much detail. One of the undertakers we were talking to had actually got a body that had been post-mortem autopsied. It came back into his facility, and he was trying to embalm this body because relatives wanted viewings. As he was looking at the body, he couldn't get the embalming fluid around it, and he pulled out a 30-inch clot from the femoral artery in the leg. It really is quite incredible.
The big question, of course, is when did these clots form? Were they forming or starting to form in the months, weeks, or hours before death? Is it a per-death phenomenon? Is it a post-mortem-only phenomenon? It does appear that there are some cases where this occurred in life, but either way, it doesn't matter. I've talked to about 20 doctors around the world now, including three or four medical professors, a couple of pathologists, and many doctors and physicians, including surgeons, and they'd never heard of this. This does appear to be a genuinely new pathology.
John: Bear with me while I involve T, who's in the studio with me. What do you think, Ton? You look at a sudden emergence of a new medical phenomenon—a global phenomenon. What have we done differently globally that we haven't done before 2020 or 2021? We all know what it is; we all know what it could well be, and yet we are restricted from saying out loud what we truly believe it to be because we don't live in a free world anymore. What's the big thing that we've done differently? We all know it.
John: How does it feel to be operating in a world where speculating about things that appear quite obvious is somehow forbidden ground?
John: You know, this is the new reality for the likes of us. It's rather frustrating. I mean, in the 1950s and early 1960s, Austin Bradford Hill and Richard Doll believed that lung cancer might be caused by cigarette smoking. In 1965, Austin Bradford Hill came out with a set of criteria where we can adjudicate these sorts of things. We have these criteria; we have the pathologists, we have the histologists, we have the cytologists. We could analyze this properly. We could use these Bradford Hill criteria. Is there a correlation? How big is that correlation? Is there consistency between different countries? Are there other possible explanations? Does a particular cause follow a particular effect? Is the effect coming after the cause and not the other way around?
This is a clean effect of something. Is there this temporal correlation? Is there a biological gradient? Are there plausible mechanisms? Is there coherence? Is there experimental evidence? Is there analogy? And potentially, is there reversibility? We know all these things; we could do all these things to work out what the heck is going on here. It really seems strange that this isn't all over the medical literature as a brand new pathology.
Ton: You know, we do know that billions of people around the world had, in the last few years, a new medical product introduced to their bodies.
John: Yes, and yet it would appear, from what John's saying, that no serious consideration is being made about the emergence of a new symptom, a new post-mortem symptom, because we are run and governed by big pharma. Big pharma has a lot of money to make, and they don't want us to actually have this open and honest conversation about what is suddenly appearing in our bodies, in the bodies of our children, and in the bodies of our parents.
While I have you, John, the new way of calculating excess deaths, to which I referred—just a quick answer: how much of a surprise was that for you?
John: Not much of a surprise, Neil. It's good to know that so many fewer people died in 2023 than we thought. I thought we had a bit of a problem for a minute, so it's all quite a relief. I mean, it just beggars credulity, doesn't it? You know, we don't like the figures; politicians are being embarrassed, so hey ho, you change the way that these deaths have been calculated.
Neil: Out of time, John. Credulity well and truly troubled. Thank you so much for being with me, if only briefly.