Dr Clare Craig - EXPIRED: The Untold Story of COVID, Media Attacks and Questioning the Existence of Viruses

Show notes and Transcript

Dr Clare Craig has become known to many of us over the last 3 years for her medical wisdom and common sense shared on her Twitter account. 
For 15 years she worked in the NHS so her subsequent time in pathology and clinical data puts her in a perfect position to make sense of the Covid data bombarding us all. 
Clare joins Hearts of Oak to discuss her first book that was recently published titled 'Expired: Covid, the Untold Story'. 
She goes through 12 beliefs or assumptions we were all told as fact which she debunks in a clear and systematic way before discussing the media attacks which she has faced, including from so called 'friendly' media.
We finish by looking at a new train of thought, that maybe viruses don't even exist, and Dr Craig eloquently puts forward the case to dismantle this argument.

Dr Clare Craig BM BCh FRCPath studied medicine at Cambridge University moving to Oxford for her final three years of clinical training. After qualifying she practised in the NHS for 15 years specialising as a diagnostic pathologist and becoming a fellow of the Royal College of Pathologists. Subsequently she was the day to day lead for pathology and clinical data in the cancer arm of the 100,000 Genomes Project and worked in A.I. cancer diagnostics.
From May 2020, she has worked full time, pro bono, on covid research, distilling the evidence for a lay audience. Since January 2021 she has co-chaired HART with Dr Jonathan Engler. HART (Health Advisory and Recovery Team) is a multi-disciplinary body of experts who have provided an independent source of information on covid issues. Despite attempts to smear her (supported by government) she has continued speaking out and remained a consistent voice of reason and calm throughout the covid era.

'Expired: Covid the untold story' available from Amazon in paperback, audio-book and e-book
https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B0C9FNHYTV/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_tkin_p1_i0

Connect with Dr Craig...
TwitterX:         https://twitter.com/ClareCraigPath?s=20
HART Group:  https://www.hartgroup.org/

Interview recorded 19.7.23

*Special thanks to Bosch Fawstin for recording our intro/outro on this podcast.

Check out his art https://theboschfawstinstore.blogspot.com/ and follow him on GETTR https://gettr.com/user/BoschFawstin and Twitter https://twitter.com/TheBoschFawstin?s=20 

To sign up for our weekly email, find our social media, podcasts, video, livestreaming platforms and more... 
https://heartsofoak.org/connect/

Please subscribe, like and share!

 

Subscribe now

Transcript

(Hearts of Oak)

Hello Hearts of Oak and welcome to another interview coming up in a moment with Dr. Clare Craig. 

I had the privilege of meeting Clare at a Workers for England Union conference earlier this year and she has for the last three years spoken boldly truth on COVID and on Twitter.
Not one of her impersonators is the tagline and she's obviously got a medical background, studied Oxford, Cambridge, 15 years in the NHS and she joined us to talk about a book she has just had published her first book, Expired, Covid the Untold Story, and she goes through 12 of the lies, the myths that we were given, and systematically takes those apart. Very well written. And then we look at HART, the Health Advisory and Recovery Team that she has co-chaired since the beginning of 2021, why that's needed, the attacks they have had from the mainstream media, but also more surprisingly the attacks from the so-called friendly media, those that supposedly were on side with us, that often are the most vicious. 

Dr. Clare Craig, it is wonderful to have you with us today. Thank you so much for joining us. 

(Dr Clare Craig)

Thanks for having me on Peter.

No, great to have you on and can I just point out that she is not one of her impersonators. Do you know that tagline, that stuck with me and I knew what your tagline was before I knew who you were and I kept saying, what's this not one of her impersonators? Who is this person and then I delve deeper. So I love that little tagline you have on it.

Actually, my daughter persuaded me to remove it this week, so why do you say that, it's so embarrassing.
And actually I haven't had an impersonator for a while, so I did take it off this week, so now I'm just me.

Just you, all good, all good. And obviously, @ClareCraigPATH on Twitter, the best place to find you and then all the links out from there. And your background, obviously medical, studied medicine at Cambridge University before moving to Oxford. You were in the NHS 15 years, and then you worked a lot on the cancer side. That's possibly for another time. That's an intriguing side, just that, but we'll park that aside. We're going to get on to your book, which has just come out at the end of last month, expired. Get on to heart why, that was started, what that's for and then a couple of the stories that you have been highlighting as you have been doing for the last three years. But Claire if I can ask you first, just give us a little bit of your background and also your medical background because that actually gives you the, legitimacy to write a book which you've written.

Okay, so yeah I'm a fully qualified doctor, I qualified in 2000 and you know I was a junior doctor on the hospital wards back in the day, but I went and specialised in diagnostics because it always struck me that that was the most important thing really, you've got to get that bit right and I also never had enormous faith in all that pharmaceutical companies told me about their drugs, and didn't particularly want to be a drug peddler.
So I went down the diagnostics route from early on. And also that fascinated me because you get the full breadth of medicine and you get all the kind of scientific backing of it.
And so it really felt like the meat to me of the subject.
And so when I first started down the kind of COVID path, it was with that diagnostics hat on.
So it was in summer of 2020.
And as somebody who knows about medical testing, there were issues that were really clearly going on with how we were testing for COVID in that period.
And there were clearly testing errors being treated as if they were real disease.
And I didn't have time to dig into it at the time. So I had been home-schooling four children.
And then it was the summer holidays. And so during the summer holidays, I was like, I can't wait for them to go back to school because I really want to get some data out and have a look at what's going on here.
And so it was September when I did. And what I tried to do was check that hypothesis that there was a problem by looking at whether the people who are being diagnosed or in hospital and dying with a COVID label in the summer had the same characteristics as the ones in spring.
Because there were certain things about COVID that were quite unique, like it killed 60% men in the spring of 2020.
And there were far more Black people in ICU. And there were more diabetics and hypertensive.
And there's all sorts of things that tell you that this is COVID without the test.
So you can compare those and see how well the test is doing.
And so I did that and it didn't look like it was doing very well.
And I thought, well, what do I do with this?
And I wasn't on social media or anything like that, really not my cup of tea, that kind of thing, nor is being on these sorts of shows, by the way, but I'm doing it anyway.

But that, so you've grown your Twitter to a sizable following really on the back of you speaking truth on COVID.

Yeah, I've kind of just tried to do that and you know I have just told people what the evidence is showing and there does seem to be an appetite for that because it's not being provided by mainstream sources and yeah that really is all that I have done. It's been a very odd journey really, the whole social media thing, because I remember getting stage fright repeatedly at particular points. The number of followers would go up to a hundred and I'd think, oh god, now that feels like I'm speaking to a lot of people and then it'd be a thousand and I'd have the same thing and I'd just go quiet for a while. I'd hit each of the landmarks and then it got so big that I just couldn't actually visualize it anymore and then just carried on. But yeah, every now and again I do, I'm astonished by how many people are listening to what I'm saying.

But it is a huge responsibility and I think all of us who are speaking out, you're speaking out, as a real expert, a true expert, but there are many commentators and we really do, you do others, you have a responsibility in what we put out because there are a lot of people watching that and observing and taking that as fact and that is, that is pressure. 

Yeah, absolutely and, you know I have made mistakes along the way and so I have tried to always acknowledge that but there's this awful thing that happens where, if you make a mistake, especially when it's something that, like the it's more likely to be a mistake if it's something slightly shocking, something surprising.
So you'll make a mistake and that will go really far and then you'll try and correct it if it's wrong and then that doesn't get picked up and so there's always that it's really really difficult because you can't go wrong. If you go wrong you can't really pull it back and you know I've learned that lesson the hard way. I think I've touched wood, it's been a while since I made a mistake that I've had to try and pull back on. But I was doing that earlier on and, you know, had to really learn that the hard way around. And the thing is that I'm going to make mistakes, right? That's the problem. And that's the whole problem with the way that free speech is approached at the moment, is that people seem to have this idea that you should be allowed to speak as long as you get everything right.
Well, nobody.
That means that nobody can speak, because everybody knows they're going to make mistakes at some point about some things.
And so as soon as you're told that you're going to be cancelled if you make a single mistake, then you're basically silencing everybody.

Yeah, 100%. Before we get on the bit, what point was it? Many of us were looking on at the information coming out.
At daily death totals and I'm trying to make make sense of it and I've always found intriguing talking to those in the medical community because I want to hear kind of where they came from, what they were looking at, what they were suspicious about, how they viewed it. What was it for for you? Was there a point where you thought, hmm, this doesn't seem right.

Yeah, so I was really bought into the whole thing in spring 2020, and I think that the Diamond Princess story stopped me worrying about me and my husband and my children, but I was still worried about the system collapsing, and I was still worried about my parents, you know, I was still watching BBC, looking at the counts. I remember that, I really vividly remember actually, the time when it was about to peak and like the amount it had risen each day had slowed and every day you'd kind of say well has it fallen yet, has it fallen yet, and there was about a week before the death toll finally fell. But in that period you know I was completely bought into the whole thing and worried about the staff on the front line, volunteered myself to help but was never contacted and really it wasn't until the summer and that sort of testing issue that I started to properly question what was going on and then having you know put my face and my name online saying there's a problem here, really naively I expected one of two things to happen I thought either they're going to say oh no no no you've got that wrong you've looked into it and it's x y z or they'd say, oh yeah, you're right, we'll see what we can do to fix it. I really thought those were the two scenarios I was facing. But what actually happened was that I got attacked, and people tried to cancel me and then other people got in touch and introduced themselves and said, actually, you know, I've had this concern about my area of expertise. And so I was then kind of thrown into this world of scepticism with a lot of people who sounded genuine but who were clearly minorities in their field, as no one else in their field was saying this, it was just a few of them, or just them. I thought, well I can't just believe all these people because that's not rational.
And so I had to sort of go back to first principles and try to figure out what they they were saying each time.
And it took ages. And I wasn't working, so I could do it.
But I was literally all hours of the day trying to figure out what was going on.
And I always said it took about six months to figure out what was really happening.
But I mean, that's not really true, because I've continued to learn about it since.
I mean, it's been a huge amount of work to try to figure out what's going on.
And that was part of the reason for writing the book, actually was, if I've just gone through all this complexity to try to get a handle on it, other people can't be expected to do that, you know, I want a shorter journey for other people.
And obviously a lot of people have taken that journey independently and are where we're at, But what I really wanted for the book was to aim for people who are at the beginning and want to, well not necessarily the beginning, hopefully appeals to everyone. I learnt loads writing it and I think there'll be, you know, I think even though you know loads about it Peter, I hope you'd enjoy reading it because there's brilliant stories in there, there are new little bits of information you might not know. But the style I wanted to write it in was to avoid anyone running away, sticking their fingers in their ears, feeling foolish. I didn't want any of that and ultimately there's some brilliant books already out there for our side of the argument.
But the titles are very off-putting to say the least to someone who's on the other side.
And there's a lot of anger, understandably, in those books. And to be honest, there's a bit of anger in my book, too.
But I've tried to keep it towards the end. Because I think if you're going to explain to people what's happened, the problem we had when I started out writing this in 2001 is that when you were speaking to someone about it face-to-face, You might take some little part of the puzzle, and you would explain that to them, and they'd understand it.
And then they would be in cognitive dissonance because it didn't fit with all the other parts of the puzzle as they understood it.
And so next time you met them, you'd be back at square one. And so I thought the only way to actually teach people about this is to have their attention for a considerable period of time, because you have to explain all the different facets in order to understand the whole.
And so that was why I thought I'm going to have to write a book because otherwise people won't get it.
So the book isn't really, it's not my Twitter feed. It's not the kind of maths and graphs and science, but that I could have written.
And maybe one day I will write because I wanted it to really have a purpose, which was to be able to, you know, get through to people who maybe just now starting to get curious, who just now the fear starting to ebb, they're able to actually think rationally again, I want to talk to them.

Well, I'll bring it up. Obviously there have been so many. Some look at the political failure.
Ed book looks at the excess deaths that's happening. Others look at the media.
Laura Dodsworth book looking at how fear was used in the media. And there are so many aspects of it.
Here is, let me bring up, here is Expired, COVID, the untold story.
And it's a large book. How, so you spent quite a while, I assume, working on it.
What was that like? I've never written a book. I've talked to others who, big things have happened and they said, I have to put pen to paper and I have to put my thoughts down.
Did you ever feel you were never going to get it finished because there's so much to cover?
What was your kind of, was a narrow focus? Did that become wider?
Were you concerned you, you know, you never get to covering everything?
What was it like for you as someone writing the first book?

So, I mean, all of the things that you just said, really. So, I set out to take each of these beliefs around COVID and start with where people were at and explain to them why they believe what they believed and then sort of show which parts of that story aren't very true.
And I kind of came up with quite a few beliefs because there are all sorts of beliefs around COVID that are flawed.
And then I thought, actually, that's not going to really be enough.
So what I need to do is also explain to people, the psychology of belief, why we believe what we believe, what we take on trust, why we change our mind, how important authority is, how important fear is, because otherwise you haven't really understood why you've believed it all.
So I put that bit in. And then it became also a little bit about sort of almost pseudo-religious aspects of it, the way we have these false prophets and the high priests and Puritans with their zero COVID claims.
And so there was that theme running through it too.
And actually at one point it was, got really too big.
And so I pulled out the vaccine. I just thought, right, let's just do a book about the virus and how it spreads.
And so the vaccine is gonna be book two and the treatments and the origin.
So all the kind of slightly meatier topics. And actually the book two is also more about the witch hunts. And it's just like it's step two of the whole thing. So step one is the mild introduction version.
And then it really ramps up. And so having done that, it was a more reasonable size.
And then it sort of grew again.
And so what was helpful about it taking? It really did take a lot of work.
And I read loads of nonfiction.
And whenever I read a nonfiction book, I always think, wow, that must have been so much work to do.
And it is. It's so much work to do. But what I was hopeful about taking a long time is that
It didn't change. So, you know, I'd written this story, I've explained everything in this way, and you think, well, over time, other things might be revealed, which would mean that you, might have to rewrite bits, or you might have emphasised things wrongly, and it didn't change.
That was really reassuring, that after sitting on it, well, it wasn't sitting on it, but you know, after the editing and the typesetting, all the processes you have to go through, I didn't feel like it needed to be changed. It's the same story it held for that length of time. And, you know, it's also a brilliant reference book. So whilst doing it, it was really helpful to me because I knew where to go for all the different key bits of information because it was all there and referenced in the document I was working.

You go, you break down, you go through different, you call them beliefs.
And you say, well, this is one belief and wasn't correct.
COVID only spread through close contact or COVID would likely kill me or everyone's susceptible.
And you go through each of them and disprove it.
You even say, how does Scientists get things wrong? Wow, that's a break with tradition in this day and age where everything we are told from someone who has an educational background must be true because they've learned it in a university somewhere.
What, as you were going through, tell us about, yeah, putting all those in and how you, I guess, how you went about refuting it because it is, we've all had these debates with friends, family, colleagues, and sometimes you feel as though you're hitting a brick wall And they're just saying, but the BBC told me.
And you're like, no, let's think through. How did you feel just trying to break down these positions and nullify each of them.

So, I mean, this was, like, the thinking behind it, I can't say this all 100% mine.
You know, I've been talking to people about this stuff for a long, long time, and, you know, the people in HART in particular, and trying to figure out what was going on.
And that took us on all sorts of different journeys. So sometimes where we ended up was in the history books 100 years ago, we're thinking, well, where did this come from, this idea?
So the idea, say, of asymptomatic transmission.
That's been around a long time, and it's never been based on anything more than it was a really good explanation for why some of the other myths don't look right in the real world.
So there was this guy called Charles Chapin, who was a public health officer in Providence in Rhode Island.
And he wrote a book in 1910, which became the textbook of public health medicine.
And sure, he's a perfectly pleasant guy, but it's quite clear from his writing that he's got an issue with germs.
He talks about how he has to touch things that people have touched on public transport, and the windowsills are all dirty, and people lick the pages of a book he might touch.
So he's got this real issue with it.
And he is absolutely passionate about close contact transmission.
And he's passionate about it because he's living in an era where there's still a bit of a hangover from miasma theory.
So the germ theories won the argument 50 years before him. And the miasma theory was discredited and was over.
But people still talked about things being spread through the air.
And they talked about, he calls it the sewer gas fogie, this idea that the smells from the sewer have got disease in them and you want to avoid it.
And he thought this was completely wrong and that it was only spread through close contact for every disease except TB.
He had an exception for TB because people had done this experiment where they put hamsters in cages at the top of a TB ward and the hamsters caught TB.
So he thought, well, we'll exclude TB, but he basically grouped every other infectious disease, the same. So TB was different, but everything else must spread the same way.
And he talks about mouth spray and how it's coming out in mouth spray.
And so you have to be in close contact to somebody for a spread to occur.
And he did some good things. Well, probably did some good things.
So one of the things that made him so passionate about this was that there was evidence at the time that in infectious disease wards in the hospital, if you separated the beds a bit more, disease spread less in that ward.
And so he thought, well, this is proof that it must all be from bodily fluids.
And therefore, you know, we've got to really, we've got to make sure people are all doing this.
And so that's what he was really evangelical about. And I think probably he was right that spreading out the beds reduced infection in hospitals.
But it wasn't because of mouth spray. It was because of a variety of reasons, depending on the disease.
And for respiratory diseases, it was largely because aerosols are at a much higher concentration than they are to a person that you are. But they can spread a long, long way.
And anyway, so he had this theory. He wrote up his book. And towards the end of the book, he says, well, the real problem with my theory is influenza, because we know that it appears overnight, just rapidly, all across the world.
And we get these massive surges that are too fast for it to be spread person to person.
So he said, the only way to explain this is a symptomatic transmission.
It must be that all of these people that are apparently healthy are the ones giving it to you.
And then, at the end of the book, he says, probably wrong on most of this, but you know.
So he kind of does this disclaimer where he says, obviously, this is just based on what we know today.
There's bound to be more that we find out along the way.
And I'm very happy to keep learning and accept that some of this is going to be wrong.
And that bit obviously always gets completely ignored. And everyone bought into the close contact spread idea and bought into the asymptomatic transmission idea.
And it doesn't really seem to have been questioned properly since.
And the close contact transmission story has been questioned a lot by physicists who do work on aerosols.
So often they were experienced in air pollutants and how they move.
But the physics is the same for aerosols from people. And so they knew all about how aerosols could spread and how they'd go long distances.
And we're saying this at the beginning of the pandemic, as it were, inverted commas, and they were shut down and ignored.
They were called misinformation spreaders by the WHO. And what's interesting about that particular group though, is that they have always tried to go along with the narrative. So that they would always, in their writing, they'll say, well, we know that it's not droplet spreading it, which masks might be able to stop because a big droplet of saliva would be stopped by a mask.
We think it's aerosols, but that means you need to mask more with better masks.
So they kind of use that, I think. Well, I don't know if it's deliberate or subconscious, and maybe they do believe it.
So that's a way in to the medical literature, is to say what your findings are, and then you sort of recite the scriptures of the public health high priests, and then you get published.
It's ridiculous, but if you look at it, you can see that this has happened again and again throughout the last few years, where people will show a result that actually contradicts the scriptures, but in the abstract introduction and the discussion, they'll repeat the scriptures, and then they get published, and then they're through.
And so that's what these people were doing as well, but I think they do believe it because they continue to talk about the importance of respiratory masks to reduce aerosol transmission.

But do you think, so looking at this, usually with any business you assess what you're doing, you assess your relationship with the customer, you assess how you're growing and you keep looking at that and want to do things better and you get rid of things that aren't working. My huge worry, is that no one in position of authority seems to have learned anything. No one is willing to say actually we really screwed up on this in this area or that area. It's no no no we we did our best and if something happens again we'll probably do something similar. How is it that those in authority, I mean the medical, media, government. They're not learning from mistakes. It's weird.

It's very, very weird. So they sort of do these kind of goalpost shifts, don't they?
So with the vaccine, the goalpost was, well, it starts off with, we're going to get herd immunity and COVID is going to go away.
And I think that was said repeatedly by all sorts of people.
That was how it was sold at the beginning.
And that was a justification for no one is safe until everyone is safe, which actually that phrase is still being used, still up on the WHO website.
And then the evidence came out that actually that was not the case.
These vaccines do not stop infections.
And so they started saying, well, but they stop hospitalisations and deaths and emphasise that more.
But at no point have they said, no, they don't stop infections.
And so we still, and even in June, the Department of Health was still pushing adverts, last chance to get your first dose aimed at people like me who haven't had one.
Because for good reason, and it's not bad to go and get one, but the reasoning can only be, to stop an infection. And they're still now justifying giving it to children, because the child lives with someone who believes that they are at risk. That's frightening. That's completely unethical and yet that justification is ongoing. But in the meantime, we've had good evidence since that actually it's worse than nothing. It's not that it's not stopping infection, the people who've had the most doses are the ones most likely to be infected.
And that message is obviously being massively suppressed, but there's good evidence for it.
And where there was sort of public health data sources that were showing this shifting trend that with Delta, the infections did appear to be more in the unvaccinated relatively.
Over time that reduced, reduced, reduced, and then it went the wrong way and it became more in the vaccinated.
And then that data source got pulled and that happened again and again across the world.
And those data sources have not been put back up.
And you think, well, what are we meant to think about that, guys?
That's just the biggest signal that there's a terrible issue going on here.
And so they might suppress this big, cleave-in study with 45,000 health care workers being tested repeatedly.
Which clearly shows a dose dependency.
But if they're not showing the real-world data either, you're like, well, you're just hiding this problem that you've created now.
And we don't know where that problem's going to go. We don't know what that means longer term.
And there seems to be a belief that almost everybody holds at the moment, which might well be right, that COVID's basically over now.
It's done. But I am not 100% sure that is right. So if you look at wastewater sampling, which is obviously are pretty, that measure isn't affected by how often people are tested and all that kind of thing.
It's just a straightforward measure over time. And it's starting to creep back up in the southern states of the USA, which at this time of year start to get COVID again.
And it may be that it'll just come and go, but I'm not completely convinced by this story that everyone's had it.
We're told repeatedly everyone's had it, based on blood donor samples, looking at antibodies, and they say, well, you know, we've traced it all through, and we've seen it rise and rise and rise, and now everybody's had it.
But I'm not very sure that that data is right, because when you ask people, which I've done repeatedly, albeit on Twitter, but you know, samples of 20,000 people, and I've done it over time, every few months, and I'm always getting around the same answers, and it changes over time.
But we're still at a point where about 40% of both vaccinated and unvaccinated people say they've not had this thing. You think, well that's a huge chunk if we're, you know, if it's working its way through the population, we've got some way to go yet.

Where does that put the public in terms of trust in the health profession, because now
I think actually I really don't want to go and see my doctor.
Not that you can anymore, because you have to go through four phone calls and have a full assessment by some person somewhere before you even see a doctor, but that's a separate issue.
Simply, I think that if I go and see my doctor, all they're going to do is give me a load of drugs that they're probably making money on. And it's the last place. I mean, anyone who tells me that, oh, yes, you're sick because you don't have any symptoms.
So if you have no symptoms, that means you're sick. That's great. Or because you've had a a box that's made in China and therefore that tells you, I mean it's, we used to not trust when I said made in China, now actually we have trusted our lives literally with that. But what from your assessment is, as someone who has worked in the health industry all your professional life, what's the damage this has done to the profession and to doctors and to the public going to see their medical professional. 

So for a long time I was really distraught about the damage this had done to the medical profession and the inability of my peers to see it. They couldn't see the harm that they each individually were causing and that's the thing isn't it, that because they're in the majority, because they're in the group, they sort of think, well I'm I'm doing the right thing.
It's not me. It's not on me, any of this.
But of course it is, because you didn't speak out. You didn't say the difference.
You didn't show. You didn't question it. You didn't speak to your colleagues and say, we can't be doing it like this.
Anyway, over time, I've come to not only be reconciled with the loss of trust, but actually, I see it in a completely different way.
I think there was too much trust in doctors. There was too much.
And I absolutely think that every patient who's properly sick needs a doctor that they can trust, a trusting relationship with their doctor.
And that's absolutely what I would want if I was sick.
But I think that trust has to be earned. And it shouldn't just be there just because of a white coat.
That's not a good place to be. Because when you're acutely ill and anxious, of course, you want to just be able to put all of your faith in medicine.
But that isn't probably where faith belongs. And, 
If it means that people are a little bit more questioning, a little bit more careful, a little bit more cautious about the advice, wanting to check what it really means and understand it for themselves, a little bit more careful about preventing having to ever see a doctor, if you can do all those things to keep yourself healthy so that you're not in front of a doctor.
Then actually that's a good thing.
I think all of those are good things. And I think as a society we perhaps have become more unhealthy because of this faith in the medical profession, being able to just solve all your ills. And very often in reality, I mean medicine's done some brilliant stuff. I mean I'm a really big fan of some aspects of Western medicine. We have testicular cancer used to kill young men and now almost all young men, if they're diagnosed early enough, they're going to be cured. It's a brutal treatment, but they get to live the rest of their life. And that's a phenomenal thing that is a really exciting achievement of the way that science has developed and taught us things. So I'm not anti-medicine in any way. But on the other hand, I know lots of people who take far too many drugs. And doctors are not very good good at stopping people taking drugs.
And my father is one of the people that it brings to mind. But he actually died last year.
But in the lead up to his death, it felt like he was consuming more pharmaceuticals than food.
It was just the balance was completely wrong. And I'd been fighting for some years to get him off certain drugs that clearly weren't appropriate.
And I couldn't get the doctors to stop it. And I didn't want to be the one that stopped it.
His relationship was with his doctor, not with me.
And I think he was sceptical about some of them, too, but didn't want to rock the boat.
And that's not healthy, right? We need to have a medical profession that thinks as often about stopping this into starting them. because...
That every medicine has a side effect, you know, they all have side effects and some, you know, if you get the dose right, hopefully it makes not much difference, but over time you might find that a side effect becomes a problem and then you're going back to the doctor and you're getting a drug to treat the side effect and these quickly enter a bit of a vicious cycle that we need to avoid if we want to have a healthy population.

Can I, I want to ask you about HART, Health Advisory Recovery Team that you have co-chaired since the beginning of 2021 and I'm sure writing this book will not do your medical career in the UK any good and I'm amazed at people's willingness to speak truth despite the personal cost it is for them and I know to people like you I think wow if only we had more people like yourself in all different fields who would actually stand up and speak what they believe is right as opposed to following the line. But tell us about HART. I've read a lot of the information HART has put out.
Is that a collection of those working in the medical profession that are questioning? Just tell us about that and what people can find on the website.

So HART is a group of professionals but we're not all medics by any means.
We've got other healthcare professionals including lots of psychotherapists who you know obviously they were very, concerned about the fear propaganda and the impact that everything's had on mental health. But we've also got other professionals including economists and ethicists and lawyers and all sorts of skill sets, because really it's not about just medicine.
And so a good chunk of those people were speaking out independently and were being dismissed as being outliers or lone wolves and attacked as individuals. And so the person who set it up said, we've got to bring you guys together so that you can't be attacked like that and that you're speaking as one, which is why we did it. And we actually started off authoring different articles. We started off with a big review of the evidence, sort of going through different aspects of the narrative that didn't make sense based on conventional science.
So there's something very interesting about how this played out in that if you have something new discovered in science.
What happens is that the person with this sort of new hypothesis will say, Look now, I found this thing.
And they might have to argue their case against the sort of established authorities who've got their evidence base where that didn't fit.
So you've got this sort of new thing, new evidence up against the old guard and this old body of old beliefs.
So that's where the battle lies. But with Covid, we had the authorities taking on a new belief system.
And so in HART, we had the whole body of established scientific knowledge that we could rely on to say, well, this is actually what's going on.
And so that's what was happening. It's we were writing based on decades of knowledge, saying, well, what they're saying there isn't right.
And so what the benefit of that was, that a year on, we went back to that evidence review and we said, which of it did we get wrong? Because it's been a year, we've bound to got some of it wrong.
Let's go back and review each of those things and update it.
And when we did that, there wasn't very much we'd got wrong at all, because it was just common sense and broad understanding of how the world works compared to some really very strange new beliefs that had been introduced but had been bought by the whole population.
So from that, we went on to writing weekly bulletins. So we've kind of tried to give an evidence-based review of things that have been happening in the world that mainstream media aren't covering.
Largely around COVID, almost entirely around COVID.
And so we have now this huge, this website's full of information, which again stacks up over time. You know, it hasn't really, all of it still works. And there was a time, in fact, it was in the summer of 2021, when we were quite badly under attack.
And I had already been attacked brutally back in January 21 by Neil O'Brien, who was an MP.
And at the time, he was a minister in the Justice Department.
And he did this sort of Twitter shaming of me, where he pulled out tweets that I'd said and was essentially saying, oh my god, she said this. Look at this. She said this.
And for some of them, I'd got it wrong. And so by all means, tease me, shame me. I made a mistake.
But for quite a lot of them, I was just stating facts. I was saying things like the number of A&E attendances in this period was less than the period the year before.
And that was something that didn't fit with what you'd expect, because that was during January 2021, when we were in the middle of the COVID wave.
We're going to get overwhelmed. And so somebody who was reading the BBC and thinking we're about to be overwhelmed might read that and think, well, that's not true. It can't be true.
But it was true. It was true. And I was being shamed by a minister saying, oh, my God, she said this. Can you believe it? What is this person? Call yourself a doctor.
She's saying there's fewer attendances.
There were fewer attendances. So it's a bit hard. It's really odd to know how to defend yourself.
When someone's like calling you out for telling the truth, what's the defence there? Anyway, so that happened. And then in the summer of 2021, HART were using this kind of conversation software. So we were sort of sharing conversations with each other online, and it got hacked.
So we were sort of illegally hacked, and the content of those conversations were shared.
And within 24 hours of being hacked, a company called Logically AI contacted us and said, we're about to publish all of your chat logs, do you want to, you know, write to respond as if they're, as if they're journalists, right?
So you're like, oh my God, what the hell is this? And we did actually give a response and they did print that response.
But it turns out this company was a tiny setup that was formed by a 27 year old on his own who's still the only named shareholder director in the company, was given 1 and 1⁄2 million pounds by the government.
And this is what they did. And if you go back now, actually, I just wrote an article recently for HART.
You can find it on the website, where I went back to reviewing what they said about us in June 2021.
And basically, the way they were trying to smear us was saying, these people say lockdowns don't work.
These people say masks don't work. So they were literally saying that because our beliefs, well, our knowledge was conflicting with their beliefs, that was enough to be smeared.
And so I went through in the Tweets and the article all the things that they were using to discredit us, to show that absolutely those have stood up over the course of time.
And the one thing that was slightly more controversial was the last one, where people in the HART chat group we've been having a conversation about
how certain people after their injections seem to have magnetism in their arm at the injection site and that sounds bonkers but actually there was really good evidence of that and people did
Kind of Vox Pox type videos where they were out in the street with people, complete strangers, asking them if they've been vaccinated and trying it out and half the time there was nothing there at all. But, you know, like 40% of the time, these magnets were sticking and you could feel the pull and it wasn't just, you know, it was only in that particular point in the arm, it wasn't in the other arm, it wasn't sweat, it was really clearly there was something going on there. But, you know, that is obviously quite an odd thing to be talking about. And we talked about it in the chat log in private saying, what do we do with this? What do you think about this? Because actually, that's how science works. You get to discuss things. And we didn't talk about it in public. But I did in this article that I just wrote just now, because I think this was a real phenomenon.
I don't think it was microchipping and all that nonsense that people sort of, you know, but I do think it was a real phenomena. And the fact is that.
So some, although we don't know all because it's all secretive, but some of the manufacturers who are making this product use magnetic beads to separate out the nucleic acid.
So what happens is you have all sorts of stuff, sort of cellular machinery that's being used to make the product, and you have to go through purification steps along the way, otherwise you're gonna be injecting all sorts of gubbins.
And so one of the ways to purify is to use magnetic beads that have antibodies on them that hold on to the bits that you're trying to separate out.
And then you wash them clean.
And then you use electric forces to get the magnets to release it.
And then you've got what you need. But we know now that there were all sorts of contaminants in these vaccines. So we have DNA from the bacterial plasmids of being used that got into the vaccines.
There's endotoxin from bacterial cell walls that seem to have got into some of the vaccines.
So the idea that these magnetic beads never made it, never got sucked out along with the rest, is just, of course, they would have done sometimes.
And so we can't prove how many of the manufacturing lines had magnetic beads.
But the idea that some people have magnetic beads in them, having been injected with something that wasn't very pure, Yeah, I completely buy that.

Yeah, that whole thing on different batches is a massive area.
And just two things I want to ask you, one was the attacks.
You've had friendly fire attacks. I mean, that article spiked, I think, that had issue.
And the attacks are either calling you out for speaking truth or throwing names at you.
Those are the two tactics, the truth. Yeah, that is what I said, or you're anti-vaxxer, flat-earther, whatever it's going to be.
Has that surprised you, coming from angles that you think, actually, I thought we were kind of on the same side here.

I've never been called a flat earther. But yeah, I do get called things by people who were supposedly on the same side as me.
And probably not as much as some people, because I kind of don't do anything dramatic ever.
So I never quite get the same attention that some of them.
I mean, I don't know if this is right, right? I'm not criticizing here. I really strongly believe that having a whole range of voices over a spectrum of beliefs is what free speech is about, and it's really, really important that all voices are heard. But my voice is a bit boring.
You know, if there's a sort of level of evidence that you've got, you've sort of got a bar, and I will always go a bit below that bar to say, well, this is what we know.

We have some flamboyant characters who engage in this, I know.

Particularly, it's really interesting, the kind of cultural divide with the US.
Because the US always, they go a bit above the bar.
And I don't think that that's wrong. I think that's just a cultural difference.
In the UK, you say, we've got proof of sort of this. And you under-exaggerate, and people believe you.
Whereas in the US, if you're not going over the bar, they think you're talking about something else, because they have that, they just that's how they communicate about risk and about harm. And anyway, so there is that difference. But I have these days, the attacks I get it's friendly fire, it's all around
the virus not existing. So there's a lot of people who think that there is no such thing, and I'm not one of them and they get upset by that and you know I think they've probably been shut down more than most and I don't think that's helpful. As I said I think it's really important to hear all voices, but I'll just go through the arguments for why I think virus exists, if you like.
So, I believe there was a new illness with characteristic symptoms. They're not completely unique symptoms, because there's only so many symptoms a body can have, right, but they're fairly characteristic. So, actually, one of the polls that I did was trying to work out, you know, who's who's had this thing, and I was talking to people who think they'd had it before testing was widely available, and comparing their answers to people who had it when testing was widely available.
And basically, you could tell you had it because of how long it lasted, and because even if you didn't have characteristic symptoms, someone else who cohorted around the same time as you did. And, you know, so there were ways of telling without any testing at all whether or not, you'd had it and I've had it and I've had some weird symptoms. I had eye pain, I couldn't look sideways without my eyes really hurting and actually that's other people have reported that as well. So you know I think you can kind of tell if you've had it. So I think there was this disease with characteristic symptoms and I think it would have been noticed regardless but it would have probably been called a nasty flu if we'd had no molecular biology. And we know that there were instances of spread where groups of people caught it at the same time as each other in a particular place.
So there was some kind of environmental factor that is responsible for the symptoms, right?
And then we know that these people with these symptoms that caught at the same time as each other, are much more likely than other people to have this particular sequence of RNA when you test their orophants, right?
And the sequence of, you know, the testing's not perfect, but the chances of these people testing positive compared to random people is massively different. So there was definitely something there and it's a very specific sequence.
And then these same people also test positive for the proteins that that sequence produces.
So you can say, well, look, you know, this is the sequence that codes for these proteins and that these people also have these proteins in them.
And then they develop antibodies to those proteins over time, right?
So you've got a whole sequence of things that say there is a virus.
All of that to me says there is a virus.
Now.
The no virus people seem to be in various different camps, so some of them seem to think there's no viruses at all ever, which is ridiculous, because we've got biological systems which work based on replication of nucleic acid, and any system that's working based on, code is going to be susceptible to viruses, because why wouldn't there be a virus that can interact with that code? It's almost that's the harder thing to believe, is that you could have a system like that where there isn't such a thing as a virus. Now where I have some sympathy with the no virus people is that there are bits of evidence that don't completely fit with this narrative of scary virus out to get us, breathe it in, you get sick, you know there's all sorts of aspects of that that are wrong. So part of it's around the fact most of us aren't susceptible to any one variant, and parts of it's around the fact that our immune systems are developed such that they learn from other foreign material what apparently novel things would look like because it's only ever looking at shapes, it's not ticking off nucleic acid sequences on a list.
And one of the things that I have sympathy with them over is that if you look at hospital COVID.
You could come up with, based on the narrative, you'd come up with this theory.
You'd say, OK, so we had this disease in the community.
And over time, there'll be, after it's peaked in the community, you'd expect to see a peak of people coming through A&E, which is what happened.
Coming through A&E, also testing positive, because they've been sick in the community and they've now got so sick they've got to come to hospital.
And then you're going to have, after that, a peak of people in hospital who are breathing out the virus.
And so the peak of people catching it in hospital should be after that.
You've had a peak of virus, and then you get a peak of people who've caught it in hospital because you've got that sort of incubation period of a few days, and then it would all die away.
But when you look at the data, that's not what happens.
So what actually happens is that the peak of people testing positive in a hospital setting happens at the same time as it happens in the community.
So there's something that's causing people, whether they're in hospital or in the community, to be susceptible in this wave-like manner that peaks and falls.
And then some people get really sick following that.
And I'm not suggesting the hospitalized population only had as much COVID as the community.
They didn't. They had substantially more.
But there you've got people who are, their immune systems, you know, are either very busy with something else or really not working very well at all because they're sick people. So of course you have a higher rate of spread among sick people than you do in the community. But the point is that there is something causing waves of susceptibility that we don't understand. And this has been talked about for a long, long time, but never really acknowledged. So there's a GP called Dr. Hope Simpson who worked in the, well, in the 30s, he set up as a GP and shortly afterwards, he turned his cute little Cirencester cottage, this 18th century cottage, into the epidemiological centre for influenza research.
Well, I can't remember the exact title, but he gave it this very, very impressive sounding name.
And he studied influenza and he studied it in a really holistic way.
So he's got all sorts of evidence based on old parish death records going through his local area, what happened over time.
And a lot of his work was based on people developing antibodies to influenza.
And he showed that only 10% to 15% of people are susceptible to any wave.
And he talked about this susceptibility. And he called these surges and what happened after them.
He said that they were caused by a seasonal trigger. And I think that's a really useful term because there is a seasonality to it. It doesn't mean it's once a year, but there is definitely a predictable timing of these seasonal triggers.
But we don't know what causes them. And actually, one of the things he reports in his book on influenza is that when you're working in a lab with animals on influenza and you're trying to infect the animals, and people have done this with all these careful experiments where they're looking at different temperatures and humidity and other environmental factors.
And what they find is that, regardless of those factors that they're controlling carefully in their experiments, it's much easier to infect them in the winter.
Well, that's kind of interesting, isn't it? There's something going on there that we don't understand.
And I think that the way the susceptibility isn't just around how likely you are to catch it.
I think it's also how sick it makes people. Because we saw that the hospital fatality ratio, which was hard to measure at the very beginning because there wasn't as much hospital testing.
But over time, by the time you get to April, May, there was actually plenty of hospital testing.
And you see it fall quite dramatically, and then rise again with the next wave and fall again.
You think, well, there's something to that, that there's more than.
And it kind of makes sense to have.
It makes sense of a lot of things, because we know that we've got variants in the community now.
And we've had them every summer and yet it doesn't spread.
And so, well, you know, how come this one that was around all summer not spreading.
When people suddenly become susceptible to in the autumn and the winter, I think, why were none of them catching it in the summer? You know, it was around. And, you know, I get the idea of the mass of the spread, that it might start off slowly. And then, but actually, when you do the maths, the timing is not like it would be with close contact spread. So the all the modelers at the beginning, when Neil Ferguson et al, when they looked at their models of, you know, this person gives it to this person, gives it to this person, then they were anticipating a peak in July of 2020. That's when it should have peaked. And so that's why they believed lockdown had worked, because it peaked earlier than that. But, you know, it peaked, it peaked at the time of year that these things peak. So it wasn't, and we've seen so many ways subsequently, haven't we, across the world, across years now. And in this country, we see peak deaths in January, in April, in July, and then in sort of end of October, beginning of November. And it's been like that, sometimes it's not every single one of those every time, but those are the times when it might peak.
And so people, the fact that people still, after three years, are claiming that the earlier peak was to do with lockdown and the second peak was to do with vaccination. Wow, really? Really? And all the subsequent peaks were natural ones. But those two, those two were different.

Yes, it's bonkers. And if I could just leave people with the book, Expired: Covid, The Untold Story, you can get it as a paperback, you can get it as an e-book, you can get it as an audiobook, and Dr. Clare Craig will read that to you. It is her herself, so that is an extra treat. I always love when authors put in the time, and there's a lot of time, talking to many of them, of spending hours and hours recording that. So Dr. Clare Craig, thank you so much for joining us today.
It's been great having you with us. 

Thank you very much for having me, Peter.