John gets some tough questions from Norman
We must be prepared to change with the evidence
Here I have put the link for the interview with professor Norman Fenton and Dr. Jessica Rose. Norman wrote the questions, some of which were probing and difficult. However, I do feel they needed to be asked. This video works just as well as an audio podcast, so you could listen on the move.
These were Norman’s list of questions.
1. Most people watching this interview will only know you since the covid era. But you had a big following on YouTube before that. Can you tell us about how you became such a successful YouTuber?
2. You now have 2.8 million YouTube followers, and your videos typically get many hundreds of thousands of views. How much has that following grown since the covid era?
3. Your views on the covid narrative have changed dramatically from originally supporting most of the official narrative (including being opposed to the Great Barrington declaration) and especially the idea that the vaccines were safe and effective. So what convinced you to promote the vaccines in the first place and what was the key thing that happened that made you change your mind.
4. Many people who were challenging the official covid narrative right from the start were heavily censored and cancelled despite most of what they were saying now being known to be true. How much of an impact do you think that censorship had on the general public and yourself in terms of simply not having easy access to what the counter arguments were?
5. With hindsight do you feel that that there was always the evidence that covid was never as serious as claimed and that the vaccines were not safe and effective as claimed?
6. Do you believe that vaxx recipients were given fully informed consent, and if not, what would be the implications of that legally?
7. What was your original view of the idea of vaccine mandates and has that changed?
8. What would you say to people who followed your advice about the vaxx and are now sorry that they did get jabbed.
9. You have come under attack from both sides of the covid debate. Initially from the skeptics who were unhappy that you seemed to be toeing the official Govt line and then from the covidians who were unhappy that you could possibly question the official narrative especially on the safe and effective vaccines. But recently there have been some very public attacks from skeptics like comedian Alistair Williams who suggest that your change of direction means you are some kind of controlled opposition who is being handsomely rewarded financially (they publish your company accounts). What is your response to that?
10. Since you started challenging the official covid narrative you have had videos taken down from youtube and been temporarily suspended despite always being very careful about what you say. Can you tell us more about this type of censorship and whether you experienced anything like that before covid.
11. You have made clear many times that you have always been a very strong supporters of vaccinations generally. Does what you have learnt about the pharma industry and its influence over the medical institutions and media over the covid vaxx cause you to re-evaluate your beliefs about other vaxxes or do you think the covid debacle was a one-off?
12. A lot of people who bought into the official covid narrative and then later realised the extent to which they had been misled by the Govt and mainstream media have for the first time started to question many other official narratives such as e.g. about climate change and even Ukraine. Has your experience also made you question other narratives and if so which ones?
13. Who have been the biggest influencers on you during the covid era?
14. Who would you most like to meet or interview who you haven’t already had on your channel?
15. What do you envision as the main problems and threats currently to the health of the nation and what, if anything do you think most needs to change?
I remain a huge fan John - you've been brave in your reporting and were brave to have this conversation. I applaud you for your work and for embracing this moment of accountability. But it did feel like a bit of a cop-out to me.
In my opinion no medical professional should have supported mass distribution of a vaccine that hadn’t gone through the standard long-term testing. Especially with a pathogen with a low IFR.
IMO the novelty of the method, with years of failed attempts at coronavirus vaccines, and with years of failures in developing safe mRNA technologies, all miraculously ‘overcome’ in a very short timeline should have made healthcare workers very suspicious.
IMO it should have been a tremendous red flag when the EUA was based on a lack of alternative treatments and those other treatments were prematurely dismissed in anti-scientific ways.
IMO the trial data itself, with more all-cause mortality in the treatment group, the poorly chosen endpoints, the sloppy testing protocols and the very suspicious and asymmetrical exclusions, should have given all healthcare professionals pause.
IMO the rush to vaccinate children was not only a red flag given the terrible risk-benefit analysis, but was incredibly suspicious given the fact that getting the vaccines approved on the US childhood vaccine schedule gives the Pharma companies much broader protection against liability.
IMO many, many, people, including Jessica and Norman, weren’t merely making lucky guesses in the dark - they were providing real evidence early on based on real data, and deserve credit for seeing the truth much earlier than others.
And I say all this not with hindsight, but as a layperson who knew these things before you reported on them.
I could go on, but I do feel an opportunity was missed in this conversation, even given the limitations of YouTube. The world is watching - and that includes a lot of medical professionals who are wrestling with the dissonance of what they have done. Modelling a more complete picture of truth and reconciliation could have done us all a world of good.
God bless you, from the US.