good evening, fellow travellers, and welcome to the neil oliver show on gb news tv, online and on the radio. this week i will be to talking nick hudson, chairman of panda, a group set up in april 2020 to look at the global reaction to covid. i'll be asking him whether there actually was a pandemic at all. joining us in this debate will

be scottish author and speaker doctor malcolm kendrick, who says the pandemic was real and the necessary precautions were taken to prevent wide ranging spread of disease. and finally , spread of disease. and finally, we'll be delving back into a conversation started last week about bitcoin, wondering if it's the future or not. all of that, plus plenty of discussion with my panellist, writer, commentator and chum tom buick. but first, an update on the latest news headlines. >> hi there, i'm aaron armstrong in the gb newsroom . the uk says in the gb newsroom. the uk says it would support palestine gaining full member status in the united nations when the time is right. the comments by the deputy foreign secretary come as israel launched fresh attacks on northern gaza in an effort to prevent hamas from regrouping , prevent hamas from regrouping, three months after claiming it had taken control of the area. meanwhile, thousands more palestinians have been fleeing rafah in the south as israel

prepares to launch a major offensive. earlier, hamas posted a video claiming a british israeli hostage, nadav popplewell, has died after being injured in an airstrike last month. the government says it's urgently seeking more information. andrew mitchell has told gb news it's not unfeasible told gb news it's not unfeasible to suggest a palestinian vote in the un could happen before the current conflict is resolved. >> it is right to recognise palestine as a state at the united nations at the right time, and that doesn't have to be at the end of the process for peace , it can be as part of peace, it can be as part of those negotiations and britain will support palestine becoming a state at the un when we feel the time is right. that isn't now, but it may, as i say, be before the end of the peace process. pi'ocess. >> process. >> the third man has been arrested on suspicion of murder following a house fire in wolverhampton. emergency services were called to a property in the dunstall hill

area at 2 am. yesterday, where two women in their 20s were pronounced dead at the scene. four people were also injured. police have been granted extra time to question two men arrested yesterday, aged 19 and 22. it's thought they were known to the women. at least seven people have been killed and 17 injured, including two children. after an apartment block collapsed in russia. state media says fragments of a ukrainian missile, which was shot down by russia's air defence systems, landed on the building in the city of belgorod. ukraine has regularly targeted that region, which is 20 miles from the border between the countries . border between the countries. rescue efforts were hampered when the roof also collapsed, with rubble covering emergency crews . tory defector natalie crews. tory defector natalie elphicke denies she lobbied the justice secretary over her then husband's sex offences trial. sir robert buckland claims the mp , who crossed the floor to mp, who crossed the floor to laboun mp, who crossed the floor to labour, requested the case be moved to a lower profile court. speaking to the sunday times, he

says she was told the request was completely inappropriate. her spokesperson has refuted the accusation , describing it as accusation, describing it as nonsense. miss elphicke ended the marriage when her husband was convicted of sexually assaulting two women and jailed for two years, and two skydivers have become the first to navigate their way through tower bridge, wearing wing suits. well, the austrians jumped out of a helicopter and flew across the river thames, reaching a top speed of 152mph before successfully going through the two bridge towers . incredible two bridge towers. incredible stuff. the stunt followed some extensive training in oxfordshire , which involved the oxfordshire, which involved the use of cranes to simulate the structure . and you can get more structure. and you can get more on all of our stories by signing up to gb news alerts using the qr code on your screen, or following the instructions on our website . now it is time for.

our website. now it is time for. neil oliver. >> do you know what the world wide withdraw of the astrazeneca so—called vaccine means .7 i'll so—called vaccine means? i'll tell you what i think it means. it means that those who locked us down destroying lives, who pushed jabs as far as they could, all of it under false pretences, are getting away with it for those finding cause to celebrate the withdrawal of one product. i say there's no victory because there are no admissions of wrongdoing, no consequences . if we don't face consequences. if we don't face up to that reality, then we will compound our losses by tacitly making plain. we accept what happened, and furthermore, that we accept it will all happen again and likely right soon. the jabbed, dead and injured are still dead and injured. those

damaged or destroyed by lockdowns still carry the wounds . those whose reputations were wrecked for speaking out against state policies are still outcast . the businesses that closed are still gone. the piles of profit from the so—called vaccines and from the so—called vaccines and from the so—called vaccines and from the lousy ppe mountains, of which useless and never used, are being incinerated and all that money's probably still being counted . the generation of being counted. the generation of children damaged by lockdown remains damaged. the greatest transfer of wealth in history happened. job done. the billions that took the jabs remain jabbed forevermore. those that questioned all along, those that were derided as anti—vaxxers , were derided as anti—vaxxers, dended were derided as anti—vaxxers, derided as cranks and kooks. none of their abusers will ever have to say they might have got it wrong . not one word. the many it wrong. not one word. the many that pushed the official narrative, the pundits that led the ridiculing and destruction. every last one of them remains standing reputations and earning

potential untouched. already . potential untouched. already. rewriting history to disguise their betrayal of fellow human beings and available to do all the same again in furtherance of the same again in furtherance of the next abuse of humanity. for those that publicly challenged the narrative or said no to authority, or just asked questions for all of that, the only victory is knowing we did right and doing the right thing must be its own reward, because the louder and most unavoidable truth of all is that no good deed goes unpunished. those who questioned those who said no, even now, are still being punished because the reality is that while the guilty forgive each other for all they did wrong, those same guilty will neven wrong, those same guilty will never, ever forgive us for danng never, ever forgive us for daring to question. we will remain unforgiven until the end of time. let's remember the depths to which the cheerleaders sank. those politicians , tv sank. those politicians, tv pundits, newspaper journalists and editors and actors from a—list to z—list who salivated

at the thought of so—called anti—vaxxers being left with nothing and being denied hospital care, left to die, sacked from their employment, denied access to any public place socially and reputationally ruined for having the temerity to have a spine and an honest heart. if the guilty could have got away with it, the unjabbed would have been permanently sealed in their houses and forbidden food. that's what so many of our fellow citizens wanted. what so many shouted for letters . at many shouted for letters. at least remember that the intention was nothing less than ruin and exile to outer darkness. for those who said no. but of course it was an emergency. we were all in it together. let's remember all that behaviour for the pleasure taken by the mob and shunning others, banning family members from their homes. let's remember when so many people were emotionally and financially on their knees . those who preached their knees. those who preached it was fine to be barred from the bedsides of the dying, from the bedsides of the dying, from the funerals of loved ones. let's remember those that thought it right that people

lose everything for saying no to an unproven medical intervention . while brothels offered freebies to those that had offered their arm to the needle, while fast food joints remained open and gyms and play parks were padlocked shut. but you see, it was a difficult time. and now it's time to move on, to forgive and forget all of that happened and those that contrived it choreograph it are still standing, insisting they were just doing their jobs. still standing, insisting they were just doing their jobs . even were just doing their jobs. even though it has been confirmed over and over again that big pharma and governments knew in advance . acas blood clots from advance. acas blood clots from the astrazeneca jab were foretold and predicted and duly happened, even though it has been confirmed that big pharma and governments knew in advance of the first jab being stuck in the first arm that those products would not stop transmission, the same stooges stood behind podiums or broadcast via their tv shows and newspapers, that it was a matter of duty for every man, woman, pregnant woman, child and

newborn baby to take the jabs, to save granny, to save all loved ones. 100% effective. take this jab and covid is over. remember that one. it's nothing less than fact that since they knew all of that in advance , knew all of that in advance, that they even had to go the length of changing the definition of the word vaccine, changing what it means, where before a vaccine was something taken to prevent a person contracting a disease? no, a vaccine is something to make a disease less hurty not only have they got away with all of it politicians, big pharma, the scientists , the media and the scientists, the media and the rest rattling with profit. but they have set in place the blueprint which will be used to both justify and enforce whatever abomination they launch next. let's pause to remember more of what happened. the deaths of so many of the elderly, out of sight in care homes and on shuttered wards, misuse of pcr tests in pursuit of frightening numbers. the disregarding of the fact that average age of death and no one

can deny this was 83 older than life expectancy . see the life expectancy. see the changing of the way excess deaths are counted so that tens of thousands are still dead, but their deaths are no longer regarded as excess. quite the contrary, where victims of harm attributed to the so—called vaccines are to be paid compensation, every cent of that money will come from taxpayers. the companies , remember, were the companies, remember, were granted indemnity long ago, which means the government said that whatever happened, death included those companies would be held accountable and culpable for precisely nothing . and while for precisely nothing. and while we're at it, let's remember furlough. how most people received free money to finance their staying at home while the self—employed received zilch. many of those self—employed lost everything, but if they are still with us, having found other ways to make a living, they are required to share the burden of repaying the furlough they were denied, but that was enjoyed by others at their expense. i say again, there's no victory here, nothing whatever to celebrate. the guilty

prospered and walked away scot free, while the innocent suffered and continued to suffer . and that's about as much as can honestly be said. it had to happen this way. the dictatorial roll out of the plan, followed by its ending precisely on their terms, and only when it suited them utterly, without consequences for any of them. because happening this way, rubbing our noses in the fact that it all happened , and that that it all happened, and that there will be no consequences for them, manoeuvres , or perhaps for them, manoeuvres, or perhaps torments, is closer to the mark. the affected populations into silently and humiliatingly consenting to the certainty that when it happens again, we won't be able to pretend we haven't seen it all before, and yet demanded no accounting for harms done. if we accept now this rewriting of history, this drip, drip, drip of truth, this absolving of the guilt of so many who caused or celebrated so much harm , then we will have much harm, then we will have learned nothing. i'm not talking here about the next so—called pandemic, or not just about pandemics. i'm talking about a blueprint that will be followed for the peddling of whatever

crisis they dream. up next, the existential threats remain bigger than ever. we're still looking down the barrel of digital ids of central bank digital ids of central bank digital currencies of 15 minute ghettos, of the end of meat on our plates, the end of private ownership of cars and god knows what else. the end of freedom of speech, in fact, the end of freedom,. ask yourself why governments across the west, around the world are in overdrive in their efforts to seize control of the internet, to make it a crime to challenge authority, a crime to think far less, to speak freely. another part of the blueprint is making it illegal to disagree with whatever the powerful say is. so we're still in the shadow of chinese style social credit systems , except a version systems, except a version offering more complete control to our captors than anything even the chinese communist party has yet pulled off governments hollowed out and powerless, made meaningless nation state governments in thrall to the one and only one world government. those puppets did as they were told and so used the covid debacle, the so—called scamdemic , to lay the foundations of the

digital gulag archipelago . that digital gulag archipelago. that is the real objective. no election anywhere is going to make a shred of difference when every parliament is the nesting ground and breeding ground of the uni party, while everyone was distracted by what i call a scamdemic, i say a pandemic of nothing more than farcical testing, a pandemic of jabs while everyone was distracted, the world health organisation rewrote its paperwork to outrank nafion rewrote its paperwork to outrank nation states. have you paid attention to that one yet? now the world health organisation, paid for by software salesman bill gates and despite the suggestion in recent weeks of a climbdown , remains poised to climbdown, remains poised to lock us down whenever it wants to and take control of whatever it sees fit under the guise of saving the planet. the green agenda agenda 2030, which is the daddy of all hoaxes. here's the thing people died like people die every year of respiratory viruses. but remember how we were told anyone dying 28 days after a positive pcr test was a

covid death? remember the vagueness of, with or from covid? all of it smoke and mirrors. now more and more people say the stats show there was nothing new. and remember to ask questions about precisely how the elderly died in the care homes. now more and more people say the stats show it was nothing unusual in 2020. nothing new. let this sink in. what if all of it lockdowns , so—called all of it lockdowns, so—called vaccines, destruction of lives, the altering of our world forever? what if it was all done on the back of lies and propaganda? there is no victory here. no one stands accused except the so—called anti—vaxxers convicted long ago. no one pays a price except the ever suffering taxpayers milked for more hard earned cash to make them poorer than before. no one takes responsibility. and as sure as eggs is eggs, the next global emergency is hurtling towards us. and unless we finally wake up, get wise to the scam and say no and mean no .

scam and say no and mean no. unless we do that, we will only have ourselves to blame . tom have ourselves to blame. tom buick . hello, we don't always buick. hello, we don't always see eye to eye. neither do we have to. what do you feel? i think for me, there was something very telling about that withdrawal of that product and the way it was described, but without any acknowledgement of all that happened. >> neil, as someone that sat on this couch over the last three years, i've been on this journey with you in terms of, covid 19, you know, the vaccine, its efficacy , the role of big efficacy, the role of big pharma. to be honest, you know, there are times when you have been the equivalent of a sort of vaccine covid heretic. and actually, you've been proven to be right on many, many issues, particularly the issue of the response to the pandemic and the way in which our government followed china with this very authoritarian, lockdowns. i was

up for the first lockdown because i didn't know what was going on. but the subsequent lockdowns and the damage to our economy , the damage to our kids economy, the damage to our kids and their education, i think that's all now to see. but i've really broken your monologue down into two parts. the first part really is about the role of big pharma and whether or not you didn't use these words. this is how i interpreted it, you didn't use these words. this is how i interpreted it , they're is how i interpreted it, they're guilty of sort of mass murder, and i think it's important here because, you know, i'm an academic. you're a brilliant writer and polemicist. but i did want to just look up the figures on the number of people that took a vaccine here in britain, and i'm one of them, actually, 53 million people took the first vaccine, first dose, 50 million took the second dose, and 40 million took the third dose. i took all three doses, and i did so because i'm over the age of 50 and i took a risk benefit analysis as to whether or not this was a sensible thing to do. now you could say the government was cajoling me. it was

encouraging me. laura dodsworth has written a brilliant book about the state of fear. there was definitely that vibe going around. but was there a universal blanket mandating of vaccines? no there wasn't. i don't know whether you took a vaccine or not, but you had that choice whether or not to take take that. and on the issues about the number of people that actually lost their lives. and i have to believe, i guess, the office for national statistics, it's the only independent agency we have in this country, they're reporting that the 59 deaths related to all types of vaccine , related to all types of vaccine, including the astrazeneca, that's 59 tragic lives that were lost. there are families attached to that . but i do attached to that. but i do wonder sometimes when you go on this sort of go after big pharma and you don't include the relatively small numbers that actually lost their lives as a result of taking it at a time that was unprecedented 100 years. >> i didn't take any of the products, i which is your choice. i absolutely i dispute absolutely the figures that

you're quoting for consequences from for those. but . you're quoting for consequences from for those. but. i'm just quoting official statistics. >> neil, my but besides all of that, my contention is that we've already seemed to have forgotten that there was no informed consent here because the government and big pharma went into it knowing that what they had was not a vaccine , they had was not a vaccine, although they pushed it as a vaccine, they had to change the definition of vaccine. they went into it knowing about the adverse reactions that were likely. pfizer had pages and pages and pages of them. astrazeneca had seen evidence of blood clotting before the rollout. we were told that it would stop covid in its tracks and that more than anything else, it was of paramount importance to take it not for yourself, but to stop the spread of it to loved ones and yet it was known in advance that there was known in advance that there was no knowledge about the products stopping transmission because the companies hadn't

even been asked to test if that was going to be the result. and on the back of that, all good hearted people were expected to take it and i think, i think thatis take it and i think, i think that is what we're already forgetting . there was no forgetting. there was no informed consent. the people were given something under false pretences. however well—intentioned the people taking it might have been . taking it might have been. >> i disagree on the idea of there was no informed consent. i made a conscious choice to go for these vaccines. there are others in my family , including others in my family, including younger members of my family, where i would not let them go near the vaccine. so there were choices to be made where i agree with you, and it's easy to forget with the passage of time how utterly authoritarian that whole period felt. living in britain, with the history that you and i share of liberty and freedom, and the idea that democratic governments should always, because they're accountable to us, be taking

decisions that are in the interest. sure, that inquiry that we've got underway is there to test that thesis. you've just got to get a break now before which, i will i will say the following on behalf of astrazeneca , a right to reply, astrazeneca, a right to reply, we're incredibly proud of the role vaxzevria played in ending the global pandemic. according to independent estimates, over. 6.5 million lives were saved in the first year of use alone, and over 3 billion doses were suppued over 3 billion doses were supplied globally. our efforts have been recognised by governments around the world and are widely regarded as being a critical component of ending the global pandemic. and there's the break, after which i'll be debating whether or not we actually did experience a global pandemic in 2020. you're watching the neil oliver show on gb news. don't go away.

welcome back to the neil oliver show . who can forget the events show. who can forget the events of 2020, when people were ordered to wear face masks and to stay indoors for fear of catching covid? with vaccine safety now in question, some are asking if we really experienced asking if we really experienced a pandemic at all. firstly, take a pandemic at all. firstly, take a look at this clip of german professor stefan homburg using official german data to outline what happened in his country in 2020. for those who are listening to this on radio, rather than watching, i will read out the english subtitles instance, sank the clinic and start with the most important things in five key points. >> firstly, hospital occupancy in germany fell to an all time low in 2020, says the german federal ministry of health. >> secondly, there were no more

severe respiratory illnesses than usual in 2020 and 2021. corona came influenza disappeared, says the robert koch institute . koch institute. >> thirdly, age standardised mortality was not higher in 2020 than usual. >> mortal ality has only increased since 2021, says the federal statistical office. fourthly, people who died with or from coronavirus were on average 83 years old. >> the other deceased were 82 years old, says the robert koch institute and the federal statistical office . statistical office. >> fifthly, sweden, which was free of masks and lockdowns, fared better than germany, says the world health organisation . the world health organisation. i'm joined now by nick hudson of the group panda and also author

and gp malcolm kendrick, to consider all of this, nick, if i can come to you first of all, it's your contention that there was no pandemic based on an analysis of the data. can you elaborate on that hypothesis ? elaborate on that hypothesis? >> yes. hi, neil. good to be back with you. the 2020 signals that we picked up that were so just blatantly stark, moving us in this direction, where, first of all, when we saw the mortality rates. stefan is correct. the average age of death for covid deaths was higher than the average age of death for non—covid deaths. but moreover, we could go as far as saying that for even vaguely healthy people under the age of 70, there was clearly nothing wrong in the way of a risk additive pathogen on the loose. and that was clear in the second quarter of 2020. and as the year rolled on and we began to see more and more data, another very startling finding emerged. and

that was that when we looked at the very granular data, the high resolution data at county level in in the uk and in the united states, what we couldn't detect were the telltale signs called ripple and cluster effects, that you would expect to see if what you would expect to see if what you were dealing with was a spreading pathogen . instead, spreading pathogen. instead, what we were detecting were signs of a spreading test, the pcr test spreading into a population where the signal that those tests were detecting was already present and present, without any observed severe illness or mortality beyond normal levels. so that was all within the first year of 2020. but over time, a whole lot more data has emerged that call into question the whole idea of whether the story of a pathogen that emerged at a point where there a point in wuhan or

anywhere else in the planet planet and then spread around the world, leaving in its path the world, leaving in its path the trail of death and destruction was really true in the first place. what happened is we've seen the results of human challenges, experiments. these are deliberate attempts to infect other humans to understand the transmission mechanics of this supposed pathogen. and wherever these human challenge experiments have been attempted, it has turned out to have been impossible to infect. other human beings with this supposed pathogen . and so this supposed pathogen. and so these are all incredibly strong data points which should cause people to pause. >> can i just pause you there? >> can i just pause you there? >> can i just pause you there? >> can i just pause you there and bring in, doctor malcolm kendrick, good evening to you, too, malcolm . listening to nick too, malcolm. listening to nick there, as i'm as i'm sure you were , what data would you point were, what data would you point at, to say that there was a pandemic ? pandemic? >> well, the, one of the data

sources that i've looked at in the past is called euromomo, which is a european organisation. it stands for european mortality monitoring, i think. and, they look over years at, spikes in mortality to see if there's some sign of an infectious disease coming along. and if you look at the statistics of march 2020, there was a sudden and quite dramatic surge in overall mortality , way surge in overall mortality, way above the, all sorts of levels of statistical significance, was present more in some countries than others, but it was showing widely across a whole series of different countries, so something there was definitely something there was definitely something that happened. there was definitely statistics that showed that at the time i was looking at them almost on a day by day basis. so i think clearly there was an infection. you can't say for sure it's an infectious disease. there was something started to kill people in higher numbers in march 2020

across europe. and these data , across europe. and these data, you can have a look at them yourself if you want to nick that. >> what malcolm is saying there would seem to fly in the face of the data that you're referring to. are you aware of that data, and how do you react to malcolm's assertion that there was definitely something new and dangerous in the air? >> yeah, we completely familiar with that data. we were all over it, the response that we have is that the, the mortality was not evenly distributed. there were a few places in like, for example, new york and lombardy, lombardy , new york and lombardy, lombardy, where we had massively increased mortality and our , our mortality and our, our contention is that that mortality didn't arise because of a spreading pathogen, but because of , of what are called because of, of what are called iatrogenic, iatrogenic harms . iatrogenic, iatrogenic harms. and for the main part, really deterioration in standards of care that were crucial in driving this excess mortality .

driving this excess mortality. >> malcolm, what about that assertion that it was the it was the locking down the cutting away of people's access to proper care , iatrogenic proper care, iatrogenic consequences, as nick's describing , consequences, as nick's describing, you consequences, as nick's describing , you know, and consequences, as nick's describing, you know, and in any event, what about the fact that no one disputes that the every life is sacred and but people dying at that time were, on average, 83 years old, which is average, 83 years old, which is a year older. than average life expectancy. i didn't see anyone dying around me in my area. i didn't see anyone dying. i saw people locked down. i saw people suffering because they were being locked down. what about the fact that it wasn't visible without the pcr testing ? that it without the pcr testing? that it was a pandemic of testing , well, was a pandemic of testing, well, i disagree with that for two reasons. one is, i was working in with the elderly population, and i saw a lot of people dying.

i reckoned i calculated at 1.48 was the number of elderly people who i saw dying of what sounded and looked suspiciously like. well, it was a new way of dying, ihave well, it was a new way of dying, i have to say, i'm fairly long in the tooth . i've watched a lot in the tooth. i've watched a lot of people die. i've been with them when they're dying. i've never seen a situation where somebody could be talking to you quite lucidly. and then half an hour later, they were just stone dead.the hour later, they were just stone dead. the other thing that i, i noted was my daughter is actually a junior doctor. she went to work in bangor and she had to leave her medical, sort of fifth year of studies early to, to work as a junior doctor. she came back to the house. she lost her sense of smell completely and, and, and was quite unwell . our next door quite unwell. our next door neighbours, three of their lads, completely lost their sense of smell. i've never seen this before , ever in my career. and before, ever in my career. and it became almost pathognomonic to me that there was something here that was different i'd never seen before. now i don't

disagree that putting people on ventilators in places like new york, i'm sure that did increase mortality rates specifically in some areas. but to me, i cannot sit here and say there was not a pathogen kicking around that we've never seen before. >> hold that thought . >> hold that thought. >> hold that thought. >> i've never seen it before. >> i've never seen it before. >> hold that thought, doctor malcolm , cedric have to go to a malcolm, cedric have to go to a break. but after the break, we'll be continuing this debate. you're watching the neil oliver show on gb news. don't go anywhere

welcome back to the neil oliver show. i'm now continuing my debate about whether or not we had a global pandemic of something called covid. both nick hudson and doctor malcolm kendnck nick hudson and doctor malcolm kendrick are joining me, staying with me. if i can stay with you, doctor kendrick , why? why wasn't

doctor kendrick, why? why wasn't it visible without the testing? you're a you're a front line carer, but i would i would contend that the experience was that there was nothing to see except the daily reporting by politician and around the clock about the results of pcr testing. >> well, i think that, clearly, it's very difficult to diagnose a disease if you don't have a specific test for it and one specific, specific test comes along. and these arguments are , along. and these arguments are, i would agree with a number of them. but i would say speaking i was on the ground. i was actually going into nursing homes daily, and dealing with elderly people in intermediate care daily. and, and the specifically, i would say i could tell you that someone was dying of something in a way that ihave dying of something in a way that i have never seen anyone die before. and that was , i wouldn't

before. and that was, i wouldn't say, every single case. and there were cases where i was trying to get people admitted to hospital, and the hospital was refusing to accept them because they said they've just got covid and we can't do anything. and then it turned out they had other diseases that they they could have been treated for. and then they did actually pass away, which was extraordinarily frustrating. but i, i think it was possible to say this person has got a disease, respiratory disease . their oxygen disease. their oxygen saturations are dropping dramatically in a way i've never seen before. and then they're just dying . i had never seen just dying. i had never seen this before. so in my mind, i'm 100% clear that there was something different, that something different, that something that had appeared at that time . now, i'm not going to that time. now, i'm not going to disagree that there were a lot of other things going on that skewed the statistics. but but l, skewed the statistics. but but i, you know, my deathbed, i'm going to say yes , there was a going to say yes, there was a new disease. it definitely arrived around about march 2020. and i dealt with a lot of people who appeared to kill nick.

>> what about what about the fact that we weren't that we weren't seeing it? and what about the fact that the german professor that we listened to there said that there was nothing in the german statistics, the german data, to show anything out of the ordinary? from a clinical point of view . all time lows for of view. all time lows for hospital admissions in germany in 2020 and everything else reading normal. where do we how do we find ourselves in this disconnect with what he was reporting and the notion that people were dropping like flies? that doctor kendrick is reporting ? reporting? >> yeah, i mean, it's quite simple. when you change standards of care and it's not just a matter of putting people on ventilators. the deployment of high flow oxygen was a problem. the suspension of the routine deployment of antibiotics and steroids , those antibiotics and steroids, those were all problems. the isolation of patients were was a problem. the driving of fear into patients was a problem. so there all sorts of drivers behind this

kind of mitogenic harm. so how do we reconcile this story? i mean, the first observation i'd make is that when we talk to doctors from different places, they describe an entirely different clinical picture. there's no uniformity to this clinical picture . we get one clinical picture. we get one radiologist telling us that there was no difference in the chest scans between the supposed covid patients and routine influenza like illness patients, and so on. so we get all sorts of contradictions. and really what we're talking about here is this very clear and crisp data dnven this very clear and crisp data driven analysis of doctor hamburg flies completely in the face of individual clinicians testimonies. >> tom, you , like me, were you >> tom, you, like me, were you know, we're we're interested observers to put it mildly. >> what do you make of this debate and this and this , the debate and this and this, the statistical the apparent suggestion of the statistics that there was nothing unusual jul in germany, let's say, to take an example . and yet still take an example. and yet still the politicians there decided to

shut down their world. >> well, it's a fascinating debate, neil, and i think it's a debate, neil, and i think it's a debate that these various official inquiries need to be having as well, with the type of data that's being discussed and talking to someone that's not a doctor, a clinical doctor or an epidemiologist, just the average sort of joe looking in on this, it can look a little bit like we're sort of dancing on the head of a pin here, you know. was there a pandemic or there wasn't a pandemic? i mean, the oxford english dictionary just describes a pandemic as an infectious disease that goes on across the country or indeed around the world. i'm pretty sure this novel coronavirus originated in wuhan as a debate about whether it was a lab leak or not, and it made its way via europe and eventually around the world, and people died. i think that's an indisputable fact. i think, though , the real issue, think, though, the real issue, actually what i would like to know the answer to is because, you know, this is where the data points are quite important is, did our politicians react in a proportionate way? this started in authoritarian china , where we in authoritarian china, where we saw those terrible scenes, by

the way, in northern italy of people gasping for breath and health services being overloaded . did we get did our politicians make the right call ? make the right call? >> nick, if i can come back to you, i feel the need to make something clear, which i think is important are we is the german professor saying that it really irrespective of whether there was something new or not, whether it was deliberately concocted in a lab or not, whether it was released deliberately or accidentally or whether there was nothing new at all. none of that changes the fact that, from a clinical point of view, based on analysis of data, everything was clinically normal in terms of people getting sick and dying. is that not the case? >> that's the case. there was no unusual risk additive pathogen. and under those conditions, all these other questions become irrelevant. the origin of the so—called pathogen becomes irrelevant. i mean, i, i

completely contest the idea that something emerged in wuhan and spread around the world. there is no evidence outside of newspaper headlines for that contention . contention. >> nick, i'm going to have to leave it there . doctor malcolm leave it there. doctor malcolm kendnck leave it there. doctor malcolm kendrick i'm going to have to leave it there. thank you to for , tom you know, for correctly assessing that as a fascinating debate. i think on behalf of those two gents there, we're into another break. sadly, i'll be joined afterwards by robert breedlove, who is a philosopher and a podcaster inhabiting the bitcoin space. you're watching the neil oliver show on gb news. don't go away.

i >> welcome back to the neil oliver show. my next guest is robert breedlove. he is a freedom maximalist. i want to be

a freedom maximalist, too . he's a freedom maximalist, too. he's an ex hedge fund manager and a philosopher on the matter of bitcoin. and he says his mission is to restore freedom, truth and virtue to our world by tenaciously asking the question, what is money, welcome. all the way from tennessee, robert breedlove, are you there ? breedlove, are you there? >> i am here, neal, i can hear you, but i can't see you, though. >> all right, well, we will press ahead with voices , i press ahead with voices, i freely admit i freely admit, robert, that i caused uproar in the bitcoin community last week, with a guest who was very dismissive , completely dismissive, completely dismissive, completely dismissive, in fact, of bitcoin. now i hold no bitcoin. i don't really have a dog in the fight. however, i am fascinated by bitcoin and therefore i am more than happy to redress the inequality and invite you to explain what it is about that cryptocurrency bitcoin, which makes it as you see it, the

foundation upon which real freedom might be rebuilt . freedom might be rebuilt. >> yeah, neil, i think, for me, i can't speak on behalf of the entire bitcoin community, but the uproar that was created from my perspective was your guest use of the term intrinsic value. and anyone who has studied economics since the mid 1800s, dunng economics since the mid 1800s, during which we had the marginalism revolution, would know that all value is actually subjective. so value is a matter of individual preference. and value is something that is expressed through human action. so i find it farcical and deeply fallacious that anyone would ever use the term intrinsic value, and it's often wielded as a cudgel to try and dismiss bitcoin . and what i think they

bitcoin. and what i think they mean by that is that because bitcoin is not tangible, jul or bitcoin is not tangible, jul or bitcoin does not have a commodity or industrial use case that it commodity or industrial use case thatitis commodity or industrial use case that it is therefore, irrelevant as a technology and has no use case whatsoever . and that, you case whatsoever. and that, you know, even if you take that opinion to be true, i would say that the market fundamentally disagrees. right? bitcoin has a very substantial market capital ization, there's actually a strong argument to be made that its entire market capitalisation is due to its utility as money. so in that way, it would be the first pure money we've ever had. even something like gold that is predominantly used as money still has industrial use demand associated with it. and therefore part of its market capitalisation is for gold as an industrial metal rather than as a monetary metal. so that was my, beef, i guess, with your. >> yes, for sure . >> yes, for sure. >> using something that was dismissed 200 years ago. >> absolutely. well, a, a

question that always comes to mind when i, when i contemplate bitcoin is why does its value at the moment, let's say, fluctuate . so, seismically, you know, it it can, it can, it can halve in value and has done in a relatively short space of time . relatively short space of time. and, and that, that that in part is why i continue to have questions about its essential nature . why is it so volatile . nature. why is it so volatile. >> yeah. so the volatility of an asset is always proportionate to its market capitalisation , if we its market capitalisation, if we looked at, say amazon, in the early 2000, between 1999 and 2001, amazon stock had a 94% drawdown in, in the wake of the 2000, or the.com crash, rather. and it has since grown 40,000% in today's amazon. today, amazon stock has a volatility of, you know, in the range of south of 40 let's say. so you can think about this . the rough analogy is

about this. the rough analogy is smaller ship on a larger sea. right. the waves tend to affect smaller assets, which with smaller assets, which with smaller market capitalisations disproportionately in terms of their price movements. but as those assets grow in terms of market capitalisation, the movements on the sea, this being like liquidity movements in the marketplace , tend to affect the marketplace, tend to affect the price, less so significantly. >> tom buck, what do you make of bitcoin? are you persuaded that it could be the future of money itself, if not freedom? or do you harbour hesitancy about it? >> i think it's a fascinating innovation on the whole distributed, nature of it. so it's decentralised. it's not the same as a fiat currency as it's described. in other words, government owned central banks or private bankers that own central banks , i suppose for me central banks, i suppose for me it comes down to the issue of trust, i think, you know, he's

absolutely right. ultimately, money is a is an idea, and it's the idea of trust . i mean, on the idea of trust. i mean, on our own banknotes, it says, i promise to pay . that's the promise to pay. that's the essentially the sovereign, the monarch making that promise to us on worthless paper. well, that's that's a moot point, on the us greenback, it says in god we trust. so it sort of appeals to a higher power, i suppose, just practically, as someone hasn't got a dog in the fight , hasn't got a dog in the fight, but has got like a lot of people having this country investment in pension funds, self—invested pension funds in the stock market, in the equities. yes. i have to ride the wave of the ups and downs in the stock market. but just looking at the figures for bitcoin in 2021, when it lost 45% of its value, i mean, i think there are people watching this who have got investments and nestegg they're saving for a rainy day for their retirement. they would just say that's not a roller coaster. i'm prepared to get on. >> robert breedlove . how many >> robert breedlove. how many people? i just want a quick

question , because i'm going to question, because i'm going to go into, i'm going to go into a break and then come back to you. how many people are holding bitcoin at the moment? is it possible to answer that question as a percentage of the world's population? >> yeah, there's estimates that it's roughly 100 million people worldwide. but that that data is hard to pin down. i do want to respond to, to the critique on bitcoin's volatility once more . bitcoin's volatility once more. you know, any professional investor, anyone that's ever managed money for a living, knows full well to call an asset too volatile is nonsense, because if it's too volatile, then you're overallocated. it's just a matter of position sizing in your portfolio . so if bitcoin in your portfolio. so if bitcoin had a, you know, call it a 100 vol asset today, if you're not willing to ride that roller coaster, if it's creating too much volatility in your portfolio, then it's just a matter of reducing your position, size. maybe that position, size. maybe that position size is 0% for some people. i'm not to here prescribe. everyone has to assess for themselves, but to say that an asset is too volatile and then , say that it

volatile and then, say that it should not be there should be no allocation whatsoever . i think allocation whatsoever. i think thatis allocation whatsoever. i think that is a black or white statement about a, an assessment thatis statement about a, an assessment that is meant to be done over a gradient. right? the more volatile the asset and the more conservative you are, the smaller allocation you would want and vice versa. >> absolutely understand that fortune favours the brave robert, without a shadow of a doubt. >> if you're not, if you're not prepared to ride the waves, you know, don't go out on the ocean. that's absolutely the case. i have to say that at the moment this is all from me on tv. but to continue with this chat to hear more from robert breedlove, please do go online to the neil oliver show on gbnews.com >> a brighter outlook with boxt solar sponsors of weather on . gb news. >> hello! welcome to your gb news weather update by the met office for monday. it's going to be dry in the east, but turning unsettled in the west and also feeling cooler here to high

pressure. that's brought a lot of sunshine is moving its way eastwards, allowing low pressure to start moving in as we go to monday . but for this evening we monday. but for this evening we still have some heavy showers around . some of these are going around. some of these are going to be thundery, pushing their way northwards, affecting parts of scotland later in the night, turning drier elsewhere with some drier and clearer spells across eastern parts . low cloud across eastern parts. low cloud though in the west temperatures generally around 10 or 11 degrees, so quite a mild start to start monday morning. quite a lot of cloud around that should generally break up, especially across the midlands and eastern parts of england. still some heavy showers across parts of scotland, but we have got outbreaks of rain pushing their way in from the west, affecting northern wales, northern ireland, wales and south england as well. heavy rain could cause some disruption. feeling much cooler underneath this cloud and rain, and that will gradually push its way northwards through tuesday. so a contrast in where

the wet weather will be. but blustery showers are feeding in from the west. some sunny spells as well, but temperatures really are going to be a little bit below what we've seen of late but sunny spells. scattered showers in the

gb news. >> hi there. very good evening to you. i'm aaron armstrong in the gb newsroom. angela taylor is expected to be interviewed under caution as part of a council tax investigation . the council tax investigation. the deputy labour leader is understood to have been contacted by manchester police concerning the sale of her house in 2015, amid claims she may not have paid the right amount of tax and that she may have falsely made a declaration about her primary residence on the

electoral register. reports in