Episode 2: David Crowe

[00:00:00] Brendan D. Murphy: [00:00:00] Thanks for joining me, David. I'm stoked to have you here as my first official guest on the first episode of Truthiverse.
[00:00:05]So let's get into it. Maybe you want to give us a little bit of your background, cause I know one of the first questions people will ask is, well, what are this guy's qualifications? What's his background? Who is this crazy dissident guy who doesn't believe what we believe? 

[00:00:18] David Crowe: [00:00:18] Yes. Okay. Well first I would say that, if you would believe me if I had a PhD and MD without thinking, that's not a good thing. No matter what my qualifications are. You should look at the data that I have and you should evaluate it. And, now we see on this topic, there are senior scientists who are contradicting the dominant paradigm, which is like, we all need to destroy Western civilization and all that in order to end this.
[00:00:46] Most of them are not going as far as me, but they are asking some pretty tough questions. Valid questions. So I got a degree in biology and mathematics from a small university in Canada and [00:01:00] I did pretty well on the degree and it looked like I was going to go on and do a PhD. I got a full scholarship for graduate work, but after a year I became dissatisfied.
[00:01:09] I didn't want to be a professor or a lab person, and I was very interested in computers, so I became a computer programmer, but never lost my interest in the sciences, and I became aware that there were some people who were questioning whether HIV caused AIDS and I became interested. But then when I got to meet some of these people whose children were being forcibly medicated who were being thrown in jail because they'd had sex while they were HIV positive, things like that. I realized it was a lot more than just an interesting scientific curiosity. This was actually causing massive human rights violations if the scientific theory was wrong, which I believed was the case.
[00:01:51] And so I gradually got more and more into that and inspired by some Australian scientists called the Perth Group, who first questioned whether HIV existed. [00:02:00] I started to ask that question about other viruses. I started with West Nile Virus, which was a big deal then and looked at others. And not only that, but asked, is there an environmental paradigm that explains the diseases we're seeing better than this infectious paradigm?
[00:02:16] And there are often is, and it's not that hard to find except that most people are scared to look. So, as I did more and more research, the board of Rethinking AIDS, which is a group of scientists questioning, whether HIV causes AIDS, elected me as their president and I've been there for like 10 years in an unpaid capacity.
[00:02:39] There's not a lot of money in this field. And I also in 2014 started my own radio show on Gary Null's PRN - Progressive Radio Network - at FM network, and it's called The Infectious Myth. And I do cover a lot of medical issues, not just viruses, but cancer and many other mental disease, fluoridation, [00:03:00] gender issues, justice issues, a whole pile of different things that I think are interesting. So I hope that's satisfactory. 

[00:03:09] Brendan D. Murphy: [00:03:09] Yeah.  That's a great answer actually. So, yeah, I mean, it's just such an issue with the psychology that we've had been inculcated into with, you know, we've got this authority structure that tells us, programs us essentially collectively how to think, what to perceive, and we become emotionally wedded to all of this.
[00:03:25] So, when someone like you comes along and challenges the most foundational  assumptions which never get verbalized anymore. They're just unspoken, they're implicit in the whole paradigm, and we're not supposed to even think about them. And you start actually explicitly challenging them. A lot of people get very pissed off.

[00:03:43] David Crowe: [00:03:43] And it's mostly the people who have no biomedical knowledge. Like I've had the most, the strongest reaction from people like engineers who this just disturbs their sense that the universe is made up of nice little building blocks. And that in every field there [00:04:00] is experts and there's less experts. And then there's ordinary people who should never question, the experts. There are so many fields where the experts need to be questioned, especially when there's money in the field, which corrupts everybody at the top. The very people you look up to are the very people who are on the take. 

[00:04:17] Brendan D. Murphy: [00:04:17] Yeah, yeah, exactly. Exactly. And so it sounds like as you've gone along in your research into viruses and the whole field of virology, that you've found that to be the case as as you've gone along with this and the corruption and things aren't all as they seem.

[00:04:32] David Crowe: [00:04:32] Yes. And actually, one of the questions I've been asked is like, when did virology, kind of start? And I think the right answer is probably pre-Roman times. Like our belief in invisible infectious things predates, I mean, recorded history. I actually did an analysis, of an Italian report on a 1630 epidemic.
[00:04:57] Obviously that's not pre Roman, but you can't [00:05:00] really have a lot of written evidence  that's useful from that time. But it was interesting because everybody, there were multiple theories about. Really, where the mysterious infectious thing came from? There was no disagreement. It was infectious. But if you look at the data they had, there was no reason to believe it was infectious, but they didn't know in those days that there could be vitamin deficiencies.
[00:05:24] They didn't know that there could be poisoning. It was a time of war and famine. People were not eating properly, especially the poor and people got sick and they said, Oh, some invisible infectious agents came in and this has been continuous. And the formal concept of viruses in terms of " particles that are smaller than bacteria" that existed before the 1930s, before electron microscopes, before it was possible to visualize these things, and they were called filterable viruses.
[00:05:54] Because, if you say, you ground up a mouse brain and you put it through a filter with pores that are smaller than [00:06:00] bacteria, and then you took that filtered material and, and injected it into another mouse brain, if you could cause disease, you said it must've been infectious, you know, now we might say, well, what about immune reactions?
[00:06:13] Or what about the toxic reactions, from liberating the internal contents of whole bunch of cells? Like what's in there that might cause problems to your brain, right? Like I think if, if I ground up mouse brains and offered to inject your brain with mouse brains, you as a sensible person you say, no, you're going to kill me.
[00:06:33] And yet if they kill amounts that way, they say, we've proved it was infectious. Yeah. And so anyway, in the 1930s, it should have been the golden time of virology, because now we've got electron microscopes. We can purify the viruses and see them, but virologists had a hell of a time doing this, and they basically couldn't do that.
[00:06:55]And one top virologist of the 1930s, Thomas Rivers - and his [00:07:00] paper was actually cited during the SARS epidemic in 2003 - he said in 1936 it is obvious that viruses have not satisfied Koch's Postulates. Koch's Postulates are how you prove that a pathogen like a virus causes a disease. So, his response was not like maybe virology is broken, you know, maybe we've been believing and things don't exist for a long time. 
[00:07:26] And it's like, well, we have to lower the standards for proving causation. We will lower them to the point where we can achieve those standards.  It's kinda like you're taking your driving test, you fail, and then you rewrite the test, so it's easier and you keep doing this until you pass the test. 

[00:07:45] Brendan D. Murphy: [00:07:45] So eventually they got there to the point where they felt like they could justify the infectious idea with the lowest possible standards established. 

[00:07:54] David Crowe: [00:07:54] Yes. Like if you could find antibodies in, you know, the majority of sick animals, or [00:08:00] something like that. Like Robert Gallo in his research on HIV and AIDS, he found antibodies in less than 50% of gay men with classic AIDS. Right. But he still said that the antibodies are specific for a virus and they indicate that the virus is present. And then he ran around testing healthy people. And if like blood donors and if healthy people tested positive on this test, he would say, you've got a fatal disease.
[00:08:27] And if you don't take these highly toxic drugs, you're going to die. And which is difficult because if you do take that height of toxic drugs, you're probably going to die too. So not a good place to be in.

[00:08:38] Brendan D. Murphy: [00:08:38] What was it Gallo thought? I mean, what was it he thought he had found that was in the healthy people and in the sick people as well? And what is it that they thought they were seeing to justify……

[00:08:49] David Crowe: [00:08:49] He saw a Nobel prize. And this is, this is what this was all about. And he was warranted because he was such a crook. [00:09:00] So he was the first person to publish on HIV. But there was a book by a Chicago journalist named John Crewdson called something like "Science Fictions, The Dark Legacy of Dr Gallo".
[00:09:10] So in 2008. When the Nobel prize committee finally decided to award a Nobel for HIV, why did it take so long? They awarded it to Luc Montagnier and, one of his associates, Barré-Sinoussi and they mentioned Gallo, but they didn't give him the prize because they knew he was a crook. And, these are the people who brought us the theory of HIV.
[00:09:37]So if you, if you read Crewdson's book, it's not an easy read, it goes through in gory detail all of the things that Gallo did. They had congressional investigations. They brought in the secret service to see whether Robert Gallo had faked notes in his own notebooks. He'd gone back to his own notebooks, and he'd written in.
[00:09:55] And so they had people doing ink analysis on his [00:10:00] notebooks. Like, I mean, this is just incredible and it's all being forgotten. It's well documented if you go looking for it, but nobody knows that this is the kind of person who was involved. And I, I'm serious that what these people want is glory. If you can discover a new deadly virus, then you forever have glory and power and money and status. 

[00:10:23] Brendan D. Murphy: [00:10:23] Yeah. You're immortalised in the annals of science. 

[00:10:27] David Crowe: [00:10:27] Yeah. It's, it is a bit awkward with HIV because they don't really know who to immortalize and Luc Montagnier, the other guy, Luc Montagnier has, has contradicted all the major tenets of HIV AIDS. He said, for example, that if you get an infected with HIV and you have a strong immune system, you can get rid of it in a couple of weeks.
[00:10:48] Well, that's not supposed to be true. You get infected with HIV, it's for life. And the best you can do is take drugs for the rest of your life. So there's a number of these statements on camera by Luc Montagnier. [00:11:00] So they treat Montagnier now as, okay, you got the Nobel, but he's gone mad. So we actually don't take them seriously anymore.
[00:11:07] So, so who do you want? You want, you want the crook or do you want the mad uncle? That's what you've got. 

[00:11:15] Brendan D. Murphy: [00:11:15] Yeah. That's pretty crazy. It's pretty laughable. I'm deliberately taking my time, getting to the specific issue of the whole Coronavirus mania. That's that we'll get to, but I like this context.
[00:11:26] It's, I think it's very important context. Most people don't have it. They haven't done the reading on this, so they, they have a very false or distorted idea of, it's like this shiny, rosy picture of what scientific medicine, medical science looks alike. And it turns out when you dig beneath the surface, it's very far from that.

[00:11:43] David Crowe: [00:11:43] Yes. And I mean, probably one of the biggest tragedies was in 1987 they rushed through the approval of the first AIDS drug known as AZT. And this is, this is directly relevant to SARS and the Coronavirus cause they're talking about similar drugs. [00:12:00] So AZT is what they call a nucleus analog, which means it disrupts DNA synthesis.
[00:12:06] So if there's a dividing cell in your body and a molecule of AZT gets in there, then the cell doesn't divide properly. And they give this to pregnant women. It crosses the placenta and it goes into the fetus where the fetus is trying to divide. I mean, that's the only job the fetus has, is to do cell division, right?
[00:12:26] It's not going to get to be a baby unless it does a whole lot of cell division and it has to be very precise. You know, the cells that produce the heart and the lungs and the blood vessels and everything has to divide perfectly, or you end up with birth defects or you end up with cancer even before you were born, or metabolic problems and  things like that. 
[00:12:47] So AZT has a horrendous range of side effects. It was given at high doses in the 1980s, even before 1987, and it wiped out a generation of gay men and [00:13:00] haemophiliacs. And then they just kept approving more drugs. Gradually, over time they became a little less toxic, but still the AIDS drugs are linked to liver failure and kidney failure, and severe blood disorders, and neurological disorders and psychiatric disorders. I mean, you, if you read the labels, there's just about everything in there that they cause, but they took advantage of a panic. Like the panic for AIDS was somewhat similar to today, except it was focused on a small group of people, gay men, right? Initially. 
[00:13:31] They tried to expand it to the whole population, but they didn't really succeed, right. The average heterosexual person never really take AIDS that seriously, cause they never knew anybody who had AIDS, right. Unless they knew if they had gay friends or relatives - there were very few heterosexuals.
[00:13:48] So they didn't get tested. And if they don't get tested, they don't get diagnosed. And so they go and live their life normally, not realizing that maybe they got this deadly virus in them. 
[00:13:56] It doesn't cause disease until you get diagnosed and start taking drugs [00:14:00] , which is funny enough.
[00:14:02] But, there was this panic that pushed-through. We need a drug. I mean, the, the leaders of the gay community, I think had already sold out to the pharmeceutical industry were saying, us gay men need drugs. In reality, some gay men had a drug problem with something called poppers, an inhalant drug that's used almost exclusively by gay men.
[00:14:23] And, they didn't want to deal with this because poppers were kind of part of this fast-track gay lifestyle. It was an integral part and nobody wanted to give up their poppers, so it was easier to blame their promiscuity than their drug problems, they had to choose and they, they chose our sexuality as the problem, which is incredibly ironic, I think. 
[00:14:45] Instead of saying, you know, there's nothing wrong with our sexuality, but we have a drug problem. Just like a lot of subsets of heterosexual people have drug problems, right? A lot of people do drugs and each drug has its own set of side effects. [00:15:00] Poppers happened to cause cancer and immune suppression. And what were the first two AIDS diseases. Well, one was a disease of immune suppression and one was a cancer. 
[00:15:10] Yeah. Once you get past the veneer of, you know, this idea that there's an infectious agent working its way insidiously through the gay community, and if you actually look at lifestyle factors, if it becomes pretty obvious that they were always going to have  problems.
[00:15:25] But it just happened that the machine of the pharmaceutical industry and the media turned it into this AIDS virus myth.
[00:15:33] Yes. I recently interviewed a man named Harry Haverkos, who is a very mainstream scientist, but he looked into the connection between poppers and AIDS, and he took it seriously.
[00:15:44] But being a well-behaved scientist, when he was told in the 1980s that you need to stop talking about this and you need to stop doing research. That's what he did. And, and so it ended. He published a monograph it's called, like a [00:16:00] collection of articles. He hosted a meeting and a bunch of experts on poppers came together and they talked about the health impacts of poppers.
[00:16:06] And he put it together in this nice little book, highly technical, but you know, really good science. And that was the end of it. Like after that, it was like, okay, we have a virus. We don't need poppers it's just getting in the way of the messages we're sending to the public. Wear a condom, right? Not stop using poppers.

[00:16:25]Brendan D. Murphy: [00:16:25] Yeah, sure. Absolutely. I've read some work or some words by Etienne de Harven, and I'm not sure if I'm pronouncing that right, but the eminent virologist, I'm sure you're familiar with his work. And he was very critical of the whole AIDS theory. He's the kind of guy who, he's the worst nightmare of, of the media machine, the big pharma, because if he gets on a microphone and millions of people start to hear that kind of criticism from someone with his credentials, you know, all of a sudden it doesn't look so rosy. Do you have any…

[00:16:50] David Crowe: [00:16:50] Yeah, sadly, he's passed away. He was a member of the board of Rethinking AIDS for quite a long time. Yes, he had credentials. [00:17:00] I think he had a PhD and an MD. He worked at Sloan Kettering Memorial Cancer Center in New York City, which is like America's top cancer center.
[00:17:07] He worked at university of Toronto and some other places. He was an expert in cancer and viruses and in electron microscopy. And he said that he didn't think HIV existed. He was probably the first super big-named scientist and they treated him like they treat every big name. Scientists just like Luc Montagnier, they just shove him aside, he must be getting old. 

[00:17:33] Brendan D. Murphy: [00:17:33] He's got dementia.

[00:17:35] David Crowe: [00:17:35] Yes. Whereas, if he kept saying the right things, I mean, he would've been on the board of biotech companies. I mean, there's so much money in this for people who play the game. Yeah. you know, consulting arrangements, being on the board, speaking engagements. You name it, and it's not just the money.
[00:17:53] But it's like you get, you go around the world like a VIP, you get picked up at the airport and in a limousine, and they put you in a five star [00:18:00] hotel and it's like, sir, is there anything you'd like on your bedside? You know, that kind of stuff, right? Like you, you get treated like a God, and unfortunately it goes to their heads.

[00:18:10] Brendan D. Murphy: [00:18:10] It's like the scientific equivalent of being a rockstar.

[00:18:13] David Crowe: [00:18:13] Yes. Yeah, very much so. 

[00:18:16]Brendan D. Murphy: [00:18:16] You mentioned earlier, Koch's Postulates, and I think that maybe one last touch on some historical context was someone called Louis Pasteur. And a lot of people, you know, he's named like Pasteur is a household name, right? Like, we have pasteurized milk. Everyone knows what pasteurization is, or I think most people do, but they don't realize that he was another sort of crook in the realm of, of medicine, who's actually was a hugely responsible for building the paradigm now that has everyone in trance and hypnotized and buying into the Corona panic.

[00:18:44] David Crowe: [00:18:44] Yes, I, I agree. I mean, there's the famous tussle between Pasteur and Beauchamp and Beauchamp said it's the terrain. So in other words, if your body is weak because you're malnourished, or are you being injured or something like that, then [00:19:00] you will get sick. Pasteur, who I think had worked on like fermentation, like beer-making and things like that was obsessed with infectious things and is like, no. You get exposed to a pathogen and it causes disease. It's simple. 
[00:19:14] And you know, I think, I think it's a bit of both. I was just talking about tuberculosis. It's very common in miners. Why are miners more susceptible? Is it because their lungs are damaged by being exposed to toxic and fine particle dust for many years? That would seem to explain.
[00:19:32] So your lungs get damaged and then you get pathogens in. So the initial cause is probably not the pathogen. It's your weakness. And then of course, bacteria will take over lungs that are damaged. 

[00:19:45] Brendan D. Murphy: [00:19:45] Yeah. Yeah. And that's just, that's specifically, you know, that's a bacterial infection that's got nothing to do with viruses.
[00:19:53] So viruses, when you talk about the terrain theory, viruses, it's a bit of a different issue, isn't it? Cause we have solid evidence that bacteria [00:20:00] can cause us serious problems in some situations, particularly if the terrain is compromised, but it's not the same for viruses. Is it?

[00:20:08] David Crowe: [00:20:08] No, and I mean it's like one of the comments I made when I was writing my paper on coronaviruses is that I ran a bunch of, I want to be very careful. I read a bunch of medical papers. I didn't read any scientific papers because I wasn't reading science. I was reading propaganda. I was reading people trying to bolster the viral theory.
[00:20:30] There is a saying that a theory that explains everything explains nothing. And so the viral theory can explain why people get yeah, deathly ill with the same symptoms that you might have with other types of pneumonia. It can explain why you don't get ill, you get infected, but you're, you're not ill, and it can explain why the people who are infected and not ill are just as infectious as the people who are infected and ill, who presumably have a lot of virus in their body. [00:21:00] So I'm thinking, does this mean that if you're infected and your not ill, you have a defective immune system  because your immune system isn't fighting off the virus?
[00:21:08]I was just reading an article about people in China who have been quarantined. They're positive. They're quarantined. They can't get out until they're negative. I think you have to have two tests, negative, and then a few days later they're positive again and everybody's going, well, we will come up with an explanation for this, but what we will not do, is go back and question our underlying assumptions.
[00:21:33] But one of them would be like, even if you don't want to discuss the viral theory, maybe this test is a piece of crap. You know, maybe this test has a large percentage of false positive, false negatives. But the problem is that if they take the test away, they have nothing, right? Because, people say you can tell a COVID infection from anything else that's total BS because the majors, the only symptoms in the original [00:22:00] patients, which occurred in over 50% were fever and cough.
[00:22:05] And they were diagnosing people. They were sort of routing people for diagnosis on the basis of a fever and an x-ray. So 98% of the original patients had a fever and an x-ray. Well, that's because maybe they became eligible for a test when they have fever and an x-ray. Right. And if you have a fever and your lungs are a problem, you probably have a cough.
[00:22:25] But all the other symptoms were in less than 50% so you can't look at somebody and say, I think you've got the coronavirus. Another point is that when they test people, they're getting, depending on which group they're testing, maybe between one and 10% positive. Now, if you were a doctor and you could recognize the illness, you could  bring somebody in, check their chest, look at the x-ray, list their symptoms, fever, cough, diarrhea, whatever, and have maybe an 80% chance of saying, you have this disease. [00:23:00] Well, they have sometimes a less than 1% chance of identifying this. So it's pretty obvious to me. There are no symptoms. So all they have is a test. If you admit that the test has a big problem with accuracy, we do not have a pandemic anymore.
[00:23:16] There's nothing, there's a bunch of old people with pneumonia, just like there were last year, and there will be next year when we get past this. 

[00:23:24] Brendan D. Murphy: [00:23:24] Yeah, exactly. Exactly. So specifically, are you talking about the PCR test, which is this vaunted test that's supposed to tell us whether we're positive or negative?

[00:23:34] David Crowe: [00:23:34] Well, that's a, that's a fascinating story too, because, Kary Mullis, who invented the PCR test, was a friend of the HIV dissidence. So in 1996 when Peter Duesberg sort of the leading dissenting scientist, one of the first to write that he didn't think HIV caused AIDS, he wrote a book in 1996 that is a classic, "Inventing The AIDS Virus."
[00:23:58]And the foreword was by Kary [00:24:00] Mullis. So, I guess in the 1980s, Kary Mullis invented a technique to manufacture DNA. So basically you, you take one strand of DNA, you, run a cycle, which duplicates it. So you have two strands. Which doesn't sound very exciting. But the exciting thing is by the magic of exponential numbers, if you do this 30 times, if you cycle 30 times, you have a billion particles, and if you cycle 40 times, you have a trillion.
[00:24:32] So if you want to produce, DNA for, say your, you want to produce artificial insulin. So you identify the gene that you want to replicate and you can produce as much of that DNA you want. It's not designed to be a test and Kary Mullis criticized the use of the test. And again, sadly, he passed away last year, so we don't have him around to perhaps put the brakes on [00:25:00] this.
[00:25:00]So the use of a test is, is a little bit sketchy, but put aside all of the high technology of the test. The thing that did it for me was the paper from Singapore that showed 18 graphs, daily coronavirus tests. And, the way they tell the difference between positive and negative is not because there's a black and white answer, but they run the PCR test 37 times, and if they can produce a detectable amount  of DNA they claim that it's positive. 
[00:25:37] If they can't by 37 cycles, they declare it negative. So positive and negative is just an arbitrary number. I have another paper from other scientists and they chose 36 why 36 why 37 and why not 40 why not 25 right? Like you could pick any number and you get different results with every number.
[00:25:57] So they monitored these 18 [00:26:00] patients over at least a week over two weeks in some cases, and in the majority of cases, the patients went from positive, infected, to negative, uninfected, and back to positive again, at least one time, often twice or three times. So if the test is accurate and positive means infected and negative means uninfected, then you cannot explain these results.
[00:26:28] Like, where are these people getting reinfected from? They're in isolation in a hospital. Now, if the, if the tests really can't tell, if the virus is all gone well, it's a lousy test, or if the test is picking up on other things, you know, maybe dead bits and pieces of the virus that aren't infectious. Well then it's a lousy test.
[00:26:48] You know, it's, it's like you've been checkmated, right? Like you can move here or here or here, but whichever way you move, you're losing the game. And [00:27:00] I think this is where they got themselves into checkmate. And I don't think the scientists who published this graph realized the significance. 

[00:27:07] Brendan D. Murphy: [00:27:07] Yeah. Okay. So it's a test that was never meant to be a test. Never meant for that purpose. 

[00:27:14] David Crowe: [00:27:14] Okay. Yes. Yes. It basically, what it basically does is, is takes RNA, well, it's DNA, but they, it's originally RNA. They convert it into DNA, so it's a little bit confusing and they keep doubling it. And then they say, you know, after say 30 cycles or whatever, they've produced a large amount of DNA, and if they can detect any DNA, then they say it's positive. But it's not like, you know, you, you put a sample into this machine and it says you have DNA or you don't, it's really a matter of degree. 
[00:27:56] And the same thing was done with HIV testing. The [00:28:00] antibody tests for HIV is not positive or negative. It is a continuum of color change, you know, originally on a piece of paper, right? So you add the blood and you add, you know, the chemicals and you mix it all together.
[00:28:14] And if each of the antibodies are there, the color changes. And so you measure the intensity of the color change. So what Robert Gallo did was he was having trouble with this test, so he was able to persuade the people who were testing the test, tell me about these people that I'm testing. And so he knew which ones had AIDS and which ones didn't.
[00:28:35] And so he moved the line until he maximized the positive on the side, the negative on this side. So his decision on where to put the arbitrary divider was based on, I want to get this test approved, right? And minimise the number of false positives.  It's people like Gallo and most scientists are not thinking, this is [00:29:00] fascinating and it's interesting and I just want to find out what's going on.
[00:29:03] They're thinking. I want to get this test approved. I want to get this drug approved. Right. And they're, they're never unbiased. And when government says, they often do just kind of stand back and let this happen, then they are betraying everybody. And really the citizens who, who don't pay attention are betraying themselves because you need to pay a lot of attention to these people. They'll get away with everything. Like, I mean, any drug company will naturally use any tricks to get a drug approved. 

[00:29:38] Brendan D. Murphy: [00:29:38] Yeah, totally. 

[00:29:39] David Crowe: [00:29:39] There was a funny article published in the British Medical Journal maybe 10 years ago. It was called Harlet, Inc, and I think they only use the word harlet in England, but it means prostitutes.
[00:29:50] And so this company was basically saying, the article was describing how this company was going to get your drug approved through using every legitimate [00:30:00] trick and cheat in the books, right? And so we're going to do this, this, and this and this. So we can guarantee you 100% that if you give us a drug, we will get an approval.
[00:30:10] Right, and it was tongue in cheek. It was, I think it was done around Christmas time. It was made to give everybody a laugh, but it's actually true. These companies exist and their only goal, they get their bonuses when a drug gets approved, they don't get a bonus for showing that that drug has a problem with increasing heart disease and shouldn't be approved.
[00:30:31] Like you get fired for that, or, yeah. Moved, moved to the warehouse to do some menial job.

[00:30:40] Brendan D. Murphy: [00:30:40] Filing cabinet duties or something. 

[00:30:42] David Crowe: [00:30:42] Yes. Yes.

[00:30:44] Brendan D. Murphy: [00:30:44] So, yeah, I mean, that's, that's what I've picked up myself from looking at the literature I've gone through is this problem of the motivation behind so much as apparent medical science is not the point. It's not driven by the urge to discover [00:31:00] something or understand something. It's driven by a preset agenda, get the drug approved, you know, hopefully I'll get a Nobel prize on, you know, they want status, prestige, money, all this kind of stuff. And it's just the, the voice of, you know, what used to be the spirit of science, its voice has been largely muffled now. 
[00:31:16] And it's like you say, these companies exist and people are getting articles ghost written, paying for these bogus pieces of scientific literature to be written in their name or, you know, have someone else write it, but they slap their name on it to give it credibility and all this kind of stuff. And most people don't have a clue how, how murky this whole arena really is. 

[00:31:34] David Crowe: [00:31:34] Yeah. I think that the doctors and nurses who are working in this crisis situation are genuinely doing what they think is right. This is what they've been trained to do. but after SARS, there was a lot of analysis of what had happened.
[00:31:50] And they, they basically said that the treatment was too aggressive in very specific ways. So there was too much intubation. So instead of putting a [00:32:00] mask on somebody's face to get them more oxygen, they were putting a tube down their throat, which is extremely dangerous. There is, there's diseases called ventilator-associated lung injury, ventilator-associated pneumonia.
[00:32:14] And then there's research that shows that these people who are ventilated are living through an incredible trauma because your body wants to get rid of it. So they have these wild dreams that are incredibly frightening, and nobody knows that this is what they're going through. So it's, it's kinda like, you know those people who are paralyzed, but they can actually think, and they're suffering intense pain and fear, and now they're in isolation.
[00:32:43] So there's nobody there to hold their hand. All they see is this mask in front of them, right? They don't even see a nurse's face, and their relatives are generally not allowed to be there. So ventilation is the big problem. They overused high dose [00:33:00] corticosteroids and that caused like permanent neurological deficits.
[00:33:04] It caused bone damage, which resulted in a whole lot of  joint replacements after the SARS epidemic, and then they used an antiviral drug called Ribavirin, and I don't know why they used it. They just kind of pulled it off the shelf. It was kind of a bit of an orphan drug. It had been used by hantavirus, but nobody gets hantavirus.
[00:33:22]it was used for hepatitis C, but I don't think it was terribly successful. So somebody must've said, well, this is the most potent drug we have, and it's basically AZT. It's in the same class of drugs. And so afterwards they said, yeah, well, Ribavirin caused haemolytic anaemia, the breakdown of your blood.
[00:33:41] And it caused, 75% of people had liver problems and it caused higher mortality. But I mean, the doctors were not doing this for any ulterior motive, they were doing this because they felt like they desperately had to save these patients. But what they didn't realize is that sometimes when you're too [00:34:00] desperate to save and you use too many medical interventions is overwhelmed people, especially if they're old and sick. 
[00:34:08] Like in Italy, the deaths from coronavirus, the first 2000 that they studied, average age 80 and in fact, there was essentially nobody under 60.
[00:34:20] There was like 4% of the deaths were under 60 so it was all people, mostly in their seventies and eighties then the nineties and then the sixties - that was kind of the order. And they looked at preexisting health conditions, and almost 50% had three or more. Things like diabetes, heart disease, kidney disease, liver disease, et cetera.
[00:34:45] 25% had two, 25% had one, and less than 1% had no preexisting health conditions. So you have this incredibly sick population. People who likely will die within the next couple [00:35:00] of years because they're old and they're sick. 

[00:35:02] Brendan D. Murphy: [00:35:02] Yeah. 

[00:35:03] David Crowe: [00:35:03] And if you treat them harshly with antiviral drugs. In the first Italian report, 52% of people got antiviral drugs that caused problems with SARS and 27% got corticosteroids and they got, 80% got antibiotics.
[00:35:21] So these people are dosed with pharmaceuticals. It didn't say how many were intubated; probably a lot of them. And this is just too much for their body to take. 

[00:35:34] Brendan D. Murphy: [00:35:34] Yeah. 

[00:35:34] David Crowe: [00:35:34] So it's quite likely that we will discover that this increase in deaths, which is definitely occurring in some places like Italy, may be largely, iatrogenic; caused by aggressive treatment of people who should be dealt with gently and without any expectation that they're going to live a long time, but maybe, you know, with good care they can get another year or [00:36:00] two out of their life, right? They got pneumonia. If you can get them over the pneumonia, they can go back home and they can continue with their life. 

[00:36:08] Brendan D. Murphy: [00:36:08] Yeah, I saw that with my grandmother who died a few years back, and she was very frail and elderly, and she would get a flu or pneumonia every year, like clockwork. She'd have pneumonia. I remember her having pneumonia and being hospitalized multiple times, and I would just cringe at the kind of treatment that someone in that situation gets.
[00:36:29] But yeah. Somehow she managed to survive the hospital intervention and going back to living. You know? It's like that's kind of a routine for a lot of elderly people is they have this cycle of pneumonia or whatever it is for them. 

[00:36:43] David Crowe: [00:36:43] Yeah. And I think the treatment now is much harsher. Like a report in England showed that about 75% of coronavirus positive people were being intubated within 24 hours of arrival. And the reason for this is actually [00:37:00] shocking; that the doctors and nurses are concerned about infection. So they're not doing this for the benefit of the patients. They're doing it for what they perceive as a danger to everybody else in the room. That this person, if you put a mask on their face, maybe the mask has to be taken off the times.
[00:37:18] And then this like cloud of coronavirus goes into the air, right? So to avoid that, they're intubating them, but intubation is a really harsh technique. And I've been talking to a doctor from New York with a lot of experience in this area, like, just trying to understand this, cause he told me that in my article I wasn't tough enough on intubation.
[00:37:39] I was talking about drugs and stuff like that, but he said, no intubation can be a really big problem. And once you intubate somebody. You cannot tell anymore whether they're declining is due to the disease or due to the intubation because both can cause health problems. 

[00:37:56] Brendan D. Murphy: [00:37:56] Yeah. Wow. Yeah. So with the situation we [00:38:00] have now and looks like, you know, struck certainly in Italy, you know, elderly, vulnerable people who are already in bad shape. And they probably would have been susceptible to the next round of the flu or whatever they get. And they're probably going to, a lot of them probably would have not made it through. That is what basically what I'm, what I'm seeing. 

[00:38:18]David Crowe: [00:38:18] Yeah. I think what they've done, if you think of a graph, I mean, let's imagine what the graph of deaths should have been going forwards. It's springtime, so deaths are declining, like there's a peak in the winter and they're not declining. So a lot of those elderly people would have died this year or next year. But what we're doing is they're moving their deaths forwards, creating a peak.
[00:38:38] An artificial peak. Now, I mean, that's a hypothesis. We don't know this, but what we may find, it may be hard to find it from the statistics, but there may actually be a decline in deaths after this is over because they've wiped out all their vulnerable people. Like all the elderly with multiple health conditions who got diagnosed with a [00:39:00] coronavirus are gone, and so their death is being moved forward.
[00:39:03] It's maybe six months. Or a year or something like that. 

[00:39:07] Brendan D. Murphy: [00:39:07] Yeah, and that's, that's very a very bitter pill for a lot of people to swallow is the idea that it's actually a medical intervention that is killing a lot of these people. 

[00:39:15] David Crowe: [00:39:15] Yes. I think SARS is a real parallel. And one of the groups that wrote about the problems with therapy was an expert committee of the World Health Organization was tasked to look at this and they wrote...
[00:39:32] ...... problems with corticosteroids. First of all, we don't know if it was effective, and secondly, it caused harm. Ribavirin, we don't know if it was effective and it caused harm. That's not exactly a resounding vote of confidence in the type of treatments. 
[00:39:47] There was another study from Hong Kong. There was one hospital that did not intubate people right away. They waited until they needed it. There were 13 hospitals that intubated SARS [00:40:00] patients immediately. The hospital that, waited to intubate had the worst patients. Right? They had the sickest patients coming in. Like as if they looked at the numbers, this hospital had the sickest patients. They had a four times lower death rate. And in the hospital that mostly did not intubate. They just put a mask on the face and there were zero transmissions of SARS to a healthcare worker. So this fear that  all the health care workers are going to get sick is , it doesn't seem to be founded.

[00:40:33] Brendan D. Murphy: [00:40:33] It doesn't seem to be founded. I'm wondering if you're aware, I'm sure you probably are, but there have been experiments done on tests run where they've taken sick people who've had like colds and flus or what have you, and they've tried to willingly infect healthy people by coughing on them and sneezing on them, this kind of stuff, and they didn't have a lot of success doing that.
[00:40:54] David Crowe: [00:40:54] Yeah. Joseph Goldberger, who's a famous name in the U S public health in the 1918 flu [00:41:00] epidemic, took a bunch of prisoners and he, he did the most disgusting experiments on them. I mean, I guess he must've offered the prisoners, you know, something good like, you know, a year off your sentence or something to get them to do this.

[00:41:14] So he took swabs out of the nose of a dying patient and he stuck it up the nose of the prisoner and he had dying patients cough on the prisoners. He had all of these things and not a single prisoner got sick and he was really disappointed. The prisoners, they thought, this is great. I got a year off my sentence, I got out of jail for awhile.
[00:41:35] But you know, it's, I mean, maybe being coughed on by some old guy isn't that much fun, but it's probably more fun than being in a jail in 1918 and, and I didn't get sick. So score! 

[00:41:50] Brendan D. Murphy: [00:41:50] It's win, win, win. Yeah. So he was looking to, I assume, he was looking to kind of prove the viral transmission or infectious paradigm and it didn't quite work out.

[00:42:00] [00:41:59] David Crowe: [00:41:59] Yeah, there's been a lot of, experiments like that. And they, they generally fail. They have more success with animals because they can do crazy things with animals. Like I talked about injecting stuff into the brain. I was, I was kind of surprised because, you know, if you're dealing with influenza, which is normally like a spray. You would think that what they do is they'd squirt something with the virus in front of the mouse and the mouse and breathe it in, and that would sort of simulate somebody sneezing. Right? But no, let's inject into your abdominal cavity or into your brain, or somewhere like this. 
[00:42:34] With coronavirus, they did an experiment on mice where they added, like what they considered coronavirus infected material to a cell culture. So cell culture is like cancerous cells and you mix it in the virus and supposedly the virus grows. You can never see the virus, but this is the theory. And then what you do is you take the liquid off the cell culture because you have to keep it covered with the liquid.
[00:43:00] [00:42:59] And that's supposedly contains all the virus. So you then filter it a little bit and maybe centrifuge it and do a few things like that. And then you have what you say is concentrated virus, which they never put under the microscope. Because, you know, they might find it's, it's actually a real mixture. In fact, they have at times and  they find it's a real mixture of a lot of different things, mostly probably cellular debris.
[00:43:24] And then they injected this into the nose of a mouse. And they managed to produce pneumonia in certain mice. Not mice with a normal immune system, but transgenic mice. But my thought is you've got foreign substances that could easily leak into the lungs. I mean, you're sticking a hypodermic needle up into the nose that could easily get into the lungs and cause the pneumonia. The control was saline. So obviously you get a little, saline in your lungs, unless you drown, it's not going to do you any harm. So it's not really a valid experiment. [00:44:00] It's not like taking pure virus, spraying it into the air, having the mice breathe in the droplets with coronavirus and then seeing if they get sick. That would be a realistic experiment. 
[00:44:13] Brendan D. Murphy: [00:44:13] Yeah. Yeah, I'd like to hone in on the idea of seeing the virus, because so many people seem to have this assumption that the scientists can see viruses and they know exactly what they look like and know exactly what they're dealing with.
[00:44:27] You know, here's a photo. And you know, you might say some white specks, and it's like, that's the virus. But you know, it's not clear cut like that, is it? 

[00:44:36] David Crowe: [00:44:36] No. So generally when you see photos of viruses, you'll see a couple of different kinds. One of them, you'll see the viruses, what they call virus particles up close.
[00:44:47] And there'll be maybe two or three of them quite large, but still so fuzzy that you cannot tell anything about them except they're spherical they're, you know, like a hundred nanometers across or something like that. And in the case of the coronavirus that [00:45:00] there's this vague little rim around it, which, you know, in other particles you don't seem to see.
[00:45:07] So, so that's one thing. Another type of photo is you'll see the virus particles much smaller. And what you will see is a whole bunch of stuff that's obviously not virus. We'll get to the question of whether the little particles are virus or not. And this is usually a photo from the cell culture. And so what they'll say is, Oh, we have viruses budding out of the cell culture.
[00:45:32] Well, there are things that are produced by our bodies called exosomes, microvesicles ectosomes, and these are particles that are identical to viruses, except we produce them. And they might be used for complex messaging, right? So instead of just hormones, the, the cell might wrap up a little bit of RNA into a protein coat, and expel [00:46:00] it from the cell, and it goes through the bloodstream and it gets to the liver, and then the liver does something, right? So if the lungs are having a problem, it may send out messengers, which go to other organs and get those organs to produce something that will help the lungs overcome the infection.
[00:46:16] These things are identical. So if you have an electron microscope picture, that's clearly unpurified material, you cannot tell that these are viral particles. 
[00:46:28] And for example, if your hypothesis is correct is that they are viral particles, then they must have the same RNA, as you say, is in the virus. But you can't look in an electron microscope picture and say, oh, I can distinguish what the RNA is, that's impossible. So the only way to know that the RNA and those particles matches what you're saying as viral RNA, is to purify. Because if all you have in in a sample is pure virus, then any RNA you extract from [00:47:00] that is from the virus. There's no other way to get the RNA out of the virus unless you say, I know what viral RNA looks like.
[00:47:10] So if I put in a RNA probe and it matches, that's a virus, right? That's, that's what they're basically saying. We, we as virologists know what viral RNA is. But if you go back and back and back through paper after paper after paper, somebody will have made the arbitrary decision where we found this RNA and we found these particles, they must match and you know, we're just going to take a wild ass guess that these two things are the same. 
[00:47:39] Brendan D. Murphy: [00:47:39] Yeah. So we ended up with this kind of, yeah, that unquestioned set of assumptions that just gets built on and built on and then it's like you had an industry full of people who all share the same assumption and they're working off of that. But I mean, I've seen very, very detailed, fancy looking computer generated images, models of supposed viruses [00:48:00] and you know, intimately fine details, all sorts of structures and things. how is it that you think we ended up in that place where we have the computer generated images and we have people talking about these viruses existing and this is what it looks like with certainty. How do we end up getting to that site? 

[00:48:17] David Crowe: [00:48:17] Well, I, I saw so many different images that were obviously not all the same thing that I asked if somebody who's interested in this area would put together a poster of all the different images. So you could clearly see that these clearly are not the same thing. So if scientists say they know what the coronavirus looks like, why are all of these, these, graphic designs so radically different? I mean, some of them look like a hundred armed octopus and others have these short stubby things on them, right? Like clearly nobody knows because the resolution of electron microscope is really not that great when you come to. What are considered to be virus particles, and, so it was [00:49:00] actually quite funny.
[00:49:01] And of course, they're all come in lurid colors. Obviously an electron microscope only produces black and white. There's just no way to get color. I mean, you've stained, you stain the, sample with things like uranium dyes, right? Like the preparation for electromicroscopy is, is very harsh because you need to get the things that will stop the electrons.
[00:49:26] And there aren't that many things. So lead and uranium are, are really good for this preparation. So there's no color, but you know, you want bright green, bright red, whatever. It is propaganda. But I think a lot of people who look at those pictures really think they're looking at an actual microscope photograph of a virus.
[00:49:47] And it's totally a figment of the imagination of some graphic designer who's told to come up with something and here's an electron microscope picture, "Come up with something scary. It kind of looks like this." I [00:50:00] mean, it's a dream job for graphic designer. At least they have jobs in the current climate.
[00:50:07] Brendan D. Murphy: [00:50:07] That's right. They're still doing pretty, pretty well at this point. Actually, business will be booming, I should think. I did send you one of those studies which had all those very rich pictures in it and the reason I passed it on is because if someone had said to me, "Oh, well, you're definitely wrong and coronavirus, COVID-19 definitely exists and here's what it looks like," and all this sort of stuff.
[00:50:27] And, and that's why I passed it to you. I wanted your opinion on it. And your first response was, "Well, they haven't, they obviously haven't purified for a start and obviously it's a computer model." 

[00:50:38] David Crowe: [00:50:38] Yes. And, the Rocky Mountain National Laboratory, you know, the National Institute of Health in the United States published some pictures, some of which may have been, electro-microscope pictures.
[00:50:49] But I wrote to the woman who created the images, and I said, "I want to know how you created this?" Because I believe that they [00:51:00] probably took a cell culture and they, they put a nasal swab in it. 
[00:51:04] And I think what happens - this is the only thing that makes sense - is you, you tell the lab tech, this is what a coronavirus looks like. So I want you to look through this field of view until you find something, it looks like this, and then you stop. And the, the virologist comes over and looks and says, "Yeah, that'll do, yeah, that's good." But there's like millions of other things that you went over. Other types of particles, little thread like particles and spherical particles without the corona and all these other things, and you just ignore everything.
[00:51:40] You just hone in and, and if you find a two or three cluster together, that kind of look right, then let's go for it. Well, we'll put those in the journal article, right? Or I'll put them on the National Institute Of Health website. Anyway, the woman did not write back to me. And that's, that's the [00:52:00] normal situation.
[00:52:01] I get responses from scientists who don't believe I have an ulterior motive. Did anybody asking what process she went through to get these images? Obviously it has an ulterior motive, right? 

[00:52:14] Brendan D. Murphy: [00:52:14] They couldn't just be curious and wanting to learn. 

[00:52:16] David Crowe: [00:52:16] No, no, no, no, no, no real journalist would ask that question because that's questioning the authority of the electron microscopist. 

[00:52:24] Brendan D. Murphy: [00:52:24] Yeah. Yeah. Well, most journalists are doing their jobs really well if that's the job description. 

[00:52:31] David Crowe: [00:52:31] If their job description is to destroy the world's economy and to take all fun out of life, then yeah, they're doing a really good job. 

[00:52:38] Brendan D. Murphy: [00:52:38] Yeah. Yeah. So, I mean, the social distancing rules and the self quarantine and all of this stuff, I mean, we've been talking about the fine sort of details of, you know, virology and what these things are supposed to look like and all that jazz. But if we pull back a bit, you know, how do you feel about all this? The measures that are being put in place at the moment? 

[00:52:57] David Crowe: [00:52:57] You can really get people upset if you ask for the [00:53:00] scientific evidence that this has ever worked, that gets people upset.
[00:53:05] I think where this comes from is public health officials are taught that the right way to deal with an infection is to exterminate it right off the bat. So if you can build this virtual little fence around the infected area. And then just like Ghostbusters, you go in there and you wipe out every virus particle in the fence. That's the end of it, right? 
[00:53:29] And so every public health official has this dream that they're one day gonna come across a situation where they can do this. And I, I think even if I believed in the entire viral theory, I would have to say that they have utterly failed. They do more tests. They find more cases. They look under the sofa, they find cases. They look in, you know, remote parts of the country, they find cases. No matter where they look, what group of people they look under, they always find like, you know, at least [00:54:00] half a percent positive. I mean, let's, let's take Canada, it's like 40 million people. So 1% is 400,000. Right? 
[00:54:10] So half a percent would be 200,000 so let's say it's half a percent of people are positive. That's 200,000 people in Canada who are positive. And if you keep on going, you will, until you test the whole population, you will keep getting more positive people. And it seems like this test varies over time, like the fact that people can be positive, negative, positive, negative, positive, negative, that kind of stuff.
[00:54:37] Means that if you tested everybody in Canada and then you went back and tested them all again, you'd get a significant number of people with discordant results, right? You tested them last time, they were negative, now they're positive, oh, they must've got infected. Or now they're negative, oh, they got cured. And then you go back a third time and it's like, oh, they're positive again. So, oh, I guess they got reinfected. 
[00:54:57] Like if you imagine that this [00:55:00] test was a random number generator. It would still produce the same kind of results as we're getting now. And the only way to get better results is if you have a way to validate the test, which is virus purification.

[00:55:19] Brendan D. Murphy: [00:55:19] Which isn't being done largely.

[00:55:22] David Crowe: [00:55:22] No. There's a saying about politicians that you can tell when they're lying when their mouth moves. And with virologists, when virologists use the word isolation, they're lying. Because when you hear isolation, you think it means purification. Not to a virologist. 
[00:55:41] If you throw impure materials into a cell culture and some of the cells in a cell culture die, that's isolation. If you find a protein you think is associated with the virus. That's isolation. If you find RNA, that's isolation. If there's a certain enzyme is active, that's isolation. If you look at under the electron microscope [00:56:00] and you see particles that look like a virus, that's isolation. It never means purification and virologists, almost never use the word purification because they never purify.

[00:56:10] Brendan D. Murphy: [00:56:10] Okay, so isolation is the keyword there for them.
 
[00:56:13] David Crowe: [00:56:13] Yeah, so you have to be very careful. Like I get people who mix them two, the two up and it's like in any other field it would be the same thing. Like if I isolated a new radioactive element as a physicist or I purified it, that would pretty much mean the same thing. Well, with virologists, it's two completely different things. 

[00:56:34] Brendan D. Murphy: [00:56:34] Yeah. Okay. Yeah. So, and it reminds me of the vaccine manufacturers, they have their own terminology as well, and when they say safe and effective, they have a definition for that, that is not what we think of as safe and effective. You know, the public thinks safe and effective means it's not going to hurt you and it works. It does what is advertised. But that's not the case. 

[00:56:56] David Crowe: [00:56:56] Yes. I'm still waiting for a [00:57:00] vaccine that has been approved with a true placebo, double blind randomized controlled trial with disease as the endpoint, because that's what you as a consumer want to prevent. You want to prevent influenza. You don't want to produce influenza antibodies right?
[00:57:20] Now, you might say, well, that's not the same thing. Well, it's not right? And, and so, I don't think there's been any viral vaccines that have been properly approved. And of course my critique about viruses maybe not even existing, you know, it's kind of a blow. I mean, if, if I'm right, then the whole vaccine industry, which is like 90% for viruses, is a total fraud. 

[00:57:48] Brendan D. Murphy: [00:57:48] Yeah. 

[00:57:48] David Crowe: [00:57:48] And given that it's not showing that it reduces disease, it's showing that it produces antibodies in the vast majority of cases, then it's easy to see how it could be a fraud. It [00:58:00] produces the antibodies that they say they want to produce, but those antibodies can't protect you against an imaginary animal. 

[00:58:09] Brendan D. Murphy: [00:58:09] And then so many people have who have a robust antibody response end up getting sick anyway, frequently with the disease the vaccine was supposed to prevent. 

[00:58:17] David Crowe: [00:58:17] Yes. Yeah. I mean, that's a whole nother area. I'm not as well educated on the whole vaccine thing, but I know enough that it's pretty disturbing.
[00:58:27] And when I left university. As a shiny new, you know, biology grad, I completely believed in vaccines. I completely believed in water fluoridation. I probably, I didn't really have any questions about medicines, right? Like, I just, even though my training was all in botany and things like that, I had no biomedical training at that point. But I, as a scientist, I felt like everything scientific I had to defend. Right? I mean, I was a bit of an environmentalist, so I had my concerns [00:59:00] about pesticides and things like that. So I did have some concerns about chemicals and I think that helped grow into my concerns about pharmaceutical drugs, right?
[00:59:09] Cause I knew the harm that chemicals could do, even though we were told, "Oh no, these are all perfectly safe pesticides". What does safe mean? Well, the mouse didn't drop dead when we gave him a little bit. He might even have cancer later, but we'd already killed him by that time. 

[00:59:27] Brendan D. Murphy: [00:59:27] Yeah. So that was, and I was going to ask you, and he's kind of read my mind. Your point of entry into this, like the thing that planted the seed of doubt for you, it wasn't that you know you, you had something, a screw loose in your brain and you just irrationally opposed to science or whatever. It's that you had a basis of doubt and over time through exposure and investigation. Do you remember having a point or part of the journey where you started to make that transition into questioning this kind of thing? Like the viral existence? 

[00:59:58] David Crowe: [00:59:58] Yeah, I remember the, [01:00:00] the night very well, but before that I, I remember it must've been around 1987 cause I used to listen to this Canadian science program called Quirks and Quarks.
[01:00:10] And they had this guy on and it must've been, he must've been talking about AZT. And he said it's really strange that we're using an immunosuppressive drug on a disease of immuno suppression, and I thought to myself, science is amazing. That's incredible. Like it's so, it's so counterintuitive. And then a few years later I'm going, no, this is not counterintuitive, this is just simply crazy. You know? 
[01:00:36] And in fact, the drug, AZT says right on the label that the something like the side effects of this drug are difficult to distinguish from the progression of AIDS. So it actually says we cause AIDS. If you kind rearrange the words a little bit, that's what they're saying.
[01:00:57] Yeah. So anyway, my son was [01:01:00] two, so that would have been 1988 a little bit of a year later. And, he wouldn't go to sleep and my wife was exhausted. Handed him to me and said, "You get him to sleep!" So I tried to put him down and he wouldn't sleep. So I put him on my shoulder and he was happy and I turned on the radio and they had this really intellectual program on late night in Canada, it must be like 10 o'clock at night or something. 
[01:01:25] And they're talking about people who don't think that HIV caused AIDS. So I listened to this whole program and then the next night as he had, I think part two. And I listened. I actually stayed up just to listen to this. and then I wrote away for the transcript because this was pre-internet so you couldn't go online and find anything. And they sent me the transcript and it had a few references, at the end of it, some books, I got a book out of the library and I looked up a couple of papers and that's when I kind of got hooked. And, when, I guess it was a few years later when Peter Duesberg published, Inventing [01:02:00] The AIDS Virus, which is like, it's a thick book. It's like a thousand pages. And I sat down for like a week every, every night after everybody was in bed. And I would read for like three or four hours, read this book. 
[01:02:12] And I thought after this that Peter Duesberg may not be right on every point he makes, but if he's right on 10% of his points, there's a serious problem. And if he's right on 50%, we have a massive problem, and I suspect he's right on about 90%, in which case this whole paradigm is utterly broken. And I don't think there's been a comprehensive rebuttal. Well, I know there, there hasn't been there, there was an attempt. 
[01:02:46] This is, this is just fascinating. Some scientists rote a recantation of Peter Duesburg's beliefs. And it was kind of like a religious document. So it's like they're dreaming that Peter Duesberg has come to his senses. [01:03:00] And so they wrote this paper that contradicted everything he believes, saying, "I accept that HIV is the cause of AIDS", you know, all this kind of stuff.
[01:03:08] And they wrote this paper and then sent it to Peter and and said, "Would you like to be a coauthor?" You know? In other words, would you like to recant your views? So Peter being an amazing scientist, he took this paper and he redlined it, so he changed it into into what he really thought. So he sent it back and they're going, you don't know how this game is played. This is not, this is not how we're playing this game. 
[01:03:36] Somebody told me about this, and I honestly did not believe that this happened, but I looked up the paper, and this is a little footnote. That says, Peter Duesberg was asked to coauthor this paper, but declined. And I don't know to the life of me why they would put that note in there because they're admitting, you know, we tried to pressure this guy into recantation but it shows [01:04:00] what kind of pressure there is on people to come back into line.
[01:04:07] I mean, his career was destroyed if it hadn't been for tenure, he would have been, he'd be working at Walmart right now. You know, just like an intelligence analyst to who blows the whistle on something bad the CIA is doing right? Like, you're not working in intelligence anywhere in the world anymore, and you're probably gonna have hard time getting any job above a minimum wage.

[01:04:33] Brendan D. Murphy: [01:04:33] Yeah. Yeah. So I mean, that's a common story. You know, the, the realm of the sort of corporate science constantly chews up and spits out rogues and mavericks, like Peter Duesberg, doesn't it? I mean, I've seen this multiple times. 

[01:04:47] David Crowe: [01:04:47] Oh yeah. Like I, I knew a math professor, a, you know, contract not renewed after she wrote a book. David Rasnick, who I just interviewed, who's a brilliant chemist and knows a lot about [01:05:00] drug development and electromicroscopy and things like that. I mean, he's been stymied at every turn in order to try to do some investigations. 
[01:05:08] The Perth Group in Australia, you know, when there was a court case where they were testifying for the defense they were investigated. Right? You know, things like, "Oh, you mentioned that you work for a hospital in Perth. That implies that we support your work, which we don't. So you need to remove every mention of your employment off your website." Right? Like it's stupid stuff like that. Like everybody else has a biography that says, "I am a professor at so-and-so you know, I have a consulting arrangement with Merck pharmaceuticals," this kind of stuff, but they want to say it. They say it, nobody objects. But all of a sudden, if you become a hot potato, it's like you need to pretend like we don't know you and you don't know us. 

[01:05:54] Brendan D. Murphy: [01:05:54] I don't want to be discredited by association, right? So I like this. [01:06:00] This has been a really, I think we've covered a lot of bases here, and. I feel like, we've probably ticked most of the boxes off the top of my head anyway, that I wanted to cover with this. You mentioned SARS and do you feel like speaking more to the SARS thing? Because that was a predecessor of this, and then, you know, SARS is supposedly a coronavirus. So what did you find specifically you, you've studied SARS. I know you've spent time on it. 

[01:06:20] David Crowe: [01:06:20] Yeah. So, so I looked for information on the toxicity of the treatments and, invasive ventilation intubation, corticosteroids, and Ribavirin were all tagged as "We tried them, they didn't seem to be effective, and they harmed people." But perhaps the funniest thing that I found, it was to do with the infectivity cause SARS was believed to be this massively infective virus. There was a story where somebody went into an elevator. Sneezed on an elevator button. And then a couple of hours later, somebody else went in the elevator and got SARS, you know, and that was how it was spread. There was no direct contact between these people, but they were in the [01:07:00] same elevator at the same hotel. 
[01:07:02] So the Chinese performed this accidental experiment in Guangdong, the epicenter of the SARS epidemic in China. They had an AIDS floor in the hospital with a bunch of empty rooms. So, of course, who do you think they should put there? Why don't we put the SARS patients there? So, so we'll put the most infectious virus known to man on one side of this floor. And on the other side, we have immune-suppressed people. What could go wrong? Not only that, they, they said that the patients could mingle at the end of, so it was a kind of a floor where there was a bunch of wards and then there was a corridor for the staff, and then there was a bunch more wards.
[01:07:48] And at each end it was an open area where the patients could mingle and they've mingled freely. the corridor between the two sides had open windows on both sides. So there was free air flow [01:08:00] through the entire floor. One of the AIDS patients was accidentally housed with SARS patients. So, you know, so even if you say, well, all the AIDS patients were on the other side and ignore the fact that they were able to mingle, you've got this one guy who's stuck in with a bunch of SARS patients, and the total number of AIDS patients who got SARS was of course zero. 
[01:08:23] So that kind of proves that this highly infectious virus wasn't really so infectious when you got a chance to check it out to test it out. And of course this would have been a completely unethical experiment if you had suggested, why did we run this experiment? We'll put SARS and AIDS patients in the same room and see if the AIDS patients die of SARS. I think you might have trouble with the ethics committee, but the Chinese did this accidentally, and it kinda to me, disproved that SARS was terribly infectious.
[01:08:57] Oh, another, another fascinating thing I [01:09:00] found was a direct correlation between the GDP and the death rate. So the higher the GDP, the higher the death rates. And I believe that this is really a surrogate marker for the aggressiveness of the treatment. So, for example, in Canada, they used double the dose of Ribavirin as in China, and it was by injection, not oral.
[01:09:23] So the amount of Ribavirin patients were getting in Canada, it was probably about four times what they were actually getting in China. So a much more toxic dose. I mean, that seems pretty strange that Canada and Singapore and Hong Kong, the richest countries had the highest death rate. Taiwan, which was intermediate, had a medium death rate, and China and Vietnam, the poorest countries, had the lowest death rate.
[01:09:49] You know, doesn't really make sense if modern medicine is, you know, really doing anything good. If the aggressive treatment is killing people, then this makes perfect [01:10:00] sense. And I think that's further evidence that that was the case. 

[01:10:04] Brendan D. Murphy: [01:10:04] Yeah. And it's not like you're a lone nut saying this. I mean, someone wrote a paper, I forget the name of the author now, and she rated the American medical system as the third leading cause of deaths in the country. That's probably being pretty generous even possibly. 

[01:10:18] David Crowe: [01:10:18] Well, yeah, there was a paper in the Journal of the American Medical Association, I think, I think it looked at the year 1998 and it said that in that year, they estimated that 106,000 Americans were killed by properly prescribed pharmaceuticals in hospitals. Yeah. Let's parse that sentence. So, properly prescribed, this does not include overdoses or the wrong drug or other improper prescriptions. Right. That's like another 30,000 deaths.
[01:10:47]In hospitals. So it doesn't include prisons, doesn't include over the counter, probably doesn't include a lot of mental institutions, or at least not, like halfway houses, things like [01:11:00] that. So there's a lot more drugs that are prescribed. So that  106,000 is probably a significant underestimate.
[01:11:07] And, it could be like, as you say, the third leading cause of death. And, by some calculations, if you include surgical errors, hospital acquired infections and other things, you could get up to a million deaths a year. And it would be the leading cause of death in America would be medicine.
[01:11:27] So yes, there's problems. And that's not to say there aren't amazing things that, that medicine could do. Like, I just want to say to all the doctors out there that if I get hit by a bus, I want, I want you to take me to emergency because that's the only place for me to go because you're really good at that.
[01:11:44]Medicine was developed in times of war, industrial accidents, you know, traffic accidents, things like that. And they can do amazing things with like plastic surgery for burns and fixing broken bones and things like that. But when you go to the doctor and [01:12:00] say, I'm sad . That might not end well. You might end up dependent on psychiatric drugs.
[01:12:07] When you go take an HIV test, you might be perfectly healthy and you're only doing it because, you know, community says everybody should get tested. So you get tested and you're positive and it ruins your life and you end up on drugs that cause you tremendous problems. So I don't know how much good the system does versus harm, but there's definitely a lot of people getting harmed.

[01:12:29] Brendan D. Murphy: [01:12:29] Yeah. Yeah. There's no, there's no doubt about that and as far as the COVID-19 situation is concerned, there's a massive amount of. And I'm seeing this, and I saw, I saw a couple of days ago, a, a delivery guy rocked up in a van in the driveway, and I went out to greet him and take the package from him, forgetting, of course, all this social distancing rubbish, which in my reality doesn't even exist. It's not even a thing. 

[01:12:53] David Crowe: [01:12:53] Right.

[01:12:54] Brendan D. Murphy: [01:12:54] Of course, in this gentleman's reality, it's very real. Yes. So I [01:13:00] approached him and he was like, stay back, stay back. You know, put the package on the ground and I wasn't allowed near him. And it was really bizarre. And it reminded me how programmed most people are and the level of emotion behind it right now.   So many people are really pent up with just fear and, and they, become quite threatening towards people like us, when we're actually just asking questions. We're asking questions that they're not happy with it..... Stay away. 

[01:13:27]David Crowe: [01:13:27] Yeah. And I mean, these, these absurd lengths that they go to. That you know, you think, is there any scientific justification for these?
[01:13:37] Like where I live, I'm near the mountains. So there's many recreation areas for skiing and biking and all kinds of other things, right? And they've closed all the washrooms. Now toilets were created for public health reason, not for convenience to people. I mean, that is obviously a convenience to people, but they don't want people defacating all [01:14:00] around the parking lot. Well, what's going to happen if you close the washroom? So you, you're so scared of the coronavirus that we now are going to have human feces lining  every recreation area. They closed the children's playgrounds, but not the park benches. So, you know, at the children's playground, the children who are like the least likely to be affected by this supposed coronavirus cannot play.
[01:14:23] But some old guy, who can barely walk, you know, he sits on the bench to catch his breath and he's coughing and there's coronavirus all over the place. And then some other people come along and sit on the bench. And that's okay, because these, these decisions they're making make no rational sense. Like, we're, we're not allowed to have, meetings here, have more than 50 people.
[01:14:47] But I can go to the grocery store with like 300 people packed into a small area, and that's just fine. And obviously we have to eat. We die if we couldn't go to the grocery store. [01:15:00] But like if it was really that deadly, they, they would have come up with some solution. Right? So I think this is kind of like security airport. It's more of a placebo than anything else.
[01:15:12] We have to be seen as public health officials. You have to be seen doing something. The question is they also have to be seen getting results, and right now they're not really getting results, and the only way they can get results is to either do less tests or to somehow find a way to make sure that the vast majority of tests are negative.
[01:15:31] And I, I could explain to them how to do this right. Like if you change from 37 PCR cycles, to 25 you'll get rid of most of the positives. Right? Same test, same RNA, same everything, but all of a sudden the number of positives dropped down. So you just have to write a little memo saying, you know, we've discovered that the test is too sensitive if you do 37 cycles, so we're suggesting 25. And then bingo. Hey, what great people we are, [01:16:00] we've solved the problem! All our social distancing worked. 

[01:16:05] Brendan D. Murphy: [01:16:05] We've cured the virus. Wonderful, amazing. 

[01:16:07] David Crowe: [01:16:07] Yeah. So now you need to give us all medals and go back to normal life and just wait for the next pandemic cause it's coming. Yeah, we'll give you, we'll give you a year off. 2022 you know, that's not going to be such a good year. 

[01:16:23] Brendan D. Murphy: [01:16:23] It's like clockwork. There's always something that we're supposed to be terrified of, and it's always some infectious, invisible thing. Don't ask questions. Just trust the officials, the health visuals, the public officials, and every year it's like the same template, but this year they've managed to ratchet it up to a whole other level of intensity, haven't they. 

[01:16:39] David Crowe: [01:16:39] I don't know if they knew what they were getting into. I don't know if they knew that, that it would end up this way. And I think it was a confluence of factors. Like I think, from the Chinese perspective, the Chinese want Western approval for their medical system. So they were desperate not to be seen covering it up.
[01:16:58] They were desperate to use all the [01:17:00] Western machinery to do this, that kind of stuff. And then Westerners were saying, Oh, Chinese people eat bats. Probably raw and bats have coronavirus. So we've got this new virus that came from a bad eating habits of Chinese people who will eat anything that moves, right?
[01:17:19] Like, so it was kind of like the Chinese racism. I think it was part of it as well. And so those, those two things for the Chinese, their motivation for going overboard was different than ours. What if the virus had come from Bolivia or something like maybe it wouldn't be so exciting, but because it came from China, and this means so much to anti-Chinese propaganda politically, the last few years that the concentration camps in Xinjiang or wherever, it's like all you get about China is negative news, right?
[01:17:47]They never talk about the good things that are going on in China. It's always the bad things. And so Westerners are primed to believe anything bad that comes out of China and it, and certainly there are bad things that come out of China, but [01:18:00] not everything. And I think we fell for it this time.
[01:18:05] Yeah. 

[01:18:05] Brendan D. Murphy: [01:18:05] Most things are made in China. So, you know, they've got a pretty good strike rate. 

[01:18:09] David Crowe: [01:18:09] iPhones come from China. When you consider where China was a hundred years ago, you know, as a feudal state and now you go there and the transportation infrastructure is far more modern than Australia, which is far more modern than Canada.
[01:18:25] Like if I see a train, a passenger train in Canada, well. I can't because there aren't any to go to my city anymore, there haven't been for like 30 years. If I saw one, it would be this slow lumbering diesel. Whereas in China it's, this high speed train and it's zooooooom, and it's gone, right? In Canada, 10 minutes from now, I can still be taking pictures of the passenger train.

[01:18:50] Brendan D. Murphy: [01:18:50] Yeah. If he's down on the platform in China, when it goes past, you end up on the tracks. 

[01:18:54] David Crowe: [01:18:54] Just, just about, yeah. I've actually been in Chinese train stations where like [01:19:00] the middle track, which is for trains that aren't stopping when a train goes through and it's like everything shakes, right? It's like booooom and then there's blur goes by. It's like, Oh, I'm glad I wasn't on the tracks in that one.

[01:19:13] Brendan D. Murphy: [01:19:13] Yeah. So yeah, I think, I think there is something to that whole psychological angle. societies are always looking subconsciously to scapegoat someone or something. This year it seems to be China, the Chinese people who we're scapegoating.

[01:19:27] David Crowe: [01:19:27] Yeah, and I mean, people are, are really angry at Trump when he calls it the China virus. But that's what everybody's thinking. I mean, it's kind of like with HIV, it is always going back to Africa. And it always went back to weird sexual practices or people eating monkeys. So it was either people having sex with monkeys or people eating monkeys.
[01:19:46] Right. So you don't have to be racist. You just say, well this is a scientific fact. We, we know this was going on for awhile. They talked a lot about dry sex where a man would dry out their women's vagina and then have [01:20:00] sex with them cause they liked the roughness. And you know, you're basically saying that black men are sexual beasts. I mean, this has been part of European culture for centuries, "The reason we have to civilize black men is because they're beasts. And so AIDS gave polite people a way to say horrible thing about black man, but it was all scientific. But of course, people buy into it because there's latent anti-black racism everywhere.
[01:20:29] So if you come up with some story about what's happening in Africa, everybody goes, yeah, you know, deep down we know that's what those black people do. 

[01:20:38] Brendan D. Murphy: [01:20:38] I mean, it was only in the, I think it was 60s or 70s in Australia where we declassified our original people as fauna. They had been classified as fauna up until that point.
[01:20:49] Really? 

[01:20:50] David Crowe: [01:20:50] But yes, it's, I mean, I, I, you know, to give the West credit, we've come a long way. We have a long way to go. but there has been a lot of [01:21:00] efforts to try to normalize relations in Canada and Australia, between, Aboriginal people and the colonists, right? And it's not been easy. And like, recently in Canada, Aboriginal people, native groups were blocking the train tracks . Which was causing problems, but minor problems compared with the coronavirus, but just the illustrates that we're, we're just not there yet. And of course, whenever something like that happens, there's a lot of anti-native racism and there's a lot of bad feelings on both sides. But here, I definitely think anti-China sentiment has played a role. 

[01:21:39] Brendan D. Murphy: [01:21:39] Yeah. And Trump has that beautiful gift for saying what a lot of people are thinking and saying the unspeakable. 

[01:21:46] David Crowe: [01:21:46] Yes. I mean, I know I've, I've worked in the U S quite a bit and I know there's a lot of latent racism in the U S and I've been surprised at what people have said, like people I know as friends and respect, [01:22:00] and then they'll say something and I go, Oh, you know, deep down there's still some issues here. 
[01:22:08] Like I remember one guy I knew told me that at this, ski hill in Colorado, there was this, every year there was this group where, a group of black man when skiing, right, just a social group. And, he said, I found out about this and no way I'm bringing my daughters out skiing when this is going on, right? You know, I'm going like, I'd never heard him say anything racist, but you know, I realized that under the surface, it's still there with a lot of people. 

[01:22:44] Brendan D. Murphy: [01:22:44] Yeah. It's like they're not, they don't mean to be malicious, but that that programming on a subconscious level, it's like that legacy program, that mind virus, we're still carrying from generation to generation.

[01:22:58] David Crowe: [01:22:58] I asked a [01:23:00] Chinese friend, I said, does anybody in China eat bats? And she laughed. Like, I've never heard of that, right? Like, I'm not saying it's never happened. It probably has, because in societies where you didn't have much, everything that moved was, you know, a potential target for Eden, right?
[01:23:20] I mean, in the, in the West, 200 years ago, people ate stuff that we would never eat, right? They eat all the organs of all the animals, now city people, it's like it's a steak or nothing, right? Like liver, kidney, you know, heart like we're not going to eat stuff like that. Just, well, crush it up and put it in a hot dog and we might eat it. 

[01:23:42] Brendan D. Murphy: [01:23:42] Exactly. Exactly. All right, so I don't want to keep you too long because I know it's your nighttime. Let's wrap it up. Let's kind of tie it up in a nice little bow for people. What's your overall assessment and message that people really need to grasp right now about this coronavirus situation?

[01:23:57]David Crowe: [01:23:57] The science is [01:24:00] not strong and needs to be questioned, and I think public health officials need to be put in the interrogation room. By that I mean journalists need to ask them some tough questions like, what's the false positive rate? What's the consequence of false positives? Why are we putting these frail old people on experimental drugs? Is there anybody benefiting financially from this? Are we risking people by over intubating? So, so public health officials need to be asked some tough questions. And that starts by people looking at the science. And right now there's actually, a group of articles by senior medical scientific people, who are questioning the panic and many of them are coming from a completely mainstream approach. Just saying that the death rate is exaggerated dramatically, recently somebody said by orders of magnitude, maybe a hundred times, therefore we should not be [01:25:00] reacting in this way. This is just like another flu. They believe everything about the virus, except this exaggerated death rate. 
[01:25:09] So I think people need to look for some of this information, read some of these things, and educate themselves to the point where when somebody says, but we have no choice, we have to do that. You can say, you know, there's some pretty well established scientists who are saying, no, we don't need to be doing this, and this is actually crazy to be doing it. 

[01:25:29] Brendan D. Murphy: [01:25:29] Yeah. And I'm glad those voices of dissent are growing, they do seem to be getting a little bit louder. The question I forgot to ask you earlier was,  there's been stuff circulating about China online, I've seen some pretty bizarre videos about things that are apparently happening there, but I haven't looked into it.
[01:25:45]I mean, what, what's your understanding of what's actually happening in China? Are they bodies in the streets? What's going on there? Do you know? 

[01:25:52] David Crowe: [01:25:52] Well, I don't know anybody in Wuhan, but I know somebody in a city, a few hundred kilometers away, which was [01:26:00] under lockdown for about a month. But now, life is pretty much back to normal.
[01:26:06] This person I talk to pretty regularly does not know any coronavirus victims. Mmm. And, the buses are running again. The trains are running again. Most people are back to work. Obviously, people are all wearing masks and you get your temperature taken it every time you go to a shop and, all this kind of stuff.
[01:26:25] So there's still a lot of these supposed protections in place, but in terms of being able to go out onto the street and walk, there's more people every time. So I think in another month it will probably be back to normal. And once people kind of get over their fear, like once they realize that they walked to the work 10 days in a row and they haven't died of the coronavirus, it's like, maybe I should stop worrying about it.
[01:26:53] Like I've got other things to worry about. Like, I, I lost so much income. Right? You know, how am I going to [01:27:00] pay for my vacation now that I can think about taking a vacation? Stuff like that. I think it is going back to normal, but yeah, no stories of piles of dead bodies and stuff, but I, you know, I don't know what was going on in Wuhan. It was obviously a lot more serious than anywhere else in terms of the restrictions on people. And there were a lot of people diagnosed and there were a lot of deaths. And what caused those deaths is, is disputable, no question. Some of the stories about how somebody looked at satellite images and said, Oh, they're burning thousands of bodies in Wuhan. I think that was a bit of a stretch. Other people said that the signal coming from the satellites was probably incinerating gloves and gowns and all of those things which have chemicals in them. Which you would expect, right? Because everybody's wearing these disposable gloves and gowns and other equipment that would cause a massive spike in the amount of incineration of certain chemicals.

[01:27:58] Brendan D. Murphy: [01:27:58] Yeah, for sure. For sure. [01:28:00] I've seen some interesting variations on that theme that are pretty gruesome and grim, but again, I don't know if they're verifiable or not. I haven't checked into them enough. Some of it seems like it might be deliberate disinformation serving whoever's agenda or purpose, whatever it might be . The common sense point of view here is that even if you do make the assumption that coronavirus is a real thing, and it has been identified, at the very least, we've massively, massively overreacted to something that is otherwise in most parts of the world by far, really not much different from any other kind of flu season or what have you.

[01:28:35] David Crowe: [01:28:35] Yeah. Like I think if we'd done nothing, I mean, somebody asked me this the other day. I said, if we had done nothing, then nothing would've happened, we would've had old people in the hospital with pneumonia. Like last year. Like next year. That's, that's all. And you know, maybe it would have been a little bump in, in deaths, maybe. But we really can't tell because of the overreaction. [01:29:00] When you have a pandemic virus, that's what's perceived, then you get treated differently. There's no question about it.
[01:29:07]Another thing, I mean, I guess I did mention this with intubation. These people have these horrible dreams and this sort of feeling of, of being in a nightmare the whole time. Compare that to last year when that same person with pneumonia would have been in a hospital bed with their son or daughter at the side visiting them. And if they were scared or hurting, it was a nurse who could hold their hand. I mean, now there's no hand to hold. There's a rubber glove and there is no face. There is a mask. So these weak, old people are kind of in a post-modern, science fiction movie. Like you, you wake up and you're surrounded by aliens and, you cry out for somebody and there's nobody there to hear you. Yeah. I can't imagine what it does to [01:30:00] people.

[01:30:00] Brendan D. Murphy: [01:30:00] Yeah, it's pretty dehumanizing what's going on out there and all in the name of preventing the spread of something that we haven't even been able to prove that can spread. 

[01:30:09]David Crowe: [01:30:09] Well, here's the most dystopian thing of all. England is converting a warehouse or like some kind of facility that's a kilometer long. It's one building. It's like an open building and I think they're putting in 400 beds. And it has two morgues. So they expect these people to die. So can you imagine if you're an old person on a ventilator and you're, you know, you probably have a little thin paper curtain around you. And occasionally through the little cracks and the curtain, you can see this person being wheeled over to the morgue. And occasionally some person in a spacesuit comes in to look at you and that's all you're going to see. Like, how long are you going to survive? It's a nightmare. And I think for the staff too, it would be like working in a morgue, The Night Of The Living Dead kind of thing.
[01:30:57] You've got 400 identical people. You [01:31:00] can't see them because they're already got so much machinery and stuff, and all is the sound of ventilators and the smells of chemicals and things like that. It'd be a great science fiction movie, but sadly could be reality. 

[01:31:12] Brendan D. Murphy: [01:31:12] Yeah. Well, let's, let's hope it doesn't get that far. It sounds like in China, they're on the way back, in some parts at least, to normality, some version of normality. There've been rumblings Trump is gonna return America to normality in the not too distant future.

[01:31:26] David Crowe: [01:31:26] I would forever love Trump if he did that. He's done a lot of things that I despise him for, but I will forgive everything if he turns this around through his own ego because he just doesn't want to take orders from even Tony Fauci, the head of National Institute Of Health. If he can tell Tony Fauci to F off, just because he's an egotistical bastard, I'll kiss him on both cheeks. 

[01:31:53] Brendan D. Murphy: [01:31:53] I love that his ego can potentially allow him to do that stuff and it makes him so entertaining in the process as well. 

[01:32:00] [01:31:59] David Crowe: [01:31:59] Yes. He's definitely entertaining. I mean, Boris Johnson was entertaining, but they've turned him into a puppy dog, right? Like he's totally in the grip of the public health officials now.
[01:32:10] Now he's been diagnosed. His life's in danger. 

[01:32:13] Brendan D. Murphy: [01:32:13] Oh, right. 

[01:32:14] David Crowe: [01:32:14] He's, he's positive now, right? Prince Charles is positive. The Prime Minister of Canada's wife was positive. I mean, it's like all the famous people, like if you didn't get coronavirus this year, you're not in the in crowd. 

[01:32:27] Brendan D. Murphy: [01:32:27] Yeah. That's right, you're losing status points right there?

[01:32:31] David Crowe: [01:32:31] Yes. 

[01:32:32] Brendan D. Murphy: [01:32:32] Crazy. Well, look, David, I really appreciate you taking the time to have this chat and to spread some reason and some logic and measured sort of perspective on the subject , which I think is sorely needed right now. And I think everyone should definitely read your very well-investigated and researched ebook, "Coronavirus Panic", which I've read, which is excellent.
[01:32:53] And where will they find you to check out more of your work or your books, for example? 

[01:32:58] David Crowe: [01:32:58] Well, [01:33:00] theinfectiousmyth.com, and I do hope to produce a comprehensive book at some point. And I'm really motivated now. I feel this is my purpose in life is to write this book.
[01:33:09] After that, I can go to the warehouse. They can get rid of me.

[01:33:18] Brendan D. Murphy: [01:33:18] Don't be in too much of a hurry. 

[01:33:19] David Crowe: [01:33:19] There could be a sequel. Yes. No, I plan to resist being carted off to the dystopian warehouse for a long time. 

[01:33:30]Brendan D. Murphy: [01:33:30] We shall resist. Yay. so, what was the name? theinfectiousmyth.com? 

[01:33:34] David Crowe: [01:33:34] theinfectiousmyth.com

[01:33:36] Brendan D. Murphy: [01:33:36] theinfectiousmyth.com
[01:33:37] Awesome. Well, yeah, thank you again, mate. And I'll be sharing this everywhere and shouting from the rooftops. And that, ladies and gents, has been David Crowe and David, thank you so much, and I'm sure we'll check in again at some point to have another chat about things as they develop. 

[01:33:51] David Crowe: [01:33:51] Thank you for allowing the discussion.

[01:33:54] Brendan D. Murphy: [01:33:54] It's my pleasure. No problems at all. 

[01:33:56] David Crowe: [01:33:56] Okay. Goodbye 

[01:33:57] Brendan D. Murphy: [01:33:57] Ciao for now. Thanks. [01:34:00]