Stephen Malthouse MD
Stephen Malthouse MD is a Canadian physician who has been in family medical practice for more than 40 years and a member of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia since 1978.
He is a passionate advocate for homeopathic healing which he practices.
Dr. Malthouse came into the public eye after writing an open letter to Dr. Bonnie Henry, the provincial health officer for BC, about the lack of evidence for lockdowns, masks and social distancing.
Owing to the accelerating massive hike in censorship during the past few days, I’ve added a Telegram channel https://t.me/dryburgh.
As the COVID-19 lockdowns and restrictions continue across Canada, some say it’s too little too late while others believe it’s too much and is making things worse, not better. Joining me from Denman Island, BC, to discuss this even further is Dr. Stephen Malthouse, a family physician. Dr. Malthouse, thank you so much for joining us today.
Thank you for inviting me.
All right. So you’ve written an open letter to Dr. Bonnie Henry which is BC’s provincial health officer, voicing concerns over the approach that the government has taken to flatten the curve of COVID-19.
Now you believe the evidence clearly shows that the pandemic is over and that there is no second wave or that no second wave will follow. So can you maybe please explain this because the public keeps hearing that the number of COVID cases continues to rise and is out of control.
Well, you have to differentiate COVID cases, which are people that have positive PCR tests, and those could be completely healthy people without any symptoms. And the majority of them are like that.
Those would be determined to be cases. Now, normally in medicine a case is someone who’s actually sick. Now, these aren’t sick people.
And then when you look at hospitalizations and death and also ICU admissions, we see that there’s been no change in the last year than what we’ve seen in previous years.
So looking at all cause mortality is the most important measurement. And the reason behind that is because the COVID diagnosis is based on a PCR test. This is where they take a swab from your nose, and then they amplify it multiple times. Normally you would amplify that 25, maybe 30 times at the maximum. It’s a bit like taking a Xerox and then re-Xeroxing the Xerox then re-Xeroxing the Xerox and then re-Xeroxing the Xerox in attempt to actually identify and match up RNA, which is taken from that swab with the RNA from coronavirus.
January 4, 2021
“you have to differentiate COVID cases, which are people that have positive PCR tests, and those could be completely healthy people without any symptoms. And the majority of them are like that.”
Now, if you over amplify that, which in Canada, they’re doing 33 to 45 times across the different provinces. Then you will actually make everybody positive who’s got any little bits of RNA in their nose, and it doesn’t indicate that they’re actually infected. These people cannot pass it on.
So what you’re doing is you’re finding what we call cases, but these are not really sick people. So if you keep talking about cases on the news, everyone’s going to be misled and that’s what’s happened.
So people are running around frightened of these cases. We call it a casedemic. But in fact, there are very few patients who have COVID at this time.
So when we look at what happened in the spring and also what’s happening right now, we see that the normal curves, the influx of patients – you know, some to the hospital, of course – but people getting sick, is what we would normally see at these times a year. There’s been no change.
Okay. So what about the concerns of increasing numbers of COVID cases in our hospitals? And the people are worried that the hospitals are going to be overwhelmed. So many people feel that this is a very real possibility. So you don’t see it that way, then?
No. If you look at the number of people, we look at the coroner reports, for example, over this last year, we see right now, at least up until December the seventh, where we have reports is that the number of patients that have died from this, is exactly what we’ve seen in previous years.
It’s a little bit more this year, but you know, we’ve seen as the patient population, as the population ages, we’re going to see more people getting sick, but this is what we would typically see this time of year.
And there’s been lots of epidemiologists looking at this around the world. There’s really been no change.
Now we will see that ICU’s get full up and hospitals get more patients in them, but this is what we would expect. This is not due to COVID.
Now, if you look at the COVID diagnosis, this is based on the PCR test, which is beginning to be completely undermined.
We see that PCR test as I mentioned earlier, because of the way they’re using it, it was never intended to be used as a diagnostic test to start with. But because everything is based on that, it’s been like, it’s based on sand essentially.
It’s like building your house on sand and there it’s very difficult to actually call someone a COVID case based on PCR testing.
Clinically, there are some unusual characteristics and those may help you make a diagnosis, but we’re not saying, we never did see a pandemic in the spring and we’re certainly not seeing a second wave now. What we have is the normal fluctuation in admissions to hospitals, sick patients, you might see in the outpatient clinic, ICU admissions and and deaths. This is quite normal for this time of year.
Okay. So I’m just curious then if you’re saying that the deaths is actually quite normal, what were people dying of before? Was it just the flu and different, different things?
Yeah. People would die of what we call influenza-like illnesses and that could contain COVID. Not saying there wasn’t a disease called COVID.
I’m just saying that we don’t really, we’re not able to easily to differentiate that from other things like influenza. So you may have seen that if you look at the records that influenza seems to have disappeared around the world. Now you have to ask yourself, why is that? There are various possibilities.
One is influenza could be being diagnosed as COVID, as you know, there was incentivization for doctors in the hospitals to label things as COVID. So it could be that we’re actually mislabeling influenza or mislabeling other types of coughs and colds type symptoms and so forth.
I mean, we do have sick people and there’s no doubt about that. We have ICU admissions, we have some unusual characteristics in terms of lung findings and so forth. And the deoxygenation for people that were diagnosed with so called COVID, but you know, the whole COVID diagnosis has completely been undermined by the fact that the PCR test is not valid.
And that was recently, I would say, a ruling was made in the Portuguese court that actually threw out PCR tests as having anything to do with a diagnosis of COVID.
Okay. So let’s talk about masks for a second there. So wearing masks in public places is now a requirement across much of our nation. So what does the medical evidence say on this?
Well, the evidence for masks is actually that they don’t work and they’re more harmful than than we would suspect. And there’re various reasons that.
First of all, we’re talking about aerosolized tiny particles. These are 0.1 micrograms in size, microns in size. And so that they are they actually pass out through the sides and tops and bottoms of the mask. They can actually pass right through the mask in many cases because it’s aerosolized, it goes out into the air and it can linger in the air for one to three hours. So there’s no way you can contain that by wearing a mask or social distancing.
January 4, 2021
“influenza seems to have disappeared around the world… there was incentivization for doctors in the hospitals to label things as COVID.”
Masks are actually a mistake. The downsides of masks are multiple. Physically, they actually, they shred, they contain your exhalation. So you’re re-inhaling things that are coming out of your own body, trying to get rid of them.
And so your risk of getting pneumonias, infections, and what the dentists are now seeing as “mask mouth“, are much higher and there are other things that would cause that, you know, the shreds of all sorts of particles come off the mask themselves, which can potentially cause lung disease later in life.
But I think one of the major things that we need to look at a mask is a psychological effects of masking people. If you’re walking around in a community that has masks on, everybody thinks there’s something terrifying out there that you should be frightened of. And that is not the case.
Secondly, they block facial expressions. So people can’t relate to each other. They are taking the humanity out of other humans. And for children it’s causing damage to not just their psychology from the point of view of being able to properly socialize, but also their ability to read people’s expressions and to learn.
So parts of their brains will be affected by that. Additionally, we have also seen that carbon dioxide levels go up and oxygen levels go down with masks. That’s pretty clearly shown. OSHA in the United States has demonstrated that multiple times.
And we normally would want to fit people for masks and all that stuff and make sure that they are capable of withstanding the low oxygen tensions and the carbon dioxide.
No one should be wearing a mask for a long period of time. It’s very dangerous to people’s health and to their psychology as well.
January 4, 2021
“evidence for masks is actually that they don’t work and they’re more harmful than than we would suspect.”
And we’re seeing that in communities, you know, if children are frightened and they think also they’re going to be killers and they’re going to kill their family members, if they go close to them and this is completely untrue. So we’re teaching children to be frightened of going near other humans, afraid to go near other family members and being isolated. And this is actually a torture technique that’s used by the CIA.
Oh my goodness. I think we’re almost getting so used to seeing people in masks that you almost don’t even see the mask anymore though. So you were mentioning, I know. So you were mentioning social distancing isn’t effective either then. Talk about that a little bit.
Well, social distancing, keeping six feet, it’s just a rule of thumb. If you spit, it’ll go about six feet and drop to the floor because it’s a large moisture collection, right. But with aerosolized spread, it goes much further.
There are studies showing that it goes at least 26 feet and it can linger for one to three hours in the air. So, you know, you can’t stop it by social distancing.
Social distancing is just another method like masking to keep people separate. I don’t know if you recognize it, but there’s an agenda here to divide and conquer, and that’s the next layer down, but social distancing is just what’s described as a rule of thumb.
Interesting. Okay. Let’s turn our attention to a really hot, hot button topic. Vaccines. So we now have the COVID vaccines that are being introduced to the public, promising to effectively protect us from the virus. A question that many have is with the incredible rush that’s been put on pharmaceutical companies, how safe are these vaccines?
These vaccines are not safe. We have the Pfizer vaccine coming out in Canada and you know that they skipped animal studies for this and the ones that they did do with animals, with monkeys, for example, the vaccine did not protect them from getting reinfected.
So what we know about these vaccines, the Pfizer vaccine particularly, but also Moderna vaccine, is they do not prevent you from getting the infection and they do not prevent you from passing on the infection. So you’ll still be wearing masks and social distancing, and all of those, I would say absurd, public health policies. But you’ll still have to do that because you’ll still be contagious.
But what they do is they’re told that they reduced the symptoms by a small amount. So your nose may not run as much. That’s pretty much all you can expect from those vaccines.
Now, when they looked at the effectiveness of those vaccines, they said, well, you know, when we started measuring after two weeks after your second shot of the vaccine, people have less symptoms and it was 95% reduction of minor symptoms.
And so it was described as being 95% effective. But if you include all the adverse effects of the shot itself, which were, many of them were level two and some level three, we had transverse myelitis. We had some very serious people. We had four cases of Bell’s palsy. When you add those into the effects that people got when they were later exposed to the natural coronavirus, we see that the number of symptoms that were – the collection of the two, the adverse effects from the shot itself, plus the wild coronavirus contagion symptoms – that those far outweighed what you would get if you didn’t do anything.
January 4, 2021
“These vaccines are not safe… they do not prevent you from getting the infection and they do not prevent you from passing on the infection… they reduced the symptoms by a small amount.”
So it makes much more sense to get, to actually get the wild virus than it does to get the shot, just from the point of view of what it can do. And it’s not protecting you or your loved ones from getting infected. So, you know, it’s not going to stop any so-called pandemic, which doesn’t really exist anyway.
Right. But is it too soon to maybe tell, like, didn’t, I believe they just started vaccinating people in the UK just a week or two ago. Right. So have we seen any adverse effects yet from those countries?
Yeah. We have, we’ve seen people with allergic reactions. Now, the thing about coronaviruses is that they are peculiar. They tried to make coronavirus vaccines after the first SARS in 2003, but they were not able to succeed after, you know, trying for almost 20 years.
And the reason for that is because they have a funny thing about coronaviruses called paradoxical immune enhancement. So what it means is that when people got the shot, initially they developed quite high antibody levels and the researchers thought this is great, but when they were exposed to the wild virus, they actually developed this immune overreaction, this cytokine storm that we’re seeing, we’ve seen with what we experienced in the early part of the year.
And then these people, a lot of them got very sick. And this is what they saw with animals that all, many of the animals, almost all of them died in those research studies.
Of course, they’ve skipped animal studies in a lot of these most recent trials for COVID vaccine. When they did a very similar one with what’s called respiratory syncytial virus in children in the 1950s, they did it, they tested 35 children.
And 80% of them ended up in the hospital when they were exposed to the wild virus after getting the shot. And two of those children died. So they really stopped doing this type of vaccine investigation and production in this picture type of virus.
This is a very dangerous experiment that’s going on right now. And they’re using humans as guinea pigs. That’s why we’re waiting now to see what happens after you roll it out among Canadians, is Canadians are going to be guinea pigs.
And I tell ya, I would not take the vaccine myself.
So you’re saying that you wouldn’t take the vaccine and you are a medical doctor. Are you advising your patients not to, or you’re just not saying anything?
Informed consent is very important. So I think patients can make their own decision of whether they want to have the virus, this vaccine for COVID-19. I would say there’s no benefits for it. It may reduce your symptoms a little bit, but it will not protect you from getting infected.
And the chances of having an immune overreaction that is triggered by the vaccine is so very high, that it’s going to be much more dangerous than it can be beneficial. So I would tell my patients that and let them make the decision.
I don’t think I would actually be giving my patients a vaccine because the first part of the Hippocratic oath is to do no harm. So I would, I think be restricted in giving them something I thought was very, very likely to cause them harm.
Now, Dr. Malthouse, are there other doctors that feel the same way that you do?
Yes. There are doctors all across Canada and all around the world that are saying the same thing, but nobody is listening to them.
We’re rolling out an agenda that is not based on science or evidence.
And you’d have to ask yourself why that is. Why would public health be trying to push a vaccine, which they almost have to mandate and coerce you into getting, if it’s that great. Is because it’s very dangerous and it does. It fits an agenda, which does not match public health as it should be.
There should be a lot of questions coming in people’s minds as to what is going on here, because our government, our public health, our institutions, they’re all pushing something which scientists and epidemiologists, vaccine researchers, people that have been actually in the field all their lives are saying is not good for the public. And yet this is being pushed.
Yeah. You raise an interesting point because one thing that is a particular concern is the move by politicians in many media outlets to shut down any vigorous debate and any dissenting medical opinions on this issue. Right? So how can it be a bad thing to have an open discussion on what the best approach might be to handle the challenges of COVID-19?
Exactly right. When you have a censorship like this, you have to ask yourself, why is it that all the platforms on the internet, all the mainstream media, that they’re completely censoring scientists and doctors around the world. And there’s a reason for that because they have an agenda and the agenda is to push the vaccine. Now, why would they push a vaccine? Well, it could be, that’s going to kill a lot of people. It could be intended to do that.
January 4, 2021
” I don’t think I would actually be giving my patients a vaccine because the first part of the Hippocratic oath is to do no harm. So I would, I think be restricted in giving them something I thought was very, very likely to cause them harm.”
The second one would be that we’re looking at passports. Now, passports are a way of tagging you and making sure they know where you are and what you’ve got. So we could make a lot of money on the vaccines. That’s one possibility the other one is for surveillance. And now surveillance will lead us down further paths.
In other words, the vaccine may not be mandated in Canada, I’m sure there will be attempts to do that, but it certainly, people will be coerced.
By that I mean that they will not be able to go on airplanes, would not be able to travel on public transport. Employment may be based on having the vaccine. You may not be able to go into public spaces. All those types of coercions will come out and people will be forced to take it.
Now, the other thing is that the attack on main street and getting rid of the little businesses, small and medium sized businesses means that people will be desperate.
They’ll have to close their stores because of all these, you know, these artificial lockdowns, which are not doing any good whatsoever. And people being afraid to go out into public and to go to stores.
So those stores are going to lose their business and they’re going to go out of business and subsequently people will be impoverished and they’ll be starving.
That is so unfortunate to hear. And I have so many more questions for you, and unfortunately we are out of time, but thank you so much, Dr. Malthouse for joining us today.
- Public Health Prof. Raj Bhopal – Hopes that his Children Catch SARS-CoV-2
- Dr Yeadon’s (former Pfizer VP) Coronavirus Vaccine Safety Petition
- James Lyons-Weiler — Pathogenic Priming: Coronavirus Vaccine Safety Warning
Video Copyright Bridge City News (January 4, 2021)