Coronavirus and the Brain with Dr. Phil Oldfield

Dr. Phil Oldfield has had over 30 years of experience in service to the pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical industries specializing in ligand binding, hybridization assay techniques, and clinical immunology. In 1986 he was given the Baker Award for his work on Digoxin-Like-Immunoreactive-Substances. Dr. Oldfield has published 22 peer-reviewed scientific papers, 2 book chapters, and in excess of 1500 confidential scientific reports.

This is an edited segment from the weekly live General Assembly meeting on May 2, 2022. This presentation is also available on Rumble and on Odysee. The full General Assembly Meeting is available in the Newsroom. A transcript of this presentation can be found below.

Here’s what WCH members, staff, and coalition partners are saying about Dr. Oldfield’s presentation:

“Outstanding presentation. Thank you, Phil.” – Rima E Laibow, MD

“Thank you so much Phil!” – Pearl Kupe

“TY Dr. Oldfield, great presentation.” – Dr. Maria Hubmer-Mogg, AUT

[00:00:00]

[00:00:30] Dr. Kat Lindley: So our first speaker for today, and again, thank you Jennifer, for being my co-host today. Our first speaker for today is Dr. Phil Oldfield. He obtained his doctorate in philosophy from the University of Sussex in 1982. The subject of his research thesis was proteolytic control and rheumatory disease.

[00:00:51] In 1986, he was given the Baker Award for his work on the Digoxin-Like-Immunoreactive-Substances. Dr. Oldfield has had over 30 years experience in service to the pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical industries, specializing in ligand binding and hybridization assay techniques, and clinical immunology. In the last 10 years, he worked as an independent scientific regulatory consultant.

[00:01:19] He’s a fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry and associate member of the Royal College of Pathologists and a member of the American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists. Dr. Oldfield has published 22 peer reviewed scientific papers, two book chapters, and in excess of 1500 confidential scientific reports.

[00:01:40] Welcome Dr. Orfield and please start your presentation whenever you’re ready.

[00:01:45] Dr. Philip Oldfield: Okay. I’ll mention at the onset that the, although I’m a member of the Canadian COVID care lines on the Scientific and Medical Advisory Committee I’d like to mention that these sides is purely my research, my opinion, although I believe a number of you will probably agree with what I’ve got to say.

[00:02:09] Okay. I liked drawing pictures and here I want to go through what SARS-Cov-2 does and why it does it. So I’m looking at mechanisms. And so the receptors for both SARS-Cov and SARS-Cov 2 target receptors, the angiotensin converting enzyme 2 or ACE2 receptor. And we’ll see here, why the pathology is what it is. ACE2 converts angiotensin to angiotensin 1-7. Angiotensin 2 causes [inaudible] restriction and fluid retention.

[00:02:51] Now, when the binders bind to the ACE2, you can’t get conversion of angiotensin 2 to the angiotensin 1-7, which actually does the opposite. And so, when you got COVID-19, you have [inaudible] causes high blood pressure, which accounts for the headaches, inflammation, the heart pumps fast and you’ve got fluid retention resulting in a low oxygen saturation and in turn hypoxia. And so at the very onset this particular disease is quite nasty. Also bear in mind that if you happen to be a smoker or suffering from say emphysema, you’re going to up regulate your ACE2 receptors to compensate for any fluid detention. So of course, if you get COVID-19 in such patients, it’s going to be far more severe. And this is just an overall summary.

[00:03:53] Now the spike protein binds to the ACE2 receptor, so as you see, the ACE2 receptors are found in a variety of different tissues. And so this will explain a lot of the pathology that’s associated with SARS-Cov-2.

[00:04:11] But we’re going to be looking at how it affects the brain. So we’re going to be looking at how the spike protein of the virus causes destabilization of blood brain barrier and how that in turn allows the virus to get into the brain.

[00:04:29] So, first the neurological symptoms. When SARS-Cov-2 first came onto the scene, it was generally regarded as a respiratory disease, but very quickly other symptoms would manifest such as a loss of smell and taste, severe headaches, et cetera. And these symptoms or neurological symptoms, the severe headaches could also be due to the high blood pressure, which will be indirectly due to the angiotensin 2.

[00:05:02] But as we’ll see later, you could have the severe headaches caused by actual damage in neurons. So how does SARS-Cov-2 enter the brain? Well you’ve got effactory nerve, which is where you get your smell and taste from. However, these sensory neurons do not express ACE2, suggesting that that might not be the way SARS-Cov-2 actually answers the brain.

[00:05:30] However, the epithemium does express ACE2 and so you might get inflammation around the area that would in turn affect and account for the loss of smell or taste. Although I’m not ruling out the possibility that that could be an entry route for the virus.

[00:05:50] And then you got destabilization of blood brain barrier. I think this is the most likely one. Again, SARS-Cov-2 binds to the ACE receptors expressed by the epithelial cells of the brain’s vascular [inaudible] that damages the cells, you got an inflammatory response The spike protein of the virus also binds and activates platelets so that you would then get formation of micro blood clots, then producing into full blown blood clots, and thus with this destabilization of the blood brain barrier, SARS-Cov-2 can then pass through into the brain.

[00:06:32] Once there, it has the opportunity to replicate. There are neurons in the brain that does express the ACE2 receptor. And so you get neuro inflammation resulting in the cytokine storm and that results in the activation of microglia cells. Now the microglia cells are normally in a resting state, but when there’s inflammation, those cells actually produce pro-inflammatory cytokines.

[00:07:05] And so you’ve got these a loop that then takes place, which results in the cytokine storm and, and of course, cell death. And this in turn causes an increase in the Kynurenine pathway. And, that in turn also results in cell death. And with the glutamate, you’d also have seizures as well. So there’s obviously a lot of neuro damage taking place, once the virus gets into the brain.

[00:07:39] Now, the there’s also a depletion of the neurotransmitters serotonin, dopamine, and norepinephrine and these account for the neuropsychiatric symptoms. When you think about it, dopamine is also very low in patients with Parkinson’s disease. We’ll go into that a bit later on.

[00:08:01] And of course you’ve got a nice little pretty picture, which has all of this and I’m not going to go into it whatsoever, but what I’ve just said basically sums up.

[00:08:15] Okay, now we’re going to be looking at the possible connection between Parkinson’s disease and infection with the SARS-Cov-2 virus. Now, there is a link between brain trauma and inflammation with the development of Parkinson’s disease. This goes back years and years. There’s been studies on contact sports, et cetera, where there has been the connection between trauma, inflammation and the outcomes of the disease years later. There’s also been links between viral infection and the development to Parkinson’s disease. It’s not surprising that if you have a viral infection that causes inflammation, then I think you’ve got a strong possibility that one might have a risk of getting Parkinson’s disease, under circumstances, say a decade or so after the infection.

[00:09:11] And so when you look at the clinical symptoms comparing SARS-Cov with SARS-Cov-2, they both go for the same receptor, the ACE2 receptor. And I just highlighted, you’ve got headaches. Now, before anyone starts panicking, you do get headaches when you get a virus infection. Some of that is inflammation. Some of that is the high blood pressure caused by the angiotensin 2, and so it’s only when you’re talking about very severe disease, where they might be a risk,

[00:09:47] But wait a minute, what about the spike protein alone? And here’s where we’re doing a comparison between SARS-Cov-2 and the spike protein alone. And so when you look at that (I’m assuming that the spike protein used in the systemic circulation, by the way) and so when it comes to the various stages, a lot of these things such as the cytokine storm, heart failure, platelet activation, et cetera, binded neurons it’s all in the later stages of the disease.

[00:10:24] That means if you want to treat the disease, it has to be early and effective. And of course I would recommend ivermectin and fluvoxamine as being two candidates for treating the disease itself. But then when you look at the spike protein it’s once it gets into the circulation, it can do all sorts of damage. And this is significant.

[00:10:52] Because now we’re looking, what are the implications for the COVID-19 vaccines? Here’s some points to consider: It is already recognized to closely monitored and screened synuclein prions, now synuclein prions is what causes Lewy bodies to form, it actually forms part of the Lewy bodies and causes Parkinson’s disease.

[00:11:17] Now that is already been suggested and you’ve just seen with just a few slides that I’ve shown that the spike protein is responsible for the pathology associated with SARS-Cov-2. Therefore it must stand to reason that human subjects who have experienced neurological side effects following the administration of COVID-19 vaccines, shouldn’t they be monitored as well? You don’t hear much about that. In fact, I think Jennifer Hibbert, Byram Bridle and myself have been the only ones to publish a paper on the subject. And all this lends for caution when deciding to administer the mRNA and DNA COVID vaccines since the young people and other low risk groups.

[00:12:05] Now I actually want to scrub that last one, because we’re assuming that the vaccines are effective. And if you have to take three or four shots of a vaccine and already it’s been shown that when you do have the booster that the immunity actually goes down and the infection rate goes up with vaccinated people and they have multiple infections.

[00:12:31] Plus the fact that these infections tend to be more severe than people that are not vaccinated. So why should we be concerned about all of this? Okay, here’s why: Missing data and flaws from the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine from biologics license application submission.

[00:12:51] Now I’m not going to go into the definitions that were changed as to what a vaccine is, I just want to draw your attention to the dates that they were made. And in fact, the binder COVID-19 vaccine, if it was under the former definition would not meet that requirement, because the product does not stimulate a person’s immune system, it’s the spike protein that stimulates immune system, not the actual product itself that’s been administered.

[00:13:21] Okay, so we’re looking at nonclinical, toxicology studies, and all I want to to say here is that Pfizer had not conducted any pharmacokinetics on their test article and they didn’t consider it necessary based upon two WHO documents – which are below – none of which are relevant to their product.

[00:13:47] What they should have used was this guidance, which is pre-clinical assessment of investigational cellular and gene therapy products, dated 2013. As you notice in the introduction, it includes therapeutic vaccines. There is a requirement to perform pharmacokinetic and distribution studies of the antigen, i.e. the spike protein. These studies were never performed.

[00:14:16] Instead, what was done was that this particular guidence was used, was published in June, 2020 and it was implemented without prior public comment, they said it wasn’t feasible or appropriate. And in this particular guidance, if the vehicle was used for other compounds, then nonclinical studies wouldn’t even be necessary for those.

[00:14:45] In any case, there was no requirement to form to have pharmacokinetic studies of the spike protein or any products produced by these vaccines.

[00:14:56] And here’s the list of studies given on page four of Pfizer’s nonclinical overview.

[00:15:04] There are two things I want you to see here. One, in toxicology studies and this is standard, you have to run toxicology studies on two species; rodents and non rodent species. This was never done. That’s the first thing, and this is the first time that tox studies have been performed just on one species. The second mistake if you like, besides the fact that toxic pharmacokinetic weren’t done, which we mentioned all along, was that you have to choose the relevant species. They chose rats.

[00:15:43] And although you can get up to 50, if not more diseases from a rat transmitted to humans, COVID-19 is not one of them. So the non-rodent species they should have used, would have been the Golden Hamster. So the golden hamster ACE2 receptor binds to the spike protein of the virus and of the vaccine.

[00:16:06] It’s amazing that they looked into things like alligator and dolphin. But if I go to the right hand side, Pfizer did not perform an ascending dose acute study, it was deemed not relevant because it’s a vaccine and as far as the non-clinical pivotal safety study was concerned, they didn’t use two relevant species. Full toxicology and toxicokinetic analysis of the spike protein protein using a fully validated method was not used. Appropriate biomarkers to assess known toxicity was not employed and macro and micro pathology, including immunostaining of the spike protein was never performed.

[00:16:53] And then if we look at other toxicology studies again with the genotox and the carcinogenicity, studies, again their argument was; because the product is composed of lipids and RNA it’s not necessary. In both cases, they did not take into account that those products are producing a spike protein, which is actually the active ingredient of their vaccine.

[00:17:23] And it is now known that there probably are effects and that the spike protein may give rise to cancer, in years to come.

[00:17:32] So I’d like to conclude. Traditionally, the FDA has always been data driven. I know a lot of people in the agency, there are good people, they know what they’re talking about, they’re good scientists. And honestly, I am shocked by the data that I have seen and the fact that a regulatory authority can accept this. The spike protein was never determined in any of Pfizer’s studies and therefore you just have to conclude that the safety of the product was based upon assumptions.

[00:18:11] This product should have never gone into clinical trials. And if I might be permitted to say, I also took a look at the clinical phase one; if they have performed toxicokinetics studies of the spike protein, they would have got some useful information such as: What is the variation between people and the amount of spike protein produced? That’s never known. That’s not known.

[00:18:40] Secondly, if there is an adverse event, you’d be able to collate that with how much spike protein is in the systemic circulation. Again, that is not known. And to be honest with you, I mean, all of the regulatory authorities have gone through and accepted the same flawed data. And being Canadian, I’m just shocked and, you know, these regulatory authorities, I mean, we we’re to trust them for our safety. And I see this as just a breach of trust. There was a government advert that went out on the television in Canada, where someone from Health Canada said that no shortcuts were taken when it came to reviewing the data. This says, otherwise.

[00:19:34] I just want to leave you with a parting thought. Just to demonstrate that the spike protein is toxic and that is, how it would take for a person to die for multiorgan failure if they were administered with the spike protein as an intravenous drip? I’m having that as a rhetorical question, but it is a fairly serious parting thought.

[00:19:57] And I’d like to show the references mostly from FDA, Pfizer, CDC and the World Health Organization. You can look these references up yourself. Thirty-nine additional references are cited in a mini review that we did, which is applicable to the first half of the presentation published in vaccines.

[00:20:22] And I’d like to end by quote by Richard Feynman where he says, ‘I would rather have questions that cannot be answered than answers that can not be questioned’. And I think we do need to ask questions. With that. I can’t be a hypocrite, I mean, I’m open to questions now.

[00:20:44] Dr. Kat Lindley: Thank you doctor Oldfield. And we’re going to have Jennifer ask you some questions from our chat, if you’re ready for that.

[00:20:51] Jennifer Hibberd: Phil, this is really interesting because doing the study that you did, you actually went digging quite deep to look for what they were missing, not what they, what they had presented.

[00:21:01] Now, when you talk about the golden hamster, have they been using the golden hamster in past vaccine trials? Was that the kind of gold standard to use?

[00:21:12] Dr. Philip Oldfield: I was just mentioned the gold hamster, in fact, it’s the Chinese golden hamster, oddly enough, and the reason why I think that would be a relevant species is because of the ACE2 receptor binds to the spike protein, that is that the messenger RNA produces. And so, for the rat, you give them the vaccine and you get the spike protein produced. But if it doesn’t bind to the ACE2 receptor, you’re not going to see any pathology. Whereas if you were to use the Chinese gold hamster, you would have found a lot of side effects, a lot of pathology. As a matter of interest, the Chinese golden hamster was slaughtered in China. They found out in one pet shop that a Chinese golden hamster had COVID and so they killed off 2 million of them. They should have actually given some to Pfizer to test.

[00:22:15] Jennifer Hibberd: It would have been probably dead by the time they got there unfortunately.

[00:22:19] Dr. Philip Oldfield: Well, I was going to say, the thing is, that it’s not as if the hamster is going to leave its cage and go for a party.

[00:22:25] Jennifer Hibberd: Question for you. Now regarding the spike protein, I mean, this spike protein was developed sometime before these mRNA vaccines came out, they must have different tests that they were doing on these spike proteins. And how does that feed into all the work that you’ve done and, and, uh, investigation into this?

[00:22:46] Dr. Philip Oldfield: Okay, well, the secrets of the spike protein was actually taken from, I think the original Wuhan strain and given to the pharmaceutical companies to then make, but don’t forget, the spike protein binding to the ACE2 receptor, that goes back over 17 years, with the SARS-Cov infections.

[00:23:10] And so it was known back then that anything that will bind to the ACE2 receptor has to be bad news. And so that would have been a red flag based upon one’s experience with SARS-Cov.

[00:23:28] Jennifer Hibberd: It seems that a lot of information was there that was unfortunately not utilized.

[00:23:33] Let me bring forward some questions that other people have here too. Susan has a question; Since the ethylene oxide on the PCR test probes with added pressure and twisting effectively damages, all levels of epithelia at the cribriform plate, which holds olfactory nerves, why would one not suppose that the vials, the nano graphene content would carry across the cribriform plate and other small molecules, ethylene oxide, as well as the [inaudible] grippers and the trans biologicals found in microscopy on the PCR probe tip, so as to damage the olfactory nerves and impure olfaction? That was a full question for you.

[00:24:14] Dr. Philip Oldfield: I know. I’ve got a very short answer now; I don’t know. I really don’t know. I mean, uh, to be honest with you, anything that I would say would just be speculation.

[00:24:24] Jennifer Hibberd: Thanks very much. Now, Christof Plothe has a question: We have many patients with severe hypertension, post-injection, as we know that spike protein can circulate for up to 15 months, could this explain it, or would you suggest another mechanism?

[00:24:39] Dr. Philip Oldfield: I would suggest that would explain it. The spike protein binds to the ACE2 receptor. It means you then got an excess of angiotensin 2 that causes vasoconstriction and fluid retention, you’re talking about high blood pressure. It also prevents the formation of angiotensin 1-7, and the function of that is to do the opposite. In fact, there’s an Israeli group that’s working to try and produce a therapeutic product based upon angiotensin 1-7. I mean, I don’t think it’s going to be that good because you’ve got such a short half-life, but you’ve got a double whammy there, I think with the spike protein, you are going to have high blood pressure. It would also explain headaches as well. So I don’t want people to panic just because they get a vaccination and get a headache that they think that they’re going to get Parkinson’s down the line. That’s not necessarily the case.

[00:25:37] Jennifer Hibberd: That’s true. Thank you. Uh, from Dr. Rima Laibow; if a patient receives a transfusion from a COVID-19 jab donor, isn’t the IV drip of spike protein what’s happening? So is she’s just saying, obviously you’d expect the spike protein to possibly be in the IV drip.

[00:25:57] Dr. Philip Oldfield: Yes, you would. What effect it would have on the recipient, would depend on how much spike produce there. I don’t want people to panic or anything, when you get the actual vaccination itself, that’s going to be far worse than if you to have a pint of blood from a recipient that’s been vaccinated say a month ago, for instance, even though there’s spike protein there. On the side of caution, I would certainly say go a few months before giving blood.

[00:26:31] Jennifer Hibberd: Thank you very much. And I have the question from Christof. Do we have any means to investigate quantity of spike proteins in vivo in patients, or do we have to wait for the staining in the post-mortem investigations?

[00:26:47] Dr. Philip Oldfield: Well, the thing is you can measure, if someone got vaccinated and you wanted to measure that person’s spike protein, you can do it within an immunal assay.

[00:26:57] So you take a blood cell, spin it down, you put it through the ligand binding assay and then you would obviously be able to measure it. The thing that I find surprising was Pfizer never did that. Now I think when it comes to post-mortem, I would tend to look more for the pathology, but then I would go more for immunostain in that case.

[00:27:23] Jennifer Hibberd: Thank you. A question from Lucy: Could high blood pressure be experienced in an un-jabbed who has been in close contact with vaccinated? The shedding issue?

[00:27:32] Dr. Philip Oldfield: Again, I don’t know. My wife is fully vaccinated, in fact, she recently had a third shot, I was really upset. And I got her to take aspirin 81 milligram for two months and I probably would extend that for say another couple of months. I’ve never got high blood pressure being near her. I know of people who have been affected by people when they hang around people who have been vaccinated. I would say that, if that does happen, then it means you’d have the spike protein going into your systemic circulation or whatever. And I think, unlikely, but I keep an open mind because I know several of my friends who are honestly telling the truth, that it does happen.

[00:28:22] I’ve known a person who was almost on the floor as it were, and he wasn’t vaccinated, I think his girlfriend was. But she was perfectly fine, I don’t really know the mechanism unless you’re talking about microsomes floating in the air or something. I don’t think I’ve got a theory on it, but I’m keeping an open mind.

[00:28:45] Jennifer Hibberd: That’s okay. Just gotta be open. I mean, that’s just how we work through things. Even on the Pfizer site, it does talk about shedding, but the mechanism is not something that’s been looked at.

[00:28:56] Dr. Philip Oldfield: But when they talk about shedding, aren’t they talking about shedding from the muscle into the systemic circulation, or are they talking about shedding from person to person?

[00:29:07] Jennifer Hibberd: That’s an interesting question. That would be an interesting question to answer. I don’t have the answer to that, that’s for sure.

[00:29:14] Dr. Philip Oldfield: I think they probably are referring to it going from, you know, I don’t think Pfizer would have thought about the vaccine going from person to person.

[00:29:25] They probably would think, well, is the spike protein going to be shed from the surface of the muscle, into the circulation, maybe.

[00:29:34] Jennifer Hibberd: Okay. Thank you very much.

[00:29:36]

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

One Comment

  1. It’s great to hear such clarity and honesty when speaking about these important topics. I feel grateful for all the work that good folk are doing to get to the bottom of things!

    I’d like to speak to the question at 23’33”: “Since the ethylene oxide on the PCR test probes with added pressure and twisting effectively damages, all levels of epithelia at the cribriform plate, which holds olfactory nerves..”.

    I’ve thought about this given what I’ve heard others saying about the dangers/damage to the blood brain barrier at the cribriform plate when using nasal tests. I’ve studied cranial anatomy for my work and so I’d like to speak to this.

    The guidance for the depth of the tip of the probe into the nostril is 2-2.5cm. The cribriform plate sits around 7cm from the edge of the nostril and so there is no risk of damaging oneself like this. Unless something horrid happens that leads to ramming it that far up!

    There may be other risks from using these tests, but the physical damage seems like a red herring to me.