Home Page
Home Page

People Are Talking - The Pandemic Podcast

by Chauncey Tinker – 21 Aug 2021

In this (People Are Talking) series I have been celebrating the podcasters and vloggers who I believe are making a significant difference in the public discourse. Today I'm putting Dan Astin-Gregory's video channel "The Pandemic Podcast" in the spotlight. Dan's main Youtube channel has now been permanently shut down by Youtube:

See the text:

This account has been terminated for violating YouTube's Community Guidelines.

For now however he is still on Youtube under his personal channel titled simply:

As I understood it the main channel was shut down for suggesting that ivermectin might be a good (and cheap) alternative treatment for COVID-19. Surprisingly (at least for now) it seems that Youtube are (perhaps unwittingly) allowing him to continue expressing his views on this personal channel. Don't be fooled by the small following he has on this personal channel, he had a much bigger following for his main channel, and no doubt Youtube have been applying some form of shadow-banning to his channels as well, we know their underhand game by now well enough. His first video he says racked up a staggering 300,000 views in a week, so he has had a significant impact.

In a recent video (on his personal channel) that I found very encouraging, Dan interviewed Julia Hartley-Brewer. For those of my readers outside the UK, Julia is quite a mainstream conservative journalist who was a prominent Brexit supporter and now is mainly known as a presenter on talkRADIO. As the COVID-19 response has unfolded her views have changed, she admits in the interview that she was very trusting of the COVID-19 official narrative in the beginning. As time went on however, she joined the growing number of voices speaking out against the official narrative. Here is the interview (only half an hour long) :

Near the middle of the interview, Dan pretends to have connection difficulties (a masterful move) and Julia ably rises to the challenge by continuing the interview on her own. She speaks scathingly about the harms from the lockdown policy, the impact on children both for their education and their social development, and she speaks of all the great costs of the lockdown and dubious testing programmes. She even takes some questions from the audience, something that not many mainstream journalists are prepared to do these days. Several people asked her why she was vaccinated (even after she says she had COVID). It's clear from her responses that she largely bought the official narrative as far as the jabs are concerned (she mentions the variants), and she says she did it in part to allow her to travel, although she makes it clear she is opposed to vaccine passports particularly domestically, and she also makes it very clear she is opposed to children being jabbed as they are not at risk.

Julia is really a creature of the conservative mainstream, and so I think it is significant that she has turned against the official narrative to the extent that she has. The shallow self-serving career politicians who make up the current government are afraid of outspoken commentators like her, and so I think her shift to the sceptical side of the argument could be a sign that the tide is turning in favour of lockdown scepticism.

In this recent video, Dan is asking a very sensible question :

Unfortunately due to the closing of his channel, I can't easily link to many of his previous videos, which have included great interviews with notable people such as Dr Wolfgang Wodarg, Dr Peter McCullough, Dr Mike Yeadon, Dr Gary Sidley and many others. There is at least some partial transcript available here on the Dr Yeadon interview:

The Dr Gary Sidley interview is available on Dan's personal Youtube channel:

Quote from the text underneath:

My guest today is Dr Gary Sidley, a retired clinical psychologist with over 30 years experience working for the NHS. An outspoken critic of the Government’s coercive handling of the pandemic, he questions the ethics behind the covert psychological tactics driven by the SPI-B team at SAGE and seemingly with the blessing of the British Psychological Society.

Some videos have survived on other people's channels:

In the above interview he explains how he became a lockdown sceptic when he did some research ahead of going to Thailand for his honeymoon. Pretty soon his research had led him to the conclusion that the virus was mostly a risk to very old people with co-morbidities, a conclusion which has only been validated over time, particularly as the official statistics for a whole year became available. He also mentions the fact that previous research on lockdowns had shown they were not effective and not recommended, yet somehow the pandemic preparation plans were completely rejected in 2020 in favour of lockdowns.

CONCLUSION

My own political perspectives may be very different from Dan's (he describes himself as a centrist politically), but nonetheless in the most important arena of the much-needed debate on the authorities' response to COVID-19 I believe he has been doing a great service in challenging the official narrative. I recommend his work as a good source of opinion and fact-checking of the honest kind. He also has a very inspiring attitude, he sees the situation as an opportunity for change as much as a disaster.

No doubt his personal Youtube channel will eventually also fall under the axe of the Youtube censors, but no doubt he will re-emerge on other platforms. If you want to keep up with developments on his work then please follow this link to his website (although so far he doesn't seem to have been updating it much):

He is also on Twitter, possibly a better way to keep up with his work, for now at least:

Dan has of course also been on the Delingpod:

What do you think? Is the tide a-turning? Please leave a comment below.

Please feel free to share this article on social media sites:

Tweet     Share on Facebook     Google Plus     Reddit     Tumblr