Prof Angus Dalgleish - The COVID Booster Cancer Time Bomb and Why the Experiment Needs To Stop

Show Notes and Transcript

Professor Dalgleish has spoken out about his concerns of the mRNA jab for years. And for the last 2 he has written about the rise of cancers he believes are linked to the jab. 
We start by looking back at Professor Dalgleish's career and ask why he chose to speak up and what was the response from his colleagues? 
He then delves into this rise of turbo cancers and why he had to sound the alarm despite the struggle to get full transparency from the authorities and "Move on, nothing to see here" is the reply to most requests for data. 
His fellow cancer specialists agree with his concerns, but the authorities simply will not listen.

Angus Dalgleish is an expert in immunology and Professor of Oncology at St George's Hospital Medical School, London.

Article in The Conservative Woman: https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/massive-cancer-deaths-study-vindicates-my-warnings-over-covid-boosters/

Japan Data: https://www.cureus.com/articles/196275-increased-age-adjusted-cancer-mortality-after-the-third-mrna-lipid-nanoparticle-vaccine-dose-during-the-covid-19-pandemic-in-japan#!/

The Death of Science:      https://amzn.eu/d/2w1wxk4

Interview recorded 15.4.24

Connect with Hearts of Oak...
WEBSITE            heartsofoak.org/
PODCASTS        heartsofoak.podbean.com/
SOCIAL MEDIA  heartsofoak.org/connect/
SHOP                  heartsofoak.org/shop/

TRANSCRIPT

(Hearts Of Oak)

I'm delighted to have Professor Angus Dalgleish with us today.

Professor, thank you so much for your time.

(Prof Angus Dalgleish)

You're welcome.

Great to have you.

And of course, people will have read, I'm sure, many of your articles, more recently in The Conservative Woman, back before that, I think in certainly The Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail.

And since 1991, I know you've been the Professor of Oncology at St.

George's University, London.

And during this time, you focused on the immunology of cancer and conducted numerous clinical trials involving a variety of vaccines and immune therapy.

I know you're well known for your contributions on HIV AIDS research.

And of course, you stood for UKIP, which is another part of your story back in 2015.

There's so many areas, Professor, I want to talk to you, but maybe you have got a background in understanding vaccines.

We'll get on to, I think, the first article you wrote, certainly I read, was back two years ago, actually, on the madness of vaccinating children against COVID, and they started discussing cancer and what you were seeing back in December 2022.

I certainly saw it in the Conservative Woman but maybe I can ask you just for a little bit of your background and then we can get on to what you have seen with your patients and the data.

Okay well with regards to my background I mean it's, I've been reminded of something I'd forgotten and that is that I'm probably one of the only people in the country who's been an NHS consultant in virology, immunology, general medicine, and oncology.

So when I had my chair in oncology, I had a great background in immunology and virology, which is what led me to go into tumour immunology.

And I continued working on HIV pathogenesis for several years and worked with colleagues in Norway with designing a very good HIV vaccine, which is the only one that works.

But I was staggered that nobody was interested or would support it.

And yet the big medical industrial complex, such as the NIH and Big Pharma, kept plowing ahead with vaccines that had the whole envelope in different technologies, and none of them worked.

In fact, it was worse than working. They had to stop all these worldwide trials costing billions because the vaccine was worse than the placebo, now so that's a very good entrée as to where I came from with the COVID virus.

When that became a pandemic and the sequence became available.

I was called up by my colleagues in Norway saying, would I be happy to do the same process?

I help identify the major immunological components and avoid all the unnecessary ones, which is the most important thing.

And I said yes, obviously.

And we started to plan a MAPA plan when they came back and said, this is not an actual virus, this has been released from the lab in Wuhan or escaped then as we put it and the reasons for this was absolutely plain, is that there were charged inserts around the receptor binding site not one or two but six as well as the fusion site, fusion domain and I looked at that you know, and I had a background because I've done so much work on the HIV receptor, even as a clinician I was you know, had a scientific understanding of interactions and what is required etc and it occurred to me that these inserts some of them had been previously published and, you know, by the Wuhan group, they'd said, aren't we clever?

We put this insert in and we made this virus more infectious to human cells. This is very good.

They went on with two or three. But here we had one with six inserts.

Now, my molecular biology, virology friends all told me, oh, don't get excited.

All these things happen at random. And here I then realized what a problem was with science, people are only in their boxes, they don't get out of the boxes. Changes in sequence only matter when they translate into the amino acids which translate into proteins and that's what does the interaction, once the amino acids were translated by these inserts they broke all the rules of the game, they were far too too positively charged, which meant that the virus had been altered so it would act like a fridge magnet.

So it would zap onto human cells over and above its natural ACE receptor.

And when I realized this, it was 100% I was convinced it could not have come from anywhere else because it had broken the rules of biology. And the rules of biology would have edited out those changes because, put it in a simple way, the charge was around pH 8.

The charge of any normal virus is around 6 or less. So it was just a supernatural leap.

And that's what convinced me. But the big problem was that having written papers in Nature Science, Lancet on HIV and its receptor and how it causes disease and the epidemiology and got them all in the leading papers.

When I pointed this out with my colleagues, Nature, Science, all these papers, Lancet, they all turned us down and said, this data is not in the public interest.

Seriously, I've got the copies. It is unbelievable. So I realized then that a discussion about the science was being banned.

This led to me, and I'm flagrantly admit that, you know, this ended up in us writing a book called The Death of Science, which is actually available, and I've probably got it somewhere.

But this was unbelievable that we suddenly realized everything was being censored.

I was told by my own university we were not allowed to discuss or research the origin of the virus.

Well, I mean, that was really quite draconian. But then where do so many universities get their funding from these days? They're far too reliant on China.

So it clearly comes from that source, the way China stopped the WHA doing their work.

Now, I'm just going to mention, this is relevant to what you've asked me to talk about, because when we had that spike protein, we realized it was very fully charged.

We also looked at it for a homology with now an epitopes.

And 80% of it was similar to the human epitopes, some of them unbelievably identical, platelet factor IV myelin.

So we said, do not use this as a vaccine, because it will cause all sorts of terrible side effects.

This is how you do it. We've learned from HIV, a vaccine is not how much you can put in it, but how little you can put in it.

So you go for the Achilles heels of the structure.

So if those structures no longer exist, the virus doesn't exist in any variant.

So we actually had a blueprint.

And we told everybody about this.

We had access to the cabinet, the SAGE, Chief Medical Officer of Science.

Who basically deemed it all interesting but not relevant. Can you believe that?

But they had a point that there was 150 groups reviewed by a Nature paper, all of them so stupid, I use the word advisedly, that they all said, this is our vaccine. They all used the whole spike protein.

Well, it was obvious that you must not use the whole spike protein, in the same way we'd spent 30 years saying don't use the whole HIV envelope.

And they still haven't got the process. I mean, it is unbelievable stupidity group thing.

And anyhow, so we knew there was going to be a big problem if they use the spike protein with autoimmunity, etc.

However, that had nothing to do with my interest with cancer at all.

What got my interest in cancer in this was when they brought out the booster program.

Now, I've done lots of model work on vaccines, you know, basic research funded by charity, done for industry too.

And a basic adage is, if a vaccine needs a booster, it doesn't work.

So here we are being forced by the government and all the authorities to have a booster when it was all based on the grounds that people who monitor the effects of people who've been vaccinated, their antibody titer falls off.

Well, of course it does. I mean, that's what you want. And that was the basis for doing boosters, to stop it falling off.

Well, I knew enough then about the booster is that by the time they were talking about rolling out the booster, we were already in Omicron territory.

They were boosting a virus that didn't exist on the grounds that there was crossover. And there was all these species, the booster will give you extra protection from crossover.

Well, apart from the fact that we'd widely published and it had been downloaded over a quarter of a million times, our objection to using the spike protein and what you should use for a vaccine, with another group of colleagues, I wrote a review of a virus.

Coxsackie viruses and the attempts to vaccinate against them and why they had all failed.

And actually, the need for them is greater in animal work than it is in humans.

But they all fail because the vaccines against coronavirus lead to antigenic sin or immunological imprinting.

Once you are vaccinated against a component of that and you challenge with a different variant, it will only see the first component.

And it will not see the variants.

But it will make antibodies that will bind to them.

And then that enhances infection and this explains why people have just woken up scratched their heads and say why does everybody who gets a booster get infected again with COVID in fact three and a half times more likely according to the big Cleveland study and more than twice as likely according to one published after the second vaccine in BMJ, so this was not a surprise.

I couldn't believe why nobody heeded and listened to these warnings.

And the people that made the decision.

It must have made them in ignorance because they certainly didn't read any of this stuff. Otherwise, they'd have been much more cautious.

Now, instead, they were being pushed by Big Pharma, who selected the data.

It's now obvious that Pfizer, if they had revealed the data, the VAERS data, nobody in their right mind would ever have approved it.

And you've had Clare Craig and Norman Fenton on board.

So all I can just point out was I was unaware of this carry on at the time, but they brilliantly pointed out that they did it all on relative risk as opposed to absolute risk and the number needed to vaccinate to prevent.

If that data had been presented properly, nobody in their right mind would have approved a vaccine.

It's just meaningless to have to vaccinate 120 people to prevent one infection.

And when the VAERS data came out, it was clear that if you had a serious adverse event, you had a 3% chance of dying.

Whereas if you got COVID, you had less than 1% chance of dying.

In fact, a lot, lot less than 1% at the very most.

So there was no way anybody should have done it.

So I would argue that the Pfizer, and I'm not alone in having said that they went into shenanigans and all sorts of smoke and mirror to hide the truth and get everything approved.

But, you know, others, such as the state of Texas, are actually suing them for fraud.

So, I mean, it's not exactly, it's an open secret.

So get back to the booster and the cap....

Could I just ask you just one little sidestep, I remember reading your numerous articles, I think it's probably in the Daily Mail and I remember thinking Professor Angus is saying, speaking his concerns in a great way to stay within certain restrictions and yet get the message out.

And I was reading, thinking, this is exactly what I am hearing as a lay person.

And you're explaining from your medical professional background.

And those articles in the mainstream media, the newspapers, I think were vital in helping people understand what was happening.

And you wrote them in such an intelligent, smart way.

Well, thank you very much. With regards to the Daily Mail and the articles, I was staggered by the letter.

Sometimes they would print a page of letters in the printed edition, and they were all from people saying, thank you so much for helping us understand just what the hell has been going on.

You know that was the great thing, the big problem I had with the Daily Mail as soon as I pointed out that there was a problem with the vaccine, I would get to the draft I'd submit it, it'd be accepted and then it wouldn't appear and it had been censored by the chief editor, as soon as it was a vaccine, we now know why, it's because the mainstream media were paid a fortune to push the narrative by the government.

A fortune so big that none of them were prepared to challenge it.

The Mail did a fantastic job, and I helped as much as I could on the grounds that the lockdowns were madness, and there's no scientific justification for it.

It was absolute madness, even to think of a second one.

And many others, Carl Heneghan, et cetera, came up, and I was saying that natural immunity, and I was one of the few clinicians to sign the Great Barrington Declaration because that's what I said we should have done straight from day one.

In fact, now in retrospect, my gut feeling we didn't need a vaccine program has been proven to be absolutely true because had we done the vitamin D properly and had one or two other drugs out there, we would not, and I include there, without beating around the bush ivermectin, I think Peter Curry's book is absolutely damning how Fauci and others went out of their way to damp that down.

And the only reason they did was because you cannot introduce a vaccine if you've got an effective therapy.

I mean, I really do believe it was that bad that they were doing this.

And so many people suffered. I think it was criminal. I make no bones about that.

But the media wouldn't touch my concerns about the vaccine, which is why I ended up publishing them in the Daily Skeptic and the Conservative Women, who, I must say, they challenge anything that they find they cannot collaborate.

Corroborate they they check they do their own referencing and everything so they are very very hot and quite a lot of stuff I've had toned down because of challenges to the refereeing for instance etc, but the stuff that they do put out there they're all very happy about it, now what I did and why you were talking is that when the booster came in, I've said it's a complete waste of time.

Not only will it induce antibodies to a virus that doesn't exist, but they will lead to more infection.

What I wasn't prepared for was that my patients who I was monitoring carefully, who'd been stable melanoma for years, I had half a dozen of them go down within six to eight weeks of the booster program being wheeled out.

And they had relapsed. And some of these had been stable for over 15 years.

The average was five to seven. And I knew then something was going on because melanoma patients, once they're induced to be stable with immunotherapy like they all had, because I was using immunotherapy 20, 25 years ago, long before it became popular, I knew there had to be a tremendous immune suppression event going on, life event.

It's usually bereavement, severe depression, divorce, bankruptcy.

Something that goes over three months to cause this. Yet I was seeing it clear.

I reported it. I was told by my own people to shut up and stop frightening the patients. There is no evidence. Get the evidence.

So I said, you know, I am a canary in a mine and a man with a red flag.

It's up to everybody else to react to this. Now, I was told no.

I've subsequently seen a dozen and I've continued to shout.

And I saw eight cases within my social and family circle of people who developed leukaemia lymphoma after the booster and so we started to say how is it doing that? When it became evident there was a very good, I mean my own group have done work on this, but to me what really convinced it when other people found that t-cell responses were suppressed after the booster not the first and second but after the booster and the t-cell suppression was so bad they called it exhaustion in cancer patients, well we know that the people who've got cancer under good control, it is t-cells nothing to do with antibodies. So the booster was doing more harm than good, it's suppressing the t-cell response, and then I found papers that was even worse on the grounds that the booster switched the IgG1, immunoglobulin class structure antibodies, from ones that would normally be intent on fighting viruses to one that were tolerizing them, tolerizing the IgG.

The sort you induce in transplant patients.

So not only had you switched the T cell response off, but you'd sent all the antibodies on to be tolerizing so they didn't reject the transplant.

Of course the transplant in this case is the cancer so there's no doubt that it popped up, that was a major reason why it popped up, now why it's important to discuss this now is, having been told to shut up and be quiet, I did get by the way, people from all over the world saying thank you for pointing this out, we've seen exactly the same thing. I mean from America, Canada, South America, Europe, South Africa, Australia, all around the world people said we're seeing exactly the same thing. Well now we have this paper that's come from Japan, it's pure statistical analysis of events over COVID, including all causes of death and this is important, not incidents death, and they noticed there was no increase in death of any cause or cancer during the first one and two waves of COVID.

But it started in late 21 and continued to rise, hardly doubling in 22.

And so the all-cause in 21 went from a few percentage, three or four, to over 9% in 22.

Death from cancer went from 1.1 to 2.2 + in 22 these are small figures but it's a very strong trend because it was in all the cancers, it wasn't just in any one and I got particularly interested because there was no great increase in colorectal cancer, which is what we've seen in the UK in fact the colorectal surgeons were the first to phone me and say we're seeing unbelievable colon cancer in young people, and they've all had the booster vaccine.

You know, we think there is something related.

So I reacted that there was no signal in Japan. And then remember, they have an incredibly different diet.

It's a completely anti-inflammatory diet.

So they haven't been primed for colon cancer to take off.

But all the ones that were killing them were those that killed them before, but much quicker.

But I mentioned mortality.

I predicted there would be a massive increase in cancer problems just on lockdown alone because we weren't screening.

People weren't coming to with their symptoms. We weren't doing the scanning.

We weren't getting them on treatment early. So that alone, I predicted more people would die of that lockdown on cancer than would die from any benefit of lockdown on COVID deaths, which we now know there were zero.

I mean I think most people will now agree with that, it was introduced far too late on both occasions, it was introduced just as the hot, the waves were dying out, completely utterly pointless, so I was very aware and actually preached a bit that you know, the problem with this issue is cancer incidence is massive, cancer deaths not nearly as much because we've got very good at treating it and the incidence to death can take several years, so here in Japan you've actually got the death rate clearly rising, it's all very statistical this, in one year two year now, That was finished in 2023, submitted in 2023.

If we had the 23 data, I would bet that that would be a doubling again, probably, on the 22 data, because they have shown in the data they've got, it's worse with each booster, not just the first.

If you have a fourth and a fifth, it gets worse. And what is great about this paper is it goes into explaining how it's actually induced the cancer early as opposed to just waiting for it to develop which is what I would have expected had it just been suppression of the immune system and one thing they have suggested, which I totally go along with and I hadn't thought of it first-hand myself but I'm fully aware and support it, is that the clotting tendency, these micro-clots that the spike protein causes.

Actually would lead to enhancing the cancers to spread and metastasize.

And we know that this clotting abnormality occurs in some cancers, prostate and pancreas, and all sorts of unusual things occur, like disseminated intravascular coagulation, etc. Now, this is the sort of thing, that it was being reported in people who died of cancer who'd been vaccinated.

Really abnormal clots. If you look at the literature, there's a lot of people pointing out that the autopsy is highly unusual clotting going on.

So the fact that that process was actually driving cancer is a very interesting suggestion.

It's not proof, but it's yet another reason that might be driving it.

In the literature are reports that the spike protein binds to p53 and msh3.

These are suppressor genes.

If you have mutations in these genes you're much more likely to develop cancer because they normally switch the cancer that has arisen by accident off.

They're suppressor genes, they switch it off.

So if you compromise your suppressor genes you're much more likely to develop cancer quickly.

And I think that this is part of what the Japanese data is showing.

I just point out that I don't think there is any ulterior motive in just pointing out what we've seen, whereas I am very concerned that the Office of National Statistics keep changing the rules with data.

They stopped reporting the COVID deaths in May 22, and they've been doing adjustments and all sorts of things, which I think, what are they trying to hide?

And Carl Heneghan has made a very, and Norman Fenton, made a very big issue of this.

Why don't they just release all the data?

And I'm convinced that data shows something very similar, just because of what I see. I look around my friends, the number who've gone down with cancer since they had the booster.

Which they only had so they could travel in lockdown, and they wanted to have a decent holiday.

And he said, you can't get on this plane or this boat unless you have the booster.

And so they had the booster.

And in two cases, they never, ever going to get on the boat and do the traveling.

One of them died very quickly, and I was horrified by it because he'd had perfect treatment, absolute perfect treatment, but still progressed, suggesting there were other mechanisms going on.

And another one had a lymphoma that he had years ago it resurfaced rapidly and killed him and his oncologist, I was quite surprised told him, I really can't ignore the fact that this has been stable for years but it's come back as soon as you had the booster and there's a chap in England who's pointing this out, I was a friend of this guy, he's in America. And then I've had other cases which have popped up completely unexpected.

In my family, I've had cases of leukaemia uncovered after the boosters and brother-in-laws, etc.

So it's really real. And friends who developed aggressive prostate, pancreatic, ovarian cancer since the booster program has been wheeled out.

And my main reason for shouting about this is that I am still being told I can have a spring booster to protect myself.

I spoke to a friend today and they were talking about their father who was told he had prostate cancer and I think he went for a psa testing, that's to look at how far the cancer is and it was very low it was six or eight, then after the boosters he went for another test and they'd gone up to 170 and was told it spread throughout out the body and that was it and I get those are similar stories you have heard and I'm looking at these studies which are coming out and obviously you, this has just come out, you've just published this in the conservative woman as of when we're recording actually on the 15th, but you need studies I guess to analyse the data and put it together it's one thing having the individual stories, but these studies seem to be telling you what you already had heard in your individual patients.

Yes, indeed. I mean, we've been really waiting for proper studies like this, and there seemed to be a real hesitation.

I mean, I told everybody who criticized me, well, go away and look at it.

You're sitting on the data. You're head of trusts.

You're head of of MRC, CRUK, all these things.

That's your job. It's not my job. My job is to be the whistle-blower.

But as we know, whistle-blowers in the health service are persecuted, and it would have seemed to be the same in science and everything as well.

It's been going on a long time. I was reminded yesterday that Semmelweis, who was the first person to point out that the dreadful sepsis deaths in the maternity ward were due to the fact nobody washed their hands, and if you washed their hands, you didn't get it.

All his colleagues turned around and said, you're a lunatic, and had him locked up.

I mean, I don't think things have changed with this pandemic at all.

That's exactly what's going on.

It's the death of science. nobody wants to discuss the data whether it be the origin of the virus whether it be with a pandemic it's a good or bad thing whether it be that masks are a good or bad things or that whether we should have been able to early treat as you would any respiratory virus with a good boost of vitamin D, soluble aspirin, intranasal interferon, beclamide, if it goes to the chest all these things I believe, and ivermectin which having looked at all the data, I can understand now why nobody in the establishment wanted it anywhere near a COVID patient because it worked and it saved them and there would be no need for any vaccine whatsoever and Fauci demonized it as a horse de-wormer when it is probably one of the most effective drugs in humans ever in the history of medicine, because it It prevents all sorts of things, river blindness and the liver, all the flukes, et cetera, in Africa and Asia.

And may well be a major reason why the incidence of COVID deaths in these places was so low, because they were all on ivermectin and getting good vitamin D, of course.

I've just spoken out as these studies are coming out, and we'll put the link to the Japanese study in the description.

Of course, it's in that article. As more and more people have spoken out, are you seeing more of your colleagues going public on it?

Because surely when the studies are coming out, the data is released, then that's proving what has happened.

And therefore, you will get more and more people from the medical community who actually are speaking up and saying, yeah, this is correct.

Do you think that will happen?

Well, I hope so.

I hope so. So the ones that spoke up and said, you're correct, all said, by the way, we've been told to shut up too and not upset the patients.

This is like it was a central script written somewhere because they told me the same in America, Canada, Australia, Europe and Britain, that to be quiet.

I got carpeted for pointing all these things out and said I was breaking NHS guidelines. And this would go down on my thing as breaking rules.

I said, I don't give a damn. All I'm doing is making sure I do no harm.

I suggest you do the same. NHS is causing more harm.

I think the NHS, one of the reasons it's crippling, it's spending so much time treating the side effects of the vaccine program.

And they won't admit it, of course. And I've been doing some medical legal instances where people have clearly been damaged by the vaccine and none of the people concerned will admit it. They just say coincidence.

It's just like a tape.

And I've spoken to lots of people who had very bad vaccine and had just been really badly treated.

They go out of the way to make sure it's not enough for compensation.

And I hadn't realized how many people had lost their jobs in the UK because they refused to get vaccinated or they refused to get the booster because they had had such bad bad side effects from the first two. How can you possibly justify that?

If you have a bad reaction to a drug, you don't take it again.

You don't take another dose and hope it's not as bad this time, which seems to be the NHS and the government's attitude to it.

Yeah. Another part is the cancer issue, and obviously seems to be speeding up cancer much faster.

That's certainly the people I've talked to.

But the other side, and a lot of the media reports have been a shocking cancer amongst younger people.

And the journalists, right, they have no idea why….

Yes, they do.

this has been happening recently but I mean tell because, it's that concern you think cancer is something you get maybe later on in life but this is happening younger, this changes the very nature of what that is the impact on society.

Yes I mean we have seen and there there is a paper showing that there is a real increase in patients under 44. I think it's 19 to 44 a massive increase in cancers and particularly abdominal cancers.

So colorectal. We were seeing this before, by the way, in young people in this country, obviously not in Japan.

And so I've always said it must be something to do with the diet is driving this, and so do most people.

But it seems to have accelerated since the vaccine program came on.

But we're seeing all the others. I mean, I was really surprised.

We're seeing oesophageal cancer, biliary, liver, pancreatic, upper and lower bowel, weird ones like appendix cancers.

You know, incredibly rare. I was contacted by a fellow who said that he'd seen about one of these.

He runs a colorectal surgery and he's seen about one in the last five years.

And he said, I've seen 13 recently, and they'd all had the vaccine.

They were all in young people.

So, I mean, so when people get cancers, unusually unexpected.

The first thing you should do is say, why? Do they have something in common?

Well, they do. The vast majority, again, not all of them, because there's a background incidence, have all had the vaccine or a booster.

And that to me is stop the bloody program now, you know instead I'm being told to go and get my spring booster what planet are these people on?

This is, since you've spoken up nearly or 18 months or 21 months ago I've seen more and more people write about it, is this the end then of this worldwide experiment of this new type of technology, this mRNA which is massively backfired or is it just how Big Pharma work and then they come up with the mRNA now to fix cancer which is the the latest thing we've heard.

Yeah, well, they were always working on that.

And I actually, you know, when people tell me I'm a clinician and I don't know what I'm talking about and to shut up, I tell them I know a darn sight more than they do.

And especially about the dangers of messenger RNA vaccine, because I was on a scientific advisory board for a company whose subtitle was the messenger RNA vaccine company for five years and I left about seven years ago and they were targeting cancer and they didn't get through, BioNTech had the same thing. Big Pharma and whatever's behind them at far more sinister, has used this pandemic and I mean, when it started I wouldn't even have thought along these lanes. I honestly think it was planned, it's like it was planned to get the messenger rna out, when you go back and you look at the Manhattan project for vaccines and world health, their big issue was why do we make all these vaccines? If we don't have a pandemic we won't make any money, we'll lose money so this really looks like it was all planned, why did Moderna have a patent on sars-2 in February 2019? Why did the German government go ahead and fund an an enormous big vaccine facility in Marburg to produce messenger RNA, long before they were anywhere near being approved.

It sounds like the whole thing was part of some sinister plan.

And that's what I find really, really concerning.

And I've spoken up and on the record. I think the messenger RNA vaccines are an absolute disaster, should be banned.

They should be completely, utterly banned.

And they are what they say on the till in the early BN Biotech preparations for Pfizer, they have COVID vaccine-gene therapy.

Well, that was honest. You don't use gene therapy on a pandemic that kills less than 1% of people.

And then you go ahead with the plan, when you know that the people who did die had an average age in the UK of 82, whereas average age of anybody else dying of anything else was 81.

So the logical thing for a statistician was to go around and prepare COVID and spray it all around the population and tell them they'll live an extra year longer, because you've got I mean, being very cynical about it.

But why would you? You shouldn't do it.

Chris Whitty occasionally said some sensible things, but then went on to being beheaded or whatever it is and go along with this madness.

He said, you can't use a vaccine unless you've got a death rate of 30% in the main population.

You can't justify it if you haven't got the safety data.

Why did he not stand up when it was 1% and stop it?

Could it be something to do with shut up and you'll get your rewards in the honours list which they all did these people all of them, Vallance, Whitty and all these, I was going to say goons from SAGE, I'll say that again I do, I disagreed with them totally and utterly and even the people working with the vaccines from Oxford, the Astra Zeneca, they all got knighthoods, damehoods everything long before there was any evidence it was of any any benefit.

It's unbelievable.

When these studies come out, a lay person like myself will think this then starts a catalyst of looking at other countries and wanting the data.

But then the flip side is you realize the difficulty of data, and you touched on that.

I think you had mentioned that whenever I saw you speak at Andrew Bridgen's event the end of last year in Parliament, the lack of data.

It seems like there is British data. there is Israeli data and there does seem some Japanese data.

Many other countries seem to have a complete void, but the UK government don't even want to release any of the data.

Will this force them to release it?

Will this mean there are possible financial penalties? I mean, these companies getting sued?

Where does this go whenever one country brings out a study like this, which is so comprehensive?

Well, I think you'll get other countries that will do it. I really do.

I mean, Australia, who behaved appallingly during the pandemic, I mean, they were run by a bunch of, not just clowns, but really ghoulish clowns who seem to relish in power and locking down and God knows what else, have mandatory vaccines.

Well, at least they have. They've had a lot of revolt over this, and they finally had a formal Australian Commission on Excess Deaths.

And I've been asked to give evidence for it as have some other people who've raised their voice and we'll make it very very clear what's going on, some of the senators now in Australia know exactly what was going on and they're baying for blood as it were and the thing that I'm baying for, why were the people like me in Australia and I worked in Australia for seven years by the way, I did flying doctor for a year and I did internal medicine and oncology.

I know it very very well, why did these doctors who thought like me, I'm going to look after the patients, this, that and the other, they got struck off if they they wouldn't go along with this madness.

I mean, it's unbelievable. It was inhumane. And at least that commission is going to uncover it.

I think our COVID inquiry is a whitewash to kick the can down the road for so long.

By the time it comes to the conclusions, nothing to see here, nobody, no one person was guilty.

There'll be lessons to learn. No, there won't be any lessons to learn unless they hold people to account, unless we withdraw from the WHO, this madness, this treaty they want us to sign up to, once they're all signed up, they release the next pandemic and they will have another round of vaccines for you.

I mean, I thought this was absolute madness to even think like that.

But George Orwell saw it all 70 years ago, 70 years plus.

And I mean, it's just unbelievable.

I re-read 1984 and Animal Farm when I went on holiday recently. They had a package, and I'd read them 40, 50 years ago, a long time.

If I hadn't have read them, I'd have thought, oh, somebody's seen through the lockdown and written these in lockdown as to where it could lead once you give the power to the governments to bully the thing.

Yeah, it's incredible. They could have been written in the lockdown, but he wrote them 50 years ago. He saw what was coming.

Obviously, it was about the communist model coming out of Russia and the implications.

But I never thought I would live long enough to see democracy being destroyed by the same tentacles of control that emerged due to the COVID.

And it's given them a power to interfere in everything else.

I mean, a power to block all kinds.

I've lost my faith totally in justice in the UK, probably worldwide.

The Postmaster scandal was unbelievable. when the guy was told you're the only one, I remember that's what I was told when I made a great fuss, you're the only one, it transpires there were dozens and dozens of us who made, said the same thing to the government, they ignored, there were hundreds and hundreds of postmasters who said the same thing that they ignored and now, you know we're going we're having the same absolute nonsense over climate control. I mean I went and researched climate control, I didn't have to do much research before I realized that the data is very clear out there that carbon dioxide rises when the world warms.

And it is actually something that's trying to do something good about it. And it does.

It's a heavy gas, falls to the ground, encourages plant growth, tree growth, which produces more oxygen.

It is. It's like a controller. It's like a thermostat. It is not the cause.

And you've got all these morons, and I use the word advisedly, and people like Ed Miliband should springs to mind this guy is a total moron, who thinks that if you stop the co2 from the cars, this, that and the other, you'll save the world from global warming, it won't make one iota difference and if you really succeeded in lowering co2 significant, you would actually start extinguishing life they don't seem to understand any basic biology at all and yet these morons are running our parliament, running our lives and they are impoverishing everybody on this planet. I saw my energy bill even though we tried very hard, it's absolutely ludicrous and it's even worse knowing it is five times higher than if I was in the United States where at least they've got some pragmatism with regards is, we can't do everything in the solar and wind we're going to need our oil and gas and by the way it's beneath us, ours is beneath us but we've basically said we're not going to use it and so we're dependent on China who's polluting the world to death, it's unbelievable.

I think many people have had their eyes open to many of these issues over the last couple of years of COVID tyranny. Professor Dalgleish, I'm honoured really to have you on, it's wonderful to hear your thoughts and your writings, it's good to delve into them, people can get the Conservative Woman, but thank you so much for the stand you've taken and thank you for sharing your thoughts with us today.

Right. Well, thank you very much for having me. But just remember, we've written an enormous amount of this up in The Death of Science, which is available on Kindle, Amazon, and is multi-author.

And it's got contributions from Karol Sikora, Sir Richard Dearlove, Clare Craig, Ros Jones.

I mean, I'm really proud that we've been able to really put the gauntlet down, that this government and the world's governments and the scientists and the institutions and the medical profession have killed science.

We have to do everything we can to rectify that. Thank you.

And the viewers and listeners can get that. The links will be in the description.

So however you're watching, however you're listening, you can just click on that. So, Professor, once again, thank you for your time today.

Cheers. Thank you.