We would like to thank our advertisers for our podcast:Show more This episode is brought to you by Gold Co! Get up to $10,000 in FREE silver when you go to https://DineshGold.com. Don’t wait - The time to invest in gold and silver is now!
https://www.mypillow.com Discount code DINESH
https://balanceofnature.com/pages/podcasters Discount Code America
https://angel.com/dinesh
Call 800-247-1899 or visit https://www.inspirationtravel.com/Dinesh to get information about the dragon’s prophecy tour today!
Books or guest info:
Dr. Melissa McCann “Covid Through our Eyes: An Australian story of Mistakes, Mistreatment and Misinformation” https://a.co/d/7VuYtAi
The Dragon’s Prophecy website: https://thedragonsprophecyfilm.com
Dinesh D’Souza “Life After Death: The Evidence” https://a.co/d/9d7gtPn
https://dineshdsouza.com
https://dinesh.locals.com to join Dinesh’s page and support his work!
In this episode, Dinesh celebrates the crackdown on Somalian and Democratic Party fraud in Minnesota, but argues that investigations are meaningless without prosecutorial follow-up. Dinesh uses the occasion of Trump’s strike on ISIS in Nigeria to explore the question of when exactly the US should consider using military power abroad. Show less
Coming up, I'll celebrate the crackdown on Somalian and Democratic Party fraud in Minnesota, but I'm going to argue that investigations by themselves are meaningless.
We need prosecutorial follow-up.
I'm going to use the occasion of Trump's strike on ISIS in Nigeria to explore the question: when exactly should the U.S. consider using military power abroad?
If you're watching on X, Rumble, or YouTube, listening on Apple or Spotify, please subscribe to my channel.
This is the Dinesh B'Souza podcast.
The times are crazy.
In a time of confusion, division, and lies.
We need a brave voice of reason, understanding, and truth.
This is the Dinesh D'Souza podcast.
I spoke yesterday about President Trump's strike on ISIS targets in Nigeria.
And the strikes themselves got me thinking about a bigger issue that is a real divide on the right.
And this divide concerns the question of when should the U.S. intervene militarily in another country.
Now, in a way, the MAGA movement, the America First Movement are a reaction against the Bush policy, in which it seems that we too hastily got involved, that we became involved in a kind of excessive entangled way, both in Afghanistan and in Iraq.
These were both military interventions, but in a sense, they both amounted to military occupations.
And they turned out badly in both cases.
The Taliban is back in power, evidently with enough support from the Afghan people to be able to hold power in that way.
In fact, they were able to survive throughout the U.S. occupation in the mountains.
And similarly, in Iraq, the U.S.-backed regime has fallen.
And essentially, what we have is a Shia regime in Iraq that is close to the government of Iran.
And so I think objectively, these policies associated with George W. Bush, but in some ways going before him, must be judged to be a failure.
And so there's a reaction against that, which is essentially a non-interventionist reaction that we should be very slow to commit troops and we should be slow to engage in military action.
And of course, some of that is now focused on the criticism of the Ukraine war, where the United States is involved, not directly, but certainly indirectly, supplying arms and so on.
And so, how do we think about all this?
How do we think about when to get involved?
Now, interestingly, Trump has this position in which he, I would call him, a kind of a guy who does not hesitate to use American power short of committing troops.
So, he's not putting really American lives in danger.
Well, not exactly.
You send a bomber over to Iran with some fighter jets to protect it.
There is some risk.
It's not like there's zero risk.
American soldiers and American pilots could, in fact, be killed, but you're minimizing the risk of that.
And what you're really doing is you're going abroad to administer a kind of sound and deserved beating, in one case to the Iran nuclear facilities, in another case to Soleimani, in another case to al-Baghdadi, and now, of course, to the ISIS faction that is killing Christians in Nigeria.
So, again, to ask the broad question: when is it reasonable for the U.S. to intervene militarily?
And notice that we've talked about two types of intervention.
One is just basically call it the SEAL Team 6 approach.
That's a much more modest intervention.
The other is more serious commitments of troops and so on.
So, for example, you could ask a hypothetical question.
I mean, hypothetical in the sense that it's not conjectural.
It could actually be something we're faced with.
In fact, I predict we will be faced with it in the not too distant future.
Let's say, for example, China makes a big move, military move, to take Taiwan.
What should the United States do?
I'm not sure that there is a whole lot, certainly not a whole lot of public discussion about what would the U.S. do and what should we do in that kind of eventuality.
So, I want to think about and just outline the way I think we should adjudicate these kinds of issues.
By and large, for the United States to get involved, two factors need to be present.
The first one is it needs to be in the interests of the United States.
That is first and I would say paramount.
But there's a second factor: it also needs to have an adequate moral justification.
So, notice here, I'm giving you a twofold criteria.
The first one is drawn from, you could call it moral principle, which is the, I'm sorry, that's the second one, moral principle.
And the first one is drawn from real politique or national interests.
I think you actually need both.
One is not enough.
Why not?
Well, first of all, because if it's not in the U.S. interest, why do it?
There may be things that are good to do in faraway corners of the world, but they don't affect us.
I think it's difficult to justify why the U.S. should use, notice we're talking here not about giving aid or giving any kind of relief or diplomatic support.
We're talking about actual military power.
Seems to me we should restrict military power to situations where it is in the U.S. interest.
But U.S. interests are often not enough.
Because let's say, for example, that you have a dictator in a foreign country.
He's an ally of the United States, but he's massacring his own citizens.
And the question is: should we use military power to prop him up, even though his citizens are trying to get rid of him?
And I would answer no, because even though it may be in the U.S. interest to do it, this guy is obviously a bad guy.
He's obviously harming his own people.
But not only that, how do you expect to go to the American people and say, listen, this guy's a monster, but he's our monster.
Cops and Robbers Scheme00:10:41
And so, because it's in our U.S. interest, because he proclaims himself to be a friend of ours, we're going to help him crush the aspirations of his own people.
This, I think, is not only does it make no sense and it's kind of abominable, but it's also something that will not be tolerated by the American people, who after all have themselves a moral compass that they apply to foreign affairs.
So, that to me is a somewhat broadly philosophical, but I hope useful way to think about when we should use American power.
Now, let me turn to my topic for today's podcast, which is cops and robbers.
And by robbers, I'm referring to the fraud network in Minnesota.
By the way, I can give you a fair bet that it's not just Minnesota.
These fraud networks are probably operating in other parts of the country as well.
Why shouldn't they be?
They're so easy to pull off.
Now, by the way, when I say they're easy to pull off, a lot of people are under the impression that the Minnesota Fraud Network is a fraud on Minnesota, that they've been robbing the money of the people of Minnesota.
This is, by the way, largely not true.
And I say that because what's really going on is that you have a collaboration between the fraudsters, the Democratic establishment of Minnesota, and the state government of Minnesota to defraud the federal government.
In other words, the money is the taxpayer money.
It's your money.
It's my money.
The Minnesotans, the fraudsters, are robbing us.
They're not just robbing the citizens of Minnesota.
In fact, you can argue that the political establishment of the Democratic Party in Minnesota is enabling the theft.
Now, some people may think, well, why don't we just focus on the fraudsters?
They're the ones who are doing the fraud.
Why don't we just focus on the Somalis?
And of course, we have these Nick Shirley videos, very illuminating, where he goes from learning center to learning center.
You know, in one case, the name misspelled.
In other cases, there's no learning going on.
In fact, nobody seems to be around or they seem to be closed or they won't open the door.
And so all of this has now entered the public consciousness, I think, in very dramatic ways.
And I see the government is actually responding to it.
They've unleashed a kind of battalion of investigators who are on the ground door to door checking this stuff out.
Now, first of all, you know, it's amazing that the government hasn't been doing this all along.
There hasn't been any effort to really break these fraud networks.
And all of this is consistent with my thesis that the reason that they haven't done it, well, I don't know why the federal government hasn't done it.
I know why they didn't do it under Biden because they're part of the fraud.
In other words, it's part of the Democratic Party strategy to enable fraud in this way across the country.
Fraud is the name of their game.
Fraud is partly how they get votes.
And if you go, wait, wait a minute, are you saying the Democrats are willing to break the law?
Well, yeah, of course they are.
Look at the way that they allow illegal immigration.
They break the law.
They allow law breaking.
They, in a sense, invite the lawbreakers to come here because if there's political benefits to be had, they don't care about the law.
It's a great fiction.
And in fact, even some of this reporting I'm seeing about Minnesota is misguided in the sense that Tim Waltz really dropped the ball.
Tim Waltz doesn't even know what's going on in his own state.
Tim Waltz is incompetent.
No, Tim Waltz is not incompetent.
Tim Waltz is part of it.
Tim Waltz is part of an elaborate operation.
And here, by the way, is how that operation works.
I mean, think of a bunch of Somalis who come here.
You know, and let's leave aside whether they're IQs or 68 or not.
The point is, they're newcomers.
They don't know the American system.
They can barely get by.
Some of them don't even properly speak the language.
They don't even know how to get into schools.
They certainly don't know how to operate fraud networks through the U.S. government.
Somebody has to show them the rope.
Somebody has to pave the way.
Somebody has to, in a sense, lay out the scheme.
And then they're like only too happy.
I mean, they come from corrupt cultures.
I'm not saying that they are somehow moral inhibitions.
I'm simply saying that they don't know how to apply the type of typical bribery, under-the-table passage of money, all the stuff that they do in their own countries, they don't know automatically how to do it here.
You can't do it in exactly the same way.
All immigrants who come here, and however they get here, they realize that America is different.
For example, in another country, and this is certainly true in India, no less than Somalia, if the cop stops you and says you're speeding or stops you for whatever reason, you can slip him a 20 rupee or 100 rupee note, and the guy will quietly go away.
You can't do that in America.
If a cop stops you, you can't say, Hey, officer, I've got a crisp $20 bill for you.
Now, let's forget about the speeding ticket, shall we?
You'll get arrested.
So, clearly, the American system, it's not free of fraud, but that kind of overt type of bribery is not going to work.
You need a more underhanded scheme.
You need to cover it up with a bunch of drapery.
You need a bunch of highfalutin nonsense.
I mean, this is why the Somalis have learning center, learning center, learning center, because you have to pretend like you're doing something useful, providing a service.
Oh, you know, we have people here who are learning.
There are no people there who are learning.
It's all a Potemkin village.
It's all fakery.
It's all a facade.
But you need the facade.
The facade is absolutely essential.
And what I'm saying is the Democratic Party and the Democratic Establishment of Minnesota, they're the ones who teach the Somalis the facade.
They're basically like, we know you're crooks.
We're crooks also.
But you've got to be crooked in a certain way around here.
This is the American way of crookery.
It doesn't work the way it does in Mogadishu or any place else.
And so we're going to show you how to take advantage of the fraud schemes that, in a sense, are built into the welfare state.
We created these structures, and it doesn't just go back to LBJ, and it doesn't just go back to even FDR.
It goes back even further to the 19th century, where immigrants would come off the boat, they'd be handed a bottle of vodka.
Hey, go see my friend Tony.
He's going to get you in the longshoreman's job, and he's going to get you a job as a policeman.
All we want you to do is sign here.
This is a blank ballot.
We'll fill it out for you.
Don't worry.
So the Democratic Party has been at this for a pretty long time.
I guess what I'm saying is that this is not some uniquely like Somali scheme.
This is a democratic scheme that is almost 200 years old, maybe 150 years old.
They have modified it over the years, and it is now applied to a new situation with the Somalis and with other types of groups.
But this is what the Democratic Party does.
We sometimes speak of the collaboration ultimately between the Reds and the Greens, the so-called Red-Green Alliance.
Now, this is not a direct application of the Red-Green Alliance, but it sort of is, because the Somalis, after all, represent, as Ilhan Omar does, a kind of Muslim faction.
So, although we're not talking here about sort of jihad in the direct sense of the term, they are the Greens.
The Somalis are the Greens.
And the Democrats, the socialists, the left, they are the Reds.
And so what I'm saying is that the reds are needed to show the greens the ropes.
And they are happy to do it.
And the greens are happy to be the actual robbers.
And so that's what's going on here in Minnesota.
And so this is not a sort of a one-off.
This is a tactic.
It's a little bit like what happened with Momdani in New York.
That was also a red-green operation of a different sort to get Mamdani across the finish line.
By the way, don't be surprised if similar schemes start popping up in New York.
Momdani, of course, would be the great enabler.
It won't be the Somalis.
It'll be somebody else, but there'll be different types of groups now taking benefits, but pretty much under the same rubric.
Now, Pam Bondi just posted saying basically investigations are underway.
And my point is investigations are necessary, but they are far from sufficient.
We actually need investigations, but the investigations need to be followed up with indictments and prosecutions and handcuffs and long prison sentences.
And not just, by the way, for the sort of last man on the street, but also for the organizers, for the people who cooked up these schemes.
So my guess is it's going to go fairly high up into the Democratic apparatus of Minnesota.
And it'll be a measure of the effectiveness of the DOJ and of the Trump administration more generally to see if they can really bust this wide open.
They have a golden opportunity to do it.
Republicans, however, have a very bad record of sort of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
Let's not do that this time.
They have made it easy for us to go get them.
We need to go get them.
Imagine exploring Israel where thousands of years of history are on display and embarking on a journey that changes the way you see the world.
I'm Dinesh D'Souza, inviting you to join me and New York Times best-selling author Jonathan Kahn for the Dragons Prophecy Israel tour, December 7 through 16, 2026.
For 10 unforgettable days, you'll discover the best of Israel.
You'll walk the stone streets of Jerusalem.
You'll pray at the Western Wall, sail the Sea of Galilee, stand at the Mount of Olives, and visit ancient sites that confirm the biblical prophecies and the Jewish people's history in this land.
Fortunate Queensland Vaccine Rollout00:15:27
Jonathan Khan and I will be speaking and taking questions.
We'll get to meet you.
We're going to open up the scriptures in the very places you've read about for years, connecting the archaeological record with biblical prophecy and what is happening in our world today.
This is a lifetime opportunity.
Come see for yourself what history, archaeology, and prophecy reveal in Israel.
Join us.
Go to inspirationtravel.com slash Dinesh, or you can call 800-247-1899.
You can get information about the Dragon's Prophecy tour today.
Again, the website to go to, inspirationtravel.com slash Dinesh.
You know, incorporating a wide variety of whole food ingredients into my daily routine is key for me.
And balance of nature, fruits, and veggie supplements make it simple.
They give me the fruit and vegetables that I need and that I just simply don't have the time or energy to eat.
These harvested ingredients are freeze-dried into a fine powder using an advanced vacuum cold process to better preserve nutritional value.
I can say with total confidence, I'm getting 31 ingredients from fruits and veggies and hay.
If you don't like taking pills, consider opening the fruit and veggie supplements, mix the powder into a smoothie or sprinkle it over food.
You're good to go.
Join me in taking Balance of Nature every day, and they've got a great deal for you.
50% off the whole health system for life with this limited time offer.
Go to balanceofnature.com to claim the offer.
New and existing customers can lock in the whole health system at $79.99 per order for life.
You cancel in future, you lose this price.
But act now, go to balanceofnature.com.
Guys, I'm really delighted to welcome to the podcast someone that Debbie and I got to know in Australia.
It's Dr. Melissa McCann.
She's an experienced general practitioner in the Queensland area of Australia.
Prior to her medical practice, she was a pharmacist.
She has been a leading activist in the COVID area, challenging COVID tyranny.
In fact, she has led a federal court action in Australia on behalf of people injured and bereaved by vaccines.
We're going to talk about a new book that she has co-edited called COVID Through Our Eyes, an Australian story of mistakes, mistreatment, and misinformation.
There's a website, covidthroughourise.com.au.
So the AU is for Australia, and that's where you can get information and get the e-book.
You can also follow Melissa on X at Dr DR, Melissa McCann, M-C-C-A-N-N.
Melissa, it's really a delight to see you again.
As you know, but my listeners and viewers don't, we met in Australia because you were part of our lecture tour with Tucker Carlson.
We traveled to a number of Australian cities together.
And it was, well, it was the three of us, plus, of course, our host, Clive Farmer, and the four of us did presentations generally to some very enthusiastic audiences in a number of Australian cities.
Very eye-opening and memorable experience for me.
And it was a delight to get to know you and your husband, Jared.
But talk a little bit, Melissa, about your background as a medical practitioner, as a doctor, and how you first became alerted that something was deeply wrong in the kind of COVID regime that was set up in Australia through the Australian medical establishment and through the Australian government.
I think for my viewers and listeners, it helps them to see that this COVID tyranny is not localized to America.
It's a global phenomenon.
And in some ways, some of the worst things that happened around COVID happened in your country of Australia.
Oh, hi, Dinesh.
Thank you so much for having me on.
It's absolutely lovely to see you again.
And it was such a memorable and just lovely trip that we got to spend together here in Australia.
So thank you so much.
Yeah, so I'm a general practitioner.
I think in the US, maybe that's more referred to as a family physician.
But basically, one of the first points of contact with patients is a family doctor.
And I live up in, as you mentioned, Queensland, so it's in a rural area.
And I've spent most of my career working and living in rural towns.
Before medicine, I was actually a pharmacist.
And so this community I've lived in now for the last 14 years.
And yeah, we're quite a small town up in rural North Queensland.
And so basically, yeah, COVID, just like everyone I think around the world, was just such a, yeah, interesting.
I don't even know what the word to describe it, but such a different period of time.
And I would say that I went through a few stages of evolution to where I'm at now, where I would say I started out as someone who had a very high level of trust in government, a very high level of, I suppose, faith in what government was doing, that they had our best interests at heart, and that I was really keen to do my part to help protect my community during COVID.
and do what I could to help in that scenario.
And over the period from say 2020 to 2021, I guess everyone's focus was really on watching what was going on overseas.
We didn't have a lot of COVID at all in Australia.
And so we were really watching from the sidelines.
And there was a lot of fear.
There was a lot of fear amongst my colleagues.
So the clinic, actually, myself and my husband, we own that clinic.
We started that clinic.
We now have nine GPs and we had, I think, eight who were working with us at that time.
And there was a lot of really genuine fear for catching COVID, fear, a lot of reports of very high death rates from COVID.
You know, at one point we were having a chat amongst doctors and there were reports coming out of Italy of 30% death rate.
And so I guess that was initially my perspective.
How do we keep everyone safe?
And that meant putting up the Perspex windows and thinking about how we might screen and monitor patients as they came in and coordinating off an area of the clinic if people wanted to get change before and after they started.
And for a long period of time, we weren't seeing any patients face to face.
It was all done through telehealth.
And when we had out, we set up our waiting area on chairs outside the clinic.
So everything was focused on, I guess, this really, what I look back now and think perhaps irrational, overwhelming fear of COVID.
Certainly in the context of what at least the authorities knew at that time, that the infection fatality rate was far less than what was being reported by the media.
And so then the next phase from that was the lockdown period, I guess, that Australia went to is probably the best way to describe that.
And as you mentioned, Dinesh, we had some of the most, I think, draconian lockdown measures put into place in Australia.
Very fortunate up where I was living.
We did have a fairly prolonged period of enforced mask wearing.
And there was a period of time where you couldn't travel for, I think perhaps more than 10 or 15 minutes from your home.
You couldn't leave our local sort of town to go anywhere else.
But in Melbourne, for example, the situation has been described to me by people who live there as, you know, traumatic.
I had patients literally as soon as the borders opened who came up to visit and I sort of offhand asked them, oh, how's it been down there?
Was it as bad as, was it as bad as some of what I hear?
And this man just absolutely started sobbing.
He said it was just absolutely horrific period of time.
There was a very long, I believe it was many months where there was actually a curfew put in place.
So they were not allowed to leave their home after maybe 8 or 9 p.m.
They weren't allowed to have anyone else in the home.
So they went through a lot of the COVID period.
If you were single, for example, in complete isolation where you couldn't have someone visit your home.
And of course, all the horrific stories that I think we have heard around the world of people who were left to die alone, of loved ones who couldn't visit their spouses when they're in their last days of life.
And all of the horrors that came along really with some of the government measures.
And I think that was probably the start of a turning point to me where as a doctor, I looked at some of the measures that our politicians were putting into place.
And firstly, there was no real medical sense to what was being done.
And second of all, there just seemed to be no consideration for the human cost of the decisions that were being made.
And there was this great hypocrisy that I think we heard happening amongst other governments as well, where there were instances where government officials had breached those rules, where they were allowed to have visitors in hospital.
whereas the peasants, the rest of us, weren't.
And so it was this sort of two-tiered, two-tiered management, which also, of course, makes no medical sense and makes one become a little bit more, I suppose, circumspect about whether in fact these political leaders were acting in our best interests.
And then, of course, came the vaccine rollout.
And being someone who's been, I suppose, at the forefront of vaccination delivery as a general practitioner.
So to put that into context, in Australia, the overwhelming majority of vaccines, the childhood vaccination schedule, et cetera, is administered through family physicians, through general practice.
I believe in America, that's more a pediatrician's role, whereas that's a huge part of the role of family medicine.
And that was something that I'd always felt very positive about and I suppose passionate about.
And again, I felt that vaccination was this enormously important public health role that doctors were to play.
And I felt the same when the COVID vaccine came out, that this would be an opportunity to help in providing the vaccination rollout to my community, in hopefully helping to protect people from COVID and hopefully ending this awful situation of these draconian measures and these lockdowns and finally allowing people to get back to normal life.
And so that was my attitude, I suppose, going into it.
And I didn't hear a lot about some of the side effects that were happening, for example, internationally.
That wasn't something that was widely published.
There are a couple of little warning bells that started to ring throughout 2021.
One was when there was the announcement of deaths in nursing home residents in Norway when the Pfizer vaccination rollout first began.
But unfortunately, well, I think unfortunately, the response from our officials, our regulators, the Therapeutic Goods Administration, was seemingly this really swift response.
And I should say my background as pharmacy, the TGA was very highly regarded in Australia as being one of the best regulators in the world.
That was actually a phrase that was commonly used during my time as pharmacy.
And I think that's come from the fact we have, we certainly had quite tight advertising laws.
So drug companies are not allowed to directly advertise to consumers.
And so I think that, in combination with other established regulatory standards, the TGA had a really high level of trust amongst the profession.
And so when the TGA came out soon after that announcement and said, we've thoroughly investigated this and there's no relationship between the vaccine and those deaths in Norway, that was really reassuring to hear that.
And essentially, I guess just to sum it up, throughout 2021, I just started to see, first of all, hear of more and more concerning stories that were coming out of internationally where the vaccine rollout had already well and truly begun.
And then for us, or in my area at least, the actual administration of the vaccines started in perhaps May or June of 2021.
And that was first with the AstraZeneca.
And then everything really started to change for me because I only participated actually in the end in giving out a very small number of vaccines because I stopped after maybe the first dozen patients with the AstraZeneca.
We did a very small clinic.
And then at that time, there was a three-month gap to have the booster for AstraZeneca, which I think is a vaccine that was not administered in the US.
And essentially within that three-month period, from that very small number of patients, I had seen a number of really serious side effects.
So several of those patients passed away since then.
There was someone who had a stroke.
And then people who were, as we stopped giving out the vaccines, mandates started to be announced and rolled out.
So that was initially in about sort of September, October of 21.
There was a lot of talk of mandates.
And then in Queensland, there was a cutoff date that was set as December 16th or December 10th, something like that.
And so then around that final quarter of 2021, there was just an enormous number of people who were having vaccines.
And before that point, I'd said, look, I'm not, I don't want to participate in this anymore.
I was worried about the side effects.
And, you know, I was also extremely concerned about this idea of it being mandatory.
For me, that was a complete turnaround from everything that our government officials had said from the beginning.
They'd always said quite clearly, this would never be mandated.
And of course, a mandatory vaccine, this is completely contrary to medical ethics.
And it was just not something that I had any comfort in participating in, you know, administering.
So at that point, I wasn't, we weren't giving them out anymore, but people were coming in as a consequence of the mandates in very large numbers, having to have the vaccine.
So I guess thousands and thousands of people in my local area were being vaccinated in the space of a month or two.
And this was a period of time that is almost difficult to describe, difficult to look back on.
Pandemic Side Effects Reporting00:12:21
It feels quite surreal simply because of the number of people reporting side effects in that period of time.
So we were just having phone calls every day with people who were reporting chest pain, people who are having neurological symptoms and needed to be sent to hospital.
The number of, I guess, just ambulances that we were needing to call from our clinic within a week from people who were coming in saying, I just got my vaccine a couple of days ago.
Now I've got this chest pain.
So it was just, you know, put the ECG on and then send them straight to hospital.
We had two resuscitations in the car park in the space of a week from people who unfortunately had actually had strokes.
And of course, we sent them straight to hospital.
So I can't categorically say this had any relationship with the vaccine, but it was all within this time period.
And we had people calling, you know, my desk at that stage, my room was quite close to our reception desk.
And so I would just hear the reception staff taking phone calls all day from people who were, you know, I could hear from the other end of the phone call, they were reporting, you know, miscarriages, they were trying to get in for an urgent appointment because they'd had these sudden symptoms.
And having been in this area and working at this clinic for more than a decade at that stage, it was just so obvious, this enormous change in presentations that I was directly seeing myself in my own patients.
And so it was at that point that I had a look at the TGA's adverse event database, which I hadn't even looked at in some months.
And I just thought, well, what has actually been reported by to the TGA?
And I was just utterly mortified to see that there had been a number of deaths in teenagers that had been reported to the TGA.
There was probably half a dozen, I would think at least at that stage, reports of cardiac arrests in young people under the age of 20.
And again, my background being pharmacy, I'm really familiar, I suppose, with that adverse events reporting system.
And of course, I know these are just reports, and that doesn't mean that they've been assessed for causality, but it means that there were an extraordinary number of people who were reporting these types of side effects to the TGA.
And this mirrored what I was seeing in my own practice.
So of course, the first thing to do at that point was to write to the head of the TGA.
So that's Professor John Skerrett.
And so I wrote to him and also our health minister, Greg Hunt, and I sort of copied a number of those reports that had been reported to the database.
And I outlined, you know, my background and my experience and what I'd observed.
And I requested a suspension of the program.
I said, you know, this has happened before.
Doctors have noticed extraordinary patterns of side effects, requested a suspension of a program.
And when it comes to something like vaccination, normally that would be acted on really quickly.
And there's been an instance, at least one in Australia, where a flu vaccination program has been halted immediately from those reports.
So that was actually the response that I expected.
But it was just not the response that I received.
So I received a letter from John Skerritt where he essentially said, you know, sadly enough, young people die every year, coincidentally.
And so, you know, we're going to see deaths that occurring soon after vaccination.
And I'm very confident that the safety of the vaccines well outweighs the risks.
And I was really, obviously unsatisfied with that response.
And everything, I suppose, started from there for me.
From that point, I just really had my ears pricked up as to exactly what was going on.
I really took an interest from that point in patients who were coming in and reporting these symptoms.
And I guess everything sort of started from there.
I started to write more letters.
I reached out to colleagues on large sort of Facebook, closed Facebook forums to ask what the experience of others was.
I called, you know, rang up and spoke to other clinic owners in my own area and just to try to really gauge a feel of what others were seeing.
And that was also extremely concerning for me because what I observed was that doctors were very afraid to speak about this topic.
And the reason for that was that the medical board had put out a diktat the year prior to basically say that if any health professionals spoke adversely about the vaccines, that they would essentially risk regulatory action.
They would essentially risk the medical board or the professional boards coming down on them.
And this had an extremely strong effect on dissuading doctors from speaking about this.
I had many colleagues who would speak to me in absolute confidence and privacy and congratulate me and not congratulate the wrong, but thank me for what I was doing in terms of trying to raise an awareness of this, but express the fact that they couldn't co-sign a letter or they couldn't, you know, they couldn't themselves put their name on taking any sort of action like this because they feared for their own careers.
And so then eventually that process has culminated in a class action, which it's a legal action that you mentioned earlier.
That was a federal court class action that was filed in early 2023.
And yeah, I guess there's a lot more I could talk about that.
It is still ongoing, the class action.
So I guess that's where things are at now.
Denise, that's a long, long background, but that's how I got to hear.
No, no, it's actually quite eerie to listen to, right?
Because we all lived through these developments.
And I think to some degree, even for, say, Debbie and me, we're not doctors, but W is actually very interested in health and medicine.
And so we went through, I would say, a process somewhat analogous to the one that you did.
And I think many others did as well.
Here we are now, you know, on the edge of 2026.
COVID is not entirely in the rearview mirror, but maybe mostly so.
What you've described is a process where it seems that the normal protocols of medicine, the normal restraint of politics, the normal preference for voluntary as opposed to mandatory procedure, all of this was thrown out the window.
So in this book, which is a lot of, I would say, you know, very from many different perspectives, it's a book of essays that cover various dimensions of all of this.
Do you think that this was a case of kind of well-meaning people faced with a new type of virus that they didn't know how to cope with?
And so they just bungled their way forward.
And that's how we got all this excess and tyranny.
Or option two, do you think that this was actually a case where some very some people who had a lot of money to be made and a lot of political power to be gained recognized that the fear that would naturally come out of any kind of pandemic could be very carefully orchestrated or manipulated in a way that would put not millions,
billions of dollars into their pockets, increase the power of the government over the ordinary citizen.
So what is your kind of takeaway, Melissa, at the end of it?
Is it a case of like, well, good intentions gone awry?
Or is this basically, was this some kind of a global political and pharmaceutical racket?
I think at this point in time, it's difficult to reconcile it being anything other than the latter, just in terms of the way the global coordination, I suppose, and having now connected with so many medical colleagues from different countries around the world to hear such similar experiences.
So many of the other regulators took exactly the same stance, completely restricted doctors from discussing the concerns that they had, implemented these unethical mandatory vaccination policies.
And so how does something like that happen simultaneously around the world unless there's some, you know, someone who's controlling that or some group of people who, for whatever reason, who knows for whatever reason, that there was some sort of agenda behind that?
And of course, you know, the types of players that really, in many ways, control the world had in fact, you know, run simulations on these types of events and how they would run and how they would play out.
And so it's, you know, when you see the way that it did play out, how else can you reconcile exactly what happened?
I'm certain that amongst whoever runs the world and whoever was behind all of this, I'm sure there were an enormous number of very well-meaning people who went along with this with the best of intentions, including probably many, many leaders whose aim and goal was to keep their communities safe and to do what they thought was the right thing to do.
And I'm sure that's many professionals would be in the same situation.
I know how eagerly most doctors went to get the vaccine themselves, went to get it for their parents, for their children.
So I know for a fact that many people thought that they were doing the right thing for a very long time and perhaps still do.
But it is hard to envisage how all of this happened in such a coordinated way.
And as you say, the book really speaks to that.
And in Australia, in particular, the contrast is very stark because there was a pandemic management plan that had been, I suppose, refined over a number of years.
And there was a lot of input internationally from international experts into how that pandemic plan would look.
And then our response here in Australia was just the complete opposite, really, in many ways of what that pandemic plan, you know, what we had planned for.
And so then that also makes you think, well, why?
When we had the top infectious disease experts in the country and around the world come together to write this plan in 2019 and build on previous pandemic management plans, why and how did we deviate so completely from that?
And so I think at the very least, our leaders in Australia, there was a degree of reckless disregard for the consequences of decisions that they were making when they were making those decisions, knowing that they would cause harm and knowing that they went against established best practice plans.
And I guess in many ways, that's what the legal action is about.
And the book talks a lot about that pandemic plan and how it was completely ignored during COVID.
Guys, the book is really a window into the universality of this COVID experience and how it was used, I think, in very nefarious ways to shut down basic liberties and in the end to harm a lot of people medically.
Dr. Melissa McCann's Moral Argument00:02:22
I've been talking, guys, to Dr. Melissa McCann.
You can follow her on X, DR, Dr. Melissa McCann.
The website, covidthroughoures.com.au.
Don't forget the.au part.
And that's the title of the book, COVID Through Our Eyes, edited by Professor Robert Clancy and Dr. Melissa McCann.
Melissa, thank you very much for joining me.
Thank you so much, Dinesh.
It's lovely to speak to you.
Mike Lindell will be the first to tell you this has been one of the hardest years in MyPillow history.
And it's because of you, my viewers and listeners, that they are making it through.
They want to thank you for your continued support by passing on some big specials to my viewers and listeners.
Get the Children's Bible Story Pillow Five Pack for $29.98.
My slippers with a free bottle of leather protectant spray for $39.98.
Blankets, comforters, and duvets as low as $25.
And a blowout sale on the standard MyPillows for just $14.98.
Go to mypillow.com or call 800-876-0227.
Use promo code Dinesh.
Take advantage of these wholesale prices, including the standard size MyPillow, originally $49.98, now just $14.98.
Queen size, by the way, $18.99, King's only a dollar or more.
We know MyPillow products come with a 10-year warranty, but MyPillow is announced.
They're extending their 60-day money-back guarantee.
Right.
So, orders placed now will have their 60-day money-back guarantee extended through March 1st, 2026.
Once again, it's 800-876-0227.
Or go to mypillar.com.
Don't forget to use the promo code.
It's D-I-N-E-S-H Dinesh.
Is the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians the revival of an ancient conflict recorded in the Bible?
The nation of Israel is a resurrected nation.
What if there was going to be a resurrection of another people, an enemy people of Israel?
The dragon's prophecy.
Moral Code and Afterlife00:10:55
Watch it now or buy the DVD at thedragonsprophecyfilm.com.
I'm going to try to today give a moral argument for life after death.
And it is what I call a presuppositional argument.
Now, a presuppositional argument is when you suppose something to be true.
You don't prove it, you suppose it to be true, and you ask yourself if it explains all the facts in front of you that you do know to be true.
So, let me give you an example of how this works.
Let's just say a woman is really baffled by the fact that she's been dating this guy for years and he is not proposed to her.
So, she thinks, why isn't the guy committing?
And so, finally, she asks her friends, and they go, Hey, he has no intention of marrying you.
He's not going to propose.
Now, think of it, the friends don't know the guy.
But what they're doing is they're making a proposition, a conjecture, and the conjecture has the power of explaining things that the alternative hypothesis can't explain.
So, let's say the woman thinks, Well, you know, maybe the guy hasn't proposed because it's not the right time.
Well, maybe so, but it's more reasonable to suppose that the guy is just making excuses because he doesn't really want to get married, at least not to her.
So, if someone else came along who was the right person, he wouldn't worry about whether it is the right time or not.
So, the point of the propositional argument is that even though it's conjectural, it makes sense of the facts that are known.
Now, here's the propositional argument I'm going to make about life after death: unlike a material object, which is a stone or a tree-well, a tree is a living thing, but it's not conscious in the way that we are, we human beings inhabit two worlds: one is the way things are, and the other is the way things ought to be.
So, we are moral animals.
We recognize that just as there are natural laws that govern the movement of planets and why stones roll down the hill and that kind of thing, we also are moved by values, and these values defy scientific explanation.
In fact, they're outside the reach of science.
Why?
Because science is about the way things are, and values are about the way things should be or ought to be.
Now, I'm going to argue that the whole idea of values of right and wrong, and in fact, the kind of moral accompaniment of those ideas, things like what goes around comes around, the whole idea of cosmic justice, the whole idea that we believe in right and wrong, even though we know that people who do wrong often come out ahead in the world, and people who do right often come out behind.
Even though we know this to be true, we nevertheless uphold this kind of standard of moral values.
And what I'm going to show is that the very fact that we do this implies that we have a presupposition, a kind of hidden expectation that there is another world in which all accounts will be settled, in which ultimately the good people will be rewarded and the bad people will be punished.
And so our moral compass is the reflection of that world inside of this one.
So it's almost like the other world is manifesting itself in this world through what we experience in our own minds as conscience.
Now, let me go into this in the following way.
We have, as human beings, this kind of moral code.
And by the way, it doesn't have to be an external moral code, a set of rules, the Ten Commandments.
I'm talking just about the moral code, the moral voice inside of you.
This is what Adam Smith calls the impartial spectator.
And the reason he calls it the impartial spectator is that this moral voice is not you.
It is different than you.
It is judging you.
It has the power not to compel you, but it has the power to speak to you with unquestionable authority.
You can fall short of it.
You can even reject what morality commands, but you can't avoid some guilt or regret or at least awareness of what you have done.
This is why Aristotle calls man, quote, the beast with the red cheeks.
By the way, notice that even when people who are caught doing really bad things, they will rarely say, Of course I did that.
I'm a thief.
Of course I killed a guy.
I'm a murderer.
What they say is things like, well, yeah, I lied, but I, you know, I didn't have any alternative.
Or yeah, I stole, but that was to support my family.
Or, of course, I'm a, of course, I did this, but I had a good reason for doing it.
So the point I'm getting at here is that we live in a scientific world.
Let's call it an evolutionary world.
But evolution does nothing more than describe things, again, the way they are.
And by the way, the portrait that evolution gives us is that we are selfish creatures.
This is why the biologist Richard Dawkins wrote a book called The Selfish Gene.
Our genes really make us want to advance our own interests in the world, to survive, to flourish, to reproduce.
And so that is the evolutionary drive.
Notice that the moral drive is completely in the opposite direction.
The moral drive goes against your self-interest.
In fact, think about it.
If morality were nothing more than selfishness, then you wouldn't need it.
You wouldn't need morality at all.
Your selfishness would be enough.
The very fact that we have morality as a check on selfishness.
And this is a refutation of all these sort of naturalistic theories of morality.
Things like, well, the reason people are good to other people is they expect them to be good to you in return.
In other words, it's a kind of mercenary morality.
Or it says something like the business guy is kind to you when you come into the store, but that's just because he wants you to come back.
He's looking for future business from you.
But I would argue that these things are not morality at all.
Because morality is not the voice that says, hey, listen, you should be truthful when it benefits you.
Oh, hey, you should be nice to people who are in a position to help you.
The whole idea of morality is that you should be nice to people, including the people who cannot help you at all.
So all of this is leading to a rather startling conclusion, which is that the idea of morality has within it the kind of hidden presumption or suggestion of an afterlife.
Or by an afterlife, I just mean a field of cosmic justice in which ultimately all earthly accounts are closed and settled.
So, what I'm getting at is this: we humans, and this is, by the way, just as true of atheists as it is true of religious believers, we inhabit two separate worlds.
So, the first world is the evolutionary world.
The scientific world, I'm going to call this realm A.
And then there's the next world.
I'm going to call it Realm B.
And what I'm saying is, we who live in Realm A have the standards of realm B built into our world.
In fact, built into ourselves.
What a remarkable phenomenon this is.
And notice again that it is utterly outside the reach of science.
Science is about the empirical world, the material world, the world of objects and the laws that connect these objects, the one to the other.
But about the whole domain of morality, of thou shalt and thou shalt not, science has absolutely nothing to say at all.
It's almost like there's one half of the world, of this world, that is outside the orbit of modern science altogether.
And the reason that we know that these moral standards are not from this world, but from another world, is that unlike scientific laws, the moral laws have no ability to compel us.
So, in scientific laws, it must be.
The stone must roll down the hill.
Gravity must operate.
There's no, in a way, exception to scientific laws because these laws are, in a way, compelled by nature itself.
But notice that this is not true of any moral law.
If you look at any of the Ten Commandments, I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt not have other gods before me.
But lots of people do.
So clearly, this moral principle can be flouted.
It's not forced upon you.
You have to choose to do it.
So the point I'm trying to make is that it's like we have this little whisper inside of us from the next world, and it doesn't force us.
It's like, this is the way things should be.
This is how you should act.
This thought that you have is wrong.
You need to correct your course.
So it's almost as if we're getting a kind of echo from the next world into this one, and it is prompting us of what the standards of that other better world are like.
So our interests, and the reason that morality is kind of hard, and in fact, why do people fall short of it so often is really simple.
And that is our interests in this world are right in front of us.
We have immediate benefits to be gained by doing this or that.
But the moral voice is a little bit more distant.
It's almost like a voice coming to you from a tunnel.
And it is ultimately proposing a scheme that is not rectified until you die, until the next world.
So in other words, the benefits of morality are sort of long-term.
They might be greater.
It might even be ultimately eternal salvation that is at stake.
But it's eternal salvation that for us, short-term creatures, very narrow-minded, very focused on the present, we're like, that's going to be, that's a long ways away.
People don't realize, well, you could die tomorrow, but they're like, no, no, that's not going to happen.
I'm going to die tomorrow.
It's a long ways away.
And therefore, most people are more short-sightedly focused on their interests now, as opposed to what they should be planning or preparing for in the world to come.
Subscribe to the Dinesh D'Souza podcast on Apple, Google, and Spotify.