All Episodes
Feb. 18, 2022 - David Icke
19:25
Right Now - Dr David Cartland Explains Why He Resigned Over 'Covid' Vaccine Injuries
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This week on Divine, we are all about love.
That's right. We speak to relationship expert Kezia Noble about helping men meet the woman of their dreams.
Shelby Thompson joins us all the way from Hawaii to tell us why she set up a matchmaking agency for unvaccinated people.
Kali Mansfield is here with her weekly look at the mainstream media giving us her take on the information they've been feeding us.
And Daniela Lawler is here with empowering health and lifestyle advice.
This week on Right Now, UK nurse Nicola Reid tells us about being fired for not wanting a vaccine.
Dr David Cartland talks to us about resigning as a GP over the UK government's handling of COVID. Chris De La Mer joins us from New Zealand to tell us about losing his position as a head teacher and joining the New Zealand freedom movement.
and investigative journalist Johnny Vedmore tells us about the research he's done
into a secretive elite group of five people who he says are responsible for most of the global response
to COVID-19.
♪♪♪ ♪♪♪
♪♪♪ ♪♪♪
Our next guest has recently resigned as a GP over the UK government's handling of COVID.
Dave Cartland said he tried to raise legitimate concerns about the virus and vaccine safety but was ignored.
He also says the way the COVID situation has been managed in the UK has been abhorrent and the NHS is not fit for purpose.
He joins us now. Dr.
Cartland, thank you so much for joining us.
You've walked away from a very successful career as a GP. That must have been a really difficult decision for you.
Yeah, and it's not a decision that I've taken lightly, really.
It's been a decision that's been, you know, I've got to it over a two-year process, really, from the beginning of the COVID pandemic all the way through.
I've been on a period of observation, really, of how we've been handling, or should I say, mishandling things in the COVID pandemic, really.
So, yeah, I mean, I've took a lot of years of my life to get to the position that I'm in.
You know, I've been working as a doctor for 14 years, and prior to that, I've done You know, two degrees research year where I've published medical research as well.
So it's took me 10 years of training.
So, you know, collectively a good 24, 24 years of a, I'm not going to say how old I am, but 24 years of a You look good for it.
You look a dance like younger than me.
I mean, you wrote a very powerful 11-page testimony.
It's on your Twitter where you laid out, you know, your concerns that you'd had with people, that you'd raised them and that you were ignored with these concerns.
What were the particular concerns about the last two years that really got to you?
Yeah, I mean, I split it up really into two years.
The first year, like any human, I'm subject to the same signals as everybody else.
And what I mean by that is, you know, all the media narrative that's coming at us all.
And like I said, that goes from nurses, doctors, members of the public, parents, we're all hearing the same thing.
But, you know, I just remember that first year I was just picking up very early signals, really, of Things not being as bad as we were led to believe in terms of, you know, one of my other jobs aside from being a GP is an A&E doctor and an out-of-hours doctor.
So, you know, we're expecting, you know, bodies piling up in the streets.
We're expecting people, you know, dropping down left, right and centre.
Never quite happened that way.
You know, I just remember back then it was never a busy period in my career.
You know, GP is generally very busy.
But I wasn't really seeing those people that were coughing their lungs up essentially and being really poorly with a COVID sounding illness.
And then the second half of it has really been about just spotting, you know, consistencies in terms of just seeing lots of Evidence that the vaccines aren't doing what they say on the tin, for starters.
What I mean by that is that vaccines should be doing two things, really.
They should be stopping you from catching a disease in the area of vaccines.
Should stop you from catching and spreading.
And the second thing they should be doing also is stopping you becoming personally unwell.
And the ultimate unwell is death, I guess.
And then the third thing is really you need it to be safe.
And that, across the last 12 months of the period, That's been where the main concerns come.
We're just not really responding to signals of harm, as I call them in that article.
And my ability to raise these concerns has been stifled somewhat.
To say that having some form of engagement debate on these matters in an open forum of local colleagues or regional colleagues or anywhere, really, you get shut down.
And we're talking safety issues here and things that you spotted, you know, links to vaccine injuries, you know, no one really can talk about vaccine injuries openly without feeling that they're going to be shut down.
And, you know, the back end of this period, the last two years, I've seen lots of examples of, you know, potential, and I'm not saying they are vaccine injuries, but potential vaccine injuries in people that just haven't been right, Gareth, they just haven't been right since the jabs, whether it's the second jab, the first jab, They've just not been right from, like I say, just generally not feeling as energetic as they were to death.
And, you know, to be able to court and everything in between in that spectrum, I've seen everything from strange skin conditions, strange neurological presentations, massive increases in cancer referrals, just generally, and not COVID, you know, that's the thing, it's not been COVID that I've seen.
And, you know, we're dealing with a very different, you know, beast at the moment in terms of Omicron, and that's not really been acknowledged by the The consensus of the medical profession that Omicron is so very different, very much more milder in terms of its symptoms.
And so this whole, the final nail for me was really, aside from the NHS mandate, was the fact that children, you know, the children, I've been kind of clumped together with generally unwell people.
You know, the data's out there really, Gareth, it's out there that the people that have died of COVID are either elderly, they've got comorbidities, several comorbidities, usually around the heart and lungs anyway.
And they're usually generally overweight and unhealthy folk.
So, you know, I think the recent data set I saw from the Freedom of Information Act said that the average age of death From COVID within 28 days, as I said, was two years higher than the average lifespan of a male, for example, which is just bizarre.
And they're vaccinating our children based upon this very simple piece of data.
It is extraordinary.
That's something that I found extraordinary from the beginning was that average age of death and how that never really seemed to enter into any conversation about anything.
You've raised these legitimate concerns with colleagues.
I'm assuming, obviously, if you're seeing these potential vaccine injuries and deaths and stuff, they must be as well.
Why do you think that they're not interested in having a conversation about it?
It's a really interesting question and if I knew the answer to that I would have probably tried to address it more because you know I felt that you know that's what I keep saying to people you need to realize that you know after all that training all of that those years experience what has it taken for Dr Cartland to come to this decision of you know leaving that profession got a decent life down here in Cornwall you know two and a half days of work clinical work and four and a half day What's his doctor seen, heard, witnessed? What has he been unable to share with his colleagues and feel that he's been heard that's led him to resign?
I've had many, many conversations with many doctors, colleagues, even upcountry, that you can't have that engagement.
They just shut you down and they call your names and you just ask them the data.
If you've got the old science of debating and discussing and rebutting each other's argument, it seems to have gone out of the window.
And people are just quite rude about it.
You know, they've got to that response where rather than engage, they'll just call you a name and walk away or block you or call you a COVIDiet, etc, etc.
It's a very bizarre psychology and I can't explain it, Gareth, in complete honesty.
I wonder how much of that, because I see quite a lot of that on social media as well, is almost buyer's remorse a bit because these people were told as you were told and I was told, you know, this is safe and effective, it's going to stop me getting it, stop me spreading it.
People have gone and had three of these things and now, well no, actually, it doesn't do any of those things.
It's quite a good way of putting it, about buyer's remorse, exactly that.
And these people that have been sort of jabbing, you know, it's been a conveyor belt of jabbing in cohorts, getting ever younger, ever healthier.
And you should see it in action, Gareth.
It literally is like a conveyor belt of hundreds and hundreds of people.
One after the other being injected.
There's a whole area around consent.
What I've been witnessing in the vaccination clinics is that there's certainly very cursory consent being sought.
People, even now after three jabs, don't know what they've had.
They don't know what it consists of.
They don't know it's a novel technology.
They don't know how to report safety concerns.
That's all part of a valid consent.
But the flip side of that is if you don't want it after you've been fully informed, that's equally valid.
And we were seeing that with the NHS scenario.
People were being bullied, coerced, call it what you like.
You know, nurses and doctors were set to lose their job.
They still may do in the future, but that aside, it's just absolutely absurd.
Abhorrent, that's a word I've used, that we're actually considering.
And even today, hearing in the media that we've got, you know, 5 to 11s are in the crosshairs of the vaccinators now.
And it's very easy, I've said in previous interviews, Gareth, you know, it's very easy to disperse these crowds of baying anti-vaxxers, if you like.
Just give them the data, very quick, very easy.
Give them the safety data. If it's there, you're that confident enough to jab in, well, not infants, but young people.
Down to the age of five, then give them the safety data.
All patients want is the reassurance.
They trust their doctor. They trust them implicitly with their life and their children, etc.
And they just want that confidence to come from their doctors rather than just be blankly unengaged with.
It's a very bizarre phenomenon.
Like you say, buyer's remorse is a very good way of putting it, really, because they've been doing this from the beginning.
And they can't unjab people now, so they kind of have to justify it.
Yeah, I do wonder that, if there is an element of guilt almost on people's part, if you have to acknowledge that actually maybe there is a problem, then that would be a struggle to look in the mirror.
If you think, well, how many have I done?
A little disclaimer, I've not checked anyone, just to put that out there.
It's interesting you say about informed consent, of course, because I've had surgeries in my life, I broke my leg and stuff, and I remember going in and the surgeon talking me through it and saying, this could happen, this could happen, this could happen, and me being like, well, what's the chances of that?
And it's minuscule, it's 0.00000 whatever.
And I'm almost thinking, God, you're making me more nervous, but he has to tell me.
You know, what we think is a good thing as a doctor, you know, there's best interest principles around that.
But, you know, somebody's dying of an appendicitis, they need an appendicitis.
But at the same time, I have to talk to them and say, you know, It might kill you.
You might have a general anaesthetic. It might be a 1 in 10,000, for example, chance of a general anaesthetic reaction or a failed intubation.
But they still need to know that, and they're within their rights.
If they're not happy, you know, it depends on what they feel their odds are and their risk assessment, really.
But they're allowed to say no. The example I use is Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, they refuse blood.
And when I was an A&E doctor prior to being a GP, you know, you couldn't give them blood.
And, you know, that may or may not be the right reason in terms of you can debate what the barber says about taking blood transfusions.
But ultimately, they've made a conscious advance decision.
Not to have that treatment.
And I've seen germs winces die on the resource table because you can't give them that life-saving blood.
Cancer patients choose, you know, quality over quantity.
Now, all I can really do is, you know, counsel them in both directions.
And if they choose for quality and turn down chemotherapy and all the side effects they're with, they're absolutely within their rights, except a COVID-19.
Yeah, exactly. It seems to be the only thing, isn't it?
Like I say, you get this informed consent for everything, no matter how minuscule the chances of a reaction might be.
Yet, on the other hand, you've got Pfizer, for instance, trying to lock away their safety data for 75 years.
Which isn't going to fill anyone with any kind of confidence.
I mean, the safety data that is there, that they're not lucky in a way, is pretty damning, to be honest, the stuff that you do see.
And it's Pfizer's own documentation of figures of harm and death in their small studies.
I mean, massive, massive, compared to the fact that swine flu vaccination, for example, killed double figures, 50, I think the figure was, and they stopped it, they pulled the vaccination.
How many deaths is it going to take of healthy adults?
How many children with myocarditis will it take?
It's almost like we haven't had enough until we reach the threshold, then we'll think about it.
I'm here to tell you now that those things are happening up and down the country.
Doctors and nurses are aware of these cases, but they're petrified.
They're petrified Gareth of the repercussions of speaking out.
The only reason I can is because I've had to cancel myself and quit the profession, which is a pretty sad state of affairs.
Yeah, but it took incredible courage to do that, mate.
I have to say, like, 24 years of doing something, 10 years of training, that's...
At the same time, I would say this, I took an oath, the same as every other doctor, and I've just reminded my colleagues on social media of a couple of things.
There's an area called good medical practice.
Ironically, it's a GMC guidance on it, and also on valid consent and capacity.
I think it's bizarre.
It's gone out of the window.
There's good medical practices around making your patient your prime concern.
I'm very sort of The buzzword from that article, I think you've read it, haven't you?
It's primal non-lasera, which is firstly, do no harm.
You know, we don't want to harm patients.
We're there to advocate and to offer them.
And, you know, in that process of consent and concordance, we're reaching agreement.
That's what it used to be, particularly as GPs, and that's in every consultation that we do.
What do you feel it's about?
I mean it's a tough question to ask because it's almost like you're not privy to what goes on in boardrooms and meetings of people that are way further up the ladder than me and you but it doesn't make sense and so it's obviously human nature for people like me and you to try and make sense of this insanity.
What do you feel it's about?
Yeah, good question.
We can both speculate. And I think the next few weeks are going to be very interesting because the data I'm surrounded by, I mean surrounded, almost drowning in.
It's categoric.
It's beyond a reasonable doubt.
And you can't hide from that data for much longer.
You know, it's going to be, well, we shall see.
I think there's impending, very interesting things happening, and I'll keep it at that.
Yeah, I think a lot of what's happening as well is that the anecdotal stuff is happening in people's lives.
So like you're saying, your colleagues are seeing stuff now that maybe they weren't before.
And also, you know, I feel, and it's been happening for a while, people's life experience is kind of coming up above safe and effective, safe and effective, safe and effective, which has just been repeated constantly.
And it's like, well, actually, no, because I know X, Y, and Z. I mean, there's been some really strange paradoxes in that, you know, everything I say and do, I have to back with data.
You know, that's, I mean, that's just good science, isn't it?
But it doesn't seem to work the other way.
So the government can spout off things like, you know, I heard an advert earlier about have your booster if you're pregnant, it will give you an eight times less chance of dying of Omicron, actually, interestingly.
That's just nonsense. I don't know where they plucked that from.
But there's no reference to any data when you hear them speaking in the House of Commons.
There's no reference to data set studies.
It's because they don't exist.
Simple as that. And if they do exist, show them to me.
I've called out Sajid myself, you know, and anyone who would like to speak, any colleague, nurse, doctor, any pro-vaxxers, you know, I'm pro-vaxxer, just I'm not pro, you know, jab number seven of COVID, particularly in kids.
Yeah, absolutely. Thank you so much for coming on, Dr.
Cartland, and thanks for talking out, and thanks for taking the stance that you've taken, because it's taken a hell of a lot of courage, and it must have been like a rollercoaster for you the last couple of weeks.
It's been a rollercoaster, but when you get off a rollercoaster, it's a good feeling, isn't it?
You feel good, and it does feel that I've had a really good feeling.
My conscience is clear, and that's the final thing I would say, that there are colleagues out there that are complicit, they know what they're doing.
They know that they're lacking the data behind what they're doing.
And the second thing is those doctors I would really appeal to, those nurses that are seeing these things, even anonymously, you need to raise the signal, you need to raise the alarm because there are lives at risk here.
I would go so far as to say that there are lives at risk.
The amount of harm that these jabs are causing are just...
Off the scale. And you know, everyone knows somebody, everyone knows somebody, and there's lots of groups going around on social media, Telegram, you know, and they're full of cases, full of stories of harm and kids that have dropped down dead, young people dropping in their sleep, stuff that you never heard of.
Myocarditis was there completely.
It's an obsolete thing in anyone around puberty or prepubescence, and now we're seeing what?
Multitudes. It's incredible stuff.
Yeah, it's terrific. Thank you so much for talking out again, and thanks for coming on right now.
I really appreciate it. It's a pleasure.
Thanks for having me Gareth.
This week on Right Now Deep Dive I'll be speaking to radio presenter Richie Allen about the
alternative media and the state of the mainstream media today.
I look at it now, of course they're completely culpable.
I wasn't surprised by it.
I never thought for a minute that we called them the legacy media.
I never thought for a second that they would bring it down, that they would hammer it, that they would destroy it through rigorous and robust questioning of the main players, but also through satire.
You know, I try and use satire in my program.
I try to make people laugh at it in my program as a means of showing them just how ridiculous it is.
No, no, the media has obviously been the propaganda wing of the agenda.
People like James O'Brien on LBC, I refer to him as the latter-day version of Lord Haw Haw.
You know, he's a Nazi propagandist.
And these people know that they're Nazi propagandists.
They know that what they are telling their listeners is wrong, but they choose to do it anyway.
He'll be talking about Agenda 2030, Agenda 21, and the coming technocracy, as well as the global agenda.
Export Selection