All Episodes
Previous Next
May 28, 2020 - The Delingpod - James Delingpole
01:36:25
Professor Dolores Cahill
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to the Deling Pod with me, James Delingpold.
And I am really, really excited about this week's special guest.
And I always say that, but I am.
I am.
It's Delores Cahill.
Is that right?
Have I pronounced it right?
Absolutely perfect, James.
Thank you.
Good.
Now, people who know about you are going to be really, really excited because you've been causing quite a stir on the internet in these last few days.
You might have done more than one interview.
You've done one in America, I know, and you've done one with Dave Cullen, which was the one I've spent this afternoon watching.
And I don't want to kind of steal Dave's thunder and just rip him off.
Loads of people, loads of my listeners, my special friends, have been saying, you've got to do this amazing work.
So before we go on, tell us who you are.
I know you're a professor.
I know you're a virologist.
Tell me about your scientific credentials so we know you're just some random loon just spouting nonsense.
Exactly, well really quickly, so I went on too long on the Dave Cullen interview and Dave is computing forever if people want to check that out.
So my background, I'd have a degree in molecular biology and a PhD in immunology, so I'm not a virologist, I would be an immunologist and then I went to the Max Planck Institute and was a group leader there for eight years and I developed and patented a technology and spun out A company to commercialize it in 1997 and sold it last year in 2019.
And what we developed and patented was high content protein arrays.
We put thousands of proteins on a little chip.
So we had 8,000 different human proteins.
And that meant when we took serum or plasma from a patient or looked at an antibody that was being used as a diagnostic, we could look and see how specific it was for a human protein or did it bind tens of proteins.
So the application is that you can look at the specificity of antibodies and antibodies used in diagnostic assays.
And also you can take people's blood who have autoimmune diseases like multiple sclerosis and look at the antibodies, the proteins they bind and develop diagnostic tests for the early detection of autoimmune diseases.
Including multiple cirrhosis.
So between my research and my company, we would have developed about 20 improved diagnostic tests.
There are 88 different autoimmune diseases.
But the other part of my research, which I mentioned on Dave Cullen, is that when I started to look at antibodies that are used in research and diagnostic tests, using this higher power.
So by that stage, people would check on 10 or 20 proteins, but we would develop these high content protein arrays to do 8,000.
That when people were sending me their antibodies, we were finding out that what they had published was not exactly what was true, the results.
So we would send them the results and what they should have done is either corrected the publications, you know, with a different publication or withdraw the other one.
And so I was finding resistance in the scientific community.
So as well as doing parallel my research, I have been involved in validation methods and we set up the Resource Centre of the Human Genome Project For 10 years with 40 people funded by the German government, I put all of my clones and all of my data and my protein race in that, and it was to encourage other people to do it.
And then separately, for the last 15 years or so, I've been advising the Irish government and the EU. So I was on the Government Advisory Science Council from 2003 to 2014, trying to improve science and innovation in society.
So everything from maths and primary school to try and get more innovation Startup companies and foreign direct investments.
And I've been advising the EU for about 15 years.
So my background is immunology, trying to look at antibodies and antibody tests.
And so if we have an antibody or a test, we can identify the protein.
But also with antibodies, you can epitope map what those proteins bind down to one amino acid.
So a lot of in the media, they're saying we have an antibody test to, say, the coronavirus.
But that test, there's not just one PCR test or one antibody test.
You can potentially have hundreds of tests.
So those tests are only really useful depending on what does the antibody bind and depending on what region of the virus is the PCR. So why, you know, exactly.
So why I'm speaking out is that a lot of the lockdown that we have, there's no real basis for it anymore.
And also the economic harm and the health harm due to poverty of people that will result from the economic loss, I'm saying could be five times more, you know, deaths will say due to the lockdown because of undiagnosed cancers, cardiovascular disease.
So I'm just calling out the politicians and worldwide that they have to justify the lockdown now because I think there are more harms than benefit of the lockdown.
Now, and I think we as a society should be asking the governments and these people who are making decisions saying the lockdown is a good thing.
They need to show us now why it is a lockdown.
And in my judgment, I think we should end the lockdown in Europe and worldwide by May 25th, 2020.
And it was a huge mistake and it should never happen again.
Right.
OK, so let's go through all that piece by piece.
So we've established That you've got experience in business, in politics.
You're aware of the fallibilities of science and medicine.
You've seen various examples of medical corruption, of scientific corruption in action.
Well, I wouldn't really call it corruption, I think, you know, because if people correct their errors and make justify it, when a new technology comes along, You know, there is a whole process in science that if you correct it, so I suppose I would not maybe call it corruption, but I would say that there needs to be more funding to revalidate results.
Okay, you're familiar with the correct workings of the scientific method, let's say, and you are into the business of rigour and you are intolerant of nonsense, which is all good.
You think that the lockdown is a bad policy and yet I read in all the papers, I mean pretty much every paper I turn to, whether they are left-wing newspapers or right-wing newspapers, they all seem to be pushing the narrative that the lockdown has saved us from catastrophe.
What evidence do you have that the lockdown has been counterproductive or hasn't stopped us all dying in droves of coronavirus?
So in my interview there with Computing Forever with Dave Cullen, I was showing results from the CDC Where it looks like...
That's the Centers for Disease Control.
That's the American body.
The American, sorry, you're right.
Centers for Disease Control.
And the director of the Centers for Disease Control gave those results at a meeting of the US president in April.
So I think it was the 17th of April.
And what he showed is that there were three spikes.
You know, there are waves.
So these viruses that cause influenza-like symptoms circulate the globe.
And every year we have two or three or four and he clearly showed that you know there was influenza B was there before Christmas it went came and went in three weeks then influenza A in January came and went in three weeks and then coronavirus came and went in America in about four weeks and so then I we all knew in immunology when this started to come out in January and February that this was probably just like a standard virus And also,
which I'm happy to mention that for these coronotype viruses, you can prevent getting symptoms by taking vitamin A, D and zinc.
And there are lots of clinical trials to show the usefulness and people have won Nobel prizes.
So that's very established.
And then it was also established that hydroxychloroquine, which is a very safe drug, could be used off label by the doctors.
to treat people who get coughed so that actually there was no necessity to ramp up the hospital care system so you have a prevention and you have a treatment and even though because if it's a new virus and a new epidemic you can't expect to have a clinical trial but in these pandemic epidemic infectious diseases with a new virus doctors are entirely within their ethics and moral judgment to do an off-label use If
there is enough indication.
And so I was working with this doctor in the White House.
He contacted me in February and he was trying to push, well, encourage or inform the White House, which he was, about the benefits of hydroxychloroquine even in February.
And he was involved in helping write the protocol for India to use a prophylactic dose of hydroxychloroquine for all of the doctors and nurses in India.
So that they wouldn't, you know, be taken down.
So this was in February and it's known that, you know, within the virus would circulate the earth in a month.
So he was trying to push that, but there was resistance.
So what we now see that I would have said in February, I was very surprised when countries locked down because essentially the virus was gone.
And why I didn't come out earlier was that there was no real data to prove what I was saying and I would be taken down.
So now I'm coming out to say there's clearly enough data We can stop the lockdown now, by May 25th.
So the virus has peaked around the world, has it?
That's what you're saying?
So what I would have said it was entirely unnecessary, the lockdown, okay?
And so because of the lockdown, people who would have naturally been exposed in March and April are not exposed.
So what they are doing is, you know, they are flattening the curve.
But in diseases like this, it was entirely Unnecessary.
So if you prevent it, you know, boost people's immune system, they won't suffer from the symptoms.
So therefore, you don't need the lockdown.
OK, no, I'm really interested in the immune system stuff, but we'll come on to that in a moment.
I just want to establish what it is about this particular virus that seems to have generated such panic.
Because what you're saying is that it follows the same trajectory, the same bell curve, of any other virus, be it influenza or whatever.
And how long is the period when these viruses kind of take off and peak and then dwindle away to virtual nothing?
So in each country it's slightly different.
So the graphs that I showed on the Computing Forever, it showed in America, you know, there were three virus peaks and they range from, we say, December to April.
And you can see the peaks so far.
They're around three to four weeks.
So it can be anything generally from three to six weeks, but obviously you have a quite focused peak within maybe two weeks where lots of people will get the flu, you know, that particular flu.
So the other thing is that there was a coronavirus in 2003, which was SARS, sudden acute respiratory syndrome.
So this virus is about 80% the same as that virus.
And that virus, initially, the World Health Organization, if you go back and look at how they were portraying it, they were saying, you know, the fatality rate could be very high, right?
In 2003, and people were initially worried.
So we've also had worries about Hong Kong flu and, you know, whatever, chicken flu or whatever, avian flu, right?
But if the World Health Organization have come out and said, For the 2003 coronavirus, which is now called SARS-CoV-1, because this one is called SARS-CoV-2, that worldwide, 770 people died worldwide from that.
I've always wondered this, and I should have looked it up actually.
What does it mean, COVID? What does that word come from?
Is it short for something?
It's for coronavirus.
What, COVID stands for coronavirus?
Yeah, they had a naming, you know, the World Health Organization, it was being called, you know, the Wuhan flu, do you remember?
And then they had a meeting and they called it, you know, whatever, COVID, coronavirus or whatever.
And end COVID-19 is actually for novel COVID and it was established in 2019 because they didn't want to call it the China flu or the Wuhan flu.
Oh, I see.
And the SARS is Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, SARS. Yeah.
And that was initially referred to as SARS, you know, back in 2003.
So because this virus is similar to that, that has kind of been renamed to SARS-CoV-1 and this one is now SARS-CoV-2.
So it has a couple of different names.
Right.
I see.
OK, so you say that these viruses last for Three weeks is their kind of peak period, and then they all sort of naturally die off.
And maybe I should just say it's quite important how they naturally die off, okay?
And the other thing is, so really it's like six weeks, okay, in each place.
But if it, you know, if it starts in China, then say if they had their infection in December, January, February, right?
Because that's a big country.
Then it would come across the globe.
So it only really came to Europe in February and March.
And then in America, it's a little bit later.
So we're actually one week ahead of them.
And the reason why they go around the globe quicker now is because we have much more air travel.
So someone would be flying every day from China.
Whereas probably before, hundreds of years ago, the viruses would not have spread around the world as much because there wasn't as much travel.
Yeah, well, it would have been a lot slower, wouldn't it?
I mean, the Black Death sort of crept across the world in a space of, what, a couple of years?
A couple of years.
But the other thing is, you know, when you say they just die out, that's why I am coming out.
It's not that they die out.
It's that everyone in the world practically become exposed to those viruses within a few weeks and that the majority of people are immune.
You know, they actually clear the virus.
So I am saying about 80, if you had 100 people, That 80 people out of 100 for this virus wouldn't even know that they've come across the virus.
They wouldn't have any symptoms.
Their immune system would have detected the virus.
Within 10 or 11 days they would have developed antibodies to the virus and cleared the virus out of the body, had no symptoms, but they are essentially immune for life to that particular virus.
Okay, so here's what I don't understand.
This is a new virus, and we can talk about that in a moment.
We think it was probably the product of the lab, wasn't it?
Partly.
Anyway, this is a novel virus.
So if the body doesn't have anything in it that can recognise this virus, surely you have to get the virus first before the body can get familiar with it and develop the antibodies?
Or does it not work like that?
So I suppose, you know, when I am probably older than you, there was a lot of information in primary schools and secondary schools and in university about how the immune system works, but that really, you know, in the last 20 years, there hasn't really been much discussion, so people actually aren't aware of how the immune system works.
So it turns out that a virus is like a football, okay?
You know, I do an analogy of a football, and this virus has 30,000 nucleotides, okay?
So those nucleotides, that 80% of those nucleotides are exactly the same as the SARS-CoV-1.
Right.
So that if you had a football, you know, 80% of it say the colour is green, would be the same, 80% is green, and then 20% would be white.
So that when the immune system, the antibodies bind, so that means that would be the equivalent of about 10,000 amino acids, okay?
So you'd have 8,000 amino acids that are the same on the outside of the football.
It doesn't exactly work like this, but that's the analogy.
And an antibody binds 9 to 12 amino acids, okay?
An antibody binds.
So when your immune system sees the virus as the football, they would already have had antibodies to the football, 80% of it, you know, to the region of coronavirus from SARS-1.
And everybody who are still alive That were older, were alive in 2003, would have come across the first SARS-1, SARS-CoV-1, and they would have met antibodies to that.
So then when they see this SARS-CoV-2, they would have had antibodies to the region of the virus that's identical to the previous one, and those antibodies would have helped them to recognize the virus and clear it.
And they're then immune for life, and they don't actually have the virus.
So after 11 days, It's not the same with all viruses but this one the immune system kicks it out so that once you have recovered like me I would be negative for the PCR test for the presence of the virus after those 11 days I would not have the virus anymore I would be negative but if you tested my blood I would be positive for the antibodies against the coronavirus okay So when you had the coronavirus or COVID-19 or whatever,
did you feel ill at all?
Did you have noticeable symptoms?
Yes, so the reason why is that my husband went to America in December and then he came back and because he has asthma he was actually very sick and he had this unusual cough that went on for a long time and he He had fever.
You know, he had flu-like symptoms and he was quite sick and had to be in bed for about a week between December and January.
So he was quite unwell.
But the interesting thing is he had an unusual cough.
It went on.
It was like you would be breathless.
And then I got it in January and I had it for about three and a half weeks.
So I started out with flu-like symptoms and then I had a cough that was very severe.
You could almost not breathe with it.
And then I had breathlessness as well, just for about two or three days.
And the reason probably why I got it was that I actually stood for election in Ireland with my little party, Irish Freedom Party.
And so I was under a lot of pressure in that time.
I think the election was February the 8th.
But I, of course, did not know that that was COVID then because there wasn't really much talk.
But the unusual symptoms of this one is A very dry cough and breathlessness, which is unusual.
So I would have had pneumonia a couple of times in the past.
And then you feel like you have water in your lungs.
So this was not like pneumonia.
This was, you know, like your lungs are dry, but you have this need to cough and then you were getting breathless.
So at the end for the last two days, it was scary.
But then I just, you know, was healthy.
Now, if I had known about it, I could have taken vitamin D, C and zinc You know, in those weeks and I would not have had that cough and I would not have had breathlessness.
So that's why I want to come out now and say that because the lockdown was a total mistake, it's actually made matters worse.
So the people, there are some people now in England and Ireland that have not come across COVID and they're scared.
So their immune system is also depressed, you know, low.
And also because they haven't been getting natural sunshine.
And actually it's the exact opposite.
It actually boosts your immune system to interact with people and to shake hands and to not social business.
And obviously you wouldn't wear a mask.
So why I'm coming out and saying May 25th is that your listeners need to tell, especially their elderly relatives or anyone who's like over 80, that they should be taking vitamin, you know, one tablet from a normal health food shop, vitamin D, C and zinc.
Now, of course, I'm not a medical doctor, but there are lots of clinical trials to prove it.
And this is just the normal tablets and that they will protect their immune system.
So out of the 100 people who haven't been exposed, we'll say, 99% of them, if they take the zinc, vitamin D and C, will not have any symptoms once the lockdown is over.
And if you do have underlying conditions or say you're 90 listening to this, you should be ringing your doctor and saying, I would like you to consider off-label use of hydroxychloroquine for me.
And if there are any issues with the heart, those doctors can then measure the QT interval as well if they're worried.
And then once people start getting a cough, then they really need to take hydroxychloroquine.
Once you start getting the symptoms of fever.
So people will actually have the symptoms for about five days.
So what I want to do is publicize the symptoms.
So the symptoms will be flu-like symptoms for the first few days.
And then it's getting worse.
Your body is not clearing the virus if you start to get the cough.
And so that's when you would need to be ringing your doctor, especially if you were over 70.
And then the treatment with the hydroxychloroquine is just hydroxychloroquine for three or five days.
And then you also take zinc and AZT, which is an antibiotic.
Now, I'm not a medical doctor, but that whole protocol has been published and used in many clinical trials in 2020 to show that is the optimum.
Right, so I want to talk in more detail about that in a moment, but I just want to establish the nature of the beast.
So, I first started reading about Wu flu or whatever in about, what, maybe late December, early January, when reports started coming out of China.
Not via the mainstream media generally, but via Twitter, you know, sort of links and things.
And some of the stories you were hearing were really horrible, you know, like of hospitals simply being overwhelmed, of healthy doctors and nurses going down, of, you know, doctors in their 30s dying of coronavirus or whatever it was, and of bodies being stacked up in the streets and, you know, having to sort of detectable from space, sulphur dioxide, I think, of Corpses being burned and so on.
Horror stories.
People being immured in their homes, soldered into, welded into their homes and so on.
So at the time, it did seem like a very, very scary thing, like a different order of evil from your common or garden influenza.
But since it seems to, well, it's increasingly obvious that it is just like Another, a bit like flu.
So how do you explain that discrepancy between the initial scare and what we know a bit now?
So if you had asked me this in December and January, I would not have known the answer.
So we now know the answer.
And I'm happy to tell you the answer, but just to say that, you know, there was reason to be scared at the time.
And this is a different virus and it can potentially have severe, obviously, adverse events and death.
So that is all true.
So what I'm saying now, what we learned from the Wuhan thing is if those doctors, if they had known about vitamin C, D and zinc, so we will know it.
So you know, the first publication that this was a corona-like virus was on January the 2nd in China from the Wuhan area.
So now if we ever have that situation again, people will know that there is a prevention.
So instead of locking people in their apartments, now we will know that vitamin D, C and zinc is what everyone should have been told in that second of January, you know, on the media.
So then we would not have the deaths.
So you would be talking about 99 people out of 100 would not die and would have either just minor flu-like symptoms.
We didn't know that then, but we know it now.
And then we now know hydroxychloroquine, okay?
But what people are not saying is that before they locked down Wuhan, those people were traveling and flying every day to Beijing and all over China and within Asia.
Why was Wuhan so severely affected and nowhere else in China?
Yes.
Why?
Okay, why?
And also, why were the people in the Lombardy Bergamo region so severely affected?
So what the media was using in January, they were fear-mongering.
Now, they were partly right.
Nobody really knew what was going on.
But what nobody was questioning is because Taiwan straight away handled it like Sweden, as did South Korea, right?
They knew it was in their country, but they knew that the deaths were very different from Wuhan.
And even in China, they knew that it was all over China.
But their deaths were not the same.
But the media and the World Health Organization were coming out as if what was happening in Wuhan would happen everywhere.
But actually, people like me, we were being concerned.
We were saying, no, from very early on, from February, we were ringing each other around the world going, no, it's actually in most parts of the world the same as a normal virus.
And there's something Wuhan And Bergamo and New York were different, were islands.
So we knew already in February that there was no need to lock down, that except for regions that were having very unusual symptoms, hotspots, the rest of the world there was no reason to lock down.
Okay, so the suspense is killing me here.
What is the reason for these, are they called clusters?
What is the reason why it's bad?
So then, so the thing is, and you have to say to the World Health Organization and the governments, they had a right to be concerned, okay?
You know what I mean?
Nobody is saying that there was unnecessary hype, but it emerged in March and April, and there was a lot of publications that this virus was slightly different, so it was published in Nature Medicine that there was this extra 12 nucleotides, and that may be making it worse.
But it is only becoming clear in the last, we'll say, in April, May, that the reason for it is...
Now, this is emerging evidence, and I'm not saying entirely that it's true, but I'm postulating it, right?
So that other people can draw attention to it.
And then if I may be proved wrong, but I am saying, and it has been published, that if you are exposed to coronavirus...
Containing in a flu vaccine.
So it turns out Wuhan had been given a specific vaccine for influenza, but it turns out that that vaccine was prepared in material, right, that had coronaviruses.
So a lot of the vaccines are grown on, we'll say cell lines or grown on mouse kidney cells or on chicken, right?
And it looks like that the influenza vaccine was grown on a material that contained The material contained coronavirus.
And so when you prepare, when you grow the influenza virus material, how they prepare the vaccine is they take the material, the cell line or the tissue that it's grown on and they homogenate it with the vaccine.
They mush it all up.
So it has been known in the past, we'll say, that mouse kidneys have been used to grow viruses And that there are simian viruses in those mouse embryos.
You know, simian is for, or sorry, monkey, right?
Okay?
And so it has been well known that 40 years ago that the viruses, so every organism has their own viruses.
And a lot of viruses like chickenpox, when you have the chickenpox, you actually have latent chickenpox virus in your body.
And then if you get very elderly or if you're stressed, The chickenpox virus re-emerges as shingles in older people.
So that's just to show that we actually have hundreds of thousands of viruses in our body all the time, and we have loads of microorganisms and bacteria, and that's called our virome or our microbiome.
But then the reason why nutrition and having vitamins, I would say initially, in your food and minerals is that your immune system needs that to actually keep those viruses latent.
And then if you are immunosuppressed or whatever, the viruses will come back and make you more sick.
But what happened in these particular influenza viruses, it looks like that they actually have coronaviruses in the material like it was known the mouse.
So the monkey previously had simian viruses in them when they mushed up the kidneys and then they used that material for certain vaccines.
I think it was polio.
And, of course, it turns out that simian virus, SV40, was one of them, but that was the 40th, you know, those SV1, SV2. But SV40 actually is an oncogenic virus, and it actually causes tumors, okay?
And so that only appeared like 10 years later, and part of it, there is an association between these simian viruses and, I think it is brain tumors that men get when they're around 50, 51, 52, is because they were exposed to An SV40 virus that had been naturally in a monkey and the reason why it causes such issues is that these vaccines are injected.
So that normally when you are exposed to something the body through evolution we have skin and mucosal layers and in our intestine that they actually don't get into the body but it's actually a super invasion of the immune system to inject something into your muscles Because all of your layers, you have special antibodies, you know, IgE in your mucosal layers and your throat and all the linings in your skin to naturally block things.
But of course you evade all of those things if you inject it into your muscle.
Yes.
So it was known that like the viruses that were in monkeys, simian viruses, that for them were perfectly okay, like SV40, Was a contaminant of the mouse kidney tissues that were in some of the vaccines decades ago and that that has been associated with an increase in some cancers because those viruses have oncogenes and that they have been associated with cancer, okay?
So the thing is that what has been learned over the last 10 or 20 years is that a lot of the time, now I'm not saying some vaccines can be safe, right?
What I'm not saying That all vaccines are either safe or unsafe.
They can be safe and I have been involved in making a vaccine that was safe and it's perfectly easy to do.
But sometimes you don't have to grow these materials.
You know what needs to be done is to check the material that they've been growing on and check the viruses associated with it and the components.
So if you put in aluminium into a vaccine, I would say it's intrinsically unsafe because aluminium is a neurotoxin, you know, and there is no safety studies.
So just to say I'm not, you know, you have to, the analogy I'm using is, it's like if you have 10 cars and one of them is made without brakes, okay?
If you are, then you're going down a hill, right?
If you are saying, do you want to take that car?
And you say, well, that might not be safe.
I'm not saying all cars are either safe or not safe, but the one that doesn't have brakes on it would not be safe in my estimation, right?
You know what I mean?
So I'm trying to nuance the conversation, yeah?
So then to just go back to the corona issue, is that for this influenza vaccine that was given, it turns out, in some places in the world, including Wuhan, and I think 165,000 or 185,000 doses,
which I gave in my presentation, you know, the newspaper article where they said over 160,000 influenza Vaccines were given in the Bergamo region in October 2019.
And it's turning out now that a similar influenza vaccine containing this material was given in Wuhan.
And the reason why it is now emerging that there was an issue is that there was a paper from the US Army published about a vaccine that they gave to American soldiers in 2017-2018.
And those soldiers, some of them, when they came naturally across a coronavirus, actually had this cytokine storm and were very sick.
And that paper, which was published in 2019, made the conclusion that the vaccine essentially was okay, except for the time when those soldiers came across a coronavirus again, they then had a cytokine storm.
And if you look at it, there was another publication in 2012 where they had a vaccine that had coronavirus material in its ingredients.
And in that publication, they found that the animals that were in that vaccine, many of them died as the test subject.
And they postulated it was because of the coronavirus in the material of the vaccine.
After injecting the animals, they were fine.
But when those animals lived longer and naturally came across coronavirus, they had this cytokine storm and then some of them died.
So it looks like that that's why we had the deaths in Wuhan and in Bergamo is because of the issue of what's called viral interference between the coronavirus.
So coronavirus as well, in the 2003 one, There is no vaccine against that, even though they've spent many years trying to make one.
So the reason why there isn't a corona vaccine on the market is because when they did these kind of studies in animal models, they would be vaccinated with something.
They would be fine.
But when they come across the coronavirus again, the animals would die because of this interference.
So that's why Those vaccines weren't licensed in the last 17 years because of that issue.
Because if the animals die, they are definitely not safe.
So all of the mantra about waiting for a vaccine is not, if they haven't been able to make one in 17 years, they are not going to make one now.
And I would also consider that it would be very, I wouldn't be rocking up to take that vaccine because you would only know when the next coronavirus comes along and circulates the globe.
And of course, you would be doing an experiment then on countries, right?
Because you wouldn't know.
And so I came out because on May the 5th, 2020, the Irish Medicines Organization came out with a press release to say that they were proposing to mandatorily vaccinate the whole Irish population with an influenza vaccine.
This, you know, coming up soon, influenza vaccine now.
And then I thought, OK, I have to speak out now because...
You know, that is an experiment.
And once you mandate something, you know, if you have to take it and I would not take that vaccine, then you really have to openly debate all of the safety issues.
Whereas if somebody is going in themselves and saying, yes, I want to take it.
But once you mandate it and I have said I will not take that vaccine and I'll take a legal case if I'm obliged to do it.
Yeah.
Wow.
Wow.
There is so much to, as a kind of lefty sociologist might say, so much to unpack there.
I mean, we've gone down the rabbit hole, haven't we, Delora?
So let's just backtrack for a moment.
So you're not one of those so-called anti-vaxxers.
You think that vaccines have their place and they can be safe and you yourself have made vaccines.
Yes, I have taken them as well.
When I worked and ran the biosafety lab, I had to take all of the vaccines.
Right, okay.
So you would accept being inoculated for certain things and people should be inoculated for certain things or not?
Well, now what I would want is to look at the patient information leaflet and see what are the ingredients in a vaccine.
So if I read that there was thimerosal or mercury or aluminium, which is also called alum or alum sulfate, I think that aluminium is intrinsically unsafe and it causes impairment of the immune system, neurocognitive decline, that I would not take a vaccine myself with aluminium.
I think they are intrinsically unsafe and I would not take a vaccine with thimerosal or mercury.
Now the industry has said that they have removed mercury and thimerosal But as far as I understand, at least in the American schedule, 70% of the vaccines there have aluminium and they are mandating 68 vaccines before children go to school.
And 70% of them have aluminium.
Oh my goodness.
Okay, okay.
Because it's funny, isn't it?
There is a kind of, just as there is an anti-vax movement, there is a very powerful lobby which uses the word anti-vaxxer to dismiss any argument produced by people like Robert Kennedy or they might dismiss you as an anti-vaxxer in order to invalidate your argument without even having to address the points you're making, which is really interesting I think.
Yeah, well I suppose what Robert Kennedy said this morning, actually he rang me this morning, which was very nice just to say hello or whatever, which I was very honored to get that phone call.
But what he uses in the analogy, he said, you know, if he was an environmentalist with water, as we know, and he got into this area because he was trying to remove mercury from water because there was a lot of fish kills.
And so what he said is when he was trying to remove mercury from water, People didn't call him anti-fish.
You know, he's trying to have safety, right?
So what people like me are saying is, you know, mercury and aluminium, I think, and mercury is one of the top 10 most toxic materials on the planet.
And also, I think there is no need for mercury to be there.
If you want to keep them sterile, you can use other things.
And the same thing with aluminium.
It's known to be an irritant of the immune system and it's known to cause cognitive decline.
And you could find other materials for whatever they're saying they need aluminium in it.
And there has been no placebo controlled trials to show that it is safe.
So the label anti-vax, normally people, it's an othering.
Psychologically, if you call somebody anti-something, Also, a lot of the data on aluminium is done from Professor Chris Exley, who is a really world expert in aluminium from the UK. So, if you knew that they were putting asbestos into vaccines,
for example, and people were coming out saying, wait a minute, we now know more about asbestos than we did 30 years ago, it would be entirely unfair to label those people, you know, once you found out what they were on about as anti-vaccine.
So for me, I think aluminium is intrinsically unsafe.
It should not be in vaccines, especially given to babies at all, but I think it shouldn't be there at all.
So what I would be is for safe vaccines and also informed consent that the parents get full information and informed things.
But the other thing that is interesting is that the immune system in babies, they actually don't have the ability to make antibodies until the babies are really nine months or a year.
Okay?
And the rationale for vaccination is to make antibodies as a protective response, but little babies are not able to do it.
So essentially, any vaccine given at one day, at two months, at four months, at six months, and if they contain aluminium or eight months, they actually have no benefit to the baby because the baby actually hasn't developed enough to make antibodies.
So the baby only has all of the harm associated with the aluminium.
So that's why I think this is an opportunity.
And the reason why I'm speaking out is That if the governments are trying to mandate vaccines, then it's up to us.
Then we have an opportunity to say, OK, let's take a good hard look at what are in this material and are they safe?
Right.
OK, so before we go there, because that because that's that's really interesting as well.
I just wanted to just go back to what we were discussing about Wuhan, about Bergamo in northern Italy.
Is this all, this is kosher, this is not conspiracy theory stuff, this is all out there, the fact that they had the same batch of flu vaccine?
No, no, I don't know if it's the same batch, but it turns out to be that that seems to be emerging now, that, you know, they did get vaccinated against an influenza, and why I can come out now is that that is being reported now, the connection has been made and it's been studied.
So to be fair, it was not clear for the governments in February, March, you know, so that is emerging.
And in my talk in Dave Cullen, I actually put up the articles, you know, so that people could screenshot them.
But I suppose the thing is what we now know is that even with the issues of this influenza vaccine, right, that even if you were vaccinated, if you get vitamin D, C and zinc, you will be okay.
Right?
You don't need to die.
You know, you don't need to be very sick.
And hydroxychloroquine works even if you had the prior vaccine.
So it's not like a death sentence.
There is nothing to be worried about.
And what I'm trying to publicize is whether you had last year's, in this particular one, I don't know if it's the same as what happened in Ireland, you can still protect yourself and not have consequences by vitamin D, C and zinc and having hydroxychloroquine on standby.
And I should say hydroxychloroquine is an off-label use you know because the virus is new there hasn't time to be clinical trials but it has been well known so it means the patients it has to be prescribed and doctors have to be able to do it you know they have to use their medical judgment and i'm not a medical doctor it is off-label use but it's morally and ethically standard procedure that if people if there are dire consequences for something that doctors can prescribe things off-label sure okay so um
Just assuming for a moment that one doesn't have any vitamin C, any zinc or any hydroxychloroquine available, compare COVID-19 with a bad, baddish bout of flu.
Does it have about the same mortality rate?
So there's been now fabulous information coming out now So the previous one to compare it to would be the COVID-1 in 2003.
When a virus comes, like if it's influenza B or influenza A, you can then compare.
So they knew very quickly the sequence of it and it's 80% the same as the initial SARS one.
So what the medical profession and the virologist can do is say, okay, well, what was the death rate then normally?
And it was 800 people in the world.
So that's like one in 10 million or whatever.
So that was the same thing.
I think the normal influenza death rate can be like one in a thousand people will die.
But of course, now we know that if you were to tell people to boost up, there will be less deaths now in the future.
If you have vitamin D, C and zinc.
So initially, people would have expected that.
But the death rate, of course, in Wuhan was higher.
But it turns out now, globally, the death rate, when you look at the death rate from South Korea and Taiwan and Iceland and America outside of New York, okay, and the regions, it is around the same as a bad influenza.
That's what it is transpiring.
Yeah?
Good.
But I would say as well, but maybe just to say for the second spike, you know, that they're talking about, That actually there need to be no deaths now if people take vitamin C, D. You know, it's not like people are afraid, okay, once we open up.
But if you take these vitamin C, D and zinc, there should be no deaths and have hydroxychloroquine.
So that instead of, you know, that's what I'm saying and that's why I'm coming out.
I want to talk to you about the second spike in a moment because it's one of the kind of, well you can't call it an urban myth exactly, but it's being heavily promoted by the British government at the moment and the British media.
But I wanted to ask you a question about different countries' policies.
For example, I think you'll probably agree with me that the media has been ramping up this scare, something rotten, and it has been cherry-picking It's facts and it's evidence.
So that if there's a story about, for example, hydroxychloroquine being rejected by certain studies as inadequate, they'll go big on it.
If there's a story about Germany relaxing its rules and getting a sudden increase in R, then they'll run big with it.
Brazil, they love talking about Brazil.
Apparently bodies are piling up in the streets because Jair Bolsonaro, the evil, evil right-wing, uncaring Trump of South America, is not taking the disease seriously enough.
And is this true?
I mean, it sounds to me like from what you're saying that if lockdowns make no difference, then possibly Brazil's policy is the right one.
Do you know about Brazil?
I do.
So I suppose the thing is, this is an unusual subject, just to say.
You know, it's a complex subject because we're talking about death.
And also, you know, every death, whether you are 90 or 100 or 110, is regrettable.
But the reason why the media are hyping it is that what we have to talk about, unfortunately, is what are the number of people that would die, you know, every day, In one year compared to the last five or ten years and then see if...
So what the World Health Organization initially was saying was the fatality rate was around 3.4%.
Yes.
Okay?
And that was used to scare politicians.
And you know, so in Ebola, just to give you an example, so like the way there are hundreds of thousands of viruses Not all viruses are the same, okay?
So as an example, Ebola is another virus and in the 1976 outbreak of Ebola in the Ebola River region in the Congo, the death rate was actually 88%.
That's quite high.
Yes, and so that would be, and I was in a lab that was safety class 2 and 3, okay, because I was working with meningitis and TB, But Ebola is a type of virus that is in safety class 4.
And obviously it's very important that that does not escape.
And the reason why it's biosafety class 4 is that there is no vaccine and there's not a treatment and the death rate is so high.
But actually how it works with Ebola, it's so severe, it doesn't spread around the world because so many people die, villages know that they have it.
You know what I mean?
In Africa or wherever it comes.
And then there are so many deaths that actually people in society, if it came, you wouldn't actually quarantine the village.
You know what I mean?
People would say, okay, whoever was there, you know, or exposed would essentially not travel and they would not try and infect it.
And the people who, the 12% that would live would be immune.
And then after a month or so, they would be, you know, that is a case where you would quarantine that affected region, you know?
So what they've done in this one is, That they have quarantined the healthy people, which is...
So, you know, it's entirely unnecessary, but it looks like the real death rate is about 20 or 30 times less than they were saying.
So the death rate, instead of...
So 3.4% is 3.4 people in 100, so that would be 34 people in 1,000, okay?
But it looks like the real death rate is around 1 in 1,000.
Usually it turns out now we know and they knew in Wuhan that the half of the people in Wuhan who died were over 80 and they had multiple underlying conditions.
So people that were under 80 and people who were healthy, the death rate is much lower.
It could be one in 5,000 people and that is even lower in the under 70s than the average flu and so That they, outside of Wuhan, you know, in the rest of the world it turns out there was no need, in February it was well known, that there was no need for the lockdown and there was no need to quarantine and that the death rate is now, it's transpiring outside of New York and Bergamo and Wuhan to be less than or around the normal flu.
Right, and you're saying that actually for a young person you're more in danger with flu, with influenza, Than you are with coronavirus.
Yes, so all these viruses are different.
So some influenza virus, there was one a few years ago where children were severely affected.
Now that's influenza.
There are different families of viruses, you know, so influenza family is, the influenza, what we call flu, there's about 110 different types of viruses and influenza is around 10 of those 110 type of flu-like symptoms.
They call it influenza-like symptoms, of which about 10% are associated with the influenza virus.
And this corona, you know, these family of six coronaviruses are contributing to influenza-like symptoms that we call flu.
But so different viruses that mutate affect different age groups.
So there was a few years ago an influenza virus that was affecting children more, but this coronavirus is affecting adults more.
So 50% of people in Europe at least are above 80.
So you can't say just because you have influenza symptoms that you know in advance.
But now it's seen that children do not actually give this virus to adults.
There's been no case of transmission.
So generally, it's adults give it to children.
So therefore, there is no reason for young people to close the schools or to close the universities.
But I suppose the major thing is that in history, we have never quarantined healthy people.
And so that's why I'm calling is that action to quarantine healthy people is entirely wrong and it should not be repeated and it needs to be called out.
Okay, so if we ended the lockdown tomorrow and everyone just acted like we did before, what would happen?
So I suppose I'm calling for an end of the lockdown in about 10 days.
We need 10 days to prepare.
And the reason is that people have not been out and exposed to sunlight.
So in the 10 days, so say if we were to do it on the 18th of May, I called in Ireland for an end of the lockdown in May 25th.
And in those 10 days, people should be taking every day vitamin D, C and zinc to boost their immune system and to go out and make sure they get fresh air, avoid stress, you know, and interact with their family.
And then people And also just to be sure that their doctors have hydroxychloroquine on standby so that if they do get flu-like symptoms when they engage in society, that they can then contact their GP and they can get some hydroxychloroquine.
So I wouldn't be calling for an end of it tomorrow.
I'd be saying each country can prepare.
But that's why the media has to change the narrative and tell people about the importance of nutrition, fresh air and vitamins and zinc for the 10 days.
Because what I said in that Dave Cullen interview was that it's almost like they don't want to tell people the prevention strategies and then when people do engage in society there will be a spike of in health and then they will use that to clamp down again on the lockdown for another month.
So I am saying that there is a prevention and there's a treatment and there's tons of publications but what I'm also calling for is to hold the media organizations to account That they have a responsibility to communicate that because if you have someone who's 85 or 90, they need to know that.
They need to prepare because they are at a higher risk.
And I'm saying that for the Prime Ministers of the UK or Ireland or around the world, they have to come out now and tell people how to take precautions and they have to say to their medical system, do this QT analysis, be ready.
To measure people's heart and be ready to prescribe hydroxychloroquine, especially in the above 80s.
And then that the lockdown should be ended, but it should be fully ended.
Then the whole world can go back.
There will be no second spike and this was the biggest mistake ever and it should never happen again.
They cannot decide in October we're going to have another lockdown.
Quarantining healthy people is the wrong thing.
It should never be done and it is the biggest mistake of this decade, we'll say.
Tell me, has this period we've all spent in lockdown, has that compromised the function of our immune systems?
Well, there was a study that actually came out today that showed that people involved engaged in jobs, I can't remember the country, but people engaged in jobs that actually kept working are actually healthier than people who went lockdown and of course it makes complete sense why that would be the case is that you know getting fresh air going to the beach there are viruses and microbes and hiking and people engaging with each other is actually how we keep our immune systems healthy and people mightn't
be aware that when you're actually exposed to different viruses from outside your family and in the in society that actually is boosting your immune system every day So it's exactly the wrong narrative.
It actually keeps you healthy to boost your immune system by shaking hands and by engaging.
And there's no need for masks and no need for social distancing.
So we can avoid the spike.
But the other thing that we might touch on is the economic consequences of depression, of isolation.
And of course, if you own a restaurant or whatever, you still have to pay your bills, but you have no income coming in.
That if people are poor, There are huge health consequences for that and also people are not being diagnosed with cancer.
So I have said and I'm saying that the adverse health implications of the lockdown because of poverty will be multiple times, maybe five times more people will die.
It might not be in the next week, but it will be over the next year or two.
And so calling the politicians and ministers for health to account is to say That this is well known.
This is not modeling data.
There's tons of real hard data to show that for one percentage increase in unemployment or decrease in growth or income in the society, how many people will die from poverty and from heart attacks and cancer.
And so the calculation is now that probably multiple people will die because of the lockdown.
And so we now have to say to the politicians, That it's going to pass the stage that the lockdown is now causing more harm than good.
So every single day they carry it on is going to have more deaths and because those deaths are preventable now that I'm saying after May 25th there will have to be like legal tribunal issues into holding the people that made or the scientific advisors or the medical organizations this information is available That if they do not get the information of prevention and treatment out,
that they are contributing to hundreds of unnecessary deaths that are nothing to do with the virus but due to their policy decisions that are now proving to be incorrect.
Okay, so this is the $64,000 question, or one of them anyway, which is that you You obviously have a strong degree of expertise in this field and you must know lots of people in this general field.
If you know this, and if presumably lots of your friends know this, how come governments seem to be going in the opposite direction and acting?
Okay, as you said yourself, February there was a degree of excuse for ignorance.
But now all this information has come out.
You know it.
Why aren't governments acting on it?
Is there a sort of a weird segment of the scientific establishment which is spewing nonsense or what?
How does it work?
Now that is a very good question and of course there are much more eminent people better than me like Professor Richard Blalock or Dr.
Judy Mikovich or Dr.
Batar you know there are like people who are more eminent than much more eminent than me and also people who are biologists and medical doctors who have been coming out over the last five or six weeks as well and I think someone contacted me from an organization worldwide And I think they have 22,000 doctors now signed up that are calling for an end to the lockdown like I am.
So I don't really know why they are doing it.
I can't really give you the answer.
But I think part of the reason why it's been quite comfortable for the politicians and the heads in the UK and Ireland and all over the world and the medical profession and the scientists is That there hasn't been really, as far as I can see, in each country, you know, an open debate for one hour once a week about the harm versus the benefit of the lockdown and the discussion in society to say, when should we really end this?
It's just like, you know, World Health Organization or the European Union or international global organizations are saying this has to go on.
But individual countries are not actually challenging The people that are not allowed to challenge, you know, there should be like a question time where they have six people on and where it goes on, you know, question time on the BBC, where you give equal amount of time to very high profile doctors in the UK or scientists or experts, which they are given balanced time.
So three people justifying the lockdown and three people saying that actually now it's doing more harm than good.
And why I have challenged in my communications that I will talk to our Prime Minister, Minister for Health, you know, all of them can challenge me at the same time.
And, you know, if I'm wrong and if the rationale that I'm putting out and the studies that, you know, I was showing those papers, it could be that I'm wrong.
And if I'm wrong, I am available and then I can be professionally disgraced.
You know, if I'm wrong, I can be challenged.
And then if the medical doctors come out and say, Dolores, this is incorrect, this drug is wrong or whatever, but what's not happening is...
And so what you're saying, why are they doing it?
Is I think that the politicians are not perhaps maybe getting the information.
They've been fed something as if this is an agreed opinion.
And it's very difficult for voices to get through because what's also a bit shocking is Dr.
Vatar is a very eminent doctor and you know Dr.
Judy Mikovits and they are you know trying to open the debate about prevention and treatment like I am and their videos are being removed from social media platforms and really that's why I'm saying is we actually need a tribunal into this because they are doctors who are giving treatments that would prevent death and if someone is watching this who's 82 now And the family realized that in a month's time they died and that was unnecessary because people
like RTE and BBC who were state funded are not giving them and their families the information to save their lives.
Then I think that there will be hundreds of unnecessary debts and that's why I think we're in the realm of an inquiry, you know, into a kind of a human rights tribunal about if you know in a country there are going to be hundreds of unnecessary debts Then that gets into kind of a very legal issue about denying and censoring information that could have prevented death, you know?
Right.
Let's talk a bit about hydroxychloroquine because a few months ago I wrote a series of stories about hydroxychloroquine, including mentioning that there was a paper showing that it had been successful in the treatment of SARS. And it was then embraced by Trump and it became known as the Trump pill.
And instantly it became, well maybe even before that, it became a very, very politicised issue.
It was no longer about is this cheap generic drug effective, but it was more about what your political side of the argument was.
So anti-Trump people, which seems to include people like Anthony Fauci, the guy in charge, what is he, chief medical officer or something?
Yeah, it's the National Institute of Infectious Diseases and Allergies, yeah.
Okay, so tell me a bit about this, because...
I get the impression, maybe I'm being cynical here, I get the impression that there is an industry out there, a very powerful industry, which doesn't want it to be known that hydroxychloroquine is effective.
Am I right?
Well, I suppose I would be saying, you know, if a drug is good and works and is safe and effective, then really that should not be politicised, you know?
I don't think a treatment...
Yes, but I suppose we shouldn't really engage, well, you know, it's fine to ask the question and all that, but I think, you know, what we're talking about is if someone is 90, should they have access to a drug that will give them means that they can live to be 110?
I suppose that is the issue.
And I think what is happening in America, and we have to try and avoid that in this subject, is that everything is becoming politicized along those kind of lines.
And I would be actually not really want to engage in that discussion because I would be saying if there is a drug that has been around for 60 years and there has been studies now one example was in 68,000 elderly people who had arthritis and it turns out they said okay they are taking hydroxychloroquine regularly to ease the symptoms of their arthritis and somebody did an analysis to see how many of those were hospitalized because of Sorry this
current outbreak and only four out of 68,000 you know so they would have been elderly were actually hospitalized and none died so that's actually huge evidence to show so what I'm saying is I don't know why it was politicized but I had been in touch with a doctor in America and he's a world expert on hydroxychloroquine and he was actually advising and trying to promote hydroxychloroquine and behind getting the information to the White House and
he is partially involved with Dr.
Zelenko and the reason why the information went to the White House on hydroxychloroquine was that there was a Jewish doctor in New York and because there were more deaths in New York people were very worried that what was happening in New York would actually happen all over America and this doctor has only one lung himself so he wasn't able to uh he has a community of 30 000 people and would be there You know, like family doctor in the traditional sense for 30 years.
So because he couldn't actually visit them because he was not allowed, you know, because he had underlying conditions, he actually rang up all of his people and told them the symptoms and gave them the information.
Now, this would have been in February, March, right before the Trump thing about vitamin D, C and zinc.
And then if they had started as elderly people to get the symptoms of a cough, Hydroxychloroquine has a half-life of 21 days.
So when people would ring them and say, yes, I'm having, you know, some cough that his staff, his nurses or whatever would drop the hydroxychloroquine through the letterbox.
You know, he prescribed the tablet.
And so without meeting those elderly people, they were given the prophylactic dose of like one hydroxychloroquine tablet will make you safe for three weeks or the actual treatment is One 200 milligram tablet over five days plus AZT the antibiotic plus zinc and he did that initially on 799 patients and none of them went into well four of them went into hospital but none of them died so out of almost 800 patients 796 did
not have any symptoms you know were fine at home four went into hospital and none of them died so he was on in around the end of February March with governor The former governor, the former mayor, sorry, of New York who has a podcast and they talked for about an hour and he challenged him.
Giuliani, you remember former mayor of New York?
Yeah, yeah.
And so that of course went viral then because that was around the time in February, March when Governor Cuomo was saying we don't have hospital capacity, you know, we need all these ventilators and there genuinely was a panic.
And then Mayor Giuliani very clearly, you know, he said he would base his entire reputation that his protocol that he had developed would actually prevent serious deaths and should be taken up.
And it was after that interview that Trump then came out and said, and of course, hydroxychloroquine had been used in Wuhan and effectively, and it also had been used in Italy.
So this was around February, you know, before the lockdowns, it was emerging that we had a preventative dose and we also had a treatment.
So there was really no issue.
And then Trump announced it and really there should not have been the lockdowns.
But then the media started saying that they would no longer broadcast his briefings live.
If he mentioned hydroxychloroquine again.
Well yeah, now what's that, exactly, what is that about?
That is not, I know you're treading very carefully here because I know that you have a, you have your political career and you have your medical career and you don't want to enter into...
Exactly, and maybe, so first of all of course I'm not a medical doctor, you know, and obviously I could be wrong, you know.
Oh yeah, yeah, sure.
No, no, but all of your listeners know, because we didn't really mention it, is That I have seen, you know, as everyone has in our field, that some messages are not getting out there.
For example, you know, carbon dioxide is not, when you look into it, any major driver around anything, and we should not be changing our lifestyles, right?
So when I looked into it a few years ago, I approached this Irish Freedom Party to, well, they were called a Brexit, which was around Brexit, you know, and I'm a totally pro-Brexit person.
And of course, I've worked at the EU, you know, and I've been a second of national expert there.
So just to say when you say political that people know that I've set up a party called Irish Freedom Party.
And the reason why I did that was in that we were Ireland was decimated with the banking crisis and we paid more than 40 percent.
Four thousand people in Ireland paid 40 percent of all the EU banking debt.
And it has decimated a generation.
And there was no people were frustrated.
There was an election in Ireland in 2011.
And there was no platform for people to protest.
So we have set up this political party, which takes about two years to go through the administrative process.
And the reason is, we all knew that there was something coming down the tracks, you know?
That in our countries, the politicians have been making multiple decisions that are not in the benefit of the ordinary people.
And it's very difficult to understand what is really going on.
But we can all just see that our legal rights and what would be considered common sense in every area in the legal system, education system, policing, the healthcare system is slowly like the sands are eroding and the basis of your rights or how you can hold someone to account or in the healthcare system the outcomes are getting worse.
So I was involved in setting up this political party just that in the event something happened we would have gone through the two-year bureaucratic process And actually we've set it up in Northern Ireland as well, right?
So that if something happened, we now have the platform that we can stand people, a bit like the Brexit party did for election all over Ireland.
And that is so that if things go wrong, that rather than talking about things and frustrating, I'm very strategic, is that we, two or three years ago, have a platform so that if something happened, we didn't expect this, I expected another banking crisis where Ireland would be like Greece.
That we can now say, okay, we can stand two or three people in every constituency, you know, like now it could be doctors, virologists, teachers, so that at least people will have an alternative voice and maybe we can get our message out in the media because once you engage in the political sphere, they do are supposed to actually have open debate at least for the three weeks before an election.
So just when you make the aside about the political thing.
So, so I don't, I mean, I don't really know Why our countries are being run to the ground, you know, whether the agricultural system, transportation system, infrastructure, education, health, and it's particularly policing and the legal system and also our democratic systems because,
but when you look into it, I won't go into it too much, but when I was born, we actually had rights and it's, you know, people couldn't come into your house or into your farm unless you could have broken a law.
But now because Without, and in Ireland, we voted against referenda.
So a bit like your Brexit, I do not really recognise the rights of the European Union to say that their laws have primacy over Irish law because the majority of Irish people in two referenda voted against those referenda.
So therefore, the rules that have been in place after those, I would consider the second referenda Illegal, you know, that they have no entitlement.
We had a democratic vote.
The majority of people voted against those ones.
And so, but what has happened is that the European Union is now imposing laws that ordinary people cannot, you know, because the laws in the EU are made from the Commission.
And I work in the Commission and they are not democratically elected.
The Commissioners are not democratically elected and the appointments of the presidents to the EU institutions are not democratically elected.
Yet they say that their laws have primacy to our laws.
But if you challenge a law, you have to go through the European Court and on average it takes eight years.
So essentially a lot of the issues that we see in our societies are Because we're living under laws that we don't agree to, but we have no democratic mechanism to change them.
And there's no real discussion in society.
I know you had in the Brexit referendum, but we don't have.
And so we're now living in a world where edicts come from international organizations like the World Health Organization of the United Nations and the EU. And if you're in the European Union, it makes it very easy for the politicians Because they just have to say the EU says it.
So they're getting their political status, you know, and their salaries, but they actually are not taking the decisions.
Whereas before they were taking the decisions and they like will be in the UK now.
If people, society disagreed with it, they could vote them out, you know, and there will be consequences.
I see that, but it's kind of, look, we voted out Out of the EU and a fat lot of good it's done us because actually we're really no better off than you are right now.
I mean in this in this current shamdemic.
No no but the thing is you see you haven't left the EU yet.
You haven't left the EU right?
So you'll only see it in 10 or 15 years time the benefit and I think the UK will be like the Singapore.
You will be much better but you won't actually notice the benefits until you really Control your own democracies.
Can I say, the grass is always greener.
I can tell you from where I'm sitting, it looks really bad in this country right now.
Let me just paint a picture for you.
Okay, so we've got, I don't know how much you read the British media, and I'm sure it's very dissimilar to the kind of rubbish you're hearing on RTE, and your media is appalling, I know that.
When I read in the newspapers, I mean, I mentioned this earlier, I read wall-to-wall stories, first of all, ramping up the scare.
So any country which hasn't imposed a lockdown is instantly a kind of pariah, and we hear about borders on the streets.
Sweden is very unpopular.
I mean, it's still, even now, it's only the kind of the controlled opposition, the licensed jesters, in even papers like The Telegraph, who get to say things like, what about Sweden?
The main story we read and the main thing we hear from the government, particularly from Health Minister Matt Hancock and from his little sidekicks and so on, is that we cannot resume normal life until Until a vaccine is discovered.
So we're being sold this story that the vaccine is the only solution.
Meanwhile, and you've said this yourself, you've said it throughout this podcast, there is a cure readily available, both a prophylactic and a treatment, and that protocol is hydroxychloroquine, zinc, vitamin C, what was it, vitamin D3 probably?
And yet, we're not being told of this enough.
We're having the economy destroyed in the name of this weight for this alleged vaccine, which is being heavily promoted by Bill Gates and the WHO. And I know you're being careful not to sound like a kind of crazy tinfoil hat person like I'm possibly sounding.
But nevertheless, nothing I've said there is factually untrue, is it?
Now, what the hell is going on?
It's worrying, isn't it?
It's worrying that we're being pushed towards this vaccine.
Absolutely.
So I suppose that is why I am coming out and in some of my interviews, I was on the high wire with Dale Bigtree yesterday, is that I am holding the BBC, you know, whoever is the director or whoever owns these newspapers, That I have said in Ireland, you know, we have the Irish Times, the Irish Independent, we have RTE and Newstalk, that actually what you are saying and you're right is that the media are not having this debate, okay?
And what I'm saying is that whoever the editors and the owners of those media stations and those newspapers will have to be held to account because if I am right and you are right, And there are unnecessary deaths that if they had broadcasted the symptoms and the prevention that they are actually contributing to those deaths and if they have the privilege of a license that they need to be held to account.
Well that they have to be held to account, right?
But can I just ask you something in return James?
Yeah.
What do you think is going on?
Why do you think?
What is your analysis of why the media are not talking about prevention and the hydroxychloroquine?
I think that this is the subject of a book which I'm hoping to write.
The reason I'm sort of onto this, I was onto this earlier than most, and the reason I think probably you were onto it earlier than most apart from your medical skills, is that you've seen the analogous situation within the world of climate science where we've got this intellectually and probably morally corrupt scientific establishment pushing this particular message cherry-picking the evidence torturing the data until it until it
screams in order to advance an end that they've already decided so they've already decided for example that renewables are the solution so All they then do is get whatever twisted evidence often.
I mean, you only look at the adjustments they've made, for example, to the raw data to make it go their way, to see that they've decided.
This is a new form of science where you decide what the goal is and then fit the evidence to accord with that goal and give it a kind of allegedly scientific justification.
In the same way, I think that right now there is a And I can see why you can't say this, but you're probably thinking it, is I think there was a very powerful big pharma establishment that it is wedded to...
I mean, can you imagine what a global vaccine for this deadliest plague ever would be worth?
You can see why globalist kind of would be global dictators like Bill Gates.
Even though he thinks of himself as a benign character.
You can see why they're getting off on this thing.
I mean, it's the money-making opportunity beyond anyone's wildest dreams.
So you've got this industry which is pushing this agenda and credulous politicians who've made a bad mistake a few months ago.
They've decided that this disease was the worst thing ever.
The evidence has emerged since that it's not the worst disease ever, but they're now in too deep.
So they've gone down this route where they're telling us the vaccine is the solution because it kind of justifies their earlier paranoia.
Only a drastic solution, you know, Hydroxychloroquine, vitamin C. I mean, those are over-the-counter drugs.
Generic.
No one's going to make any money out of hydroxychloroquine.
It's out of, you know, it's manufactured all over the world.
It's available.
What do you say?
It costs 10 cents a pill.
And you only need one pill as prophylactic.
So you can see why there's no interest in that.
Every two or three weeks, yeah.
It's 10 cents.
So, yeah, very interesting.
And also, look, Why is there a hunger for podcasts like this, interviews like this?
It's because you're not being featured in the mainstream media anywhere.
Exactly.
How crazy is that?
I don't think you're a loon.
I don't think you're some random quack who doesn't know.
I've heard some of the terminology you use and I'm thinking, yeah, she knows her shit.
She's not just faking this stuff.
Well, I've been faking it for a long time anyway, you know?
Yeah.
I'm joking.
Well, again.
They say fake it until you make it.
But Judy, how do I pronounce her surname?
Mikovits, yeah.
Mikovits.
I mean, she's kosher as well, isn't she?
She's not some random chin-fall hat woman.
She's real.
She is an absolute expert.
She knew her.
Well, I know people who know her, and I'm hoping to get in touch.
The producers of Plandemic have been in touch with me, so they're going to interview me.
You know the interview, the movie type thing, the documentary she did?
So I will be on the next one, which is great.
So they've just been in touch with me yesterday, and I'm in touch.
I know Dr.
Sherry Tenpany, and I know Del Bigtree, and I would be aware of lawyers working with Robert Kennedy for many years.
And of course, someone I very admire in the UK is Professor Christopher Exley as well, who is the expert on aluminium.
But can I just say in relation to that, why I am coming out to speak is that what they were trying to build was a consensus around the immune system, you know, which was entirely incorrect.
So I can definitively say there would be needs for masks and social distancing if you had Ebola virus, you know.
So I'm being nuanced.
But for this coronavirus, it's not transmittable that way.
It's transmitted when the droplets go on a solid surface like a door handle.
And therefore, there is no need for social distancing.
There is no need for masks.
And if you have a prevention and a treatment...
So also, the phrase that I'm using is called immune for life, right?
So what I think actually has legal consequences is that RTE and BBC are coming out And calling people who have had the virus, like me, who have recovered entirely and now our immune systems are boosted, which is a good thing, and we're healthy, they're calling us cases.
And so a bit like the analogy that you gave earlier, what I don't want is the challenge that suddenly there is a new terminology around my area that if it's allowed to go unchallenged, like in the climate change field, that suddenly that becomes the consensus.
And that's why I'm coming out to say to them, Give us the information behind the masks and the social distancing and all that because as Judy Mikovich is saying is it does not have any basis in immunology and we are have learned from previous you know kind of capturing of areas and why I'm coming out is that we have to challenge their whole basis for this is based on something that is incorrect and we have to come out now and challenge it which is what I'm doing briefly Briefly
before we go, because I just want to pick on two things there.
I look in my telegraph today, for example, and it says France and Spain say data and tests show no herd immunity in the population.
They say that, well, what is it?
No more than 5% of the population of France and Spain have contracted the disease, say two studies, in a major blow to hopes of herd immunity.
And they're saying that In order to get herd immunity, you need around 65% of the population.
What do you say to that?
So I suppose if people go back, if you know the graph for influenza B, influenza A, COVID, right?
So for those ones, the whole world had built herd immunity.
For that, you know, it is an influenza B, we'll say.
But it's obviously a little bit mutated that it's different from the other influenza Bs, and that's why it causes flu-like symptoms.
And then the whole world has herd immunity to influenza B. This year, that particular virus, it has herd immunity to influenza A, and it all happened without any trouble over a period of three or four weeks.
So the same thing with COVID, this particular SARS-CoV-2 or whatever, that we will build up herd immunity very quickly within about two weeks, okay, within 10 days.
So the reason why, of course, you know, if we had quarantined people, there'd be no herd immunity to influenza A in January, you know what I mean?
So the thing is, we can easily build up herd immunity within 10 days.
So if the young people, the children, now go out, right, say everybody under 40 are probably 50% of the population.
If they are healthy and they have vitamin DC and hydroxychloroquine, we will have 40% herd immunity within a week.
So the longer we lock it down, the longer you're just delaying people.
But I would probably say it depends on if they are using a PCR test to define herd immunity, That I would be positive on the PCR test for the 11 days that I had the virus active in January, but I would be negative on that test now because I have no virus, okay?
So if you want to manipulate the data or whatever, you could do PCR tests on people and they would come back negative because...
But surely wouldn't they be doing an antibody test on you rather than...
Well, so that's why you have to look at the data, right?
So I would have to see for that report which test were they doing And of course, that antibody test has to be specific for this COVID virus.
If it's for, you know, some, you know what I mean?
So that you can, like you're saying, make headlines out of things, but I would have to really look at that data.
But I would say, I would predict probably there has been a lot of studies now from Taiwan and from Iceland that we are going towards herd immunity, right?
But locking down, the virus is not so serious that we need the lockdown and you can just prevent any bad symptoms.
And we would develop herd immunity within two weeks after the lockdown.
I heard you say just a moment ago that it's transmitted by touching doors and things.
How do we know this?
I thought it was still a mystery.
No, because it is a coronavirus and this is a family of viruses.
So different viruses are known to be transmitted in different ways.
So how you would know that?
Like, for example, you know, in the middle of it all, our borders were open, you know, our borders were open.
And we had airplane loads of people coming in from countries in the middle of this thing.
So you have 300 people in a plane from Bulgaria coming to pick fruit in Ireland when the Irish people were locked down.
And if it was transmittable through the air, and if it was really as bad as they said, when all those 300 people, they would have been in the airplane, some of them would have had it, that they would all come down sick if it was transmitted that way.
You know, the 300 people on an airplane.
So if that was Ebola, they would all be sick and they would all be seriously ill.
So because it is not transmitted by the air, as well, you know when all the HSS and the police were clapping, the hospitals, you know, every Thursday during the lockdown, there were lots of video evidence on London Bridge where hundreds of people were together clapping.
If it was transmittable that way, they would have all been very sick, you know, the next day or the next two days.
So that is not how it happens and it's a total joke.
If you actually look at what's going on, if it was transmittable the way they were saying, you would have all those people that would gather in crowds would be sick and you could contact trace them.
So I'm not a medic or a scientific researcher but that makes intuitive sense to me and you're sort of confirming what intuition would suggest.
So why the hell have we got this two metre rule?
Where's that coming from?
So I am saying, as is Judy Mickiewicz and everybody, that we don't need the two meat for this virus.
Lots of us are coming out.
Everybody is coming out and saying that we don't need masks.
Actually put more pressure on the immune system and make you sick because your oxygen is reduced.
And if your immune system is then under stress and then latent viruses will come back.
So the masks are unnecessary.
Also, the mesh in those masks are bigger than the virus.
So they actually don't stop the virus anyway, but also because it's not transmittable in this way, you don't need masks and you definitively don't need social distancing.
So that's why I'm calling out in the UK, the BBC, anyone can ring me up and put me on a panel and I'm happy to debate those issues.
And they have to justify the social distancing.
They have to say we're wrong.
But the reason why we're not being called onto those radio or TV shows is That the scientists and medics advising the governments don't actually have the counter arguments and therefore they don't want to be brought into these discussions.
So there is no need for social distancing and I think people will be rightly angry when it comes out over time that this entire thing was entirely unnecessary but also the government's scientists should have known all this.
There was enough information From the 2003 and previous ones and there was enough information coming from China and Italy that by the time it came to the UK and Ireland they were doing the entirely wrong procedures.
And tell me about this this spike finally.
I mean we keep being told that maybe that we can't we can't end the lockdown because actually if we end it too soon we might get a second spike.
What's that about?
So I suppose the second spike, I'm saying there doesn't need to be one if you take the vitamins and zinc, you know, and then if we have hydroxychloroquine.
But what I said in the other interviews is that it's almost like they want a spike in death, right?
And there will be an increase in death because the people who had symptoms for cancer, as soon as the lockdown is released a little bit, They will go to their doctors and they will be diagnosed with cancer and say in ovarian cancer and in brain tumors and melanoma, those cancers can actually go very rapidly to kill people if they're not treated within a few weeks.
So very quickly after the lockdown, in that week or two or that month, there will be an increase in death because of the lockdown.
But what I am afraid and why I'm calling it out now is that we need an inquiry After we say May 25th that each of those deaths had to be looked at to see if they were cancer because they can call them corona deaths and they can incorrectly make a death spike and their plan is you know in this malevolent way to say we have an increase in the deaths we have to increase the lockdown.
Oh dear that's It's been a great conversation.
Exactly.
So if you go through my thing and say people, you know, because if people listen and exchange the information, they can themselves get vitamin D and C and zinc, right?
They don't have to wait for the government.
We need to spread this message.
And I would nearly be calling for social.
You know, if you live under a legal system that is incorrect and unjustified, that I would be saying in Ireland we need like an Irish Renaissance, but we need to have the courage from May 25th to go about our normal business.
And just engage in society.
And that is how we will say that we are just saying that this is not correct.
We don't need, you know, just normal social interactions and for people to not wear masks, not social distance and to just carry on life.
And what I'm saying is end the lockdown never again, right?
This was the hoax of the century.
It was entirely preventable.
It is the biggest mistake for the politicians in all our countries in Ireland and the UK. I think if they come out now and acknowledge it, everyone would forgive them, right?
You know, there would be no consequences.
They can get re-elected.
If they come out now, people, I, you know, would admire them.
That if they say, oh, you know, we at the time we were rushed into it, we really thought we were doing it for the best of intentions.
And so now we are giving them this week or two to say, you know, it was a mistake.
We're all sorry.
We just go back to normal.
But if they carry on the lockdowns I think after May 25th then they should have known and the broadcasters who don't have people like me and better people on to give a balanced view then they are contributing to the lack of information and the editors of those newspapers and the directors of the BBC and the ministers for health and the people who run you know the NHS and the Irish are personally have to be held to account for not providing the information And there should be
an inquiry.
And if they have to be accountable for debts, then they will be made accountable.
Thank you very much.
I say amen, Professor.
Yeah, you know, it's been really good talking to you.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
No, it's been great.
It's been really lovely talking to you.
And people are going to love this.
Well, I mean, people who like my stuff are going to love this anyway.
I hope the word spreads far and wide.
So thank you.
And thank you for the opportunity, James.
It was a pleasure.
Thank you very much.
Pleasure.
OK, bye.
▲
Export Selection