All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 25, 2021 - The Delingpod - James Delingpole
01:11:00
Sonia Elijah
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I love Danny Paul!
Come and subscribe to the podcast baby!
I love Danny Paul!
And there's another time, subscribe with me!
I love Danny Paul!
Welcome to the DelicPod with me James DelicPod and I know I always say I'm excited about this special guest but I really am.
It's Sonia Elijah.
Now Sonia, I've been following Sonia's work for the last 12 months or so and it has been absolutely tip-top.
You've been writing articles, haven't you Sonia, in places like TCW, as it's now known, used to be called The Conservative Woman.
And what's the other place?
Trialsite News, which I actually signed up to, because Trialsite News is an American website, but which is publishing Medical information, which really ought to be in the general public domain.
In fact, it ought to be all over the newspapers.
Yes.
And it ain't.
Because something's happened in the medical industry, hasn't it?
That all the different branches be The Big Pharma, and the journals which published supposed peer-reviewed papers, and the medical establishment, the people who conduct the testing, who develop, who conduct trials, and so on.
There's something very, very fishy going on, and you've been writing about this quite a lot.
Can we start off, Sonia, by talking about Ivermectin?
Sure.
Because I think Ivan mentioned is really, really interesting.
Given that, and this is actually a good way for normies, people who sense that something is rotten but aren't quite sure what, I think this is a real smoking gun.
So ivermectin is an anti-paras... you can tell me more about it, but as I understand it, anti-parasitical drug, which is very effective in treating whatever SARS-CoV actually is, because I don't think it's actually been Isolated, has it?
There's this thing, this nasty bug that's going around, that we've closed down the whole of the global economy to beat, apparently, and yet we force people to take these experimental gene therapy in order to deal with this alleged problem, and yet there is this ready solution.
So tell me about ivermectin.
Yes, so Ivermectin has been around for over four decades.
The formulation was isolated from a bacterial culture from Japanese soil.
And it is a very powerful antiparasitic drug, but it has antiviral properties as well.
And so essentially it was mainly to treat river blindness in many African countries.
I mean, you've got, I think, billions of doses have been administered so far.
It's a very safe drug.
It is on the World Health Organization's essential list of medicines.
So it is FDA approved to treat parasitic diseases and so it was repurposed in 2020.
they found it to be very effective against treating COVID-19.
And you have sort of the FLCCC, which is Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, which is a group that was organized in 2020.
The president is Dr. Pierre Corrie.
And he actually testified in December 2020 in front of the U.S. Senate, advocating for the use of ivermectin because he saw it as a wonder drug.
Looking at the clinical data, the evidence, not only observational data, but we have dozens of randomised control trials done.
A randomised control trial is like the gold standard of a clinical trial.
We have at least seven meta-analyses done which prove that ivermectin is a highly effective treatment.
A meta-analysis is like the platinum standard of a clinical trial.
In all these trials, the results show very, very positive results, that it just drastically reduces the sort of mortality rate, the hospitalisation rate, it reduces the viral load, the time, so for the recovery, and also it's a very potent prophylaxis, meaning it acts as a preventative, so it prevents you from catching COVID-19.
So now, in contrast, so we have all this real world data, and I'm going to also mention India, because there's the state of Uttar Pradesh, which was hit quite badly with the Delta variant, it's an early spring time.
If you believe in these Delta variant, I mean, come on, it's all bollocks.
But yeah, suppose we accept for a moment that the Delta variant was a thing, I actually do believe, because I've spoken to Dr. Geert van den Bosch, who is a leading virologist and vaccine expert, and he did say to me that the mass vaccine program has propagated more viral strains of the virus.
It's become infectious because the sort of growing population who are becoming vaccinated exert immune pressure on the virus causing it to become more virulent, more infectious.
So it's backfiring.
This whole mass vaccination program I believe is There's been a disaster and has backfired.
Anyway, going back to Uttar Pradesh, it's the most popular state in India.
And they literally, it's such a success story because they gave out medicine kits.
Ivermectin was administered and the rates of the COVID cases drastically dropped, I think down to zero.
So by September, they completely had it under control.
It was not mentioned in the mainstream media at all.
Completely radio-free.
I totally remember this, Sonia.
I remember there was a time, wasn't there, for about a week, maybe a fortnight, where you could not move for articles in the mainstream media about India.
It's the worst place in the world.
They're having funeral pyres everywhere.
Everyone's dying.
And it was a really big thing.
Yes.
And then suddenly, when the good news happens, and an entire state, I don't know what the population of Uttar Pradesh is, but it must be pretty, it must run as the many, many millions.
An obvious good news story.
Yes, obviously.
Crickets.
Yes, crickets.
I know it's it's just appalling.
And then not only in you've got Indonesia, they used it there and they had again, you know, the rates dropped and it was it was very successful.
So you have all this sort of real world data, plus you have all the randomized control trials and all of that.
You have complete suppression, censorship, disinformation going on against Ivermectin.
So now I happen to, I don't know if you remember the FDA sent a tweet in August saying, you're not a cow, you're not a horse, you know, seriously, I'll stop taking, you know, stop, stop, stop it.
You know, they sent a tweet and you have this sort of You know, comparing it to be like it's a horse pace.
Now, yes, ivermectin has been used in veterinary medicine for many years, but it has not only an animal formulation, it has a human formulation.
And as I explained in the beginning, it's been used to combat river blindness in humans and other parasitic diseases.
So they know that.
And the FDA knows this because the FDA approved it for human use.
This is the federal, yes, the Food and Drug Administration in America, which is our equivalent of the MHRA, right?
So they are deliberately confusing people.
They are and and I happened to come across a email.
This is in the public domain.
Now, this email was retrieved through the Freedom of Information Act and and an email from Erica Jefferson.
who is the Associate Commissioner for the FDA's External Affairs Office.
And she wrote an email August 22nd to Janet Woodstock.
And Dr. Janet Woodstock is the Acting Commissioner of the FDA.
And she CC'd all her team, you know.
Big mistake.
It's a big mistake.
And so basically essentially the email is a is sort of bragging she's bragging how successful this tweet was how the not a horse tweet reached 14 and a half million people.
And it's their second most popular tweet of all times.
So she's bragging about it.
And when you sort of dissect that email, she talks about how she makes a reference to the news coming out of Mississippi.
And I don't know if you remember, but back in August, the Mississippi Department of State, Department of Health, released a press statement saying that 70% of their calls to their poison control center was from people ingesting the animal formulation of ivermectin.
So they pounced on that.
And I'm going to sort of talk a bit about what happened and the data on that.
Yeah.
And so that was the Friday when Mississippi, when they, the news coming out of Mississippi.
Saturday, they send the tweet, the FDA send a tweet.
Sunday, she brags about it.
And so she's saying, you know, we used, you know, we needed to use the opportunity.
So they literally, they used it to, you know, to do their sort of disinformation campaign.
And, and it's just really appalling, because you have then the mainstream media jumping on the bandwagon of that.
And you have articles from Rolling Stones, The Guardian, New York Times, The Washington Post, Associated Press, all jumping on the sort of people are using coarse paste and getting poisoned.
Now, obviously, I do not advocate anybody to use the animal formulation of ivermectin.
It is completely the wrong dose for humans.
But there is a human formulation.
Anyway, going back to the 70 percent, right?
They said 70 percent of calls are from people ingesting the animal formulation of ivermectin.
Actually, it was only 2% of calls.
And the number of calls was 14 calls.
So it's 2% of 14 calls were people ingesting the animal formulation.
So then you have all the most mainstream, you know, media outlets had to retract, they had to sort of correct their articles.
And issue statements of correction.
But we know the retraction never, never gets nearly the attention of the main story.
Yes, it's like a little bit of time, you know.
Also, while we're talking about this, I mean, what on earth is Rolling Stone?
I'm old enough to remember when Rolling Stone used to be about, well, mainly about music, but also about kind of Boise adventures.
PJ O'Rourke used to be a columnist.
What the hell is Rolling Stone doing Promulgating fake news, as we now know, about a... Why would it even be interested?
And this seems to me to be quite key to our understanding of the bigger picture.
That you've got Rolling Stone and all those other publications you mentioned acting in lockstep with a propaganda organisation, just instantly reacting In cahoots with the FDA, with the narrative.
Yes, yes.
And that speaks to the Trusted News Initiative, which was set up in 2019.
To combat, so you've got big tech, big, you know, mainstream media, big government, big pharma, and all the regulatory bodies, all in alignment with going to fight, to combat disinformation to do with the vaccines.
And that was set up in 2019.
So you have that sort of alliance happening, you know, this sort of big machine, and it sort of, it controls the narrative.
of what is allowed to be spoken about.
It's a bit like the Ministry of Truth, isn't it, in 1984?
Oh yes, yes, very Orwellian.
Their relationship with the truth is the same thing.
So the Trusted News, it's also Car, it's Car the snake in Jungle Book.
Trusted News Initiative.
I know the name of the servler, isn't it?
Who's involved in that?
So it's led by the BBC, James, Of course.
Literally, literally!
You know that Orwell based the Ministry of Truth on the BBC?
Oh.
Yeah, yeah.
Wow.
He knew where off he spoke, yeah.
He did, he did.
Very prophetic.
So you have, you know, you've got, you know, you've got, yeah, so you have the TNI, Trusted News Initiative, and this is what we're seeing being played out, you know, in 2020, 2021.
in 2020, 2021.
Now, the war, I mean, I would say I had the opportunity of interviewing Dr. Pierre Corrie, because I'm doing a series for Trial Site News, other scientific journals censoring the science. other scientific journals censoring the science.
And Dr. Pierre Khoury rose to sort of, I guess, sort of became very well known.
I mean, he is a, first of all, he's an ICU doctor.
He's a lung specialist.
And he rose to prominence when he testified in front of the US Senate twice.
Now, the second time he testified was about ivermectin.
And because of all this evidence, right, I was talking about earlier, all the trials, the data, the real world data, and he just wants to save lives.
You know, these are doctors who, they take their Hippocratic oath seriously.
You know, do no harm, right?
So he goes in front of the US Senate and he talks about the success and he actually sort of equates ivermectin to be like a wonder drug because it is so effective.
Now, he gets then ridiculed in the, well actually the footage went viral so millions of people saw it.
And actually, the good thing, even though he was ridiculed in the mainstream media as being unbalanced and, you know, they just sort of tried to slander him.
By him going in front of the US Senate and the video going viral, it caught the eye of other doctors around the world to pay attention to ivermectin.
He cast a spotlight on ivermectin and he did a fantastic job.
And he's a very brave doctor.
So, you know, he sort of stuck his head above the parapet.
And there are many doctors doing that.
You've got Dr. Tess Lowry in the UK.
Can we get Ivermectin in the UK?
and actually Dr Tess Larry saw Dr Pierre Corey's video and that got her interested in ivermectin to do her own meta-analysis of it um can we get ivermectin in the UK can can we if if a relative had COVID or whatever uh well not not if you have you know they will not prescribe it if you have because it's it's it's um
I think if you have like a intestinal disease or parasitic disease then you might get, or scabies, I think.
Maybe just say, my mum's got really bad river blindness.
I don't know.
Good luck.
It's really hard.
It's really, really hard to get it in the UK, which is a shame.
Now, going back to the censorship.
Right.
So that's where my train of thought was on censorship.
So you have Dr. Pierre wrote a comprehensive review on ivermectin and it was it was peer reviewed.
Right.
And it was It was published in the, I think it was called the Frontiers of Pharmacology.
Just where was it?
Oh, hang on.
Sorry.
Frontiers in Pharmacology.
And his peer-reviewed comprehensive paper was retracted.
Now, for a peer-reviewed paper to be retracted is unprecedented.
Unprecedented.
And it was retracted.
And his experience is not unique, he told me.
It's happened to many other doctors, scientists.
And that, you know, so I had also the privilege of interviewing Dr. Peter McCullough.
And the same thing happened to him.
So he wrote, he co-wrote a report with Dr Jessica Rose and just to say Dr Peter McCullough is a leading cardiologist.
He is one of the most cited physicians in the world.
He's written 600 peer-reviewed papers.
He's never had a paper retracted.
The only time he's had a paper retracted is when he wrote a report with Jessica Rose on The vaccine-induced myocarditis cases, purely based on the data coming from the VAERS.
VAERS is the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.
And VAERS, the system, is co-managed by the CDC and the FDA.
So it's official data coming from the US, it's not independent sites, and they just analysed the data, focusing on myocarditis, and they came with a shocking analysis, the results, where you have
In the age group of 13 to 23 year olds, you have a 19 times increase in the expected number of myocarditis cases compared to the background myocarditis rates for this group, for this young age group.
Not only that, after the second dose is administered, the second dose of the mRNA-based vaccines, you have a five-fold increase in myocarditis rates observed for 15-year-olds.
And 67% of all myocarditis cases occurred with the Pfizer vaccine, just There's a point of interest there.
And roughly 90% of these myocarditis cases were serious adverse events.
When you have the sort of FDA or we've got the MHRA saying, oh, these are rare and it's mild.
They keep going how mild cases are.
These are not mild cases.
Myocarditis is an inflammation of the heart muscle and it's not mild.
And this is serious.
And it leads, often it's associated with hospitalization.
And you know, it's a lifelong, you've damaged the heart muscle and the heart muscle does not regenerate.
So he wrote this report, he co-wrote this report.
It was published in Current Problems in Cardiology and on the Elsevier website.
They went through the whole normal procedure, you know, and Dr. Peter McCullough is very experienced in the editorial side of things.
So, you know, every box was ticked, you know, signed off, it was published, it was online for about a couple of weeks.
And then it was just pulled.
It was a sign saying it's been temporarily removed.
Now they never emailed, the publication did not give the authors prior notice that it was going to be removed.
The only email they got when they inquired about it, like what's happened is that, oh no, now it's permanently removed.
So it's never coming back up.
Now this all happened just before the FDA had a pivotal meeting, a review meeting to decide whether to authorize the Pfizer vaccine for five to 11 year olds in America.
And alarmingly, they approved it.
And then you have, this actually went viral on Twitter, you had a lot of the video of Dr. Eric Rubin of Harvard University, and he was part of the meeting, he's an FDA member, saying, we're never going to learn how safe the vaccine is unless we start giving it, and that's just the way it goes.
So you have a regulatory body who is quite happy to dole it out to young children and just, you know, let's just see what happens.
So you have safety completely gone out the window here.
And it's just, again, another unprecedented event that has happened this year.
Now, a brief message from our first ever sponsor, Getter.
People across the world are being banned and silenced on social media for expressing their right to free speech, and for far too long we have been helpless to do anything about it.
Until now.
Join Getter, the social media platform that supports free speech and opposes cancel culture.
On Getter, that's G-E-T-T-R, you can express your political beliefs without fear of our oppressive tech overlords coming after you.
Getter is the fastest growing social media platform in history, with nearly 3 million users.
And on December the 8th, it will be sponsoring London's first Counter Conference, a meeting of politicians, commentators and media stars from across the world, all united around one purpose, to fight back against censorship and political correctness.
Nigel Farage, Lawrence Fox and Getter CEO Jason Miller will be leading discussions with hundreds of like-minded freedom fighters.
To buy your ticket for this December's Counter Conference, go to the O2's website, theo2.co.uk, that's an O, not a zero, and make sure you join the conversation at getter.com.
Yes, yes.
And it's really appalling when you have, in the mainstream media, or they died of a short illness, you get that, died of a short sudden illness, or a heart attack, you know, you've got all these heart attacks happening.
It's, it's just, it's so, it's, it's so sad, it's so tragic.
There's no other word for it but just it's a tragedy.
But going back to the swine flu, I remember doing a bit of research on that.
Or I think there was cases of narcolepsy, right?
And that's why they stopped it, because there was a rate of, especially in children, and they've stopped it.
Now you have this new experimental gene therapy product, I wouldn't even call it a vaccine, because when I had the privilege of interviewing Dr. Robert Malone, who is the mRNA, he invented the technology for mRNA technology.
I think in the 80s.
And I interviewed him in the summer and he said that in the Security Exchange Commission filings for Pfizer and Moderna, they defined the product as a gene therapy product, not as a vaccine.
So all the safety trials were done against a, it should have been done against a gene therapy product, but it was just treated like a normal vaccine.
So all the safety checklist was done against the vaccine.
safety checklist, not a gene therapy one.
So no gene toxicity reports were done, or reproductive toxicity reports.
So it's just, it's shocking, isn't it?
Am I right in thinking that none of these vaccines, that aren't vaccines, none of this experimental gene therapy, It's still in clinical trial, I think, until end of 2022.
So this whole thing, and this is what's so chilling, right?
trial I think until end of 2022.
So this whole thing and this is that this is what's so chilling, right?
It's been a big experiment.
We are part of it, you know, this, The world's biggest experiment.
We are part of the world's biggest clinical trial.
That's what's going on right now.
And these vaccines have only been given through emergency authorization use.
So they have bypassed the normal safety protocols.
that have been put in place to protect people have been bypassed because we're in an emergency, we're in a pandemic, you know, they're always using that.
And as you can see, that has rolled out to our freedoms being taken away from us because we're in a pandemic, you know, and the government wants to keep us safe.
So you have the vaccine mandates, you have the curfews, the restrictions, the lockdowns, restrictions on movement, on travel, Because we're in a pandemic, we're in a crisis, and they've just used that and they've just kept on milking it, I would say, to the nth degree.
Am I right in thinking that one of the reasons that they have been suppressing this positive data on ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, which I will talk to you about in a moment, but
They've been suppressing the good news about these readily available generic prophylactics and curatives, because am I right in thinking that in order for these vaccines to get permission for the experiment, there has to be no readily available cure for the problem?
Yes.
Yes.
Yes, you're absolutely right.
I mean, I think they've leaked out some of the contracts and I think it says in there, I don't know, hundreds of, I don't know, 700 page contract.
I think it was leaked.
Even on social media, I saw it.
It was, yes, saying that it's No other early treatment needs can be used, you know.
And the whole world has sort of put all their eggs in one basket and the vaccines have been seen as the only way out of this.
And you have, you know, going back to just Boris Johnson's announcement he made, you know, on November 15th, where he said, you know, we're sticking to our plan of using vaccination to control this virus.
So that's the only thing they're using.
When we know there's evidence and there's doctors and scientists speaking out, sticking their head above the parapet, you know, saying There's so many effective early treatments, and it's the repurposed drugs that can be used.
These cheap, patent-free drugs, like ivermectin, like hydroxychloroquine.
And then there's another drug called, and this is what Dr. Pierre Corrie spoke about this.
In Brazil, you've got Dr. Cadigiani, who did a trial on proxalutamide, which is an androgen suppressant.
And I found one article on it in the European Pharmaceutical Review, where the headline ran, proxalutamide reduces COVID-19 mortality risk by 92%.
Now this should be sung from the hilltops.
Wow, this is amazing news!
That's a better hit rate, I think, probably than the vaccines have, isn't it?
I mean, I'm seeing people, people are keeling over right, left and centre and it's not being reported.
All these micro clots.
It's not being reported.
And also, so you have so many different ways to sort of disseminate the way the vaccines have been working.
Obviously, you've got the safety, the adverse events that are going on, that are being downplayed, suppressed, you're not allowed to talk about it.
Then you have the fact that these vaccines, that the efficacy rate is waning so much.
I had, again, the privilege of speaking when I spoke to Dr Geert Vanden Boe, she spoke about this, about the waning efficacy rate.
And so it's not even a good product.
It's not even doing its job.
So you also have the, what happens is when you take the vaccine and you produce your vaccinal antibodies, the vaccinal antibodies suppress your natural immunity.
So you're more likely to catch the virus because your immunity is being suppressed and your natural immunity or natural antibodies would protect you against all variants.
It's got a diversified spectrum of protection it offers you.
So you have people getting, you know, the infections from it.
Also, you have, it's interesting, Anthony Fauci said in the summer, in August, he said that If you look at the nasal pharynxes of people who have been vaccinated that have got a breakthrough infection of the Delta variant, the viral load is the same as to people who are unvaccinated.
So that just, that just, your whole vaccine argument falls to, you know, just sort of goes by the wayside because it's more effective.
I just read it, I read that in Carl Hennigan, Professor Carl Hennigan was saying something similar today.
He was saying, look, the vaccinated are as likely to spread this virus.
I think he was understating.
I think they're probably more likely to spread it.
Um, as the unvaccinated.
So how can it possibly make sense to, to threaten the unvaccinated with lockdowns?
Yes.
They're no more dangerous than the vaccinated.
I mean, I actually worry about the vaccinated.
I'll tell you an interesting story that happened to me the other day.
I went, you know I've got Lyme disease and I mean you know it's pretty much under control but I go for my treatment and the person who treated me told me that one of the world's top Lyme specialists in Germany, they're mostly in Germany, has told all his patients, stay clear of anyone within two weeks of their being vaccinated.
Because their spike proteins, which they are shedding, are a danger, particularly if you've got a chronic autoimmune disease, which is what Lyme disease becomes.
You are especially at risk, not from unvaccinated people, not a problem, but the vaccinated people are a menace.
Don't go, don't, don't, especially don't touch them.
And, and I've had, I've had a few, I had a relapse of my Lyme the other day, and I hadn't had it problems for ages.
And I'm pretty sure that this would have been me coming into contact one way or another with, with people who've had the jab and have just screwed up my, my immune system.
Yeah, I have heard stories like this.
I have heard this theory.
It's familiar to me.
I mean, it is shocking.
I mean, and also just going back to the data of, you know, the UK's health security agency, obviously Public Health England has been renamed You mean, you mean the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation funded thing?
Look, this annoys me, but I, you know, I cut my teeth on the Telegraph.
And under Max Hastings, it was a pretty good newspaper, and it certainly represented the views of the Tory shahs, which is what it was aimed at.
And now it's got this thing called a Global Health Editor.
Do you know why it's got a Global Health Editor?
Well, perhaps because the Melinda Gates Foundation have given it at least three million dollars to promote its global health coverage.
Well, global health is a bit like what was the Trusted Media Initiative.
It's another of those things where you think, Global health.
Well, I like the world and I like health, so global health must be a comprehensive plan for my... No, it's not.
It's Bill Gates' jibby jab fetish being promoted around the world.
So the last thing one needs is... it's a bit like saying we're going to have a propaganda editor who's just going to deal with... or medical propaganda editor who's going to dispense medical propaganda for the readers.
It's like that.
Yeah.
I mean, what I was going to speak about was, yes, you absolutely, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation have given hundreds of millions to the BBC, The Guardian, a lot of the mainstream media outlets under that umbrella.
But what I was going to speak to you about was the Health Security Agency, which is the renamed, you know, used to be Public Health England, and now it's HSA.
Now, they released data quite recently where, again, shocking data, where in the age group, I think you've got over 30s, but I think it was in the 40 to 49 age bracket, you've got a 100% increase compared to the unvaccinated.
So in the vaccinated group, you've got double the amount of people who have COVID infections, the COVID cases.
Compared to the unvaccinated.
So that's really interesting data coming out there.
You know, I mean, double is 100% increase.
I mean, it's very alarming.
And I wanted to talk a little bit about, again, Boris's announcement that he made on November 15th, his speech.
Yeah.
So he said that countries with lower vaccination rates tended to see bigger surges in infection, whilst countries with higher vaccination rates have so far fared better.
And I just want to deconstruct what he's just said, because I feel that this is disinformation here.
It's a lie.
Come on.
It is a lie.
Go on.
Demonstrate now that it's a lie.
Because it is.
Kill.
Kill Sonia.
Well, you know, I've noticed that I think the blood dog or hound dog, or just someone saying, you're like a blood dog.
Are you?
Blood hound.
Blood hound.
Yeah.
Blood dog.
What I'm talking about.
Blood dogs don't exist.
Sorry.
You could be the first blood dog.
Oh, dear me.
So going back to what I was saying.
Now, so taking those statements, I would say you have enough data, real world data, that proves the opposite.
So you have countries like the UK, for example, Israel, Malta, Gibraltar, Iceland, where you have very high, highly vaccinated countries, where they've seen surges in COVID cases.
And you take for example, Gibraltar, which has almost 100% of their adult population has been double has been fully vaccinated received two doses, and they have literally cancelled Christmas.
Right.
And probably going into lockdown.
They're denying that now.
They're saying that some ministers said, we didn't actually say we're cancelling Christmas.
We're just asking people to, you know, not visit each other and not give presents.
Wow.
So this is interesting.
And then you look at countries, and I'm going to take many African nations who've had very low vaccination rates.
For example, Uganda.
Uganda has had 0.9% of the population has received both doses.
So less than 1% of the population.
And their cases are so low for COVID, like negligible, like really, really low.
Now you have African, because I did investigate a report for News Africa magazine over the summer.
So I did write about this.
But you have other countries like Angola, Congo, Kenya, Malawi, Zimbabwe, where they were previously unaffected by COVID.
But once they did the vaccine rollout, cases went up.
So I feel there is definitely a link somewhere.
Why countries where they had no cases or no deaths from COVID before, but once the vaccine has been rolled out, you're seeing cases or you're seeing deaths from COVID, where before you didn't.
So that's interesting.
They should have said, we'll stick to our Ebola, thanks.
We've got a nasty disease of our own.
We don't want any of your kind of made up fantasy disease.
You know, I mean, it's just it's it's really it's it's really bizarre.
And what is really alarming and it's really upsetting is when Boris said, you know, we're making the second Jabs available.
to all 16 and 17 year olds.
And based on what I've just said, when I've reported back from what, you know, Dr. Peter McCullough's report, where it's primarily, you know, the young teenagers getting the myocarditis, especially after the second dose.
So how worrying is that now that they're going to be given the second dose, so their chances of getting myocarditis is going to explode?
Can we just take a step back because I want to mention hydroxychloroquine.
Even though I think the research suggests that Ivermectin is better.
I first really started to smell a rat that we were being given a false prospectus.
Really quite early on.
I happened to come upon some research, a paper, which showed that hydroxychloroquine had been very effective at treating SARS-CoV-1.
So it was known about as an effective treatment.
So naturally quite a few switched on doctors when SARS-CoV-2 came around and people who had SARS-CoV-1 have got a lot of immunity to SARS-CoV-2.
I mean I think they are similar.
People started talking about hydroxychloroquine And then a similar campaign to the one you've just described against ivermectin was launched by the medical establishment.
And suddenly there was a massive clampdown on stories favourable towards hydroxychloroquine.
And there was even an analogue to your story about, was it Mississippi or Missouri?
I forget the place where they... Mississippi.
So you had the story from Mississippi about how, as it turned out, a fake news story about how The hospital was being inundated with people who'd taken this bad thing and made themselves ill.
Do you remember the story about the man who'd taken fish tank cleaner?
Thinking that this was this was hydroxychloroquine and and you know, he probably heard it from Donald Trump and he poisoned himself and died.
And again, this was one of those stories which was turned out to have very little found foundation.
Yeah.
And it had been put about and spread by this corrupt media.
And then, on top of that, we had a trial of hydroxychloroquine.
Yes.
Conducted by the Oxford team, which were responsible for the AstraZeneca so-called vaccine, but not really.
It's a recovery trial.
The recovery, you remember it well, the recovery group and what the recovery group did was that they dosed the trial patients with quantities of HCQ, hydroxychloroquine, way above the level that you would normally give people.
I think they also cheated by giving them at a later stage in their They were advanced.
So they were very ill anyway, and they were given too much.
And guess what happened?
They started the toxic doses.
It didn't turn out well, did it?
No, no.
Yeah, exactly.
No, I heard about this.
And I would say they sabotaged it on purpose.
You know, there's no other way of Because the dose they gave was in the toxic, poisonous range.
And it was doses that they had never used before because now hydroxychloroquine has been around again for decades, like ivermectin, and it's an anti-malarial drug.
That's been used in many, you know, African nations or wherever there's malaria.
Right, exactly.
So, and it's the so the dosage has been, you know, worked out has all the safety protocols have been done and they know this is a dose you give, but rather than giving.
the standard dose used they gave way above the norm and like almost like as if you were a size of an elephant or the weight of an elephant that's the sort of dosage level they gave people and it's it's shocking isn't it um yeah that's just another story i was going to ask you i was going to ask you about that son you you you said it was shocking i if you'd if you'd said to me um if you'd describe what what's happening now
Even two years ago, I would have gone, look, it couldn't, this couldn't happen, what this scenario you're describing, because look, there are all these checks and balances in the, in the, in the medical industry and even if, even if I were to buy into your ridiculous thesis that Big Pharma is evil and hell-bent on, on poisoning people while making as much money as it can, even if I were prepared to accept That part of your thesis.
It couldn't possibly happen because there are all these rep... the doctors wouldn't allow it.
Their Hippocratic Oath wouldn't allow it.
There are too many... they did not become doctors in order to kill their patients.
They are in the service of the science.
They read the papers, The papers are peer reviewed.
The peer review would ensure that this stuff was out there.
The medical journals, the Lancet, Elsevier, the one that published the Dr. McCullough thing.
There would be so many different cogs in the machine that it would not be possible for this diabolical scheme to come to fruition, because somewhere down the line it would be stopped.
And failing that, my colleagues in the media would make sure the story got out.
They would never not report on this stuff.
Is that pretty much where you were two years ago?
Yes, no, I think I agree with everything you've said, you know, we are living in unprecedented times.
And it goes back to the way big pharma have sort of infiltrated, you know, it's like this infiltration, you know, you're talking about regulatory capture here.
So, for example, you have the The former FDA Commissioner, Scott Godlieb, I think he was the 23rd Commissioner, who now is on the board of Pfizer.
Right.
So he's now an acting board member of Pfizer, a senior official there.
And, you know, you've got this sort of revolving door scenario going along.
And that's happened also in the UK, you know, with Sir Patrick Vallance.
And, you know, I did a big sort of three part investigative series published in the TCW on Sage's covert coup, where I looked at all the sort of players in the The sage scientists advising the government and their conflict of interest.
So conflict of interest has played a huge part in all of this.
And it's been very destructive for the public.
The public have lost out.
And you just have to also follow the money trail.
When you're talking about the media and why aren't they saying, well, who's paying?
They're advertising money.
I think the UK government last year spent I don't know how many billions on advertising their Project Fear campaign.
So they're not going to bite the hand that feeds them.
And then you talk about the doctors.
Why aren't they speaking up?
Because they'll get struck off.
They'll lose their license.
And this has happened.
I think Dr Anne McCluskey, I think in Ireland, when she was speaking out about the adverse events of these vaccines, of these, you know, people having these side effects, she lost her license.
So you have, and I think there's Dr Sam White in the UK, that happened too.
So these are doctors that I know...
And there's one in France, well several in France, I know.
Yes, yes.
What gets sort of gets overwhelmed by the evidence against these people, it's not a kind of a little bit of naughtiness here, a little bit of badness there, it's everywhere.
And it's not even them speaking out against the vaccines, it's them promoting ivermectin, advocating.
So I know, I interviewed, I wrote a report, this is for Trial Site News on, this is St Lucia, you know, so you think, well, you know, they would be okay over there.
I have a Dr. Gilberta Rose, Dr. Gilberta St.
Rose, excuse me, She is a doctor there, practicing doctor, and she was prescribing ivermectin for her patients and she got hauled up in front of their medical council in St Lucia because she was, you know, giving out, you know, she was prescribing ivermectin.
Saving lives?
Yeah, because she was busy saving lives.
She's sort of being, you know, penalized and sort of the threat of losing her license.
So this is just so appalling that you have doctors who are wanting to promote, you know, best health practice and save their patients' lives are being essentially struck off for doing that.
Yeah.
Do you think it's fair to say that everyone who has died of Covid, although lots of them have died with Covid, everyone who has died
could have had their life saved by ivermectin had they been reached at an early enough stage, and in which case is it not fair to say that millions of people have been killed needlessly, murdered actually, by the medical establishment, by the governments promoting this, and by the newspapers that did not report on this stuff.
Wow, you're laying it out for me quite thick, aren't you, James?
You know I speak the truth.
Now, the key word I'm going to pluck out from what you just said is early, early treatment.
Now with ivermectin, you've got to treat it early.
You've got to get in there early.
When you're first getting the symptoms, you can't leave it late.
You can't leave it until like day seven, day eight, because, you know, it is a nasty virus, you know, it can be deadly, you know, it does exist.
I absolutely, you know, whether it leaked from a lab or wherever it came from.
It can affect multiple organs of your body and it affects obviously primarily the lungs.
So you've got to treat it early.
And it's not even that, it's also a mix of things.
So you can use ivermectin, but you can use quercetin, you can use zinc, vitamin D, vitamin C. You know, you've got all of that going on, obviously hydroxychloroquine.
And you have like doctors like Dr. Zelenko.
Have you heard of him?
He's a Zelenko Protocol.
Yes, Zelenko Protocol.
He's based in New York and he mainly treats the Hasidic Jewish community in New York.
He saved the Orthodox Jews in New York, basically, didn't he?
Yes, yes.
He's really successful.
I mean, the mortality rate dramatically plummeted because of the Zelenko Protocol.
He is I think he was he was nominated for a Nobel Prize as well.
And now, going back to the Jewish community in New York, actually, did you hear about the rabbinical court ruling?
Do you know about that?
No, tell me.
Can I share that with you?
So in the rabbinical court ruling, they said that absolutely these vaccines should not be given out to the youth.
And should not be given out to young women, young men, they can, and they had eight hours of testimony from doctors like Dr. Peter McCullough, Dr. Geert van den Bosch, I think even Dr. Robert Malone might have spoken off the top of my head, but I know it was these scientists that stood out to me.
Eight hours of testimony in front of the rabbinical court, and they made a ruling saying, absolutely, it's dangerous.
We're not using it, especially not on children or on women of childbearing age or, you know, I like this rabbinical court.
This presumably only covers the Hasidic community, is that right?
I don't know the sort of legal implications, but I guess for the acidic community, this is what they're saying, you know, for their community.
Right.
But that's very interesting because they've literally listened to the scientists and medical experts warning.
And these scientists, and these are eminent practitioners of medicine.
These aren't just medical students, you know, saying their own.
These are highly experienced doctors and scientists who have given Ample evidence, eight hours of testimony, and they've gone through that and they've made their decision, they've made their ruling.
So that speaks volumes, doesn't it?
Yeah, absolutely.
And then we have our MHRA here, and you've got the JCVI, which obviously is separate, where we're getting the opposite.
Even though the JCVI did do, I think twice they ruled not to recommend the vaccines in young teenagers here, and the government went against the advice of the JCVI, which is again unprecedented, that has never happened before.
But then, unfortunately, you have them saying, you know, very recently that, you know, the 16 to 17 year olds, you know, they can have their second dose, I think, after 12 weeks from being given their first dose.
So, I just feel that, you know, young people are being let down here, children, you know, I mean, just, it's people, you know, it's the people that suffer.
Totally, totally.
I think that this is, you're not supposed to say, in the financial markets, they always say, you know, this time is different is a misconception.
But I think this time really is different.
I don't think this, okay, maybe you could argue that the damage done by Jonas Salk in the polio thing, or maybe Maybe 1918-1919, the Spanish flu.
I think there's a lot we weren't told about that, that perhaps it was the vaccine really that killed everyone, not the so-called Spanish flu.
But what's going on now is really bad, and I'm going to ask you now the question I should have asked at the beginning, although it's better now.
What do you think it is about you, That has enabled you, a novice journalist, because you haven't been the game very long, have you?
18 months you've been probably working as a journalist?
Well, how come you are doing stuff that every medical correspondent, every science correspondent, every newspaper should be writing about every day on their front pages?
Because this is the biggest scandal in the world and it ought to be meat and drink to any journalist worth their salt to be pursuing this stuff like a bloodhound, if you like, or what would you call it?
a blood dog.
How come why is it Sonia Elijah that is doing this stuff and not the others?
Tell me about your past.
Okay, good question.
Well, I would say that obviously I'm not, you know, employed by, you know, I'm not part of the legacy media, so to speak, where I've got, you know, a boss saying, you know, if you wrote this, you won't, you know, you'll never write again, because I know plenty of journalists, amazing journalists, that want to get the truth out.
Very intelligent.
Do you?
Yes, I do.
And they're not... You've had conversations with... Yes, I do.
I'm not going to give names, but I know many that have actually come to me and, you know, and they are, you know, we can't, we can't, we can't get it past the editor.
We won't get this published.
And It's really shocking that, you know, it's just so sad, but I don't, I have the, so because I'm sort of on the outside, I consider myself to be a bit of sort of the outsider, I'm able to get away with it and I'm able to have the opportunity to write for, you know, sites like Trial Site News, TCW,
And hopefully more in the future, but it's sort of where they're a platform where they want the whole story to come out, and not just the sort of selected narrative.
So because they're unrestrained, I'm able to write what I want to write.
And obviously I'm passionate about this, you know.
I can get quite hyper focused and really, you know, to me I see it as being a bit of a detective and a bit kind of being a forensic detective when I do my research and get into the nitty gritty of things.
Obviously, I find something and that leads to something else.
So I have a, you know, I like to consider that I'm analytically minded and I ask the questions that need to be asked, that the mainstream media are refusing to ask because they are gagged.
I call it, they're gagged, you know, they're censoring themselves.
Because of the funding, of the money, you know, they don't want to bite the hand that feeds them again.
It's true.
So if you had a job on, say, The Mail or The Sun, you would be getting a decent six-figure salary.
And I imagine that, you know, your mortgage would be dependent on that.
You'd probably have kids in private school, although, goodness knows, I can't see the point of privately educating children anymore given how woke they've all become and how Covid Nazi-ish they've all become.
But nevertheless, those are the things that prevent journalists in the mainstream media telling the truth.
And yet you would have thought, you'd have thought, I became a journalist Because I'm curious, because I'm not house trained, because I don't like taking orders.
I don't like... You would have thought that the kind of person drawn to journalism would kick against the traces and there would come a point where they say, well, hang on a second.
OK, so my job is...
Obviously, I'll let the money, but at the same time, this is the destruction of our world.
This is the killing of our children that is taking place now.
Children are being submitted forcibly or impelled towards this medical procedure, which could give them permanent damage.
And we're talking not just not just teenagers now, but even five year olds.
They're thinking of injecting.
Surely there would come a point.
It's a bit like if you were a journalist in World War Two.
And you're going, well, I'm not going to talk about the death counts because, you know.
Because our proprietor is involved with his making.
I mean, actually, this is true.
You know this, that Auschwitz was run by, was owned by an American company, I believe, that was using the labour to, yeah, the relationship between top echelons of Wall Street and the Nazi war machine and the Nazi killing machine was shocking.
We don't hear about this.
But anyway, you would have thought that people's conscience would scream and prevent them from going along with this, but this hasn't happened.
You didn't mention, by the way, what you were doing before you became a journalist.
What was your background?
Oh, right.
So, yes, so I was a former BBC researcher, sort of, you know, in my early days.
When the BBC was a great place to work, I worked for the Community Programme Unit and it was fantastic.
And did you sacrifice Babies to Satan?
Excuse me?
At the BBC?
Did I what?
Did you have to sacrifice Babies to Satan as part of your...
No, it isn't!
But yeah, it was really great and I got a lot of experience sort of in the production side and doing a bit of segment directing as well and then that sort of led me to America where I was again involved in production and short films, music videos, TV commercials, got into advertising as a copywriter I worked in New York for quite a few years as a copywriter, but my passion was always journalism.
It's what I should have done, you know.
I mean, my background is actually in economics at university when I studied, but I always wanted to be a journalist and it's sort of, I found my, you know, journalistic kind of, I don't know, skills sort of.
It was always innate in me, buried within me, but I sort of, it rose to the surface when I saw the injustice of what is going on.
Because essentially I consider myself to be a truth digger.
And I, when I see lies, when I can, I call out the lies, right?
Because we are being fed lies daily.
It must have been tough working in the ad industry then, if that's your personal philosophy.
Well, you see, because I worked on the other side and I was sort of, you know, in that industry where, yes, lies sell in a way, I could spot the lies because that's sort of where I cut my teeth in writing.
So it helps, actually, because I was able to discern, well, this is BS, what we're Experiencing right now, especially what was being, again, Project Fear.
And if you leave your house, if you remember those horrible billboards or those posters, you know, you people will die.
If you leave your house, people will die.
I mean, they said things like that.
And this is a promotion of fear.
And I remember we spoke about this yesterday was.
Oh, yes, yes.
In the take.
Our lost, our lost, our lost conversation.
Lost.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
So, fear is such a strong emotion that it disables you.
It disables your critical, the way you can, you know, your critical thinking.
You can't, you can't think straight.
When you're afraid and when you're petrified it stops you from asking the questions and all you want to do is you just want to feel safe.
And that's what people did.
They literally looked at their government because the government, you know, obviously the slogan was, you know, we're keep safe, you know, we're doing all this to keep you safe.
So the public let that up because they wanted to feel safe because this was a novel virus, you know.
And again, they inflated the infection fatality rate.
As if you're going to get something and then you will die.
When actually, if you look at John Ioannidis, do you know Professor John Ioannidis?
Yes, of course.
Yes, on the cruise, the Crystal Serenity.
Right, so he is a Stanford professor and he came out with a paper, I think in the early days in 2020.
Right at the beginning.
He calculated the infection fatality rate and it's like, I think if you're under 70, it's 0.05%.
it's 0.05%.
Like, that's how low it is.
And that, you know, that wasn't, that was suppressed, that was completely ignored.
So people actually thought if I catch COVID, I will die.
You know, it's like, it's it's awful and yes it is a very contagious virus it is highly transmissible, we know that.
They completely ignored natural immunity that when you do get it you get the antibodies and you know you can fight against it and that and the antibodies last a long time, your immune system remembers it's like you have T cells and, you know, obviously I'm not an immunologist I'm just an investigative journalist so I don't claim to be a scientist.
But I do absorb information and I find it fascinating.
The human body is fascinating.
People were fed lies, they were afraid, they died in their homes.
Lockdowns kill.
I absolutely fall into that camp where I believe lockdowns do kill.
Even The Telegraph wrote an article in 2020 where they said that non-COVID deaths An estimate of 200,000 people's lives were lost in lockdown.
Because they didn't get the treatment they needed, they didn't get the diagnosis, they were refused treatment.
I mean people, they couldn't get their surgery, the cancer treatments, it all shut down.
Because the NHS was just purely open for COVID and it was horrendous how people suffered.
And then you've got, you know, I mean, you've got all the fallout, the collateral damage of children have been catastrophic.
The fact that they closed schools.
And also they force children to wear masks so they can't communicate, they can't read facial expressions, that they've been conditioned.
Presuming that any of us survive the horror show that's coming.
We've created several generations worth probably of future damage and children who cannot function normally.
And of course, this was always part of the plan.
Sonia, I would totally love, you're so good, I would love to talk to you for hours more, but you may have seen me wriggling.
I'm dying for a pee.
I'll be honest with you, I'd die for a piece.
So before we go, because remember, we have done this before.
I think this one was better.
I think this one was better, actually.
I think this was good.
Yesterday was like a warm-up.
This is like, you know.
Tell us where we can find your stuff.
Yes, yes.
So first of all, you can follow me on Twitter at Sonia underscore Elijah.
You can read my articles on Trial Site News, so I urge people to subscribe to Trial Site News.
It's literally a cost of a cup of coffee a month.
I write also for TCW, conservativewoman.co.uk, and I have a Patreon page, so people, whoever wants to support me on Patreon, That would be amazing.
And I also have a brand YouTube channel.
Where I'm doing a lot more interviews, because I love interviewing people, I love talking to people, and they can subscribe to my BitChute channel, and I also have a brand new YouTube channel.
And yeah, I hope to be writing more reports and producing more content.
You will!
You will, because you are a blood dog.
You are the blood dog.
You are the blood dog of the Corona bug.
And let no one take that away from you because there are no other blood dogs around.
I'm a unique species.
You are a unique species and you could be uniquely positioned to survive when all the other creatures, it'll be you and the cockroaches and the scorpions, you'll emerge from the ruins.
May I remind my beloved viewers and listeners that I can't do this stuff for free either and do please support me.
I love your support on Patreon and Subscribestar and you can go to my dellingpoleworld.com website and you can buy special friend badges and maybe give me Bitcoin.
I like Bitcoin.
Give me cryptos.
Yeah, good.
So thank you very much Sonia Elijah once more and I hope we don't have to record another one because even though I love talking to you It's quite exhausting, isn't it?
It takes up time.
But yeah, thank you.
Thank you really for all the work you're doing.
One more thing, I just want to say, people like you, people like me, really, really need, because I'm really good at the polemic and I'm a great stylist, you know, I know my skill set.
Brilliant.
But you, you put in the hard yards.
You, with your blood dog skills, you can investigate.
So thank you.
Thank you for doing the stuff that I have no appetite for doing.
Thank you for informing us.
It's really important.
You're great.
Thank you so much, James.
And I've loved talking to you.
And thank you for giving me the opportunity of doing that.
Thank you.
Take care.
Thank you.
Thank you, Prophet Elijah.
▲
Export Selection