Podcast appearances and mentions of chris whitty

Could a single daily conversation be the easiest way to lower stress? New research shows that meaningful social interactions can significantly boost well-being—we break down why this simple habit matters. The longevity debate is shifting, with studies suggesting eating less protein may help you live longer. But is cutting back really the key? We explore the science behind Blue Zones, protein myths, and what actually works. Social media is under fire as Chris Whitty reviews a potential ban for under-16s on platforms like Instagram and TikTok. Is this a smart move for mental health or an overreach? Plus, castor oil packs and navel pulling are trending as detox remedies—but do they actually work? We separate fact from fiction on this ancient practice making a modern comeback. And if you're looking for free ways to check your gut health, we've got simple, science-backed methods to assess digestion—no pricey tests required. Recommendations This Week: Plates, the UK's first Michelin star plant-based restaurant Toxic Town, Ella's TV recommendation Bird Feeders, a simple way to enjoy bringing nature to you Roasted beans, lentils and pulses - super tasty and make for great salad toppers Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Follow me for more content on these platforms! Twitter- https://twitter.com/Insideforwalls

Josie Appleton, director of the Manifesto Club, joins Chris Snowdon and Tom Slater for the latest episode of Last Orders. They discuss Chris Whitty's one-man crusade against smoking and drinking, the calls to abolish the pint glass, and what Labour's ‘respect order' will mean for civil liberties.  Don't miss our upcoming live show at the Battle of Ideas festival. Chris and Tom will be joined by Julia Hartley-Brewer, Simon Evans and Kate Andrews in Westminster on Saturday 19 October. Fans of the podcast can get 20 per cent off their tickets. Just enter the promo code SPIKED24 at checkout or use this link: https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/battle-of-ideas-festival-2024-tickets-807629249827?discount=SPIKED24   You can find out more about the festival here: https://www.battleofideas.org.uk/  Donate £50 or more to spiked and get a signed copy of Brendan O'Neill's new book, After the Pogrom: 7 October, Israel and the Crisis of Civilisation. We'll also throw in a year's membership to spiked supporters: https://www.spiked-online.com/donate/  You can also order a regular copy on Amazon: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1068719303/  Listen, share and give us a glowing review on your podcast app. Also, send your postbag questions to lastorders@spiked-online.com and we'll try to answer them in the next episode. Support spiked: https://www.spiked-online.com/support/  Sign up to spiked's newsletters: https://www.spiked-online.com/newsletters/

The truth is out, and finally we now know from the horses mouth, Chris Whitty that the government exaggerated the danger of Covid. Plus all the top stories on weird Keir's flat shenanigans with Lord Alli plus callers and Mike Neville on lawless Britain. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Got a Dilemma? https://www.thenewblxck.com/dilemma Interested In Securing Shares In THE NEW BLXCK -https://app.seedlegals.com/en/pitch/c_VoSPUCwhTo/The-New-Blxck Any questions about this investment opportunity, please contact Brent@TheNewBlxck.com Join Our Discord Community: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Discord⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Email Us: TheDayAfter@THENEWBLXCK.com WhatsAPP: 07564841073 Join us in our twitter community - ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Subscribe NOW to The Day After: shorturl.at/brKOX The Day After, (00:00) Intro: House keeping (21:03) Headlines: Starmer says 'terrible inheritance' to blame for emergency prison measures, Woman dead and girl, 17, critical after triple stabbing in Manchester, Chris Whitty and ministers discuss UK mpox preparedness after global emergency declared (23:56) What You Saying? Why Are Black Children Still Far More Likely To Be Strip Searched In 2024? (57:59) Headlines: Jailed Pakistan ex-PM Imran Khan applies to be Oxford chancellor, Pro-Life Activist Awarded £13K After Arrests for ‘Silent Prayer' Outside Abortion Clinic, Blinken says Israel OKs a plan to break the cease-fire impasse and urges Hamas to do the same (01:01:04) Word On Road: Boy meets world star, Danielle Fishel, reveals breast cancer diagnosis  Tyler James Williams would love Solange to guest star on Abbott Michaela Coel announces her new series with BBC & HBO, “First Day on Earth” (01:15:52) The People's Journal: (01:23:43) Interview - The One About Sayce Holmes-Lewis (Mentivity) (03:11:56) Headlines: One person dead and six missing after superyacht with 22 on board is sunk by tornado off coast of Italy, One in 20 child strip-searches 'didn't follow rules', Hunters to be paid to kill extra deer in Scotland in trial conservation scheme (03:16:59) The Reaction: Premier League Results, Leicester and Tottenham draw 1-1 in Premier League opener, Chelsea and Atletico Madrid agree on player swap deal involving Joao Felix and Conor Gallagher (03:32:53) The Rap Up #News #currentaffairs #sports

Weather and climate-related events can cause significant mortality and disability.Sudden cold, heat, storms and floods all present risks to health, especially to the most vulnerable. Even in countries with temperate climates like the UK, weather-related deaths can be in the thousands, for example cold snaps causing cardiovascular deaths. In countries with more extreme weather this can be much greater. Some can cause major social disruption.This lecture considers how weather events cause harm to health, and our countermeasures.This lecture was recorded by Professor Sir Chris Whitty on 14th May 2024 at Barnard's Inn Hall, LondonThe transcript of the lecture is available from the Gresham College website:https://www.gresham.ac.uk/watch-now/storms-floodsGresham College has offered free public lectures for over 400 years, thanks to the generosity of our supporters. There are currently over 2,500 lectures free to access. We believe that everyone should have the opportunity to learn from some of the greatest minds. To support Gresham's mission, please consider making a donation: https://gresham.ac.uk/support/Website:  https://gresham.ac.ukTwitter:  https://twitter.com/greshamcollegeFacebook: https://facebook.com/greshamcollegeInstagram: https://instagram.com/greshamcollegeSupport the Show.

"We are being furtively nudged, on an unprecedented scale, to obey the doctrines of the world's elite."—Dr Gary Sidley We welcome to the programme Dr Gary Sidley—a former NHS Consultant Clinical Psychologist—for an interview on the UK government's morally questionable use of "nudge" techniques during the Covid Event, the extent to which Nudge Theory is being employed more generally by government, and the serious ethical questions entailed. (Dr Sidley is a freelance writer, trainer, and blogger, who in 2013 retired as a Professional Lead/Consultant Clinical Psychologist after 33 continuous years in the NHS working in psychiatric nursing and clinical psychology. In early 2020 he became extremely concerned about the government's response to the ‘coronavirus crisis', and began writing on the subject at his well-known Coronababble blog. Gary is a member of the Health Advisory & Recovery Team (HART) and the Smile Free campaign to lift all mask mandates. He is currently leading on a research project into the UK's deployment of behavioural science strategies during the Covid Event, and the ethical implications of the state using these methods on its own people.) [For show notes please visit https://themindrenewed.com]

Show Notes and Transcript Professor Dalgleish has spoken out about his concerns of the mRNA jab for years. And for the last 2 he has written about the rise of cancers he believes are linked to the jab.  We start by looking back at Professor Dalgleish's career and ask why he chose to speak up and what was the response from his colleagues?  He then delves into this rise of turbo cancers and why he had to sound the alarm despite the struggle to get full transparency from the authorities and "Move on, nothing to see here" is the reply to most requests for data.  His fellow cancer specialists agree with his concerns, but the authorities simply will not listen. Angus Dalgleish is an expert in immunology and Professor of Oncology at St George's Hospital Medical School, London. Article in The Conservative Woman: https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/massive-cancer-deaths-study-vindicates-my-warnings-over-covid-boosters/ Japan Data: https://www.cureus.com/articles/196275-increased-age-adjusted-cancer-mortality-after-the-third-mrna-lipid-nanoparticle-vaccine-dose-during-the-covid-19-pandemic-in-japan#!/ The Death of Science:      https://amzn.eu/d/2w1wxk4 Interview recorded 15.4.24 Connect with Hearts of Oak... WEBSITE            heartsofoak.org/ PODCASTS        heartsofoak.podbean.com/ SOCIAL MEDIA  heartsofoak.org/connect/ SHOP                  heartsofoak.org/shop/ TRANSCRIPT (Hearts Of Oak) I'm delighted to have Professor Angus Dalgleish with us today. Professor, thank you so much for your time. (Prof Angus Dalgleish) You're welcome. Great to have you. And of course, people will have read, I'm sure, many of your articles, more recently in The Conservative Woman, back before that, I think in certainly The Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail. And since 1991, I know you've been the Professor of Oncology at St. George's University, London. And during this time, you focused on the immunology of cancer and conducted numerous clinical trials involving a variety of vaccines and immune therapy. I know you're well known for your contributions on HIV AIDS research. And of course, you stood for UKIP, which is another part of your story back in 2015. There's so many areas, Professor, I want to talk to you, but maybe you have got a background in understanding vaccines. We'll get on to, I think, the first article you wrote, certainly I read, was back two years ago, actually, on the madness of vaccinating children against COVID, and they started discussing cancer and what you were seeing back in December 2022. I certainly saw it in the Conservative Woman but maybe I can ask you just for a little bit of your background and then we can get on to what you have seen with your patients and the data. Okay well with regards to my background I mean it's, I've been reminded of something I'd forgotten and that is that I'm probably one of the only people in the country who's been an NHS consultant in virology, immunology, general medicine, and oncology. So when I had my chair in oncology, I had a great background in immunology and virology, which is what led me to go into tumour immunology. And I continued working on HIV pathogenesis for several years and worked with colleagues in Norway with designing a very good HIV vaccine, which is the only one that works. But I was staggered that nobody was interested or would support it. And yet the big medical industrial complex, such as the NIH and Big Pharma, kept plowing ahead with vaccines that had the whole envelope in different technologies, and none of them worked. In fact, it was worse than working. They had to stop all these worldwide trials costing billions because the vaccine was worse than the placebo, now so that's a very good entrée as to where I came from with the COVID virus. When that became a pandemic and the sequence became available. I was called up by my colleagues in Norway saying, would I be happy to do the same process? I help identify the major immunological components and avoid all the unnecessary ones, which is the most important thing. And I said yes, obviously. And we started to plan a MAPA plan when they came back and said, this is not an actual virus, this has been released from the lab in Wuhan or escaped then as we put it and the reasons for this was absolutely plain, is that there were charged inserts around the receptor binding site not one or two but six as well as the fusion site, fusion domain and I looked at that you know, and I had a background because I've done so much work on the HIV receptor, even as a clinician I was you know, had a scientific understanding of interactions and what is required etc and it occurred to me that these inserts some of them had been previously published and, you know, by the Wuhan group, they'd said, aren't we clever? We put this insert in and we made this virus more infectious to human cells. This is very good. They went on with two or three. But here we had one with six inserts. Now, my molecular biology, virology friends all told me, oh, don't get excited. All these things happen at random. And here I then realized what a problem was with science, people are only in their boxes, they don't get out of the boxes. Changes in sequence only matter when they translate into the amino acids which translate into proteins and that's what does the interaction, once the amino acids were translated by these inserts they broke all the rules of the game, they were far too too positively charged, which meant that the virus had been altered so it would act like a fridge magnet. So it would zap onto human cells over and above its natural ACE receptor. And when I realized this, it was 100% I was convinced it could not have come from anywhere else because it had broken the rules of biology. And the rules of biology would have edited out those changes because, put it in a simple way, the charge was around pH 8. The charge of any normal virus is around 6 or less. So it was just a supernatural leap. And that's what convinced me. But the big problem was that having written papers in Nature Science, Lancet on HIV and its receptor and how it causes disease and the epidemiology and got them all in the leading papers. When I pointed this out with my colleagues, Nature, Science, all these papers, Lancet, they all turned us down and said, this data is not in the public interest. Seriously, I've got the copies. It is unbelievable. So I realized then that a discussion about the science was being banned. This led to me, and I'm flagrantly admit that, you know, this ended up in us writing a book called The Death of Science, which is actually available, and I've probably got it somewhere. But this was unbelievable that we suddenly realized everything was being censored. I was told by my own university we were not allowed to discuss or research the origin of the virus. Well, I mean, that was really quite draconian. But then where do so many universities get their funding from these days? They're far too reliant on China. So it clearly comes from that source, the way China stopped the WHA doing their work. Now, I'm just going to mention, this is relevant to what you've asked me to talk about, because when we had that spike protein, we realized it was very fully charged. We also looked at it for a homology with now an epitopes. And 80% of it was similar to the human epitopes, some of them unbelievably identical, platelet factor IV myelin. So we said, do not use this as a vaccine, because it will cause all sorts of terrible side effects. This is how you do it. We've learned from HIV, a vaccine is not how much you can put in it, but how little you can put in it. So you go for the Achilles heels of the structure. So if those structures no longer exist, the virus doesn't exist in any variant. So we actually had a blueprint. And we told everybody about this. We had access to the cabinet, the SAGE, Chief Medical Officer of Science. Who basically deemed it all interesting but not relevant. Can you believe that? But they had a point that there was 150 groups reviewed by a Nature paper, all of them so stupid, I use the word advisedly, that they all said, this is our vaccine. They all used the whole spike protein. Well, it was obvious that you must not use the whole spike protein, in the same way we'd spent 30 years saying don't use the whole HIV envelope. And they still haven't got the process. I mean, it is unbelievable stupidity group thing. And anyhow, so we knew there was going to be a big problem if they use the spike protein with autoimmunity, etc. However, that had nothing to do with my interest with cancer at all. What got my interest in cancer in this was when they brought out the booster program. Now, I've done lots of model work on vaccines, you know, basic research funded by charity, done for industry too. And a basic adage is, if a vaccine needs a booster, it doesn't work. So here we are being forced by the government and all the authorities to have a booster when it was all based on the grounds that people who monitor the effects of people who've been vaccinated, their antibody titer falls off. Well, of course it does. I mean, that's what you want. And that was the basis for doing boosters, to stop it falling off. Well, I knew enough then about the booster is that by the time they were talking about rolling out the booster, we were already in Omicron territory. They were boosting a virus that didn't exist on the grounds that there was crossover. And there was all these species, the booster will give you extra protection from crossover. Well, apart from the fact that we'd widely published and it had been downloaded over a quarter of a million times, our objection to using the spike protein and what you should use for a vaccine, with another group of colleagues, I wrote a review of a virus. Coxsackie viruses and the attempts to vaccinate against them and why they had all failed. And actually, the need for them is greater in animal work than it is in humans. But they all fail because the vaccines against coronavirus lead to antigenic sin or immunological imprinting. Once you are vaccinated against a component of that and you challenge with a different variant, it will only see the first component. And it will not see the variants. But it will make antibodies that will bind to them. And then that enhances infection and this explains why people have just woken up scratched their heads and say why does everybody who gets a booster get infected again with COVID in fact three and a half times more likely according to the big Cleveland study and more than twice as likely according to one published after the second vaccine in BMJ, so this was not a surprise. I couldn't believe why nobody heeded and listened to these warnings. And the people that made the decision. It must have made them in ignorance because they certainly didn't read any of this stuff. Otherwise, they'd have been much more cautious. Now, instead, they were being pushed by Big Pharma, who selected the data. It's now obvious that Pfizer, if they had revealed the data, the VAERS data, nobody in their right mind would ever have approved it. And you've had Clare Craig and Norman Fenton on board. So all I can just point out was I was unaware of this carry on at the time, but they brilliantly pointed out that they did it all on relative risk as opposed to absolute risk and the number needed to vaccinate to prevent. If that data had been presented properly, nobody in their right mind would have approved a vaccine. It's just meaningless to have to vaccinate 120 people to prevent one infection. And when the VAERS data came out, it was clear that if you had a serious adverse event, you had a 3% chance of dying. Whereas if you got COVID, you had less than 1% chance of dying. In fact, a lot, lot less than 1% at the very most. So there was no way anybody should have done it. So I would argue that the Pfizer, and I'm not alone in having said that they went into shenanigans and all sorts of smoke and mirror to hide the truth and get everything approved. But, you know, others, such as the state of Texas, are actually suing them for fraud. So, I mean, it's not exactly, it's an open secret. So get back to the booster and the cap.... Could I just ask you just one little sidestep, I remember reading your numerous articles, I think it's probably in the Daily Mail and I remember thinking Professor Angus is saying, speaking his concerns in a great way to stay within certain restrictions and yet get the message out. And I was reading, thinking, this is exactly what I am hearing as a lay person. And you're explaining from your medical professional background. And those articles in the mainstream media, the newspapers, I think were vital in helping people understand what was happening. And you wrote them in such an intelligent, smart way. Well, thank you very much. With regards to the Daily Mail and the articles, I was staggered by the letter. Sometimes they would print a page of letters in the printed edition, and they were all from people saying, thank you so much for helping us understand just what the hell has been going on. You know that was the great thing, the big problem I had with the Daily Mail as soon as I pointed out that there was a problem with the vaccine, I would get to the draft I'd submit it, it'd be accepted and then it wouldn't appear and it had been censored by the chief editor, as soon as it was a vaccine, we now know why, it's because the mainstream media were paid a fortune to push the narrative by the government. A fortune so big that none of them were prepared to challenge it. The Mail did a fantastic job, and I helped as much as I could on the grounds that the lockdowns were madness, and there's no scientific justification for it. It was absolute madness, even to think of a second one. And many others, Carl Heneghan, et cetera, came up, and I was saying that natural immunity, and I was one of the few clinicians to sign the Great Barrington Declaration because that's what I said we should have done straight from day one. In fact, now in retrospect, my gut feeling we didn't need a vaccine program has been proven to be absolutely true because had we done the vitamin D properly and had one or two other drugs out there, we would not, and I include there, without beating around the bush ivermectin, I think Peter Curry's book is absolutely damning how Fauci and others went out of their way to damp that down. And the only reason they did was because you cannot introduce a vaccine if you've got an effective therapy. I mean, I really do believe it was that bad that they were doing this. And so many people suffered. I think it was criminal. I make no bones about that. But the media wouldn't touch my concerns about the vaccine, which is why I ended up publishing them in the Daily Skeptic and the Conservative Women, who, I must say, they challenge anything that they find they cannot collaborate. Corroborate they they check they do their own referencing and everything so they are very very hot and quite a lot of stuff I've had toned down because of challenges to the refereeing for instance etc, but the stuff that they do put out there they're all very happy about it, now what I did and why you were talking is that when the booster came in, I've said it's a complete waste of time. Not only will it induce antibodies to a virus that doesn't exist, but they will lead to more infection. What I wasn't prepared for was that my patients who I was monitoring carefully, who'd been stable melanoma for years, I had half a dozen of them go down within six to eight weeks of the booster program being wheeled out. And they had relapsed. And some of these had been stable for over 15 years. The average was five to seven. And I knew then something was going on because melanoma patients, once they're induced to be stable with immunotherapy like they all had, because I was using immunotherapy 20, 25 years ago, long before it became popular, I knew there had to be a tremendous immune suppression event going on, life event. It's usually bereavement, severe depression, divorce, bankruptcy. Something that goes over three months to cause this. Yet I was seeing it clear. I reported it. I was told by my own people to shut up and stop frightening the patients. There is no evidence. Get the evidence. So I said, you know, I am a canary in a mine and a man with a red flag. It's up to everybody else to react to this. Now, I was told no. I've subsequently seen a dozen and I've continued to shout. And I saw eight cases within my social and family circle of people who developed leukaemia lymphoma after the booster and so we started to say how is it doing that? When it became evident there was a very good, I mean my own group have done work on this, but to me what really convinced it when other people found that t-cell responses were suppressed after the booster not the first and second but after the booster and the t-cell suppression was so bad they called it exhaustion in cancer patients, well we know that the people who've got cancer under good control, it is t-cells nothing to do with antibodies. So the booster was doing more harm than good, it's suppressing the t-cell response, and then I found papers that was even worse on the grounds that the booster switched the IgG1, immunoglobulin class structure antibodies, from ones that would normally be intent on fighting viruses to one that were tolerizing them, tolerizing the IgG. The sort you induce in transplant patients. So not only had you switched the T cell response off, but you'd sent all the antibodies on to be tolerizing so they didn't reject the transplant. Of course the transplant in this case is the cancer so there's no doubt that it popped up, that was a major reason why it popped up, now why it's important to discuss this now is, having been told to shut up and be quiet, I did get by the way, people from all over the world saying thank you for pointing this out, we've seen exactly the same thing. I mean from America, Canada, South America, Europe, South Africa, Australia, all around the world people said we're seeing exactly the same thing. Well now we have this paper that's come from Japan, it's pure statistical analysis of events over COVID, including all causes of death and this is important, not incidents death, and they noticed there was no increase in death of any cause or cancer during the first one and two waves of COVID. But it started in late 21 and continued to rise, hardly doubling in 22. And so the all-cause in 21 went from a few percentage, three or four, to over 9% in 22. Death from cancer went from 1.1 to 2.2 + in 22 these are small figures but it's a very strong trend because it was in all the cancers, it wasn't just in any one and I got particularly interested because there was no great increase in colorectal cancer, which is what we've seen in the UK in fact the colorectal surgeons were the first to phone me and say we're seeing unbelievable colon cancer in young people, and they've all had the booster vaccine. You know, we think there is something related. So I reacted that there was no signal in Japan. And then remember, they have an incredibly different diet. It's a completely anti-inflammatory diet. So they haven't been primed for colon cancer to take off. But all the ones that were killing them were those that killed them before, but much quicker. But I mentioned mortality. I predicted there would be a massive increase in cancer problems just on lockdown alone because we weren't screening. People weren't coming to with their symptoms. We weren't doing the scanning. We weren't getting them on treatment early. So that alone, I predicted more people would die of that lockdown on cancer than would die from any benefit of lockdown on COVID deaths, which we now know there were zero. I mean I think most people will now agree with that, it was introduced far too late on both occasions, it was introduced just as the hot, the waves were dying out, completely utterly pointless, so I was very aware and actually preached a bit that you know, the problem with this issue is cancer incidence is massive, cancer deaths not nearly as much because we've got very good at treating it and the incidence to death can take several years, so here in Japan you've actually got the death rate clearly rising, it's all very statistical this, in one year two year now, That was finished in 2023, submitted in 2023. If we had the 23 data, I would bet that that would be a doubling again, probably, on the 22 data, because they have shown in the data they've got, it's worse with each booster, not just the first. If you have a fourth and a fifth, it gets worse. And what is great about this paper is it goes into explaining how it's actually induced the cancer early as opposed to just waiting for it to develop which is what I would have expected had it just been suppression of the immune system and one thing they have suggested, which I totally go along with and I hadn't thought of it first-hand myself but I'm fully aware and support it, is that the clotting tendency, these micro-clots that the spike protein causes. Actually would lead to enhancing the cancers to spread and metastasize. And we know that this clotting abnormality occurs in some cancers, prostate and pancreas, and all sorts of unusual things occur, like disseminated intravascular coagulation, etc. Now, this is the sort of thing, that it was being reported in people who died of cancer who'd been vaccinated. Really abnormal clots. If you look at the literature, there's a lot of people pointing out that the autopsy is highly unusual clotting going on. So the fact that that process was actually driving cancer is a very interesting suggestion. It's not proof, but it's yet another reason that might be driving it. In the literature are reports that the spike protein binds to p53 and msh3. These are suppressor genes. If you have mutations in these genes you're much more likely to develop cancer because they normally switch the cancer that has arisen by accident off. They're suppressor genes, they switch it off. So if you compromise your suppressor genes you're much more likely to develop cancer quickly. And I think that this is part of what the Japanese data is showing. I just point out that I don't think there is any ulterior motive in just pointing out what we've seen, whereas I am very concerned that the Office of National Statistics keep changing the rules with data. They stopped reporting the COVID deaths in May 22, and they've been doing adjustments and all sorts of things, which I think, what are they trying to hide? And Carl Heneghan has made a very, and Norman Fenton, made a very big issue of this. Why don't they just release all the data? And I'm convinced that data shows something very similar, just because of what I see. I look around my friends, the number who've gone down with cancer since they had the booster. Which they only had so they could travel in lockdown, and they wanted to have a decent holiday. And he said, you can't get on this plane or this boat unless you have the booster. And so they had the booster. And in two cases, they never, ever going to get on the boat and do the traveling. One of them died very quickly, and I was horrified by it because he'd had perfect treatment, absolute perfect treatment, but still progressed, suggesting there were other mechanisms going on. And another one had a lymphoma that he had years ago it resurfaced rapidly and killed him and his oncologist, I was quite surprised told him, I really can't ignore the fact that this has been stable for years but it's come back as soon as you had the booster and there's a chap in England who's pointing this out, I was a friend of this guy, he's in America. And then I've had other cases which have popped up completely unexpected. In my family, I've had cases of leukaemia uncovered after the boosters and brother-in-laws, etc. So it's really real. And friends who developed aggressive prostate, pancreatic, ovarian cancer since the booster program has been wheeled out. And my main reason for shouting about this is that I am still being told I can have a spring booster to protect myself. I spoke to a friend today and they were talking about their father who was told he had prostate cancer and I think he went for a psa testing, that's to look at how far the cancer is and it was very low it was six or eight, then after the boosters he went for another test and they'd gone up to 170 and was told it spread throughout out the body and that was it and I get those are similar stories you have heard and I'm looking at these studies which are coming out and obviously you, this has just come out, you've just published this in the conservative woman as of when we're recording actually on the 15th, but you need studies I guess to analyse the data and put it together it's one thing having the individual stories, but these studies seem to be telling you what you already had heard in your individual patients. Yes, indeed. I mean, we've been really waiting for proper studies like this, and there seemed to be a real hesitation. I mean, I told everybody who criticized me, well, go away and look at it. You're sitting on the data. You're head of trusts. You're head of of MRC, CRUK, all these things. That's your job. It's not my job. My job is to be the whistle-blower. But as we know, whistle-blowers in the health service are persecuted, and it would have seemed to be the same in science and everything as well. It's been going on a long time. I was reminded yesterday that Semmelweis, who was the first person to point out that the dreadful sepsis deaths in the maternity ward were due to the fact nobody washed their hands, and if you washed their hands, you didn't get it. All his colleagues turned around and said, you're a lunatic, and had him locked up. I mean, I don't think things have changed with this pandemic at all. That's exactly what's going on. It's the death of science. nobody wants to discuss the data whether it be the origin of the virus whether it be with a pandemic it's a good or bad thing whether it be that masks are a good or bad things or that whether we should have been able to early treat as you would any respiratory virus with a good boost of vitamin D, soluble aspirin, intranasal interferon, beclamide, if it goes to the chest all these things I believe, and ivermectin which having looked at all the data, I can understand now why nobody in the establishment wanted it anywhere near a COVID patient because it worked and it saved them and there would be no need for any vaccine whatsoever and Fauci demonized it as a horse de-wormer when it is probably one of the most effective drugs in humans ever in the history of medicine, because it It prevents all sorts of things, river blindness and the liver, all the flukes, et cetera, in Africa and Asia. And may well be a major reason why the incidence of COVID deaths in these places was so low, because they were all on ivermectin and getting good vitamin D, of course. I've just spoken out as these studies are coming out, and we'll put the link to the Japanese study in the description. Of course, it's in that article. As more and more people have spoken out, are you seeing more of your colleagues going public on it? Because surely when the studies are coming out, the data is released, then that's proving what has happened. And therefore, you will get more and more people from the medical community who actually are speaking up and saying, yeah, this is correct. Do you think that will happen? Well, I hope so. I hope so. So the ones that spoke up and said, you're correct, all said, by the way, we've been told to shut up too and not upset the patients. This is like it was a central script written somewhere because they told me the same in America, Canada, Australia, Europe and Britain, that to be quiet. I got carpeted for pointing all these things out and said I was breaking NHS guidelines. And this would go down on my thing as breaking rules. I said, I don't give a damn. All I'm doing is making sure I do no harm. I suggest you do the same. NHS is causing more harm. I think the NHS, one of the reasons it's crippling, it's spending so much time treating the side effects of the vaccine program. And they won't admit it, of course. And I've been doing some medical legal instances where people have clearly been damaged by the vaccine and none of the people concerned will admit it. They just say coincidence. It's just like a tape. And I've spoken to lots of people who had very bad vaccine and had just been really badly treated. They go out of the way to make sure it's not enough for compensation. And I hadn't realized how many people had lost their jobs in the UK because they refused to get vaccinated or they refused to get the booster because they had had such bad bad side effects from the first two. How can you possibly justify that? If you have a bad reaction to a drug, you don't take it again. You don't take another dose and hope it's not as bad this time, which seems to be the NHS and the government's attitude to it. Yeah. Another part is the cancer issue, and obviously seems to be speeding up cancer much faster. That's certainly the people I've talked to. But the other side, and a lot of the media reports have been a shocking cancer amongst younger people. And the journalists, right, they have no idea why…. Yes, they do. this has been happening recently but I mean tell because, it's that concern you think cancer is something you get maybe later on in life but this is happening younger, this changes the very nature of what that is the impact on society. Yes I mean we have seen and there there is a paper showing that there is a real increase in patients under 44. I think it's 19 to 44 a massive increase in cancers and particularly abdominal cancers. So colorectal. We were seeing this before, by the way, in young people in this country, obviously not in Japan. And so I've always said it must be something to do with the diet is driving this, and so do most people. But it seems to have accelerated since the vaccine program came on. But we're seeing all the others. I mean, I was really surprised. We're seeing oesophageal cancer, biliary, liver, pancreatic, upper and lower bowel, weird ones like appendix cancers. You know, incredibly rare. I was contacted by a fellow who said that he'd seen about one of these. He runs a colorectal surgery and he's seen about one in the last five years. And he said, I've seen 13 recently, and they'd all had the vaccine. They were all in young people. So, I mean, so when people get cancers, unusually unexpected. The first thing you should do is say, why? Do they have something in common? Well, they do. The vast majority, again, not all of them, because there's a background incidence, have all had the vaccine or a booster. And that to me is stop the bloody program now, you know instead I'm being told to go and get my spring booster what planet are these people on? This is, since you've spoken up nearly or 18 months or 21 months ago I've seen more and more people write about it, is this the end then of this worldwide experiment of this new type of technology, this mRNA which is massively backfired or is it just how Big Pharma work and then they come up with the mRNA now to fix cancer which is the the latest thing we've heard. Yeah, well, they were always working on that. And I actually, you know, when people tell me I'm a clinician and I don't know what I'm talking about and to shut up, I tell them I know a darn sight more than they do. And especially about the dangers of messenger RNA vaccine, because I was on a scientific advisory board for a company whose subtitle was the messenger RNA vaccine company for five years and I left about seven years ago and they were targeting cancer and they didn't get through, BioNTech had the same thing. Big Pharma and whatever's behind them at far more sinister, has used this pandemic and I mean, when it started I wouldn't even have thought along these lanes. I honestly think it was planned, it's like it was planned to get the messenger rna out, when you go back and you look at the Manhattan project for vaccines and world health, their big issue was why do we make all these vaccines? If we don't have a pandemic we won't make any money, we'll lose money so this really looks like it was all planned, why did Moderna have a patent on sars-2 in February 2019? Why did the German government go ahead and fund an an enormous big vaccine facility in Marburg to produce messenger RNA, long before they were anywhere near being approved. It sounds like the whole thing was part of some sinister plan. And that's what I find really, really concerning. And I've spoken up and on the record. I think the messenger RNA vaccines are an absolute disaster, should be banned. They should be completely, utterly banned. And they are what they say on the till in the early BN Biotech preparations for Pfizer, they have COVID vaccine-gene therapy. Well, that was honest. You don't use gene therapy on a pandemic that kills less than 1% of people. And then you go ahead with the plan, when you know that the people who did die had an average age in the UK of 82, whereas average age of anybody else dying of anything else was 81. So the logical thing for a statistician was to go around and prepare COVID and spray it all around the population and tell them they'll live an extra year longer, because you've got I mean, being very cynical about it. But why would you? You shouldn't do it. Chris Whitty occasionally said some sensible things, but then went on to being beheaded or whatever it is and go along with this madness. He said, you can't use a vaccine unless you've got a death rate of 30% in the main population. You can't justify it if you haven't got the safety data. Why did he not stand up when it was 1% and stop it? Could it be something to do with shut up and you'll get your rewards in the honours list which they all did these people all of them, Vallance, Whitty and all these, I was going to say goons from SAGE, I'll say that again I do, I disagreed with them totally and utterly and even the people working with the vaccines from Oxford, the Astra Zeneca, they all got knighthoods, damehoods everything long before there was any evidence it was of any any benefit. It's unbelievable. When these studies come out, a lay person like myself will think this then starts a catalyst of looking at other countries and wanting the data. But then the flip side is you realize the difficulty of data, and you touched on that. I think you had mentioned that whenever I saw you speak at Andrew Bridgen's event the end of last year in Parliament, the lack of data. It seems like there is British data. there is Israeli data and there does seem some Japanese data. Many other countries seem to have a complete void, but the UK government don't even want to release any of the data. Will this force them to release it? Will this mean there are possible financial penalties? I mean, these companies getting sued? Where does this go whenever one country brings out a study like this, which is so comprehensive? Well, I think you'll get other countries that will do it. I really do. I mean, Australia, who behaved appallingly during the pandemic, I mean, they were run by a bunch of, not just clowns, but really ghoulish clowns who seem to relish in power and locking down and God knows what else, have mandatory vaccines. Well, at least they have. They've had a lot of revolt over this, and they finally had a formal Australian Commission on Excess Deaths. And I've been asked to give evidence for it as have some other people who've raised their voice and we'll make it very very clear what's going on, some of the senators now in Australia know exactly what was going on and they're baying for blood as it were and the thing that I'm baying for, why were the people like me in Australia and I worked in Australia for seven years by the way, I did flying doctor for a year and I did internal medicine and oncology. I know it very very well, why did these doctors who thought like me, I'm going to look after the patients, this, that and the other, they got struck off if they they wouldn't go along with this madness. I mean, it's unbelievable. It was inhumane. And at least that commission is going to uncover it. I think our COVID inquiry is a whitewash to kick the can down the road for so long. By the time it comes to the conclusions, nothing to see here, nobody, no one person was guilty. There'll be lessons to learn. No, there won't be any lessons to learn unless they hold people to account, unless we withdraw from the WHO, this madness, this treaty they want us to sign up to, once they're all signed up, they release the next pandemic and they will have another round of vaccines for you. I mean, I thought this was absolute madness to even think like that. But George Orwell saw it all 70 years ago, 70 years plus. And I mean, it's just unbelievable. I re-read 1984 and Animal Farm when I went on holiday recently. They had a package, and I'd read them 40, 50 years ago, a long time. If I hadn't have read them, I'd have thought, oh, somebody's seen through the lockdown and written these in lockdown as to where it could lead once you give the power to the governments to bully the thing. Yeah, it's incredible. They could have been written in the lockdown, but he wrote them 50 years ago. He saw what was coming. Obviously, it was about the communist model coming out of Russia and the implications. But I never thought I would live long enough to see democracy being destroyed by the same tentacles of control that emerged due to the COVID. And it's given them a power to interfere in everything else. I mean, a power to block all kinds. I've lost my faith totally in justice in the UK, probably worldwide. The Postmaster scandal was unbelievable. when the guy was told you're the only one, I remember that's what I was told when I made a great fuss, you're the only one, it transpires there were dozens and dozens of us who made, said the same thing to the government, they ignored, there were hundreds and hundreds of postmasters who said the same thing that they ignored and now, you know we're going we're having the same absolute nonsense over climate control. I mean I went and researched climate control, I didn't have to do much research before I realized that the data is very clear out there that carbon dioxide rises when the world warms. And it is actually something that's trying to do something good about it. And it does. It's a heavy gas, falls to the ground, encourages plant growth, tree growth, which produces more oxygen. It is. It's like a controller. It's like a thermostat. It is not the cause. And you've got all these morons, and I use the word advisedly, and people like Ed Miliband should springs to mind this guy is a total moron, who thinks that if you stop the co2 from the cars, this, that and the other, you'll save the world from global warming, it won't make one iota difference and if you really succeeded in lowering co2 significant, you would actually start extinguishing life they don't seem to understand any basic biology at all and yet these morons are running our parliament, running our lives and they are impoverishing everybody on this planet. I saw my energy bill even though we tried very hard, it's absolutely ludicrous and it's even worse knowing it is five times higher than if I was in the United States where at least they've got some pragmatism with regards is, we can't do everything in the solar and wind we're going to need our oil and gas and by the way it's beneath us, ours is beneath us but we've basically said we're not going to use it and so we're dependent on China who's polluting the world to death, it's unbelievable. I think many people have had their eyes open to many of these issues over the last couple of years of COVID tyranny. Professor Dalgleish, I'm honoured really to have you on, it's wonderful to hear your thoughts and your writings, it's good to delve into them, people can get the Conservative Woman, but thank you so much for the stand you've taken and thank you for sharing your thoughts with us today. Right. Well, thank you very much for having me. But just remember, we've written an enormous amount of this up in The Death of Science, which is available on Kindle, Amazon, and is multi-author. And it's got contributions from Karol Sikora, Sir Richard Dearlove, Clare Craig, Ros Jones. I mean, I'm really proud that we've been able to really put the gauntlet down, that this government and the world's governments and the scientists and the institutions and the medical profession have killed science. We have to do everything we can to rectify that. Thank you. And the viewers and listeners can get that. The links will be in the description. So however you're watching, however you're listening, you can just click on that. So, Professor, once again, thank you for your time today. Cheers. Thank you.

Major geophysical events such as earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanoes can occur with little or no warning and have catastrophic effects.This lecture will consider the health impacts of these natural disasters and how best to minimise them.Trauma often dominates the first days after the initial event but predicting the medium-term effects such as infectious diseases can head off predictable secondary health disasters over the medium and long term.This lecture was recorded by Sir Chris Whitty on 20th February 2024 at Barnard's Inn Hall, LondonThe transcript and downloadable versions of the lecture are available from the Gresham College website:https://www.gresham.ac.uk/watch-now/earthquakes-volcanoesGresham College has offered free public lectures for over 400 years, thanks to the generosity of our supporters. There are currently over 2,500 lectures free to access. We believe that everyone should have the opportunity to learn from some of the greatest minds. To support Gresham's mission, please consider making a donation: https://gresham.ac.uk/support/Website:  https://gresham.ac.ukTwitter:  https://twitter.com/greshamcollegeFacebook: https://facebook.com/greshamcollegeInstagram: https://instagram.com/greshamcollegeSupport the show

Matt Hancock, Dominic Cummings, Rishi Sunak, Patrick Vallance, Chris Whitty and, of course, Boris Johnson have all relived – and tried to justify – the decisions taken by government during the pandemic. So as the year draws to a close, The Expert Factor takes stock of progress in the Covid Inquiry and whether the questions being asked – and the answers being given – are helping to explain how Johnson's No10 functioned during this crisis. What have we learned so far? Who has given a good account of themselves – and whose reputation has suffered even more damage? What questions should have been asked? And can we be confident that the machinery of government in this country – and the levers of power in the centre – will be better equipped to deal with the next pandemic? On this week's episode of The Expert Factor, the team take a deep dive into one of the most significant public inquiries – perhaps ever – to be held in this country. ------- THE EXPERT FACTOR is the podcast for people who haven't had enough of experts. Each week the directors of three leading and respected think tanks – Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, Hannah White of the Institute for Government, and Anand Menon of UK in a Changing Europe – get together to discuss, debate and explain the big questions and themes that will shape the election – and the political landscape for years to come. Produced by Milo Hynes

A damning report into the Nicola Bulley case finds that the release of sensitive personal information was “avoidable and unnecessary”. On the release of personal information, Lancashire Police's Deputy Chief Constable Sacha Hatchett said: "We worked proactively with the Information Commissioner's Office immediately after the disclosure was made and they concluded that no action was required against the force.” Following the disappearance which sparked a TikTok frenzy, what can we learn from the review? Adam talks to the former HM Inspector of Constabulary, Zoë Billingham, and disinformation correspondent, Marianna Spring. And, the Covid Inquiry continued, with chief medical officer for England, Chris Whitty, taking the stand. Adam is joined by Alex Thomas from the Institute for Government and health correspondent, Jim Reed. You can join our Newscast online community here: https://tinyurl.com/newscastcommunityhere Today's Newscast was presented by Adam Fleming. It was made by Chris Gray with Beth Ashmead and Sam McLaren. The technical producer was Philip Bull. The senior news editors are Jonathan Aspinwall and Sam Bonham.

In the first 20 mins of this podcast we discuss the recent podcast we did with James Delingpole, the next Huxley's Beave New World Order release, and our SF Live Presentation in Huddersfield on 09/12/2023. The we chat with Clive de Carle for an hour to finish off Pt1.In Pt2 we talk about a variety of topics, Steve Kirsch, Chris's new Chris Whitty in bed picture, Greta's arrest, comments & emails, The DIVOC Enquiry and much much more.Here's the link for the SF Live TicketsHolistic Wellbeing - Meditation Classes, Reiki Training, Psychic Readings (holistic-wellbeing.co.uk)

Show notes and Transcript At long last it has happened. Andrew Bridgen MP (Reclaim Party) secured a debate on excess deaths in the UK Parliament.  Nearly twenty requests were turned down but Andrew simply would not give up.  His courage and determination to find out the truth won in the end.  Andrew gave a 25 minute presentation of all the data and facts which show a shocking rise in excess deaths since the covid jab rollout.  The fact that many people have died after receiving an injection appears to be the very reason every government wants total silence on this issue.  As you watch Andrew speak, be inspired to speak truth in the circles you find yourself in.  Use the information in the speech to arm yourself with the facts.  We now await a much longer 3 hour debate on excess deaths which Andrew is requesting. *This episode contains a background of the debate, the full speech by Andrew Bridgen MP, his message afterwards to the supporters gathered outside in Parliament Square and Peter catches a few words with the man himself. Andrew Bridgen  Member of Parliament for North West Leicestershire since 2010https://www.reclaimparty.co.uk/andrew-bridgen  Some Key Points Made During the Speech... - Ambulance calls for life-threatening emergencies ranged from a steady 2,000 calls per day until the vaccine rollout, from then it rose to 2,500 daily and calls have stayed at this level since.   - The surveillance systems designed to spot a safety problem have all flashed red, but no one's looking. - Payments for Personal Independent Payments (PIP) for people who have developed a disability and cannot work, have rocketed with the vaccine rollout and have continued to rise ever since. - The trial data showed that one in eight hundred injected people had a serious adverse event, meaning the risk of this was twice as high than the chance of preventing a Covid hospitalisation. - There were just over 14,000 excess deaths in the under 65-year-olds, before vaccination, from April 2020 to the end of March 2021. However, since that time there have been over 21,000 excess deaths in this age group alone. - There were nearly two extra deaths a day in the second half of 2021 among 15 – 19-year-old males,  but potentially even more if those referred to the coroner were fully included. Recorded 20.10.23 *Special thanks to Bosch Fawstin for recording our intro/outro on this podcast. Check out his art https://theboschfawstinstore.blogspot.com/ and follow him on GETTR https://gettr.com/user/BoschFawstin and Twitter https://twitter.com/TheBoschFawstin?s=20  To sign up for our weekly email, find our social media, podcasts, video, livestreaming platforms and more... https://heartsofoak.org/connect/ Support Hearts of Oak by purchasing one of our fancy T-Shirts.... https://heartsofoak.org/shop/ Please subscribe, like and share!   Subscribe now Transcript (Hearts of Oak) Hello, Hearts of Oak. Today we are here with Andrew Bridgen at a debate in Parliament, the first debate in this Parliament, on excess deaths. There's been very little debates, very little discussions on vaccine harms here. Of course, this is the issue that Andrew Bridgen MP was thrown out of the Conservative Party, the Tories, for beginning to raise the issue of vaccine harms and now raising the issue of excess deaths was simply is not discussed in this place. I've seen discussion in other parts of the world, especially Germany, with the AFD. But Andrew Bridgen has made this the hill that he will fight and die on. And he has been thrown out of the Conservative Party. He's lost that position he had for many years. Andrew Bridgen, of course, is one of the original Brexiteers, well known to any of us involved in the Brexit movement, in the UKIP movement. And Andrew has been fearless. He's one of those strange beasts in Westminster. He is led by conviction. He is led by courage and led by a desire to do what is right. And he had no desire to climb up the greasy pole. He's traditionally been a backbencher. So has stood his ground, kept his position as a lowly MP and not wanted to rise to the ministerial level, because that gives him the freedom to discuss what he wants. He's not held, he's not restricted by government restrictions, but he can say what he thinks and do what is right for his constituents, for those who vote for him, and realise that he is the servant of the people and he is not the servant of the government. So today there will be a debate led by Andrew Bridgen, I assume he will be one of maybe very few, one of one, who will actually speak on this. I'm really curious to see. I've seen a couple of Conservative, MPs who have touched on this, who have spoken a little bit about this, sometimes on GB News, but they have not gone as far as Andrew Bridgen. And Andrew Bridgen has gone this far. He has lost his job over it, and he doesn't care, because this is the right thing to do when a jab when an experimental vaccine, so-called vaccine, was rolled out and everyone was coerced and more or less forced to take it. Andrew was in that, he also took it, now regrets that and wants to keep raising the alarm on the ongoing effects of this and of course to challenge this government overreach that wants to force this upon everyone. This of course is a conservative government supposedly that stands up for freedom of speech, personal responsibility, rights, and yet all those traditional understandings of a conservative party have been completely upended and is no longer a party of freedom and liberty but is now a party of coercion and control. A number of MPs I assume will come in and speak after Andrew will present his position on excess deaths and ask the question, why is this? It seems to correlate to the rollout of the jab. You and I know that. We've seen the data. Andrew will be careful in how he puts it forward. He will use parliamentary language. He's skilled enough in this chamber to know what to say, what not to say, what connects with those in the chamber, and to win them over. Because ultimately, politics is about the art of persuasion. It is about winning the public over. And today, it is not necessarily the public is winning over, although you will watch the debate in a few moments, but actually is winning over MPs. And that also is crucial. Whatever you think, we still have 650 individuals and many of us mistrust absolutely, many of us detest. Many of us have had a traditional understanding of politics where there was a level of trust with our institutions and that included those in the building behind me. That is gone. I think for all of us, that is completely gone. And to have an individual who is a champion on the issue of curtailing that government overreach, asking questions, following the money, saying, was this just a push by big pharma for profits? Was this something darker? There are a whole load of areas we can go into, but Andrew has, wisely stayed within the areas he can understand. He has read papers, he has, understood them and he has presented those and I think he has been extremely wise on how far he has gone on this because it is a case of winning people over. That's what we have faced, all of us, over the last three years of winning friends, family, colleagues, connections over to persuade them that this is a dangerous experiment on not only the UK population but on the world population. We have a police car. I hope they don't want to arrest Andrew before his debate. I don't think even our government would do that, would they? Anyway, I will let you watch the debate, watch Andrew speaking, and then after I will try and catch up with a number of the people who have been here to support Andrew. I saw, Mike Yeadon earlier heading into the debate and I saw Matt Le Tissier earlier, I saw Fiona Hines earlier, I saw a big group of people who are here to support Andrew as he speaks truth and to let him know that he is not alone because it must feel very alone in that chamber. No one to back you, no one to support you and you feel as though you are a lonely voice crying out in the wilderness and yet. Many people have come to show Andrew that there are many people behind him who are indebted to him for actually speaking truth in this place and are standing with him shoulder-to-shoulder. So we'll hopefully talk to a few of those people after the debate. (Andrew Bridgen MP) Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. We've experienced more excess deaths since July 2021, than the whole of 2020. Unlike the pandemic, however, these deaths are not disproportionately of the old. In other words, the excessive deaths are striking down people in the prime of life. But no one seems to care. I fear history will not judge this House kindly. Worse still, in a country supposedly committed to free and frank exchange of views, it appears that no one cares that no one cares. Well, I care, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I credit those members here in attendance today who also care. And I'd also like to thank the Honourable Member for Lincoln for his support, and I'm, sorry that he couldn't attend today's debate. It's taken a lot of effort and more than 20 rejections to be allowed to raise this topic, But at last we're here to discuss the number of people dying. Nothing could be more serious. Numerous countries are currently gripped in a period of unexpected mortality, and no one wants to talk about it. It's quite normal for death numbers to fluctuate up and down by chance alone, but what we're seeing here is a pattern, repeated across countries, and the rise has not let up. I'll give way to my Honourable Gentleman.  (Phillip Davies MP) I'm very grateful and can I commend him for the tenacious way he's battled on this particular, issue. I certainly admire him for that. I just wonder where he found the media was in all of this, because of course during the Covid pandemic, every day, the media, particularly the BBC, couldn't wait to tell us how many people had died in that particular day without any context of those figures whatsoever. But they seem to have gone strangely quiet over these excess deaths now. (Andrew Bridgen MP) I thank the gentleman for his intervention. He's absolutely right. The media have let the British public down badly. There will be a full press pack going out to all media outlets following my speech with all the evidence to back up all the claims I'll make in that speech. But I don't doubt there'll be no mention of it in the mainstream media. You might think that a debate about excess deaths is going to be full of numbers. This speech does not have that many numbers because most of the important numbers have been kept hidden. Other data has been oddly presented in a distorted way, and concerned people seeking to highlight important findings and ask questions have found themselves inexplicably under attack. Before debating excess deaths, it's important to understand how excess death is determined. To understand if there is an excess, by definition you need to estimate how many deaths it would have been expected. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development used 2015-2019 as a baseline, and the Government's Office of Health Disparities and Improvement used its 2015-2019 baseline modelled to allow for ageing, and I've used that data here. Unforgivably, the Office of National Statistics have included deaths in 2021 as part of their baseline calculation for expected deaths, as if there was anything normal about the deaths in 2021. Exaggerating the number of deaths expected, the number of excess can be minimized. Why would the ONS want to do that? There's just too much that we don't know and it's not good enough Mr. Deputy Speaker. The ONS published promptly each week the number of deaths that were registered and while this is commendable it's not the data point that really matters. There's a total failure to collect, never mind publish, data on deaths that are referred for investigation to the coroner. Why does this matter? A referral means that it can be many months and, given the backlog, many years before a death is formally registered. Needing to investigate the cause of a death is fair enough. Failing to record when the death happened is not. Because of this problem, we actually have no idea how many people actually died in 2021. Even now, the problem is greatest for the younger age groups, where there's, a higher proportion of deaths are investigated. This date of failure is unacceptable. It must change. There's nothing in a coroner's report that can bring anyone back from the dead and those deaths should be reported. The youngest age groups are important not only because they should have their whole lives ahead of them. If there is a new cause of excess mortality across the board, it would not be noticed so much in the older cohorts because the extra deaths would be drowned out amongst the expected deaths. However, in the youngest cohorts, that is not the case. There were nearly two extra deaths a day in the second half of 2021 among 15 to 19 year old males, but potentially even more if those referred to the coroner were fully included. In a judicial review of the decision to vaccinate yet younger children, the ONS refused in court to give anonymised details about these deaths. They, admitted that the data they were withholding was statistically significant and I quote they said, the ONS recognises that more work could be undertaken to examine the mortality rates of young people in 2021 and intends to do so once more reliable data are available. How many more extra deaths in 15 to 19 year olds would it take to trigger such work? Surely the ONS should be desperately keen to investigate deaths in young men. Why else have an independent body charged with examining mortality data? Surely the ONS has a responsibility to collect data from the coroners to produce timely information? Let's move on to old people, because most deaths in the old are registered promptly and we do have a better feel for how many older people are dying. Deaths from dementia and Alzheimer's show what we ought to expect. There was a period of high mortality coinciding with COVID and lockdowns, but ever since there have been fewer deaths than expected. After a period of high mortality, we expect, and historically have seen, a period of low mortality because those who have sadly died cannot die again. Those whose deaths were slightly premature because of COVID and lockdowns, died earlier than they otherwise would have. This principle should hold true for every cause of death and every age group, but that's not what we're seeing. Even for the over 85-year-olds, according to the Office of Health Improvement and Disparities, there were 8,000 excess deaths, 4% above the expected levels, for the 12 months starting in July 2020. That includes all of the autumn 2020 wave of COVID, when we had tiering, the second lockdown, and it includes all of the first COVID winter. However, for the year starting July 2022, there have been over 18,000 excess deaths in this age group, 9% above expected levels, more than twice as many in a period when there should have been a deficit. And when deaths from diseases previously associated with old age were actually fewer than expected. Mr Deputy Speaker, I have raised my concerns around NG163 and the use of midazolam and morphine, which may have caused and may still be causing premature deaths in the vulnerable, but that is sadly a debate for another day. There were just over 14,000 excess deaths in the under 65-year-olds before vaccination from April 2020 to the end of March 2021. However, since that time there have been over 21,000 excess deaths, ignoring the registration delay problem, the majority, 58% of these deaths, were not attributed to Covid. We turned society upside down before vaccination for fear of excess deaths from Covid. Today we have substantially more excess deaths, and in younger people, and there's complete and eerie silence, Mr Deputy, Speaker. The evidence is unequivocal. There was a clear stepwise increase in mortality following the vaccine rollout. There was a reprieve in the winter of 2021-22 because there were fewer than expected respiratory deaths, but otherwise the excess has been incessantly at this high level. Ambulance data for England provides another clue. Ambulance calls for life-threatening emergencies were running at a steady 2,000 calls per day until the vaccine rollout. From then it rose to 2,500 daily and calls have stayed at this level since. The surveillance systems designed to spot a safety problem have all flashed red but no one's looking. Claims for personal independence payments for people who've developed a disability and cannot work rocketed with the vaccine rollout and it's, continued to rise ever since. The same was seen in the USA, also started with the vaccine rollout, not with Covid. A study to determine the vaccination status of a sample of such claimants, would be relatively quick and inexpensive to perform, yet nobody seems interested in ascertaining this vital information. Officials have chosen to turn a blind eye to this disturbing, irrefutable and frightening data, much like Nelson did, but for far less honourable reasons. He would be ashamed of us, Mr Deputy Speaker. Furthermore, data that has been used to sing the praises of the vaccines is deeply flawed. Only one COVID-related death was prevented in each of the initial major trials that led to authorisation of the vaccines and that is taking their data entirely at face value, whereas a growing number of inconsistencies and anomalies suggest we ought not to do this. Extrapolating from that means that between 15,000 and 20,000 people had to be injected to prevent a single death from COVID. To prevent a single COVID hospitalisation, over 1,500 people needed to be injected. The trial data showed that 1 in 800 injected people had a serious adverse event, meaning they were hospitalised or had a life-changing or life-threatening condition. The risk of this was twice as high as the chance of preventing a COVID hospitalisation. We're harming 1 in 800 people to supposedly save 1 in 20,000. This is madness. The strongest claims have too often been based on modelling carried out on the basis of flawed assumptions. Where observational studies have been carried out, researchers will correct, for age and comorbidities to make the vaccines look better. However, they never correct for socio-economic or ethnic differences that would make the vaccines look worse. This matters. For example, claims of high mortality in less vaccinated regions in the United States, took no account of the fact that this was the case before the vaccines were rolled out. That is why studies that claim to show the vaccines prevented Covid deaths also showed a marked effect of them preventing non-Covid deaths. The prevention of non-Covid deaths is always a statistical illusion and claims of preventing Covid deaths should not be assumed when that illusion has not been corrected for. And when it is corrected for, the claims of efficacy for the vaccines vanish with it. COVID disproportionately killed people from ethnic minorities and lower socioeconomic groups. During the 2020, during the pandemic, the deaths among the most deprived were up by 23%, compared to 17% for the least deprived. However, since 2022, the pattern has reversed, with 5% excess mortality amongst the most deprived, compared to 7% among the least deprived. These deaths are being caused by something different. In 2020, the excess was highest in the oldest cohorts and there were fewer than expected deaths amongst the younger age groups. But since 2022, the 50 to 64 year old cohort has had the highest excess mortality. Even the youngest age groups are now seeing substantial excess, with a 9% excess in the under 50s since 2022 compared to 5% now in the over 75 group. Despite London being a younger region, the excess in London is only 3%, whereas it is higher in every more heavily vaccinated region of the UK. It should be noted that London is famously the least vaccinated region in the UK by some margin. Studies comparing regions on a larger scale show the same thing. There are studies from the Netherlands, Germany and the whole world each showing that the highest mortality after vaccination was seen in the most heavily vaccinated regions. So we need to ask, what are people dying of? Since 2022, there has been 11% excess in ischemic heart disease deaths and a 16% excess in heart failure deaths. In meantime, cancer deaths, only 1% above expected levels, which is further evidence that it is not simply, some other factor that affects deaths across the board, such as a failing to account for an aging population or a failing NHS. In fact, the excess itself has a seasonality with a peak in the winter months. The fact it returns to baseline levels in summer is a further indication that this is not due to some statistical error or an ageing population alone. Dr Clare Craig from the Heart Group first highlighted a stepwise increase in cardiac arrest calls after the vaccine rollout in May 2021 and Heart have repeatedly raised concerns about the increase in cardiac deaths and they have every reason to be concerned. Four participants in the vaccine group of the Pfizer trial died from cardiac arrest compared to only one in the placebo group. Overall there were 21 deaths in the vaccine group up to March 2021 compared to 17 in the placebo group. And there are serious anomalies about the reporting of the deaths within this trial, with the deaths in the vaccine group taking much longer to report than those in the placebo group. And that's highly suggestive, Mr Deputy Speaker, of a significant bias in what was supposed to be a blinded trial. An Israeli study clearly showed an increase in cardiac hospital attendances, among 18 to 39 year olds that correlated with vaccination, not with COVID. There have now been several postmortem studies demonstrating a causal link between vaccination and coronary artery disease leading to death up to four months after the last dose. And we need to remember that the safety trial was cut short to only two months. So there's no evidence of any vaccine safety beyond that point. The decision to unblind the trials after two months and vaccinate the placebo group is nothing less than a public health scandal. Everyone involved failed in their duty to the truth. But no one cares, Mr Deputy Speaker. The one place that can help us understand exactly what caused this is Australia. Australia had almost no Covid when vaccines were first introduced, making them the perfect control group. The state of South Australia had only a thousand cases of Covid across its whole population by December 2021, before Omicron arrived. What was the impact of vaccination there? For 15 to 44 year olds there was historically 1,300 emergency cardiac presentations a month. With vaccine rollout in the under 50s this rocketed to 2,172 cases in November 2021 in this age group alone, a 67% more than usual. Overall there were 17,900 South Australians who had a cardiac emergency in 2021, compared to only 13,250 in 2018, a 35% increase. It is clearly the vaccine that must be the number one suspect in this and it cannot be dismissed as just a coincidence. Australian mortality overall has increased from early 2021 and the increase is due to cardiac deaths. These excess deaths are not due to an ageing population because there are fewer deaths in the diseases of old age. These deaths are not an effect of COVID because they've happened in places where COVID have not reached and they're not due to low statin prescriptions or under-treated hypertension, as Chris Whitty would suggest, because prescriptions did not change and in any effect would have taken many years and been very small. The prime suspect must be something that was introduced to the population as a whole, something novel. The prime hypothesis must be the experimental COVID-19 vaccines. The ONS published a data set of deaths by vaccinated and unvaccinated. At first glance, it appears to show that the vaccines are safe and effective. However, there were several huge problems with how they presented that data. One was that for the first three-week period after injection, the ONS claimed, there were only a tiny number of deaths. The number the ONS would normally predict to occur in a single week. Where were the deaths from the usual causes? When this was raised, the ONS claimed that the sickest people did not get vaccinated, and therefore people who were taking the vaccination were self-selecting for those least likely to die. Not only is this not the case in the real world, with even hospices heavily vaccinating their residents, but the ONS's own data showed that the proportion of sickest people was equal in the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. This inevitably raises serious questions about the ONS's data presentation. There were so many problems with the methodology used by the ONS that the Statistics Regulator agreed that the ONS data could not be used to assess vaccine efficacy or safety. That tells you something about the ONS. Consequently, Hart asked the UK Health Security Agency to provide the data they had on people who had died and therefore needed to be removed from their vaccination dataset. This request has been repeatedly refused, with excuses given, including the false claim that anonymising this data will be equivalent to creating it even though there is case law that, anonymization is not considered creation of new data. Mr Deputy Speaker I believe if this data was released it would be damning. That so many lives have been saved by mass vaccination that any amount of harm, suffering and death caused by the vaccines is a price worth paying. They're delusional, Mr Deputy Speaker. The claim of 20 million lives saved is based on now discredited models which assume that Covid waves do not peak without intervention. There have been numerous waves globally that now demonstrate that is not the case, and it was also based on there having been more than half a million lives saved in the UK. That's more than the worst-case scenario predicted at the beginning of the pandemic. For the claim to have been true, the rate at which Covid killed people would have to have taken off dramatically at the beginning of 2021 in the absence of vaccination. This is ludicrous and it bears no relationship to the truth. In the real world, Australia, New Zealand and South Korea had a mortality rate of 400 deaths per million up to the summer of 2022, after they were first hit with Omicron. So how does that compare with the Wuhan strain? France and Europe as a whole had a mortality rate of under 400 deaths per million up to the summer of 2020. Australia, New Zealand and South Korea were all heavily vaccinated before infection. So tell me, where was the benefit? The UK had just over 800 deaths per million up to the summer of 2020. So twice as much. But we know that Omicron is half as deadly as the Wuhan variant. The death rates per million are the same before and after vaccination. So where was the benefits of vaccination? The regulators have failed in their duty to protect the public. They've allowed these novel products to skip crucial safety testing by letting them be described as vaccines. They've failed to insist on safety testing being done in the years since the first temporary emergency authorisation. Even now, no one can tell you how much spike protein is produced on vaccination and for how long. Yet another example of where there is no data for me to share with the House. And when it comes to properly recording deaths due to vaccination, the system's broken. Not a single doctor registered a death from a rare brain clot before doctors in Scandinavia forced the issue and the MHRA acknowledged the problem. Only then did these deaths start to be certified by doctors in the UK. It turns out that doctors were waiting for permission from the regulator and the regulators were waiting to be alerted by the doctors. This is a lethal circularity. Furthermore, coroners have written Regulation 28 reports highlighting deaths from vaccination to prevent further deaths, yet the MHRA said in a response to an FOI that they had not received any of them. The system we have in place is clearly not functioning to protect the public. The regulators also missed the fact that the Pfizer trial, in the Pfizer trial, the vaccine was made for the trial participants in a highly controlled environment, in stark contrast to the manufacturing process used for the public rollout, which was based on a completely different technology. And just over 200 participants were given the same product that was given to the public. But not only was the data from these people never compared to those in the trial for efficacy and safety, But the MHRA have admitted that they dropped the requirement to provide the data. That means there was never a trial on the Pfizer product that was actually rolled out to the public. And that product has never been compared to the product that was actually trialled. The vaccine mass production processes use vats of Escherichia coli and present a risk of contamination with DNA from the bacteria as well as bacterial cell walls which can, cause dangerous reactions. This is not theoretical, Mr Deputy Speaker, this is now sound evidence that has been replicated by several labs across the world, and the mRNA vaccines were contaminated by DNA which far exceeded the usual permissible levels. Given that this DNA is enclosed in the lipid nanoparticle delivery system, it is arguable that even the permissible levels have been far too high. These lipid nanoparticles are known to enter every organ of the body, as well as this potentially causing some of the acute adverse reactions seen, there is a serious risk that this foreign bacterial DNA is inserting itself into human DNA. Will anybody investigate? No, they won't. I'll give way on that point.  (Danny Kruger MP) I am conscious that time is tight. I recognise that the hon. Gentleman is making a very powerful case. Does he agree that the Government should be looking at this properly and should commission of review into the excess deaths, partly so that we can reassure our constituents that the case he's making is not in fact valid and that the vaccines have no cause behind these excess deaths. (Andrew Bridgen MP) I thank the Honourable Gentleman for his support on this topic and of course that is what exactly any responsible government should do. I wrote to the Prime Minister on the 7th August 2023 with all the evidence of this but sadly Mr Deputy Speaker I still await a response. What will it take to stop these products? Their complete failure to stop infection was not enough and we all know plenty of vaccinated people who have caught and spread Covid. The, mutation of the virus to a weaker variant, Omicron, that wasn't enough. The increasing evidence of the serious harms to those of us that were vaccinated. That's not enough. And now the cardiac deaths and the deaths of young people is apparently not enough either. It's high time these experimental vaccines were suspended and a full investigation into the harms they've caused initiated. History will be a harsh judge if we don't start using evidence-based medicine. We need to return to basic science, basic ethics immediately, which means listening to all voices and investigating all concerns. In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, the experimental Covid-19 vaccines are not safe and they're not effective. Despite there only being limited interest in the chamber from colleagues, and I'm very grateful for those who have attended, we can see from the public gallery there is considerable public interest. I would implore all members of the House, present and those not. Support calls for a three-hour debate on this important issue. And Mr Deputy Speaker, this might be the first debate on excess deaths in our Parliament. Indeed, it might be the first debate on excess deaths in the world, but very sadly I promise you won't be the last. (Parliament Square Speech Andrew Bridgen MP) But without further ado let's welcome to the stage Mr Andrew Bridgen. Thank you ladies and gentlemen, thank you for coming down here to support the debate today, and thank you for supporting me and the cause. More? I just spoke for 25 minutes. Blood. It's been quite a week. Start of the week, get attacked from behind by a blunt instrument. But what an ending to this week. We have made history today. Nine months, more than 20 refused attempts to get a debate on excess deaths, the first debate on excess deaths in the UK, Parliament, the first proper debate on excess deaths in the world and I promise you, I absolutely promise you, it won't be the last. We will get a three hour debate in the next few weeks now on excess deaths. We've got two democracies under challenge all over the world. We're hanging over and using what we've got to make sure we get our message out there. On Tuesday next week I'm, I'm bringing in a bill, a ten minute rule motion, a bill called the Sovereignty and Referendums Bill. I'm going to put it to the House. That would stop, if we could bring that in, that would stop the WHO power grab of the people of the UK. I've been invited to speak as well next week on Zoom to some African political leaders, to try and persuade them to resist the WHO power grab, because it doesn't matter where we break this, we can break it in the UK, we can break it anywhere else in the world. This is a worldwide problem, an absolute assault on humanity, and we've all got to stick together. I've been an MP for nearly 14 years. I've given a lot of speeches in that chamber. That I was a bit nervous today because I knew there was never going to be a more important, speech I've ever given. I've never been in a more important speech than the one I was giving today. Can't you hear at the back? Turn up the PA. So, here we go. There was never going to be a more important speech than the one I was giving today, and, even after 14 years as an MP I was a little bit nervous standing up. But what really got me was, OK, there wasn't as many MPs in the chamber as I'd liked, but, the public gallery was full and the support from there was absolutely incredible. And they always say the politicians, that place over there, is in the Westminster bubble. We are going to burst the bubble in Westminster. Absolutely. Ultimately, my message to send you away with is that your determination, your cheerfulness, your resilience will deliver us victory. Thank you very much for coming today. (Hearts of Oak) Andrew, we've just been in on the debate on vaccine harms. Tell us about the process, because it's been a long, hard battle, which you talk about in the chamber. (Andrew Bridgen MP) Yeah, I've been putting in since January every week for a backbench business debate. That was refused. I've put in for a Westminster Hall debate on a weekly basis and I've put in for an adjournment debate. Eventually, after nine months and more than 20 rejections, we had the first debate on excess deaths in the UK Parliament. I think it's the first one in the world, but I promise you it won't be the last. I think the dozen or so MPs who attended today's debate, I'm hoping I'll be able to get a get them to sign up that we can have a three-hour debate well before Christmas and then it's going to grow from there because ultimately the data that I imparted in the chamber today, it's all backed up with the science. Every MP is going to be getting a copy of my Hansard speech and the full data pack of all the evidence that backs up everything I've said. There's no excuses now. So this goes to law because it's a no-brainer really to have these conversations because we've all seen excess deaths across Europe. Ask yourself in a democracy why don't they want to have a conversation about anything? I mean, I'm aware that in the Australian Senate four or five senators asked for a debate on excess deaths they ended up having a debate on whether you should have a debate on excess deaths and the consensus of the Australian Senate was they didn't want to have a debate on excess deaths. Well, I mean that's a red flag straight away, isn't it? (Hearts of Oak) Last question, I assume you believe that there are some MPs that can be won over, that public figures have kept quiet a further reputation, which you don't care about and you've walked away from the party. Tell us about those who you think you can possibly win over and then support you publicly on this. (Andrew Bridgen MP) Well certainly some of the ones that were there today, I know of some who weren't there today who will support calling for a much bigger debate on excess deaths. And ultimately it's the pressure of the electorate, the people, and you could see that although the House wasn't very full of members, the public gallery was full and that shows you that public opinion is they want this issue debated, they want to know what's gone on, and it's their right to have it happen. And that will become an irresistible force for politicians. That's how democracy works. (Hearts of Oak) Well, we've just had the debate in Parliament, a debate that I actually, to be honest, didn't think would happen. I thought that it would be stopped and held off. Only one member of 650 MPs in that place was willing to stand up and have this conversation, on vaccine arms as on excess deaths. He spoke for 24 minutes, presented everything in a measured calm manner, no emotion. One of the many things Andrew is great at, that he just lays it out gently, softly, step by step, that he doesn't raise the hyperball that maybe some others will rise to. And he laid it out in 24 minutes. And of course, the government's response is, Well, excess deaths are other factors, lifestyle factors, like smoking, like cholesterol, even fatty foods. So the government are blaming all the excess deaths over a period of a sudden spike in, smoking and a spike in eating fish and chips. That's what the government. Wow. Like ostriches with their heads in the sand. So Andrew presented his figures. The great thing is that we expect now there to be a much longer debate in Parliament. That was a short motion, a short debate, a 30 minute session. Andrew is hopeful that this can now go to a three hour fuller debate and that will be really interesting to see whether that gets tabled and whether it actually does go ahead and I would like to see other MPs backing Andrew and I think the more he speaks the more courage they will get. Andrew is someone with courage, with conviction, with a backbone, with a determination to speak truth and often, that is a rarity across there, it really is, really people want to, keep their heads down, they want to climb up the greasy pole and attain those higher levels of political achievement. So we obviously will watch this, follow Andrew. He is a hero. There's no one else in that Parliament across the way that's a hero like Andrew. And what else? I mean, it's the hill that he's chosen to die on. It's the hill that he has chosen to fight on. It's the hill that he has lost his career in the Conservative Party. And why? Because people are dying and no one is talking about it. What more important issue is there apart from life and death? And if something has been introduced and it's killing people, you need to look at it, you need to address, you need to understand it, to analyse it and then see what you do with that. So we have won here amongst 650. We will follow this and watch this closely as we see this move towards a fuller debate in Parliament and certainly my hope and prayer is that many other MPs stand up and speak, and that this happens across the world. We've seen a debate happening, I know, in the German Parliament with the AfD. I know we've seen debates happening in the Australian Parliament and the One Nation Party with Pauline and Malcolm are doing a fantastic job there. And here is one individual. Obviously, the Reclaim Party is behind Andrew Bridgen. He's a member of that of Lawrence Fox's party. And Andrew will continue to speak. And as he speaks, I believe that we will see ripple effects across the world because the world watches what happens here. This is called the mother of parliament and I believe that as Andrew continues to speak and continues to speak within this chamber that we will see other parliaments around the world address this issue. But this doesn't affect future debt, I mean, the damage is done, the deaths are happening. But at least you have to hold people to account. And for me, this is about justice. It's about honesty. It's about clarity. It is about truth, which is something that's been in short supply over the last couple of years during the COVID tyranny. So keep an eye on this space for Andrew to continue to push this. And when that longer three hour debate does happen, we will be here reporting on us and reporting on those who have come out to support Andrew today. Matt Le Tissier was here, Le God was in the chamber watching Andrew, Mike Yeadon was here speaking, Fiona Hine has done a great job in pulling people together. There is massive support and I think the parliamentarians in the government want individuals like Andrew Bridgton to feel they are alone, but they are not alone. They are backed by masses of the population and today was a small subset, of that, but Andrew knows he is not alone. Make sure and post this video, let others see what has happened here in the UK Parliament and have hope, because I think often that's also in short supply and I think what has happened today is a day of hope, is a day of reckoning and is a day of moving forward to actually presenting the truth and holding people to account.

Mark is joined by Rosie Holt for a special extended interview with the comedian whose Tory MP character has become an online phenomenon (and fooled plenty of people into the bargain!) Recorded before Mark's recent surgery, it's a funny and thought-provokingdiscussion that covers everything from Russell Brand to GB News – and asks what lockdown expert Chris Whitty is up to these days... Get ad-free extended episodes, early access and exclusive content on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/wtfisgoingonpod Follow What The F*** Is Going On? with Mark Steel on Twitter @wtfisgoingonpod Follow Rosie Holt @RosieisaHolt Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Show notes and Transcript... Dr David Cartland joins Hearts of Oak once again to discuss his ongoing battles as a wide awake doctor.  For over 2 years he has had to fight, not only for his credibility in the NHS but for his continued employment.  He shares his ongoing battle with the GMC (General Medical Council) who seek to destroy GP's on the basis of random complaints about their social media posts.  In the middle of this skirmish, David finds himself 'persona non grata' and struggles to find locum jobs as a doctor in a country that is in desperate need for medical professionals.  We end with Dr Cartland sharing the many stories he hears each day of horrific vaccine injuries. Dr David Cartland (MBChB MRCGP) is a fully qualified doctor and GP. He is also one of the most censored professionals in the UK. Dr Cartland has a 1st class degree in Biomedical science including a year of specialist immunology and microbiology/virology training that included statistical analysis, and it is this area of expertise that has had particular relevance and value in allowing him to professionally assess the mass of government, NHS, MHRA, pharmaceutical and ONS data on Covid-19 and Covid-19 Vaccine Adverse Reactions, which has been published since the declaration of the ‘pandemic' in UK. Between his two degrees David worked for a year in the angiogenesis research group at the University of Birmingham and he is a published author in angiogenesis research. At his graduation he recited the Hippocratic oath. Part of this powerful oath is a vow. A vow to ‘Primum non nocere'- first do no harm. After years of training and sacrifice, followed by many happy years in a professional practice as a highly respected doctor, in February 2022 David took the difficult decision to resign as a GP. Follow and support Dr Cartland at the following links.... WEB: https://drcartland.com/ X: https://twitter.com/CartlandDavid?s=20 GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/DrCartland TRUTH: https://truthsocial.com/@drdavidcartland DONATE: https://www.buymeacoffee.com/drcartland PEOPLES HEALTH ALLIANCE: https://the-pha.org/  WORLD COUNCIL FOR HEALTH: https://worldcouncilforhealth.org/  DOCTORS FOR PATIENTS UK: https://doctorsforpatientsuk.com/ Dr Cartland's original testimony titled ‘Breaking the Silence' can be read here....https://metatron.substack.com/p/breaking-the-silence  Interview recorded 19.8.23 Audio Podcast version available on Podbean and all major podcast directories...  ⁣https://heartsofoak.podbean.com/ Transcript available on our Substack...https://heartsofoak.substack.com/ To sign up for our weekly email, find our social media, podcasts, video, livestreaming platforms and more... https://heartsofoak.org/connect/ Please subscribe, like and share! Transcript (Hearts of Oak) Hello, Hearts of Oak, and welcome to another interview coming up in a moment with Dr. David Cartland, who's back with us again. And David joins us to discuss his experiences of being investigated over two years now by the General Medical Council, the GMC. It is the regulatory body that investigates doctors' malpractice or failures. And because of initially anonymous reports complaining about a social media profile, he has been investigated. He discusses that process and the GMC have absolute power, they can remove a doctor's ability to practice medicine in the UK. So it is, they are judge and jury, court martial. We also go into how the NHS silences whistle-blowers. He shares some of the stories of his patients that he has seen vaccine injuries and we also discuss his difficulty of simply getting a job as a locum in surgeries.  Dr. David Cartland, it's wonderful to have you back with us. Thank you so much for your time today.  (Dr David Cartland) No, thanks for having me, Peter. It's always a pleasure to chat.  Good to chat. I think last time you were with me is probably our last video at the end of last year. Time flies past, but it's good to have you back. Lots to cover, not only about you but what you see professionally. But if I can @CartlandDavid on Twitter, that's where you can follow David's many pieces of information put out regularly. So if you're not already following him, do. Although, David, you've become quite high profile. Maybe just touch on that and then before we get onto of the GMC stuff and some of the cases you see. But what is it like to be kind of the voice of reason? Because I guess when you go into profession, you're there as part of the system. You put your head down, you do the good that you've been trained to do. It's quite different for you because a lot of doctors now in the media, in the public sphere, are talking about. What has it been like over the last three years?  It's really strange because I get a lot of feedback that I've kind of stuck my head above the parapet and I'm brave and I've got balls of steel or whatever they say, but you know I see it as simply my duty to do what I've done. You know I've said this many times, you know, I've stuck my neck on the line but really not because I've spoke out about ethical principles of consent, bodily autonomy, not coercing patients to take medical treatments that they aren't being fully informed about number one, but you know, that we haven't got any safety data for, you know, defending children and pregnant moms, you know, there was never any roll out data for both cohorts. And so that's the two easy wins, I thought I picked, you know, the ethical issues and the pregnancy safety, lack of safety data and the children and vaccine injuries and speaking out about lockdowns and masks and for doing so, you know, the NHS supposedly supports whistle blowing, they call it a learning culture, a no-blame culture, let's talk about these things without any blame until you whistle blow. And then, like I found out, to my detriment in a couple of arenas, really, as soon as you whistle blow about concerns that you've got. Concerns that still to this day remain unanswered. That's the other thing. You could easily shut me off with some data. Very easy to do. Correct my blasphemous views on all of this, just sit me down and show me the error of my ways and hasn't happened for two and a half days. It's been a full two and a half years, should I say. It's been a cancel culture as other people in the arena have found, you know, you look at Andrew Bridgen, all he did was ask questions and asked to take a closer look at the data. You look at footballers, Matt Le Tissier, you know, speaking out and saying, look, we need to look at this, footballers are collapsing left, right and centre, let's stop, let's investigate this. Similar to me, I'm just saying like this isn't ethically right, this isn't safe, we're not following evidence-based practice here, but yeah to somehow out of all of this become, I googled myself the other day because I said a third's really let me go because they said they'd googled me, so I thought let's. Have five minutes and see what you can come up with when you google Dave Cartland. One thing that comes up is internet personality, so that's the surrealness of where we are at the moment in that for somehow doing the job, following my Hippocratic oath, following principles of safety evidence based practice and ethics and these are all GMC guidance's as well you know I keep reminding on Twitter my fellow colleagues of the guides the guidelines that we have you know about the duty of candour whistleblowing ethics you know making sure you know we're gaining informed consent these are all enshrined in the GMC and as we'll talk about later on in the discussion the GMC they've got some slightly double standards when it comes to who to go after.  I guess there was some point where it went from criticism within the profession, so disagreements with fellow doctors, fellow professionals, to a, more bigger investigation and checking up. I mean how did that step change come? Yeah, where to start with that? So yeah, I mean, it has been kind of, it started off as kind of anonymous reporting. So the first I ever heard of the GMC, being involved in me was, I found it in my junk email box from my NHS mail account, saying that there'd been some sort of hearing about me about spreading COVID misinformation, and that a decision had been made that there was no case to answer for. This was in April, I think, 2021, it goes all the way back to that. That was without your input, you just...  So that was without my knowledge, my input, but even though they found there was no case to answer, they escalated it to NHS Performance Advisory Committee. And so you'll see on Twitter, I posted a reflective piece they asked me to do at that point to explain how I got to my position. I actually got to present to the GMC at the time as well, not the GMC, NHS PAG committee and their six doctors. I had the floor for about an hour, went through data, my concerns, and with specific reference to the reflective piece that I posted. And, you know, at the very end, I just said to them, any comment, any information on what, you know, any rebuttal to what I presented? And they just said, look, we're not here to discuss the content of your views on COVID. We're here to discuss, and it was a really strange comment they made. They said, we're here to discuss your mental health, your fitness to practice, and your fitness for purpose. I always remember that comment, fitness for purpose. And it kind of all fizzled out after that. They closed the case, and then pretty much, you know, every month or two, I'd get a dumping from the GMC saying we've had these 15, mostly anonymous complaints from various characters, either from Twitter or ex-colleagues I used to work with saying, we've had these 15, 20 complaints just to let you know, FYI, this is the content that's sending you the redacted complaints. And you'd just been told that you were getting this flurry of complaints about COVID misinformation, conspiracy theories, and all the rest of it. And some of them are quite comical. I was called a dangerous individual, I've been called Harold Shipman 2023. And all the rest of it and so you know they were throwing them out which is good but then it kind of got a little bit more nefarious in that you know, firstly the council culture in my own community, so I've been you know, I've been I moved down to Cornwall for the work life balance, I didn't wake up one morning and say I tell you what I'm going to be a crazy anti-vaxxer and conspiracy theorist and commit career suicide. I said what I saw I had genuinely held and still unrebutted concerns as previously mentioned on safety ethics and an evidence-based medicine and not being followed. And for that, I've received a cancellation, blacklisting. I've applied recently for, in Cornwall, we've got a lack of doctors. We've got a massive issue with GPs in particular. I'm an ED-trained GP, so I'm kind of dual-trained, and I teach medical students. I've got background in science. I'm a published scientist, did a degree with quite heavy weighting in immunology. And we've got somewhere around 25 jobs out there all the time, consistently. Whenever you look at the website advertising for GP jobs, there's always 25 jobs. So I applied for 25 jobs about six, seven months ago, and I got three responses. The rest just ignored me. Their jobs are still being advertised, by the way. And the three letters that I got back were essentially we don't employ anti-vaxxers or your views on vaccines don't align with the ethos of our vaccine centre, for example. So it started off like that. And even now, I mean, I've been let go from locum surgeries now because I retweeted an Andrew Tate video six months ago. That's a genuine example of why I've just been let go from three weeks worth of work, you know, and I didn't really know who Andrew Tate was. If I'm honest, I must've just seen something on Twitter, retweeted it without doing a full, you know, biography check on the person. And then that was enough cause for the GP surgery to let me go. And that was actually a surgery that had massively positive feedback from the work that I'd done. And then the other surgeries then, you know, putting the phone down on agencies they mentioned the name Dr Cartland, literally putting the phone down on them saying and then the agency would get back to them and say was that technically correct. Was that a technical issue with the line? I said, no, no, no. You mean Dr. David Cartland from Cornwall? Oh, no, no, we don't employ anti-vaxxers at our surgery. We'd rather not employ a doctor. We would rather have no doctor than have him. And there's been several examples across the last six months where surgeries have gone without a medic for a whole day than have me, who's offered my services to them. And I've got email confirmation of that. So it started off a little bit like that, cancellation in my locality. I mean, cancellation by the village that I live in, the town I live in. Literally bizarre because as you mentioned earlier you know outside of Cornwall, I'm quite, there's a profile there you know people know who I am people recognize me but not in my home village they think I'm a leper and they treat me like a leper so very odd and then the GMC stuff started a bit more insidiously then with with the usual suspects on Twitter..  So okay tell us what the GMC the General Medical Council there'll be many watching not in the UK so what exactly is that body what does it do? So the GMC are there, General Medical Council are there to kind of oversee doctors conduct, doctors you know any issues around their abilities practice safely, you know so clinical negligence etc so they've got kind of lots of overreach into into what doctors do but I mean the way you complain about a doctor is you can literally go on to an online page completely you can say anything you want and I've seen this in action, like literally you can say, Dr. Cartland tweeted this. And this was what a lot of the complaints were that I was getting. It was about social media activity. But I did come across, you know, I had the devil in me at some point in the past, about seven or eight months ago. And I decided to do a sort of feature on Twitter where I went into some of the TV doctors. And I thought, I'm going to out some of the outrageous statements that Van Tam, Chris Whitty, Matt Hancock. I did a week of going after the politicians and just quoted what they said in their own press conferences and, you know, the next slide, please, conferences that they were doing. And then I moved on to the TV doctors. And I went to Dr. Ranj, Dr. Amir Khan, Dr. Sarah Kayat, Dr. Hilary Jones, and I basically published the biggest whoppers that they'd ever told, you know, like, Dr. Ranj said, you know, take one COVID-19 vaccine, and you're 100%, 100%, it's always 100% safe and effective of avoiding hospital or going, becoming unwell, or dying of COVID-19. That's what he said, or worse. And I just posted it. And that's been taken now by the GMC to be examples of my bullying. The charges against me at the moment are bullying, incitement of hatred to fellow professionals, and online harassment. So they've tried the misinformation, they've tried the mental health, they've tried the conspiracy theories on professional behaviour, social media guidance, and now they've moved on to what can only be described as a coordinated complaint. I've got evidence of all the complainants collaborating together in chat rooms, and making this an effort to get me struck off. So as we stand today, you know, I've been all of the complainants, for example, have been given the chance to give an oral statement against me. You know, Dr. Ranj gave a 110 page victim statement in inverted commas. And it was like reading a fantasy novel. Honestly, I've read it, it's an embarrassment really to the GMC, but they've took it seriously on the lines of bullying and harassment. And what have I done? I've posted 'This Morning' interview where he made outrageous claims that misled a lot of people, you know, nothing's 100% RSA, you know, this cup of tea, it's not 100% safe, I could choke on it, I could drop the cup on my foot, I could drop, you know, the hot liquid on my crotch, you know, and it's not, it's not 100% safe, is it? So all of these doctors made the claim of 100% safety. One particular complainant said it was 100% safe to vaccinate pregnant women, and then went on to say that the vaccine reduced miscarriage rates, and then went on to equally tell a whopper around what technology was used in the vaccine, saying it was identical to the influenza vaccine, without naming names for this particular doctor. But, you know, they've been able to formulate that my retweet of, you know, their false claims has been labelled as, what did they say in the one complaint, I've set my anti-vax mob upon them, and, you know, they're all playing the mental health card now, saying that because of Dr Cartland, they're suffering with their mental health and anxiety and all the rest of it playing the victim beautifully. Very strange goings on and to me I mean it's a big overreach really GMC are they there to comment on my twitter feed? you know that's what it seems to have come down to. But well, what is the the process do you get an email or letter through to say you need to appear in front of somewhere, just being told you're under investigation and you said you were before them so what input do you have with that? That's a really good question, so in all in all of this you get kind of, you get I'm infamous at GMC now so I've got my own complaints member of staff so I've been allocated my own member of staff for the inundation that they've had. But essentially that person will then update me on the process. And the process has been the three complainants have been given the oral witness statements. And they've gone to town on me really and dug back into my timeline. There's clear collaboration between them. Meaning one particular complaint, the GMC have actually helped the complainant go through my Twitter feed and look at interviews to look for examples of alleged transphobia. So there was a period about three months ago where I went in heavy on the strange things that we're seeing in the sexualization of children, sex trafficking. There's the drag queen story hour that we've had in Cornwall. Some of the videos I'm seeing online about inappropriate things going on in front of children. People clad in gimp suits with kids stroking them. You've probably seen the images. Men clad with sex toys all over them, multi-coloured sex toys, making a complete fool of themselves really in front of children. And calling that out, and again, charge number eight on the GMC charge list is I've showed hostility towards the LGBTQ community. I've had lots of input from LGBTQ people, show me a lot of support, actually, because they're fed up of it. They're fed up of this kind of leaning into the agenda and the overreach of it, this minor attracted persons, the, we need to start having sympathy for paedophilia, we need to start looking deep into the psychology, normalizing it and then going off on things like, you know, in schools now we've got kids in our locality identifying as cats. I mean, how on earth have we ended up with that? You know, when we've got people being referred off a puberty blockade at the age of 12 and genital mutilation, that to the GMC there is evidence of my hostility towards LGBTQ and they're jumping on anything at the moment. Clearly I've got a target on my head. So none of it has to do necessarily with your medical understanding or ability or giving someone the wrong drugs. It's simply your views, what's in your head. And it's strange how a tweet can affect how you actually carry out, listen to a patient diagnosing them. It's, their opposites. They're saying it just affects confidence in the profession, so another colleague, I won't mention the name at the moment, is having a case reopened for bringing the profession into disrepute. Affecting public confidence with their conspiracy theories in inverted commas. But I mean, I'll tell you what's happened, just to finish off what I meant to say just about the GMC proceedings. So all three complainants got the chance of an oral statement. They've been either to the building in GMC HQ or they've given a Zoom, you know, face-to-face. I've not been afforded that privilege so basically what they've done is clumped all three complaints together into about 600 pages of evidence and I mean the evidence is pathetic, simple as that it's not it wouldn't you know if it was a murder case it would be thrown out, you know it's absolutely embarrassing but all the way through this I've got a clear evidence of all three complainants colluding, inciting against me, getting people to and they've done it for other doctors like Aseem Malhotra, please report this doctor to the GMC, well that's incitement isn't it. And I've got evidence of this. In fact, one of the complainants has been, is a very notorious chap on Twitter. Again, I can't name his name, but a notorious bully, troll, spreader of misinformation. And this guy has been bullying me for two years and has had the audacity to accuse me of bullying. I said to the GMC, I've got pages and pages of information where he's called me Harold Shipman or he's had me arrested or I've been struck off. I'm dangerous, I'm dodgy, I'm unsafe to practice, I'm a liar. I've got all of these screenshots. He's even questioned my mental health, publicly saying I should be sectioned, I'm mentally unstable. He's been speaking to my family and they're all increasingly concerned about my mental health. I've got all this, but can you show it to the GMC? Do they want to see it? No, they don't. not letting me give, you know, get beyond the administrative system to speak to a decision maker. So it's been very much guilty till proven innocent and they backed that up by, about a month ago, they demanded of me my full, you know, who I work for as a locum, what surgeries, which hospitals I work in and they wanted me to go back six months to name what surgeries I work at and the reason for that was they wanted to send out a letter before I've even had a chance to give evidence to say Dr. Cartland has been accused by some high profile TV doctors of bullying, harassment and online incitement and that's gone out to every surgery that I've either worked for or currently worked for and I absolutely begged them not to do that. I said look, this is clearly a guilty till proven innocent approach to the situation, please let me at least give my chance of defending myself. I mean to be fair to them, they've been clear in the letter that, you know there is no fitness to practice hearing here and it's not, you know, they haven't even made a decision on that they're just collating so what's the point of sending the letter. I said to them this is only going to give me financial and reputational damage, they still sent it and since then the three surgeries have not offered me a single locum shift, so as predicted they want to wait till the investigation's over and that's natural of course, why would you want to employ a doctor by choice that, you know, it's hard enough for me to get a surgery to take me for half a day when they're absolutely desperate, you know, it's it's such a waste but can't explain that. Guilty to all, even innocent.  How long has the process with the GMC, how long has that been going on for and how long does it, is there a fixed time period, can they keep it open for indefinitely, what's the process? Yeah that's a great question as well, I don't know, I've not been very transparent through the whole time, it's been, I've been dangled by a piece of string since like I say April two years ago, with various different, you know, aspects, like I say I first found out about investigation from a junk email. It's just the communication has been terrible as well. They've not kept me up to date really. They keep telling me they dropped a lot of the charges against me without informing me that they dropped a lot of charges against me. What GMC like to do as well is they send you emails that are quite anxiety inducing about five to five in the evening, and they're all knocking off at five o'clock. So even in that approach it's like well. There's method in that, they're doing that on purpose, you know, to send an email at 10 to 5 with, you know, this is the witness statement for Dr. X and then you're going into the weekend and you can't fight your corner and, you know, all they've done along in terms of pastoral care, you know, at the end of the day this is very stressful, you know, I'm going into the next month not knowing if I'm going to be in front of a fitness to practice hearing for the crimes of promoting evidence-based practice ethics and safety. And I don't know where my next pay check's coming from. It's just, it's bizarre. And all they've done is they've given me a Samaritan's number and to contact the BMA 24-hour helpline, completely separate to them. There's been no pastoral support. In fact, there's been no pastoral support at all. I've tried all through the last year to reach out. It's hard enough to do that as a doctor, reaching out to other doctors, and I've ended up passed from pillar to post. No one can offer me any support, any help. I even went to my own GP at a time when I was having a lot of stress, I wasn't sleeping. GP essentially, in a nutshell, signed me off work for six months with stress and depression. Sent me bucket loads of antidepressants, sleeping tablets and anxiolytics and then zero point during that, I've still got the boxes by the way, I never used them, but the point I was trying to make is not one single doctor or nurse spoke to me in that six months and assessed me and gave me copious amounts of drugs during that time and signed me up and made a diagnosis actually based upon e-consults, which is what doctors are doing now. They're not even seeing patients to this day. They're still doing telephone consults, you know, triaging everything out, you know, only seeing on the day emergencies and this is what's contributing in a way to some, only a small amount of the excess mortality that we see and they're just not seeing patients hence, not diagnosing or processing and doing their job, still hiding behind the COVID. I worked at a surgery a few weeks ago and the doctors are all still masked up. They've got two, three masks on some of them, gloves on, aprons on, visors, they change between every patient and they've had five or six jabs at each of these doctors. So we've created this bizarre kind of germ OCD phobia kind of mentality. I can't explain it.  It is. Maybe four months ago, five months ago, I went to the hospital with one of my kids and I went in and the doctor said, I'm sorry, you'll obviously need to wear a mask. I said, I'm exempt. He goes, no, no, no, you can't be exempt. I said, yes, I'm exempt, I can show you, the government. And he goes, oh well, it's too dangerous. If you refuse to wear a mask, we'll have to have the consultation in the corridor. So we moved out of his room and we were in the corridor of a busy hospital and he carried out the consultation in the corridor, because the corridor was safe, but his room was not. And I thought, you don't even argue when you're with children, you just...  And this is in 2023, Peter, isn't it? The insanity continues and now we've got the old... Eris, is it? Eris, the variant, and they're trying to stoking up the fear porn. The goddess of destruction, they've named this one after all, chaos or something like that. So they're really working on getting the anxiety levels up and people will fall for it. The doctors have fallen for it, hook, line and sinker. Absolutely easy meat it's been to con the doctors. I mean, how to explain what happens to you there? You know, you've been taken out to a corridor. It's just insane. You know, if you see a doctor in a mask, I would go and ask to see another doctor. I'd go so far as to say that, you know, It's an instant IQ assessment for me. The data's out there about damage. Not only is it pointless, I keep trying to explain, you've got eyes as well. If you sneeze into somebody's eyes, you still can contract. So unless you've got goggles on. Doesn't matter what you wear on your face. There are studies that show it's dangerous to your blood gas. You can become hypercapnic, hypoxic. Quite swiftly, I have to put in one arm. Spoke to a lady at my son's optician appointment last week, and you could see she was struggling to breathe. You're speaking and she's and you can see it bellowing out and just like you don't need to put that on, it doesn't work, but her excuse to me was it just makes the older patients feel safer, but it's fraud isn't it, it doesn't it doesn't do what it says on the tin but that's just a small cog in this deception isn't it.  One last question on the GMC and then maybe touching some of the cases you have seen what powers do the GMC have?  They've got the power to end your career, literally, so that's where we are with my particular cases, that they're going to, two people get to decide, one's a lay person and I don't get to speak to these people. I've got the opportunity to write a written rebuttal and they turn the sand timer off 14 days ago so I've left it for a few days and I've got 14 more days to respond and then that goes to a decision maker which is a doctor, a lay person to decide is it fitness to practice or not and that's where the fun begins if it is a fitness to practice and in a kind of dark way. I hope they do because I hope to air my facts and figures to them in public and I think this is the reason they haven't taken some of the higher profile doctors to fitness to practice because it goes on public record. We come out with all of our data, we talk about excess mortality, we talk about our clinical experiences and it all comes out in the open and I don't think they want that. That's why they go for things like bullying and online harassment and breaking the social media guidance or there's a new guidance come out on LGBTQ+ now, all you need to do is offend, that's the measure now you have to leave your faith for example at the door and if the level of being able to report the doctor to the GMC is just merely offending somebody with your view and again at that fitness to practice that literally is what it says on the tin, are you fit to practice or not and we see it now in some of the cases of people being struck off, it's very nefarious, people are, and it's not based on safety, it doesn't seem to be harming patients that brings about the charges are being struck off anymore it can be what you're offending somebody or you know your twitter feed or retweeting an Andrew Tate video for example, it's just bizarre I mean what what jurisdiction should the GMC have over my private, where's that private, public social media. I've got freedom of speech, you know, I'm a lot of these views and they're quite you know within their rights to debate me but I'm two and a half years in now, not a single doctor, no one from the LMC, no one from the GMC, no one from the NHS, the chief medical officer runs away from me down here, the MP runs away from me down here. No one wants to have the conversation and so we all know what that is. But it's just so dark, isn't it, that, you know, a good doctor here is not able to work in one of the most under doctored areas of the NHS. And, you know, it's only patients that suffer. It's not me. I'm doing okay with my private work, you know, so, you know, it's one of those. Well, actually, let's touch on that, the private work side on your website. Let people know what they can find because this is, I think, a way forward and what you're offering is essential and exciting that's happening, it's sad to see it has to happen. But tell us what people, is it people in the local area that they can basically connect with you and have a diagnosis? Yeah, so the service has been set up with a deliberate eye on what the GMC have been up to. So I've kind of called it a kind of off-grid, off-matrix kind of medical experience. So I don't know anyone else who's doing it, really. So it's kind of novel in its approach. So I've had to be careful what I call it. Obviously, I am a GP, I'm a doctor, so I'm allowed to use those titles. But I've had to kind of draw a line as to what needs to be regulated and what I can do in an unregulated fashion. So for example, if I prescribe a drug, that needs to be regulated. You need a GMC license to practice, CQC registration. Now, if I keep patient notes, I need GDPR regulation. So I've had to pitch it, the model, at where I can be unregulated, like a life coach, for example. So I call what I do health coaching. I call it clinical navigation, clinical signposting. I call it health advocacy. And that's what I do. I'm a voice of reason. I'm a medically trained person, ex-scientist, that is there for patients to come to and listen. One of the key things I get is as to why people book in with me is, A, that they trust me for standing up against all of this this nonsense, so it's a trust issue and that trust has been lost. These people you're never gonna trust doctors ever again. And they come to me because they value my opinion and I listen. It's a simple case of having an hour, you know, I charge in a very ethical price, you know, it's far below what, you know, the standards for a private GP appointment would be. It's a quarter of that. And I sit with the patient for an hour and I listen and I take the history. And even this very morning, I had three cases of vaccine injured patients that just, they were quite emotional, really, both the two younger girls, because they just got heard. They were listened to and acknowledged instead of being gas lit and told it was all in their head and there was absolutely no chance of that. But going back to the service, it's growing month on month. It's going really well. I work from this office. I work every morning seven days a week, 363 days a year. So accessibility is there. You get the same doctor twice. You actually get a doctor, which is a bonus. In general practice, if you actually get a doctor, you've struck gold, haven't you? So they're the USPs really, and you'll get an honest opinion. Sometimes I do have to direct people back into the NHS to take our blood tests, for example. But that's what I'm there for. I'm a health advocate. And so like one of the patients this morning, I've written what I call a kick the doctor up the backside letter to get the doctor to do some basic investigations with a girl that's been having chest pain and palpitations within a week of the vaccine. And they haven't even done an ECG. They've done their blood tests. a referral for 24-hour ECG monitoring. They've not done a referral for an echocardiogram. Just basics. You know, we're seeing a lot of clinical and criminal negligence now in the patients that I see, particularly from the vaccine injury community. So that's what you get in a nutshell. So yeah, go to drcartland.com and have a peek. Tell us more about what you're seeing because I'm assuming that you may see people that have gone to their doctor, nothing's happening, the doctor refuses to even consider this could be vaccine injury and therefore they come across you and speak to you. But tell us kind of how that's worked and what are some of the stories that you've heard from patients?  Yeah so the stories are quite classic actually. So what I would say from the outset is I've not spoke to a vaccine injured patient that has got the same story. So there's different kind of severities of symptoms, there's different timelines, there's some are immediate, some are sort of medium term, some are slightly longer term. But the one thing that's really consistent with these patients is that temporal relationship to the vaccine. They're in good health, the two patients this morning. In good health, fit and healthy. One was an 18 year old and within two days of having the vaccine and the second patient was within two weeks having some heart pain, chest discomfort. They then venture off to their doctor and every case is the same. The doctor will immediately, as soon as the patient mentions the vaccine word, that's it. It's almost like crucifix comes out at that point. The room changes, the mood changes, the aggression levels of the doctor change and they dismiss the patient with immediate effect and just say, look, this is absolutely 100% nothing to do with the vaccine whatsoever. But these are the same doctors, if you remember, that had, you know, they were putting down COVID-19 for every death. You know, you can have a positive test and get struck by lightning the day after. And they put COVID-19 as a death certificate, they'll put in COVID-19 as 1A when people have died of cancer. And it was quite extraordinary. But what they're telling these people is, either it's in their head, the amount of people who've got bizarre symptoms, and some people have got some really eclectic, strange, medically unexplainable symptoms. So they come and they've got a bit of this and a bit of that, and it doesn't fit into a conventional diagnosis or criteria to diagnose things like MS, for example. They get brain fog with numb left arm with weakness of the right calf and incontinence of urine, for example. That doesn't fit into any conventional neurological diagnosis. I'm hearing of cases where neurologists are seeing the patients. Telling them it's absolutely not 100% nothing to do with the vaccine. They're not even touching the patient with a tendon hammer. They're not examining them and just dismissing them as functional neurological disorder, aka they're making it up. It's in their head, despite you know, coming on two days after the vaccine. The latest thing I'm hearing is they're telling vaccine injury patients that it's from long COVID, everything's long COVID. So these doctors who deny a day after the vaccine, somebody, you know, going into fits, is anything to do with the vaccine, are the same doctors who were saying, oh, actually, the latest one is even more dark, asymptomatic long COVID. So I'll give you a real life example of a 31 year old who I saw about a month ago at surgery, who had two AstraZeneca's. After each AstraZeneca, she had a blood clot on her leg, one on each leg. Then they went on to booster with a Moderna in December this year, just gone. And this was a 31 year old girl. She had a mini stroke a week later and then she had a full-blown stroke. And when she had to have surgery, a bilateral stroke, blood clots on the brain. And she was told, and I saw this in the neurological letters, that she'd been, this was from an asymptomatic COVID-19, long COVID infection, that had caused a stroke and this was all within a month of a Moderna booster. Absolutely incredible and then, you know, I tell patients, you know, it's highly likely but the issue we've got here is really that we can't ever prove it. There isn't really a way of absolutely proving it. We're looking at ways of really nailing this correlation, causation thing now. So there is a way of finding out antibodies, if you've got antibodies, for example, to nucleocapsid protein and the S-protein, and if you've got both, then there's an equal argument that it could have been the COVID infection. But what we have got now is patients that are just measuring for antibodies for the S-protein, which is a spike protein, and not the nucleocapsid protein. So that completely knocks out the possibility that it can be long COVID-related, because there's no evidence of the nucleocapsid protein. So we need to find that test that really is that eureka moment in helping these patients. And a lot of work I do is around spike protein detox. And we're all, whether you believe in shedding or not, that's up for discussion, but we really need to get detoxifying our bodies and I've really turned myself around in the last eight or nine weeks because I've been vaccinated as you know, and it's really messed with me, it's messing my cognition, my memory, lots of brain fogs, lots of mental fatigue, obviously there's a lot of confounders here about all the stress going on, but at the same time, I felt like I was going into dementia at 41 years of age and really turned it around. So anyone who's got any concerns about spike protein, obviously not just me, don't just contact me. I'm not just selling my service. There are lots of protocols out there now from World Council for Health, People's Health Alliance. You've got the FLCCC, I Recover Protocol. My protocol is publicly available on Twitter for free. It's all about detoxification of the spike protein. That's the pathology here. And that's common across the board. It really was a flawed thing to do, get the body to produce this non-human spike protein through the mRNA. Surprise, surprise, it's causing autoimmunity, it's causing cancers, it's causing inflammation in the body, it's causing immune system destruction, it's causing micro-plotting, endothelial dysfunction. It really is poisonous stuff. So yeah, anyone who's had a jab needs to look at, for themselves and for their relatives and loved ones, what we can to get rid of the spike protein. Lots of literature out there. Yeah, PHA, certainly World Health Alliance, fantastic work. So what you're basically pointing out is they are providing solutions. Absolutely, yeah. And these are grassroots organizations picking up momentum with each passing month. Both of the aforementioned, they're grassroots, they're run by people that give a lot of time for free to help set up an alternative to the NHS. And, you know, honesty is at the centre of it all, you know, being open, being honest, and not for profit. None of these people are here to make money. They're here to provide a service. And if you go, for example, to the PHA website, you'll see that there's a whole directory of people that can help. It's not just the NHS. It's not, you don't have to go with the Stockholm syndrome, of going through the primary care system and being gaslit, you know, go contact people. There's directories of people that are, Naturopathic is the best way to put it. It doesn't have to be drugs. My own protocol's got one medicine on there, the rest is all plant-based. Anti-inflammatories, supplements, things like that. Things like keto diets, paleo-ketogenic diet, carnivore diets, that can really help get your body detoxed from anything from spike protein to heavy metals and all the crap that's in our food. We're toxic people now because it's everywhere. It's in the food chain, it's in the water, it's in the sky. So we're getting, you need to detox. 100%. Can I just ask you about doctors, whenever a patient goes to a doctor, are doctors kind of given information they go by, or is it purely in their head? Because obviously when someone comes in they refuse to accept it's vaccine harm. Is that simply because they're in, I guess, in some ways the pocket of the pharma industry, or because they just are too busy, they haven't looked, or because they're following guidance from elsewhere? A bit of everything, really. I think when I do get to chat to it, and I do all the time, I get told not to talk about COVID in surgeries. I make it my business to enlighten the staff that are vaccinating people. So I worked in a room last week with a lady who was jabbing pregnant moms and kids with the COVID vaccine, so she was enlightened by me. So what I would say is the combination of doctors have got egos, number one, egos and God complexity, thinking they are the powers that be. Number two, they're complicit. They've been putting these jabs into people's arms. What's more concerning is people who've been jabbing through the last two and a half years don't even know that it's a novel technology. You completely lose them when you talk about gene therapy and immunomodulatory therapy. MRNA, a paramedic last week said, what's MRNA? And she'd been jabbing it into people's arms for the last two and a half years. And really that's not acceptable. The only defence I do have, and again, I've been dabbling a little bit back into the NHS the last few months, is that your just run ragged. You start your day at eight o'clock, you finish at six. Your halftime break's a home visit, where you're driving around, particularly in Cornwall, like there's quite distance the homes are from the surgery. And so you're driving with your sandwich in your mouth and your crisps while you're driving around, and you get back and you start again. It's like eat, sleep, repeat, and you don't have time. That's my only slight defence is that you run ragged and I think deliberately so. So doctors just haven't got the energy. You know, those days I did a few weeks ago, I haven't got time to get up and read the Lancet Journal or the evidence data for excess mortality. And it's not a good enough excuse, but you know, it's a factor in the equation that needs to be considered, that people are run ragged. And hence they don't know the Pfizer data, you know, the Pfizer documents that I've read cover to cover. These people haven't even heard of the Pfizer documents because they're that frazzled at the end of the day. And then the money, you know, it's been a big money maker for the whole of primary care hospitals. You know, they've cleared their debts from all of this. So I'll never understand why doctors aren't putting two and two together when you've got somebody that in a very short timeframe after a novel gene therapy, you know, has developed X, Y, and Z symptoms and how it can't be in the differential diagnosis at the least, that's just clinical negligence. You know, it's, this whole denial of the timeframe, you know, these well healthy young people. I've had some harrowing stories in the last few months of people that have lost legs, lost the use of the legs, you know, becoming incontinent, transverse myelitis, MS cases, turbo cancers, blood clots at the age of 18, all in proximity to the vaccine. All of them have one thing in common, it's absolutely nothing to do with the vaccine, according to their medical professional. It's just not good enough because we have to start helping these people. One thing's for sure, I've never jabbed a single individual. I've not given an mRNA jab to a single human, but I'm the only one seeming, along with a small pocket of UK doctors, trying to find answers and solutions. And we work day and night, and we're the bad boys of the profession, working day and night, often for nothing, to try and find solutions to what will be looked back on as the biggest crime against humanity. Of that, I'm certain.  100% agree with you. Dr David Cartland, I really appreciate you coming on, giving us an update on what's happening with you and what you're seeing as a professional. I'm assuming the best place is on your Twitter. They can follow what's happening with the GMC and whenever you're coming, as you're going through that process, you'll keep your followers up to date on @CartlandDavid.  That's the one. There are a few imposters, nice to be popular, but if you type in David Cartland into Twitter, you'll see there's about 25 versions of me, but that, you've got the twitter tag right there on the screen, so look out for the imposters because they are asking people for money personal details and you try to report to twitter to stop them but no, if they put parody in their profile they're allowed to say what they want, it's incredible, the amount of bullying I've had Peter is just, it's incredible, and yet I'm in the dock for being a bully, it's so bittersweet really to accept.  Hmm, no completely. Well yeah, @CartlandDavid, make sure and get it right. Nowhere else but there.  David, thank you so much for your time today. No, thanks for having me. It's always good to share what I'm seeing.

This week, Elkan is joined once again by Lorelei King. Actress, screenwriter, narrator, and active member of the Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice group. Elkan is also joined by Enda McGarrity from PA Duffy, who is one of the lead solicitors representing the Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice group Northern Ireland. Week three saw some key witnesses take the stand to give evidence on the UK's preparedness for a pandemic, including Chris Whitty, Matt Hancock and Nicola Sturgeon. Elkan, Lorelei and Enda discuss some of the key points that came out of the hearings, and Enda brings us up to speed on how he, his team and, most importantly, his clients feel about the Inquiry's progress so far. For more information on how to instruct legal representation, visit our website here: https://www.jacksonlees.co.uk/BroudieJacksonCanter/services/covid-inquiry

The COVID inquiry has started, with the first part looking into how resilient and prepared the country was for a pandemic. Former Conservative prime minister David Cameron, ex-chancellor George Osbourne, health secretary during COVID Matt Hancock and the UK government's chief medical adviser Chris Whitty have given evidence so far. On this Sky News Daily, host Niall Paterson is joined by our health correspondent Ashish Joshi to summarise what's been said so far, and Dr Chaand Nagpaul, former chair of the BMA UK Council from 2017-22 - who represented the medical profession during the pandemic - explores how prepared, or ill-prepared, the UK was for COVID. Producer: Soila Apparicio Assistant producer: Amy Lakin Editor: Danielle Weekes-Chilufya

The UK's Covid inquiry hears from England's chief medical officer Chris Whitty and former chief scientific advisor Patrick Vallance. We discuss the lessons learned from the pandemic with Bloomberg Intelligence's Director of Research, Sam Fazeli. Plus, where next for the mortgage market? Ray Boulger from brokers John Charcol joins us, and Saxo UK's CEO Charles White-Thomson tells us about the economic plan he wants to see for UK plc. Hosted by Caroline Hepker and Stephen Carroll. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

With 14 million new cases of diabetes each year being attributed to poor diet and half the worlds' population estimated to be overweight or obese by 2035, it's no wonder the UK's Chief Medical Officer, Chris Whitty, claims the situation around these conditions presents one of 'the biggest future health challenges we face.' So why is it happening and what can be done to reverse these worrying trends? We find out what dieting does to your metabolism, and whether the effectivness of weight loss drugs in the short term might make them a part of the solution... Like this podcast? Please help us by supporting the Naked Scientists

Our bodies depend on our hearts maintaining a steady beat, and increasing it appropriately in response to exercise. If the heart goes too fast, or too slowly, we have effects ranging from tiredness to unexpectedly passing out to death.This lecture will consider the normal heartbeat, the causes of the heart going too fast or slowly and how it is treated when it does.A lecture by Sir Chris Whitty recorded on 21 February 2023 at Barnard's Inn Hall, London.The transcript and downloadable versions of the lecture are available from the Gresham College website: https://www.gresham.ac.uk/watch-now/rhythm-heartGresham College has offered free public lectures for over 400 years, thanks to the generosity of our supporters. There are currently over 2,500 lectures free to access. We believe that everyone should have the opportunity to learn from some of the greatest minds. To support Gresham's mission, please consider making a donation: https://gresham.ac.uk/support/Website:  https://gresham.ac.ukTwitter:  https://twitter.com/greshamcollegeFacebook: https://facebook.com/greshamcollegeInstagram: https://instagram.com/greshamcollegeSupport the show

How's the craic? It's another Irish night at Hearts of Oak as David Vance joins us afresh to give us his honest and often scathing appraisals on the talking points, from the news and his social media this past week. Under the microscope this episode..... - The Invasion: Illegal channel migration expanding. - Tribunal due to rule on Shamima Begum's citizenship case. - Florida issues new guidance to doctors telling them to warn patients they could suffer a heart attack after taking experimental Covid jab. - Better late than never: Past COVID infection 'as good as vaccines' at preventing severe illness. - Brexit: The betrayal of Northern Ireland beckons? - Trump statement on Sturgeon's resignation in Scotland. - Those prosecuted for silently praying outside an abortion clinic are cleared after arrest by police sparked fury. - Lolz. ‘Chinese spy balloon' shot down over Alaska last week may have belonged to US amateur ballooning group. - Net Zero Bollocks: Log burner rule change in England could land users with £300 fines. - LGBT-BS 24/7: Trans NHS - Food inflation skyrockets in the UK. Pureblood David Vance will not submit, and he will not comply. He used to be disgusted but now he tries to be amused! In the battle for truth and liberty, David chooses the front line, he has been writing and talking politics for a long time and is a published author, political commentator and podcaster extraordinaire! If the Covid 19 plandemic taught him one lesson it is that critical reasoning and a healthy contempt for the mainstream media are desirable armoury in the fight against tyranny. Follow and support David on the following links. Website: https://davidvance.net/ GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/davidvance Twitter: https://twitter.com/DVATW?s=20&t=vaRYl6wCZ4_ZLJ9DB0xpXQ TikTok: http://tiktok.com/@thedavidvance Locals: https://thedavidvance.locals.com/ BrandNewTube: https://brandnewtube.com/@TheDavidVanceChannel Podcast: https://vancedavidatw.podbean.com/ Originally broadcast as a live news review 18.2.23 *Special thanks to Bosch Fawstin for recording our intro/outro on this podcast. Check out his art https://theboschfawstinstore.blogspot.com/ and follow him on GETTR https://gettr.com/user/BoschFawstin To sign up for our weekly email, find our social media, podcasts, video and livestream platforms... https://heartsofoak.org/connect/ Please like, subscribe and share! Links to stories and articles in this episode..... Immigration VIDEO https://twitter.com/DVATW/status/1626855689162293248 Begum citizenship https://www.greatyarmouthmercury.co.uk/news/national/23329140.tribunal-rule-shamima-begums-citizenship-case-next-week/ Florida https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-11760449/Florida-tells-doctors-warn-patients-suffer-HEART-ATTACK-Covid-shot.html COVID https://news.sky.com/story/past-covid-infection-as-good-as-vaccines-at-preventing-severe-illness-12812415 Northern Ireland https://twitter.com/DVATW/status/1626295465275797506?s=20 Trump's statement https://twitter.com/DVATW/status/1625982414563549185?s=20 Silently praying https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11758387/Catholic-woman-prosecuted-silently-praying-outside-abortion-clinic-CLEARED.html Spy balloon https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/21429410/chinese-spy-balloon-shot-alaska-us-amateur-ballooning-group/?utm_source=sharebar_app&utm_medium=sharebar_app&utm_campaign=sharebar_app_article Net Zero https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64261624 Trans NHS https://twitter.com/DVATW/status/1626692265698553858?s=20 Inflation https://twitter.com/DVATW/status/1626650756399960074?s=20 [0:22] Thank you for joining us. David Vance, thank you for coming on this evening to share your wisdom. [0:27] My pleasure. And don't forget, you're also streaming on Twitter as well. [0:33] We're on my Twitter and your Twitter, our Twitter. Two Twitters become one. [0:42] The wonders of technology. We'll pull in comments as they appear on the side. And as always, lots happening. I don't know if we will get through the stories. David, I noticed you had a [0:59] great guest. I'm sure all your guests are great. But Christina Bobb you had on recently. Do you want to just mention that just to give people a flavour of what they may have missed? Well, very, very simple. It's kind of ironic. A lovely guest, a really good person. Christina, as you know, is an attorney to the Donald Trump 2024 campaign. She was involved back in 2020 as well. She'd written a book, Peter, about essentially the shenanigans concerning 2020 and the lessons to be drawn from that so that 2024 isn't a repeat of 2020. So we had a great conversation. She made a lot of good points. I mean, she's very much on the, ball and then I got an email the next day from our good friends at YouTube saying you're not allowed to discuss the 2020 election. How dare you? We're taking this video off our site and, and we're giving you a seven day strike. Take that Christina Bobb, take that David Vance, take that Donald Trump. This is the cancer that is [2:01] Google slash YouTube. So yeah, what can you say, Peter? You're having a civilized conversation. Christina is a very, I mean, she's an attorney, so she knows how to speak in non-inflammatory terms and kind of fact-based questioning, but that's not allowed, which tells me that the scandal of 2020, Is so great that over in YouTube and Google, they're just not prepared to countenance, you know, so [2:29] maybe with our friend, Wachiki, having left the building, maybe Google, I don't know if it's, going to write itself or not, but anyway, Trump won.   Exactly. Yeah, you should know better, David, than streaming it. Come on.   I'm reckless. Well, the thing is, Facebook, I streamed it there, It was fine. But YouTube, oh no, you can't do that one. So yeah, I think I'll be very [2:57] selective what I bothered streaming. In fact, actually, Peter, I might not even stream. I might, just do shorts over in YouTube because it's such a, it's such a censorious assess, but there's not a good content on it. Don't get me wrong. But for people like me that want to get out more, that's challenging stuff. But it's the first strike I've had in quite a while. So there you go. [3:23] Well let's jump into some of the stories and let's have a look at immigration and let's see if I can play this. My producer is away at the moment so it'll just be me. Let me see if I can pull this up. [3:39] For the people smugglers, increased police activity around Dunkirk and Calais has made, their regular launch points more difficult to operate from. French authorities are also busy erecting miles of extra security fencing around those beaches and that's driving the small boats further south. For years the criminal gangs have predominantly used the shortest route, to the UK, pushing off first from the beaches around Calais, then expanding to include areas near Dunkirk. While occasional boats have been launched farther south, in the past six months this route using beaches near Boulogne has seen a significant spike in activity. And for maritime... David, well, this is obviously immigration. This was GB News covering it, talking about the difficulties of these poor individuals not being able to go the shortest route. And we've been really selfish in telling them they have to go slightly further. But yeah, you'd posted at this. Tell us your, your thoughts. Because GP news is really the only one that highlight this issue. [4:49] Yeah, it's only a matter of time to off come declare that any conversation on this is off limits, Peter. But yeah, I mean, it's seen that and the thing that struck me is number one, oh, how awful that they're being forced around the French coast a bit. I mean, the right place to, push them would be right round and down to Spain so that they then have to head back across the Mediterranean to Northern African shores where many of them come from. But yeah, I mean, the way the way the media would have you believe, you know, the sheer inhumanity of it, why, don't we build a bridge so they, you know, or a slide so they can just slide across the English Channel. It's all farcical anyway. I couldn't care less where their, you know, their start-off point is. It should never, ever end with them landing on British shores is what I think. I think our obligation is to stop every boat from wherever it comes, with these criminal gangs, Peter, driving it, and then these, frankly, criminals who are on it. [5:53] Because if you partake in a criminal act, I'm afraid that makes you a criminal. It doesn't have any other walk of life, but apparently not to these poor, disadvantaged, vulnerable men of military age coming across the channel in the dinghies. So yeah, it's interesting what's happening. Also by the way, in that video, did you see the fence that the French are putting up? .It's a bit two foot tall. I mean, you could step over it. That's stopping nobody unless they are very vertically challenged. So most people are going right over that fence or right through that fence. And this is what we're paying millions and millions to the French. Better pay the French nothing, have a strong naval presence that actually stops the boats and stops them coming here. Because once they get here, it's all over for us. you know it's straight to hotels in Knowsley or wherever else they can be found. But David, I thought the short fences were really quite racist because they're claiming that anyone who's a foreigner is very short and us Brits are very tall. [6:57] That's right. Yes. It's more racism. I'm glad you can see the racism here because it's important, we keep our eyes spotted for this. Yeah. It's kind of like it's such a shell operation from the French. I mean, they're doing the bare minimum. And I mean, ultimately, whether it's, you know, whether it's Calais or whether it's a bit further along, what does it matter? If they come here, they're in, so we have to stop them coming here. And of course, this is a serious point, as you know, and I'm sure those watching this understand, there's absolutely no desire on, the part of British political class to stop any of them. I mean, I've seen Nigel Farage talk about this and he's right about this. There's just no desire. They don't want to know. And as you also know, the only way we can really stop it anyway is if we leave the ECHR, if we invoke our own sovereignty, and as I say, if we actually do something, but we're too scared, to do it. Our politicians are too scared to do it. So yeah, it's going to be a slightly more southern sort of starting point for them, but the finishing point is always the same, the UK. Yeah. [8:05] Well, let's look on to actually not people coming here, but people leaving and then not being able to get back. And if only they were all like Shamima Begum in that we would strip them off the right to stay. But this is, I think, shocking to most people, tribunal to rule on Shamima Begum's citizenship case next week. So she's in this legal battle with the government demanding, no, I know I'm a terrorist and I went off with ISIS but hey, I'm actually just a nice girl now, if they're right. But it's such a waste of time and money, it's madness.   It is Peter, it's all of that and worse. So I think there's a fair chance that Islamic bride Shamima Begum will be permitted back into the UK. You've seen, I'm sure people may have seen over the past couple of weeks. [8:58] Stories going out about her almost treating her like she's a model, a kind of a fashion icon. [9:05] This is the same lady who did say that she felt that the Manchester Arena bombing, that terrible event that happened back in 2017 was justified. She said that. Same lady who said, I mean, when you think of, I mean, I put a podcast out on this today, because I was contrasting. So Shamima Beggum being treated by the parts of the media as a fashion icon is kind of shocking. And yet she sympathized with the bomber, the Jihadi, who killed all those kids and their, moms and dads. So awful stuff. And at the same time, and this is where I draw the contrast, and this is why, yes, I I do hate the British establishment. Morrissey, the singer Morrissey, then releases an album or tries to release an album, the title track of which, is specifically about the rage he felt over the bombing at that Manchester Arena. And well, what's happened to him? Well, it's not being released. That's what's happened to him. [10:11] So he's taken a view, which I think many people will feel, looking back at events like that, we shouldn't look back. They say, don't look back in anger. Morrissey says, we should look back in anger. And I say that as well. But he's non-persona, he's cancelled. Meanwhile, I reckon there's a fair chance that Shamima Begum will come back to the UK, and be hailed as some kind of new woman, strong, empowered woman coming back to bring much needed diversity, which no doubt she picked up in the Islamic State camps to the UK. Oh, what joy. [10:48] Diversity, that's what we're missing. Before I jump on to some of our COVID stories, let me just pull up some of the comments here. I've got the Gettr tab open. So Tiger Boy 1985, first on Evening Peter and David. Then Canadian Mom 1997, Evening Peter and David. Biotech Babe, Chris Davis 33, Melismac. We have, I'm trying to, there are lots, yep, there are lots of you there. So I'm scrolling, scrolling. Thank you for, few picture comments there. Thank you for joining us. And I hope we'll provide some entertainment for you as the evening progresses. So let's stay on, let's jump on to COVID, from immigration to COVID. And is this really quite an unusual story? A story of course David that we thought should have been there right at the beginning, but anti-lockdown Florida, I don't know if the Daily Mail are saying that's good or bad, anyway, issues controversial new guidance to doctors telling them to warn patients they could suffer heart attack after COVID shot. So the Florida Health have put out a release telling doctors to issue these warnings. [12:07] It's quite an unusual story, quite an unusual thing happening now. What do you, this obviously caught your eye. Well it did because I mean again the rank hypocrisy of the plagiarists in the Daily Mail. [12:21] I use the word plagiarist advisedly because it plagiarized me during the week. [12:26] So yeah, anti-lockdown Florida. Well, so is that pejorative? Can they not just say Florida? Do they have to put that in? There's the first point. The second point, it made me laugh this actually, you know, the issue of controversial new guidance. What's controversial about it? It's fact-based, no doubt about it, that we know empirically, no argument that the COVID jabs can cause [12:51] cardiovascular events such as heart attacks. So we know that. So, you know, I don't understand where the Daily Mail is coming from that, you know, they could cause heart attacks. Of course, they do cause heart attacks. We know that. But maybe Peter, I like the broader picture is perhaps, beyond the remit of the awful Daily Mail, is that this dam that is breaking, I've been going on about this now, I think the last time we talked as well, I think more and more as the weeks go by, the months go by they can't hold back. They just can't hold back the truth coming out about the jabs, about the adverse reactions, about all the horrors, the stuff that we were talking about, we were shouting about, back at the end of 2020 before they even started the jabs. We warned. And now, yeah, the Daily Mail, and I think this is, see, this is the function of organizations like the Daily Mail. They go ahead of the game a little bit to start maybe, you know, preparing people for the awful reality that, that the jabs do cause heart attacks and the jabs do everything but give you that which you were told. So I thought it was an interesting headline. So maybe the Daily Mail is just softening people up for whenever we get more and more stories, more and more information and we can see exactly what has been going on for two years. So I thought it was a significant headline, although I do dispute much of what the Daily Mail actually says. [14:21] Oh yeah, let me just bring up one of the graphs they also included, which again, this shows the adverse reactions and they actually say this is a 1700% increase. Now, it would be good if they had actually led with that instead of including that away at the beginning. Because they've given the reason and yeah, you're right, they're seemingly attacking, the officials in Florida. But yet they include the data that shows the reasons why. Again, it doesn't make sense. The story, the headline doesn't really connect with the truth they give. That's right. Exactly, Peter. And all the way through this, we've argued from a position of facts and data, because, I think that's the only basis for argument really, because if it's just opinion, one, man's opinion is another man's poison. But when you look at the data, like that chart you just put up, I mean... You know, and there's more and more of this coming out. I mean, if you look at excess deaths. [15:24] which we've all been talking about, it's unstoppable now. I think Germany, I put up a thing today, Germany sitting at 50 percent excess deaths. Do you know? And I mean, and I take, there's no pleasure at all in being proven right. But by the same token, there's no pleasure about, being ignored when you're trying to do the right thing and warn people. So yeah, I mean, you know, it looks, wow, it looks like something happened in 2021. In fact, actually, if you look at Germany, which is even worse, you can actually see the big spikes in excess deaths and all these events, coincide with the first jab, the second jab and the booster jab. It's clear as day. And, you know, know, I think that they're at the point now where they know this just absolute deluge of information is going to overwhelm the defences they have stuck up for the past couple of years. So at least Peter, we've been on the right side throughout this. And I just feel sorry for people who, you know, who went along, who believed the authorities. And we have to be careful not to be, you know, too sort of patronising to them. I feel bad for them, because a lot of them have woken up themselves and said, whoa, no more of this for us. Mind you, if you're in Canada and you say that, you're not getting an organ transplant. [16:44] I saw that, pure evil from Trudeau. [16:48] So that was the Daily Mail wakening up, and this is Sky News wakening up. Past COVID infection, as good as vaccines at preventing severe illness. While the research suggests that natural immunity could be just as good as vaccines are preventing serious illness from COVID-19 infection, the study's authors encourage people to still get vaccinated to avoid any complications from the initial infection. David, unpack this.   Yeah, well, you see, yeah, this is interesting, this one, Peter, because, what they're trying to say is that natural immunity is as good as anything that the vaccines give. That's what they're trying to say. But at the same time, still encourage people to take the vaccines because sky like the BBC, like all mainstream media are 100% in the pocket of the government one way or another. So that's why they're saying that. But you see, I've got an issue with, I've always got issues with these things. I've got an issue with this because I dispute the fact that natural immunity is the important thing. That's what we all have. [18:02] And it's a really good defence mechanism. But they're trying to suggest that, yeah, it's as good as anything the vaccines give you. No, it's much better because the vaccines don't give you any immunity. The vaccines weaken your immune system. They call all these adverse reactions we've just been chatting about. So even in a way, Peter, I can't accept this bit of it, where they're saying, oh, the two jabs isn't any better than having natural immunity. It's way worse. It's way worse because natural immunity, what you've got, what I've got, which a lot of people watching this will have, it's not going to give us myocarditis or Bell's palsy or cripple us or give us infertility issues. None of those things from natural immunity. But, if you take an experimental mRNA jab, then there's a very good chance you might get potentially some of those things. So, you know, yeah, again, I think it's all softness up. So natural immunity. I remember the conversations. Don't you, way back with Fauci and this one and the likes of Chris Whitty, when people did bring up the, you know, the whole thing about, well, you know, natural immunity is very strong and I remember them looking straight into the camera [19:15] and lying and say, no, no, no, no, no, the vaccines, the super duper vaccines are much better. They're, you know, and you look back in it now, and sometimes it's like we've lived through a complete nightmare. And we lived through it. And we were awake and throughout it, you know, and you look back at what they were those guys were saying, and now they're confounded by the very story you put up and that's sky running it, by the way, who were big shells for the jab. So yeah, ultimately it's just interesting to watch this, isn't it? They are big shills. The weird thing is that it talks about the studies, their 65 surveys, but they said it was partially funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. I thought that was a weird comment to include in the story. [20:05] Yeah. Yeah. I wonder, is that Sky covering their backsides? Uncle Bill phones them up and says, what's this? What are you trying to put out? I don't know. It was strange. But I mean, again, it's just ultimately as we both believe and many people watching believe, truth will out and the truth is emerging all the time. And so, you know, all of a sudden, yeah, natural immunity. Oh, it's really quite good. And these vaccines, well, maybe they're not what we told you they were. Maybe they're not. And you give it six months and give it a year. And I just think this is just going to, you know, that's why they have to distract us, Peter. That's why I think with these kind of stories breaking, that's why you've got UFOs over the United States. That's where I, that's why I also think, you know, we have disappearing women near the riverbank in the United Kingdom. I think it's distraction politics. Don't look there, look over there. So they're losing, you know, Zelensky and Ukraine, they're absolutely losing to Russia. So let's not talk about that. And then the COVID truth is emerging, let's not talk about that. Well, no, let's do talk about that. And I'm not, you know, and forget their silly youthful stories, their silly spy balloons and also bizarre stories about missing women. Right. They're not again the myths that just utterly bonkers that story and being the main story and it's random. It just, yeah. [21:33] But anyway, we're enough down the rabbit hole, so let's continue. Yeah, yeah, we can go a lot further than that. We'll go there. Northern Ireland. [21:46] That we are told that it's all going to come good here. GB News reporting Rishi Sunak is saying don't worry, that major announcement coming up. But you don't really buy this. Your comment was the betrayal of Northern Ireland beckons. Yeah, of course it does. I don't believe any of that. No, no. So this is obviously with regard to the Northern Ireland protocol and the fact that the DUP, won't go back into government until essentially the border of the Irish sea is removed. And, we have Sunak and the EU in cahoots with each other. And I think he came over here, Peter, on Friday, Sunak, for a flying visit. And I think that was to try, I mean, all the pro-EU parties seem really happy about it. They're real happy about it. DUP, I think, with good [22:40] reason or asking a lot of sort of we'll have to wait to see all the details. I think what the, see my theory about all of this is that the British government and Boris Johnson, they left Northern Ireland in the single market and subject to the ECJ for a good reason and that was that by leaving, a part of the UK in those areas that that created friction. How do you solve that friction? Well, if the rest of the UK was to be closer linked to the single market and closer linked to the ECJ, then there wouldn't be a problem at all. And I do think that's the end game. I don't know, they're not going to get to it, but that's where they want to get this one. So I reckon I've been here before so often in matters Northern Ireland, they play this game, you know, will there be a deal? Won't there be a deal? Oh, it's one minute to midnight. Oh, you know, all this stuff, all it's all theatre, it's all sort of media hype. And they'll come out with something and they'll try and bounce the DUP in it if they can. And I would hope, and I've spoken to DUP friends and said to them, you know, I think you should stick to what you've said all along. Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom. We shouldn't be treated any differently, no better, but no worse. We shouldn't have borders between us and the rest of our, you know, our fellow British citizens. And so if Sunak [24:06] can't respect that, then we should with all due respect tell the Prime Minister to go and do one because we're not interested. And it looks like there is some Brexiteer resistance within the, Conservative Party still that is similarly inclined to that mindset. So in other words, you know, Prime Minister, treat this part of the UK like everywhere else. Don't try and do [24:28] You know, sort of dodgy deals with the European Union. But yet I think he will try and do a dodgy deal with the European Union. [24:36] Well, what are your thoughts, because obviously following Northern Ireland politics, being, Northern Irish, but watching it from afar over here in London, Jeffrey Donaldson seems to be someone who is invisible. I mean, Arlene Foster was always out there on the media. And my perception is the DUP are completely silent, that they may be very vocal in Northern Ireland, but actually the message doesn't seem to be getting out there. Is that a fair assessment? [25:11] Well, they've got no media friends, you see, that's the problem. So if you take to the local media, the Northern Irish media, I mean, the only time the DUP has come on is to be beaten up. I have sympathies for the DUP. Like for example, like last, I mean here's a small example of the, utter cynicism of the media and the politicians towards the DUP. So they tried to push through a law called Dáithí's Law last week, Dáithí's Law, named after a little six-year-old boy who needed organ transplant. And this law would basically, if it was enabled in Northern Ireland, mean that [25:52] just like the rest of the UK, you would be automatically, the government would have first dabs to your body if you die. At the moment, we've got the much better position where we're naturally opted out, we have to opt in. So that's how it should be. Because there's no way the government should be able to claim that, which it does in England, Scotland and Wales. So that's a position. And what this law would do is bring us in line with the rest of the UK. And of course, it plays on the heartstrings, little boys, you know, they're going to die if they don't get the organ transplant. And the only way that can happen is if the DUP go back into the assembly, appoint a speaker and then enact the law. So to be fair to the DUP, they stood against that bit of emotional blackmail this week. So although Peter they're silent in media terms, [26:46] there's a relative strength still there. And I think electorally, they don't fear an election, unlike the conservatives. So there's good reason for them, hopefully not to cave. But like all political parties, you know this from yourself, there's a spectrum of opinion within each party. So there'll be some people in the DUP saying, well, maybe if it's not too bad a deal, we should go that way. But I think the fear of them then being seen to have compromised and sold out would mean that they'd be punished in the May council elections. So I think the DUP will probably dismiss whatever it is Rishi Sunak and the European Union have, plans. But it does tell you plenty that Sunak's in league with the EU. What more can I say?   You mentioned the story and I read that story and how it came across to me over here was that because an agreement has not been reached, obviously no one can get any transplants anymore, so the whole health system must have stopped. And that's how you get all these people dying because they can't get any transplants. So now you've explained, actually I completely understand. [28:00] What the truth is, but it shows how the media spin it. Well, it absolutely does. I mean, this is the same media that was spinning because of the energy hikes and the government brought out £600 payments to help alleviate. People were saying, oh, unless the assemblies, Northern Ireland Stormont Assembly is put, back in place, no one's going to get anything. We got it all before anyone else in the UK. This is why I'm a great advocate for not having government. I've learned that by not having a functioning government here, things get done better and faster and without the same sort of political grandstanding and all the rest of it. So my sincere hope is that the the assembly is not restored and we continue in Limbo. It's great. [28:44] Now one politician you do like, we all like and miss is this man here, Mr. Donald Trump. This was a, I hadn't actually seen the statement until I saw it on your Twitter page and it, is beautiful. Let me just read this is the statement on, I was going to say the death of Nicola Sturgeon, resignation of Nicola Sturgeon. And Trump says, good riddance to failed, woke, extremist, Nicola Sturgeon of Scotland. This crazed leftist symbol. Oh, it is absolutely beautiful. And this is what we are missing. Trump actually causing chaos in the White House. It's superb. It was the best bet. The whole thing about her resignation. This was the best. But this is the language, this is what makes people love Trump, I think. It certainly makes us love Trump because he absolutely didn't hold back at all. And he mentions, I mean, he's aware of the gender recognition reform, but he's aware of all of that stuff. I thought it was brilliant, Peter. Beautiful, as you say. Absolutely fantastic. And you compare that actually how Trump responded to her resignation to how Rishi Sunak responded saying, Oh, we would like to thank her for her service, blah, blah, blah. [30:09] I thought, you know, there was Trump. I mean, the only thing is he did bring up his golf course. I mean, he can't help these things, can he? Leave your golf, leave your golf course out of it. [30:19] I appreciate probably the SNP weren't helpful to him, but please. There's a difference. But it was otherwise 100 percent brilliant. And that's what we we missed. Those mean tweets. It's about time Donald Trump got himself onto Twitter, because if he's going to get elected, he needs that audience. I agree. He needs to be everywhere as you and I are. So moving on to continuing the politics line, a piece of good news. And I think last week when I had Lewis Brackpool on, I think we just touched on this, mentioned this because it had just come out, but it's all come out now. And this is, you've interviewed her before David. Catholic woman prosecuted for silently praying outside abortion clinic is cleared after arrest by police sparked fury among supporters who condemned thought crime. It's also very good news, but it doesn't really clear up what actually are people's rights or not. But tell us about this because you've spoken to her, you've had Victoria or Isabel on.   Isabel, yeah, yeah. I had Isabel on for a chat there. The thing is, the background is pretty obvious. Was arrested for praying in the vicinity of an abortion clinic, silently. [31:40] And the very fact that that can happen in the UK should cause everyone great concern, you know. And when I spoke with Isabel, I mean, she knew that she was going to be taken to court this month, and they've dropped the case. Because they obviously decided on the balance of evidence that they probably couldn't get her on it. But I'm relieved about that because although having said that, as I did say to her at the time, When she was interviewed by the police and the policeman said to her, are you praying? Do you remember that? And she said, I might be. I might be. And on the basis of her saying, I might be, that's when the arrest was made. Now that's probably illegitimate. Had she said, yes, I was praying, then on the basis of the restriction order, because restriction order does actually say you're not allowed to do anything that could be perceived. So listen, it's a good news story. Let's not take it. I'm so happy for Isabel. I'm sure it's a lot of relief from her. But these kind of orders that they are definitely experimenting with, and maybe this one, they didn't get this one away, but there'll be somebody else and it'll be someone, innocuous, someone like Isabel who's a really decent person, a prayerful person, someone who, [33:04] you know, you couldn't fault the thing that she said. When I did the stream with her, I mean, the response from my viewers, Peter, was universally, this is such a courageous, brave, lady, but why is she being, why is she being, why was she arrested and why is she being prosecuted? And a lot of people outside the UK can't believe that it could happen, but it did. And we need to make sure that, you know, things like this don't reoccur. But ultimately, I'm happy that it's a good result for Isabel. But I hope other people could do it. Like if someone wanted to go and do pray outside an abortion clinic tomorrow, what would happen? And I guess, you know, I don't know. [33:43] It all points back to the politicization of her place and how the police operate in the country. And I think that's a big problem still.   No, it is, it is. And of course all this happening under conservative government, as I do always like to point out, so much for that. And this is, again, this isn't a story about, pro-life or pro-choice, it's a story about freedom of speech and the right to stand on a corner and to pray. So it is about those fundamental freedoms and it's not necessarily about the whole abortion debate. [34:17] It's really exactly, it's not about the abortion debate at all really. I mean if people want to have a silent prayer in the vicinity of, and we talked about this at the time, it's such an, incredibly stupid law. I can't believe that they conceived of this and that councils and whatnot are using it to create these situations around different places, you know. But yeah, it's just and saying, I mean, you mentioned the fact that it's happening under a conservative, government. No, it's not because this isn't a conservative government. These bunch of imposters in the conservative party, almost unilaterally, not maybe all of them, but almost unilaterally, are fake conservatives. I mean, they haven't conservative bone in their body. They don't care about free speech. They don't care about all the things which I reckon that all the patriotic people who would have in times gone by, sort of, were the Conservative Party, believing. They don't care about any of those things. It's all about power, it's all about [35:20] control, it's all about stamping down on free speech. And, you know, so, yeah, so they're not, I just wanted to correct you, they're not really conservatives, they're imposter conservatives. Conservative in name only.   In name only. Cheetos, yeah. Cheetos Peter, yeah. So let's go, you touched on the balloon UFOs, let's touch because there have been new revelations David. And the new revelation is, according to The Sun, that the Chinese spy balloon shot over Alaska last week may have belonged to US amateur ballooning group. I mean this just changes the whole story.   I know, it's clown world. It's absolute clown world. I think with the release of the Epstein papers, which we've now seen all the details on, I, think having narratives like this, which did dominate the media, I mean, it was amazing. And then here we go, Peter, as you say, you've got it up on the screen there. It may have belonged to the US amateur ballooning group. So you know, what he sent up, what was it? [36:24] I can't remember what the aircraft was.   It was an F-22 they sent up, a very expensive trip, a very expensive trip actually. To shoot down a 32-inch balloon. So just a small balloon. [36:40] Yeah, as I pointed out, the real balloon problem is in the White House. It's not up in the 40,000 feet or whatever these balloons were. But yeah, you had all this madness going on in the past week or so, and all these objects being shot down, as you say, at extreme expense. And the White House even initially saying, well, we don't know about the balloons. We don't know where these objects, where they come from. ET phone home. And so they were almost going with the, it could be extra-terrestrial story. And then because that was so ludicrous, then they started to back away from that. And then it was China, China, China. But actually, Peter, what's interesting is back in 2017, 2018, the US was boasting about the fact that it was trialling, [37:30] I don't understand this balloons. I mean, are we going back in time? I mean, do you know what I mean? We got satellites. What do we want balloons for? They were doing balloons as well. So, I mean, it doesn't surprise me that this could be a US balloon. [37:46] I don't know why the Chinese would be wanting to use that kind of tech. But then other people have said, oh, the one that was shot down over the Atlantic, you know, when it got the one that was spotted over Montana by a farmer, how come Norad or how come no US intelligence services were able to tell us about it, but a farmer was able to spot it and make its way all across the, states before being shot down. Some people have said, well, it actually had anti-gravity. I mean, what do you believe? It could go to Mach 5 and have anti-gravity. And I'm thinking, well, if it could do that, how come they shot it down? So I don't know. Look, anything coming out, of the white house, your best advice is just don't believe it. [38:35] I mean, Mach 5, that would be what, three and a half thousand miles an hour. That's the fastest balloon. I don't know if balloons can travel three and a half thousand miles an hour. [38:46] Yeah. I mean, I'll tell you that Phileas Fogg would be envious. He'd be around the world in 80 minutes, never mind 80 days if he was doing that kind of speed. But we still don't really know exactly what went on other than its distraction politics and that's honestly what I really think this whole story was about. It was so bizarre the media all jumped on it Peter as you know over here Rishi Sunak declared that oh yeah there's any of those balloons over the UK I'll not hesitate to send up the, well whatever we've got left of the RAF to shoot them down so I mean your guess is as good as mine what it actually was. But it definitely was a distraction. [39:33] It was. If this was a 32 inch balloon, hobbyist balloon, then it was not the massive thing. But I'll just give you a... So an F-22 being a plane buff, the F-22 Rapture, it actually is around $85,000 per hour to fly it. So that's all it costs. It's a very expensive trip to shut down a hobbyist balloon. That's the first. But I saw a CNN story and the CNN story was they had secretly got into China and secretly gone to somewhere 300 miles away from Beijing to a secret air base and it was making these, balloons and there were all these big... This was a massive investigation by CNN. What? Yeah, it doesn't add up.   Yeah, listen, that's why nobody watches CNN. CNN is a stealth news channel. It doesn't actually have any viewers. It puts out this garbage, probably again to try and prop up the White House fantasy about this here. [40:46] Honestly, I would have thought that China has the technology if it wants to spy. I mean, look, for goodness sake, how many Americans have got TikTok on their phone? If you want to spy, if that's your thing, and I'm sure the Chinese do it, but I'm sure the Americans do it too. If they want to spy, you can do it through a mobile phone. You don't need to put balloons, but I do find the balloon just on the tech side of things. So we're going back. I mean, what next? Pigeons, are we gonna have spy pigeons, that have little cameras attached to them and they've been trained to fly over US military bases, shoot down the pigeons, spot the pigeon, those of a certain age will remember that. Wonderful cartoons, spot the pigeon. So yeah, it's all mad, it's insanity. Again, that's the times in which we live.   Don't give Biden any ideas. He'll be releasing the pigeons. [41:37] This is a story which actually is about two and a half weeks old, but you read posts and I think it's, I don't know if I covered it, so it's good to highlight what is happening. And there's a bit and I didn't realize. And this is log burner rule change in England, could land users with £300 fine. And actually you scroll down and it says that households in England, you're safe over there in Northern Ireland, you can emit your five grams of smoke per hour. But households in England could face fines up to £300 and even criminal records. So, a criminal record. So you've got all these illegal immigrants coming in, you've got all the grooming gangs, and yet the focus from the government is that you can't emit more than three grams of smoke per hour. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I mean, how much hot air does the government emit per hour? This is ridiculous. English people have been burning wood, Peter, since time immemorial. I mean, and these wooden, these burners like that in the picture there that you've got above there in the story. I mean, lots of people have got these. My sister has these in, one of these in her house. And [42:59] people, if anything, were actually encouraged to get these. And now, as you say, you could end up, with a criminal record because you're burning logs in your home to keep warm. And of course, I wonder is this because they want to squeeze us in energy so you can't afford your gas if you're using gas or if you're using oil, you can't afford your oil. So what we're going to do is we're going to just corner off the wood. Don't think you'll go into the forest and forage wood and then use that no no no because we're going to be tracking your smoke emissions and if, they're above X amount as you say then that's a fine. We'll empower the local council to you know to have a never mind a traffic warden, a smoke warden, someone who will go around checking for you know tell-tale signs, coming from your chimney or whatever and yeah slap you with a fine and maybe you could end up with a criminal record because you want to stay warm? [44:01] Are you kidding me? But anyway, yeah, I thought that was, you know, it's another one of these ones, it's England, so it's not here for me. But undoubtedly, you know, when these lunatics get these ideas, they spread out like 15 minute cities. Same idea. Yeah, there was another one on Net Zero and I didn't include although I meant to, which was a post you put up about the cost of breakfasts and talked about a cost of 22% and anyone who goes to buy butter or eggs or milk knows the crazy cost. And I guess we're told that's how we're winning this war. how we're beating Russia by actually meaning we can no longer afford to buy food, butter literally has doubled in the last year as of eggs. And it just, again, I don't think it's us that are winning. Talking to Callum on Thursday and he's just back from his Russia trip. So it seems a Russia winning and not us. Yeah, take that Putin. doubling our inflation, we're going to make it impossible to have, as you say, eggs and [45:11] butter and milk and all these staple foods. And this is why you see that my argument in this as well is that the inflation figures that they play around with are so deceptive. Ordinary people know that [45:26] If they go to, yeah, look, you go to the supermarket, you do your grocery shop, that's when you know what real inflation is. And there you have Peter, you've put it up on the screen, I can see, you know, all these things. Look at the double digit inflation way, way up, 20 plus percent and above. And that's all inflicted on British families by the government's insane sanctions against Putin, which have had this kind of blowback. And we're paying it. And Callum's right. I just put out Russian exports have gone up. Russian imports have gone down. Their economy is much more balanced. [46:11] Specifically Europe, Western Europe, it's committing economic hari-kari to, well, not really to teach Putin a lesson because Putin's happy, I would have thought he sees the state that we're all in. But I feel bad for people who, you know, on fixed income, say pensioners, who have to go to the supermarket. And you mentioned butter there. Like, where are they going to find all that extra money from? Not from their pensions. So where? Well, they don't. So what they do is they scrape and save and they try and make do with less. And that's where my anger against the government comes from. I think of the people, disadvantaged people, the people on fixed incomes, the elderly people, and they live in the real world. You go to the supermarket, Peter, like you have to get your food. And at the same time, they're being hit by huge heating bills. And this is all to teach Putin a lesson. I mean, the only lesson is we should never have gone along with sanctions against Russia. Absolute stupidity but then there's a globalist agenda in place there as we all know. [47:18] But we're all suffering, but of course I'm so glad that Rishi Sunak doesn't have to suffer because I'm sure he doesn't worry if bread's gone up from 80p to £1.50. I'm sure it doesn't really take a dent in his budget. Well if you're married to a billionairess, it probably is something you're going to be able to cope with, you know. But yeah, exactly. I mean, this shows you the detachment of [47:41] a lot of the politicians from ordinary working families, or indeed retired families, either which way. It shows you that they cannot appreciate what must be going through many ordinary people's, household budgets. Like how the hell do we cope with this? How do I feed my kids? How do I do this, that and the other? Because as you showed there, Peter, those are real price increases. So whenever, the BBC tells us, oh, good news, the ONS said inflation is down to 10.1%. Do me a favour. No, we're not buying that. That's another thing we're not buying. We know that on things that really matter to people like food, it's double digit all the way up 20, 30%. And that's not likely to go down anytime soon. Because remember, energy costs and food manufacturing is a big, element of the final bill. So that's why businesses reflect a lot of this in the end price. They have to or they go bust. And they're not being given the level of subsidy, by the way, that they need. So I just think this will stay here for a good bit of, you know, maybe the rest of this year. [48:48] Well, it's good that there wasn't a fixed income. Maybe pensioners will be helping the war by dying of hunger or will die by freezing. That all helps Rishi Sunak. Yeah. The rest of them. It's very noble of them. Yeah. A sacrifice which Rishi wants them to do.   So, onto the NHS. A friend of mine actually didn't, we talked and he was going to go and see the doctor and didn't go because of his concern that he would be forced to have a jab. And if you're maybe older or less mobile, that is a concern. But this is the other concern that you go and this thing appears in front of you. Now that is some mug shot. Oh, that is some mugshot. And this is John Harrell Trans NHS. Just wanted to say how lovely all my colleagues have been in treating me just as one of the, girls. These people used to get help. [49:47] They did and they still need help, but they're not getting it. Instead they're being indulged. I mean, look at this. Just read the rest of that out for everyone there, Peter. So in treating me just one of the girls in my new NHS post, interesting time with one young female patient who wanted to be treated by a female and I felt I need to explain I was a trans female. She's just said, that is fine. You're female. And he wanted a female nurse to treat me. Yeah, things that never happened. Does anyone actually believe that? If I was in an NHS bed and something like that came towards me, honestly, I would be right out of that bed, out of that ward and away down the road. There's no way. But yeah, I mean, NHS trans nurse. And by the way, she says to that, she's got a new NHS post. So this is our wonderful NHS in action, putting people who I would say have got some form of, at least I'll be polite, cognitive dissonance, to put it politely, or mental issues in some regards, it shouldn't be [50:59] treating people, Peter. They should be being treated, I think. But hey, what can you say? That's the NHS. It's good to know what the NHS priorities are, trans nurses. Well worth your taxes.   But David, it is good that you obviously commented if that... thing came along then suddenly it feels much better. Actually it does help with the healing process. It does, it picks it up. Honestly if I was a death door and I seen that angel of death coming towards me I would be gone. So as you say, maybe it's a miracle cure they're going to introduce one of those in every NHS ward and watch those bed occupancy rates go down through the floor as, As everyone legs it. [51:45] David, let's just want to face off for the clip you put up. And the weird thing, this is this is the really weird thing. [51:54] I was looking at this this afternoon and I thought, did I look at this because David tweeted it? I know because you tweeted three hours ago. So I was looking at it completely differently, having a little chuckle. And that is a Monty Python sketch. Oh, yeah. I just thought I would play it as we finish because it is good to end on humour. I'm a little bit confused why I was looking at that as you were as well separately. [52:24] So let's just play this. I think there's a longer for this is just one minute. I'll play this in 60 seconds. But I'll play this. [52:36] Give me a moment. [52:39] I want to be a woman. From now on, I want you all to call me Loretta. What? [52:46] It's my right as a man. Well, why'd you want to be Loretta, Stan? [52:53] I want to have babies. You want to have babies? It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them. But you can't have babies. Don't you oppress me. I'm not oppressing you, Stan. You haven't got a womb. [53:07] Where's the foetus going to gestate? You going to keep it in a box? [53:14] Here, I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans. [53:23] But that he can have the right to have babies. [53:26] Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister, sorry. What's the point? [53:34] What? What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies when he can't have babies? [53:41] It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression. Symbolic of his struggle against reality. Symbolic of his struggle against reality. Great line. Yeah, yeah. We're not going to top that one, Peter. That is the first line. [53:58] No. Yeah, but yeah, that came up on my TikTok, actually. That's where I saw that one. Because I like comedy stuff too, you know. And wasn't that prophetic though? the Pythons did that. So that's from obviously the life of Brian, which came out in 1981, or maybe 79. 79, yeah. Yeah, 79. And I remember going to see that movie way back then, you know, as a child. And it was really, you know, it was really funny and people thought, well, you would never actually have conversations like that. And then 2023, you talked about the trans nurse, you know, and you realize that we are living in a post-Monty Python world whereby the surreal is now being made. We have to believe that it's real. But the payoff from John Cleese is excellent. It's symbolic of his struggle against reality.   Let me put just some comment at the end on GETTR, Tommy AU, you, Canadian mom 1997, Huckle3229 Hisalways Vicky and more. Thank you for tuning in David. Thank you for joining us as always. No, my absolute pleasure. I was having a good laugh. I do think Peter in times of darkness, [55:19] and you know, pressures in all kinds of ways, it's healthy for us to all to laugh, to laugh at the oppressors, to laugh at the tyrants, to laugh at all of this madness. I think it keeps us sane. So I think this has been good for my mental health as well. So thank you for the opportunity and thanks for all the viewers. I recognise a lot of those names. Thank you folks for being here with, Peter as well. I make sure you support Peter by and also make sure you see me on Monday night in in my study at 8 p.m. When we're gonna be talking actually, Peter, with a lovely lady that you and I both met three weeks ago, Charlotte.   Ah, Charlotte, yes.   Because in Countess of Burnley she... [56:05] Baroness of Burnley.   Baroness of Burnley, yeah. Yeah, Charlotte's coming on for an hour of giggles on Monday night, so we'll keep the humour motif going I think for as long as we can.   She's good fun. The viewers will enjoy it. So you can watch either, you can watch that live and then flick over to Hearts of Oak or vice versa, whichever you so wish. So everything is there. But David, thanks for coming on. Thank you so much. Thanks, Peter.   And thank you to all our viewers. Or if you're downloading this listening on the go as a podcast on Podbean or any of the podcasting apps. Thank you so much for listening. And we'll be back with you on Monday with John Waters looking at what's happening in Ireland with the immigration invasion, which one in four hotels are now booked up by immigrants. So it's lovely hospitality has now gone out of control and destroying the country. So tune in for that on Monday. Do you know Peter, Peter, just popping in. I was down in Dublin myself just about a week ago. And did you get a free hotel as well? Well, I was going to say, I was trying, there's a couple of what I would call business hotels where people meet up for coffees and have a chat. [57:22] They're all closed. They are closed and they're only open. They're, they're, they're for essentially, um, well, yeah, the, uh, the immigrants. So it's amazing what's happening. So that should be a great chat with John on Monday night. Look forward to that. And then Charlotte with David also on Monday. So I wish you, our viewers, listeners, wonderful rest of your Saturday. Good weekend. And we'll see you on Monday.  

This week James and Toby discuss how different the last three years would have been if James, and not Chris Whitty, had been the Chief Medical Officer and the fact that during the pandemic it seems Toby was spied upon by the 77th Brigade, a unit of the British Army, as revealed in a new […]

This week James and Toby discuss how different the last three years would have been if James, and not Chris Whitty, had been the Chief Medical Officer and the fact that during the pandemic it seems Toby was spied upon by the 77th Brigade, a unit of the British Army, as revealed in a new report from Big Brother Watch. In other news we cover the tax affairs of the now ex-Chairman of the Conservative Party Nadhim Zahawi (MP for Stratford-on-Avon) and the iniquity of the forthcoming teachers' strike. In Culture Corner, James gives a thumbs up to Season 4 of Fauda (Netflix), Kleo (Netflix), Sharpe's Siege and The Way We Live Now. This week's opening sound is MP Michael Gove commenting on the sacking of Zahawi courtesy of Channel 4 News. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This week James and Toby discuss how different the last three years would have been if James, and not Chris Whitty, had been the Chief Medical Officer and the fact that during the pandemic it seems Toby was spied upon by the 77th Brigade, a unit of the British Army, as revealed in a new report from Big Brother Watch. In other news we cover the tax affairs of the now ex-Chairman of the Conservative... Source

The World Economic Forum is holding their meeting, openly plotting to control the entire world. But, they would never do THAT. Plus, as you will probably been lectured to by professional Republicans or people who celebrate being “moderates”, the WEF is simply a think-tanks with no real power. But, is that really true? How is it, then, that the WEF wanted digital passports and--boom--injection traveling papers? Open borders was a thing they think-tanked and, would you look at that . . . They have been arguing to charge people money for what we exhale and--click--”carbon” taxes. So, what does the WEF want, now? They want us to give up our cars, our ability to grow our own food. But, they would NEVER do that . . .What does God say? The Lord demands that people in power not lord it over others. The NLT cuts it down clearly for the people flying to Davos in private jets where they plot to prevent us from having cars:1 Peter 5:3, NLT: “Don't lord it over the people assigned to your care, but lead them by your own good example.”The Links:Avi Yemini: “I was just THREATENED to be "punched out" by CNBC's Intl. Managing Editor for politely asking him simple questions. These are the THUGS that want to control the world. But he doesn't scare me.” WEF 2023 Opening in Davos Recap. I'm sensing a theme here.Olena Zelenska, First Lady of Ukraine during remarks at the WEF 23 in Davos says how can the world achieve climate neutrality if it can't stop Russian aggression.Klaus Schwab barely finished his opening remarks at WEF 23 and a Swiss MP from the Greens Party is already promoting a 15 minute city style concept where people no longer need cars. Also encourages punishing businesses that don't adhere to climate agreements.The Scottish government plans to reduce car kilometres and discourage car use. They tell us the era of private car use is well and truly over...listen and hear the words for yourself..Washington drivers would pay 2.5 cents per mile under recommendation; Washington state has relied on gas taxes to pay for roads since 1921.Pay per Mile: States Move Toward User-Based Road TaxRFK Jr: "Your chance of dying of a heart attack from that vaccine, according to [Pfizer's] own studies, is 500% greater than if you're unvaccinated. So they knew they were gonna kill a lot of people, and they did it anyway."Lack of statins contributing to excess cardiovascular deaths ? NO. NO. NO. Analysis by @CebmOxford director @carlheneghan supported by former President of the Royal College of Physicians contradicts the claims by Chris Whitty. We know what is a more likely explanation thoughTeacher laughs about bringing “political unrest” in her school by pushing pronouns, showing up with purple hair, and mocking the bible

This is a very disturbing question to ask and I deal in uncomfortable questions. This episode is a continuation of this Substack where I wrote about the Pope being against Christians attempting convert others to following The Lord Jesus. https://thetoddhermanshow.substack.com/p/is-the-pope-christian The links for this episode are in that Subtack. What does God say? He is very, VERY clear:Matthew 28:18-2018 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” Avi Yemini: “I was just THREATENED to be "punched out" by CNBC's Intl. Managing Editor for politely asking him simple questions. These are the THUGS that want to control the world. But he doesn't scare me.” WEF 2023 Opening in Davos Recap. I'm sensing a theme here.Olena Zelenska, First Lady of Ukraine during remarks at the WEF 23 in Davos says how can the world achieve climate neutrality if it can't stop Russian aggression.Klaus Schwab barely finished his opening remarks at WEF 23 and a Swiss MP from the Greens Party is already promoting a 15 minute city style concept where people no longer need cars. Also encourages punishing businesses that don't adhere to climate agreements.The Scottish government plans to reduce car kilometres and discourage car use. They tell us the era of private car use is well and truly over...listen and hear the words for yourself..Washington drivers would pay 2.5 cents per mile under recommendation; Washington state has relied on gas taxes to pay for roads since 1921.Pay per Mile: States Move Toward User-Based Road TaxRFK Jr: "Your chance of dying of a heart attack from that vaccine, according to [Pfizer's] own studies, is 500% greater than if you're unvaccinated. So they knew they were gonna kill a lot of people, and they did it anyway."Lack of statins contributing to excess cardiovascular deaths ? NO. NO. NO. Analysis by @CebmOxford director @carlheneghan supported by former President of the Royal College of Physicians contradicts the claims by Chris Whitty. We know what is a more likely explanation thoughTeacher laughs about bringing “political unrest” in her school by pushing pronouns, showing up with purple hair, and mocking the bible

IShow 98 called 'The Emperor's New Clothes', due to the obvious nonsense we're living through.In Pt1 we talk about Whitney Webb's New books about Epstein, ROD STEWART's son who had a suspected heart attack but now says it was a panic attack, UK natural population set to start to decline by 2025, The Earthshot Prize, Strep-A & The New Strep-A Vaccine being developedIn Pt2 we discuss, more sudden deaths, Thames Water profits near £400m, Chris Whitty warns Britain faces 'prolonged period' of excess deaths, Dr Angus Dalgleish flipflops about Boosters, Bill Gates Video Death Panels, Britain's birth rate in peril.VIDEOS AND AUDIO RECORDINGS ARE USED UNDER 'FAIR USEAGE UNDER UK COPYWRITE LAW'As an exception to British copyright law, fair dealing is governed by Sections 29 and 30 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, which outlines three instances where fair dealing is a legitimate defence:If the use is for the purposes of research or private study.If it is used for the purposes of criticism, review, or quotation.Where it is utilised for the purposes of reporting current eventshttps://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/part/I/chapter/II*We only use information already in the public domain, and any assumptions we make are our opinions, they are not fact*

Welcome to our weekend jaunt into the news, headlines and talking points that have caught our eye over the past seven days, and we are delighted to welcome a previous guest and a good friend of Hearts of Oak, Karen Siegemund. As the president of 'American Freedom Alliance' Karen has her finger on the pulse of what's really going on, so we look forward to hearing her thoughts and opinions on the topics up for discussion this episode.... - Let us pray. Quadruple jabbed Bill Clinton has Covid. - Ukraine to prepare law banning churches that are 'affiliated' with Russia. - Unsolved murder rate in the US is the highest in decades amid police staffing shortfalls. - The EU raises the prospect of a big fine or a ban if Twitter fails to follow new legislation. - Former Trump advisor goes public with story of Kanye West/Trump dinner at Mar-a-Lago. - California panel estimates $569 billion in reparations is owed to black residents. - New data shows nearly half of all transgender criminals in prison are guilty of sex crimes. - Chris Whitty warns UK faces 'prolonged period' of excess deaths due to lockdown effects. - Nurse who injected up to 8,600 patients with saline solution instead of the Covid clot shot walks free from court. As the daughter of a man who grew up in Hitler's Berlin, Dr Karen Siegemund has always been keenly aware of how precarious freedom is, and how tyranny typically begins not with a revolution, but with a slow erosion of rights and freedoms. For this reason, Karen has dedicated her life to fighting against this erosion on every level. During the Cold War, Dr. Siegemund worked in the field of underwater acoustics, developing new sonar systems and testing them during sea trials around the world. After the defeat of the Soviet Union she turned her sights first to earning a Master's Degree in International Relations, then a doctorate degree in “Education and American Culture.” Recognizing that only with an educated citizenry could we hope to maintain our freedoms, she became an educator; for over ten years she has taught in a number of areas, from Latin and French to Science and Mathematics, at the middle school, high school and University levels. Along with these specific academic disciplines, of course, she strives to educate her students about the values that make Western Civilization generally, and America specifically, as exceptional as we are. As another result of the recognition that totalitarianism creeps in with baby steps, and that our media has been complicit in its advance rather than the bulwark against it that it us supposed to be, Karen had founded and was president of “Rage Against the Media,” an activist group in Los Angeles which fought against the propagandistic nature of our news media. Since becoming the President of the American Freedom Alliance, she's been part of the fight against a longer list of encroachments on our freedom, and has been hosting exceptional events ranging from World-Class Conferences to Literary Cafes, Lectures to Movie Premieres, all on topics relating to Freedom, how it's being attacked and how we can preserve it. She has also paid a price for the position she takes in defense of Western Civilization and for her political activity outside the classroom. Karen became a victim of the very “cancel culture” she warned about when her teaching position at a local private school was not renewed. Among countless articles, the Epoch Times ran a feature article about her, and she was a guest on The Huckabee Show, a frequent speaker at clubs, organizations and events, and is published in a wide range of publications. The American Freedom Alliance is a non-partisan, non-profit organization which promotes, defends and upholds Western values and ideals. AFA sponsors conferences, publishes opinions, distributes information and creates networking groups to identify threats to Western civilization and to motivate, educate and unite citizens in support of that cause. American Freedom Alliance links Website https://americanfreedomalliance.org/ YouTube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_mKQpt648ouOD7SuotFhSA GETTR https://gettr.com/user/americanfreedomalliance Facebook https://www.facebook.com/AmericanFreedomAlliance/ Twitter https://twitter.com/AFAlliance Vimeo https://vimeo.com/afa Originally broadcast as a live video news review 3.12.22 *Special thanks to Bosch Fawstin for recording our intro/outro on this podcast. Check out his art https://theboschfawstinstore.blogspot.com/ and follow him on GETTR https://gettr.com/user/BoschFawstin To sign up for our weekly email, find our social media, podcasts, video, livestreaming platforms and more go to https://heartsofoak.org/connect/ Links to stories..... Bill Clinton Covid https://twitter.com/BillClinton/status/1598031920642011136?s=20&t=YgZ5NrTB_ogTMouug6Jg_Q Ukraine churches https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-orders-probe-into-russian-linked-church-says-zelenskiy-2022-12-01/ Murder rate in US https://thepostmillennial.com/unsolved-murder-rate-in-us-highest-in-decades-amid-police-staffing-shortfalls?utm_campaign=64483 EU Twitter https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/nov/30/eu-raises-prospect-of-big-fine-or-ban-if-twitter-fails-to-follow-new-legislation Ye-Trump dinner https://thepostmillennial.com/former-trump-advisor-goes-public-with-story-of-ye-trump-dinner-at-mar-a-lago?utm_campaign=64483 California reparations https://nypost.com/2022/12/02/california-panel-estimates-569-billion-in-reparations-is-owed-to-black-residents Transgender criminals https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11492797/Four-10-transgender-criminals-prison-guilty-sex-crimes-new-data-shows.html?ito=native_share_channel-home-preview Chris Whitty https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/chris-whitty-warns-uk-faces-28636391 Nurse walks free https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/anti-vaxxer-nurse-who-injected-up-to-8600-patients-with-saline-instead-of-covid-vaccine-walks-free/ar-AA14MOrA?ocid=mailsignout&li=AAnZ9Ug

This lecture looks at the very optimistic picture of trends in health around the world. Childhood deaths and the diseases of young adults are falling rapidly. Scientific advances are transforming the major chronic diseases and cancer. In low, middle and high income countries, health is improving through to old age. There are some major exceptions, such as dementia, but the extraordinary advances in health over the last decades is set to continue.A lecture by Chris WhittyThe transcript and downloadable versions of the lecture are available from the Gresham College website:https://www.gresham.ac.uk/watch-now/future-healthGresham College has been giving free public lectures since 1597. This tradition continues today with all of our five or so public lectures a week being made available for free download from our website. There are currently over 2,000 lectures free to access or download from the website.Website: http://www.gresham.ac.ukTwitter: http://twitter.com/GreshamCollegeFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/greshamcollegeInstagram: http://www.instagram.com/greshamcollege

As the crisis deepens in Ukraine and the West seeks to wean itself off Russian oil and gas, Adam takes a deep dive with Russia analyst Angela Stent, and her husband Daniel Yergin, a global energy expert. The couple are also put through Newscast's Mr and Mrs quiz. Nazanin Zaghari-Radcliffe has spoken publicly for the first time, saying her case could have been resolved six years ago. And Jonathan Van-Tam takes Chris Whitty to the football. This edition of Newscast was made by Tim Walklate with John Murphy and Alix Pickles. The technical producer was Emma Crowe. The assistant editor was Sam Bonham.

The mums are back from an extended break and feel no shame about the extra "me" time. They're entering into 2022 with the same witty banter, the same witty kids and the same Chris Whitty advising us on you-know-what! Grab a cupper...or a bottle, as announcements are made and resolutions are laid.www.blackmumsupfront.comwww.instagram.com/blackmumsupfronthttps://instagram.com/_carinawhhttps://instagram.com/natsduvhttps://instagram.com/nanaadwoambeutcha

小額贊助支持本節目： https://pay.firstory.me/user/linshibi 英國確診創疫情以來新高：Delta和Omicron兩種病毒同時流行 1.前幾天強生形容Omicron如巨浪來襲之後，不出所料，12月15日星期三，英國創下了疫情以來單日確診新高：78,610例。之前的紀錄是今年1月8日的68,053例，當時英國在封城中。 2.目前Omicron在新確診中的占比逐漸提升到了近25%，也就是說英國單日可能新增了大約2萬例Omicron確診。 3.首席醫療官Chris Whitty表示之後幾週這個新紀錄可能還會繼續創新高。英國等於正在經歷Delta和Omicron兩種病毒同時大流行，Delta還是有一定程度比較平的流行，但加上了一個Omicron進來。他預期在聖誕節後，因Omicron住院的病患會開始增加。 4.他也表示對於南非近日發表的Omicron較不容易重症的解讀要很小心。南非研究顯示Omicron住院率的確好像降低了一些，但就算你降了一半，但現在每兩天案例就翻倍，同樣還是有可能癱瘓醫療的。且南非的自然感染狀況超高，前一波Delta染疫者較多，再加上疫苗，之後一波重症比例較少是可以預期的。英國則可能是一年前Alpha染疫的人較多，而後自然感染加上疫苗的效果也看到針對Delta期住院和重症比例有降低，但免疫力可能會隨時間過去，因此在南非觀察到的狀況和英國可能會有所不同。不容易重症可能是因為之前的免疫力，不一定是病毒本身特性的改變。 5.倫敦衛生與熱帶醫學院做出了模型預估，住院的尖峰可能發生在一月中以後。去年冬天最嚴重時單日住院曾達到3768人，而根據最樂觀的估計，可能會達到2000人，但如果帶入較悲觀的估計，最嚴重有可能超過每日6000人。主要差別在於，Omicron的重症率，需要住院的比例到底為何。 6.強生表示，不會像去年冬天一樣取消聖誕節活動，但要民眾自己小心防疫。首席醫療官則是語帶保留的希望大家做出對自己和家人最好的選擇，不要接觸太多不重要的人，拜訪容易新冠重症的家人前請先自我做檢測.....意思就是這個冬天還是不要亂跑啦.... 04b解讀： 1.BBC記者提出一個觀點我覺得值得參考，這次Omicron取代Delta的過程，可能和Delta取代Alpha不太一樣。因為Omicron可以讓已經打過疫苗還有得過自然感染的更多人再度染疫，因此這兩個病毒可能會共存一段時間，Delta不一定會馬上消失。 2.目前英國60歲以上族群第三針已經打了88%，整體成人也超過45%。進展的滿快的。接下來英國的疫情絕對是大家要仔細觀察的重中之重。 3.Omicron到底是圓是扁，重症比例如何，打加強針在實戰有沒有效，他會多久取代掉Delta？未來一個月，英國應該會給我們較清楚的答案。 Omicron變種病毒懶人包 傳染力 重症 疫苗有效性 要打加強針嗎？ https://linshibi.com/?p=39815 歡迎追蹤前台大感染科醫師。04b的發聲管道！ 我的電子名片 https://lit.link/linshibi 希望大家當我的種子教師，推廣正確的新冠衛教。科學防疫，不要只以恐懼防疫！ 歡迎贊助林氏璧孔醫師喝咖啡，讓我可以在這個紛亂的時代，繼續分享知識努力做正確新冠相關衛教。 https://pay.firstory.me/user/linshibi Powered by Firstory Hosting

Fluoride isn't what you've been told! Fluoride will be added to UK drinking water to cut tooth decay. Chief medical officers Chris Whitty, estimates that more mineral in water would reduce cavities by 28% among poorest children. But Fluoride is actually a POISON and classed as a TOXIC WASTE! Prof. Paul Connett, Professor of Chemistry at St. Lawrence University in New York, gives a damning interview on the history of water fluoridation, the collusion of major industries to put certified toxic waste into your drinking water, and why government health authorities refuse to conduct scientific studies into the dangers of fluoridation. After listening to this podcast, you will never look at tap water the same way again. Connett describes how he initially thought poorly of people who opposed fluoridation, before conducting his own research, by which he found that sodium fluoride was a toxic substance that contributed to a wide array of health defects. Heavy industry is barred from dumping this toxic waste into the sea by international law, but being able to sell it enables them to remove its hazardous characteristic and it becomes a product, explains Connett, polluting not only our water supply but also toothpaste and thousands of different foods. Connett provides a detail run down of the many health problems caused by fluoride consumption, including dental fluorosis, which the Centers For Disease Control just recently announced was a problem for 41 per cent of children aged 12-15 in the United States, clearly indicating that children are being over-exposed to fluoride and that this is affecting other tissues and organs in the body, including bone disorders, a problem also wreaking havoc amongst adults in the United States as one in three now suffer from arthritis, which again is being caused by a build-up of toxic fluoride in the body. Connett also points to fluoride's connection with thyroid disorders. There have now been over 100 studies involving animals which show that fluoride damages the brain, stresses Connett, which is a particular concern for newborn babies who are susceptible to fluoride build up because of their weak blood-brain barrier. Connett cites numerous studies which prove a link between moderate exposure to fluoride and lowered IQ in children. Fluoride's impact on the pineal gland, which is a piece of brain tissue that sits in-between the two hemispheres of the brain, is key because fluoride attracts to this gland like a magnet. Researchers have found through animal studies that fluoride lowers the ability of the pineal gland to produce the hormone melatonin, which in turn shortens the time it takes to reach puberty, correlating with studies of fluoridated communities that show girls are on average menstruating 5 months earlier than those in non-fluoridated communities. Children are entering puberty at increasingly early stages and this is causing widespread concern, but health authorities have made no effort whatsoever to conduct any studies regarding this development and its link to fluoride. For more information: https://fluoridealert.org -------------------------------- ♦️ Free live events and workshops every week at www.formulaeq.com Subscribe and Share This Podcast

Church of England vicars Daniel and Jamie sit down to talk about: totalitarianism in Scripture and in our world today; the Covid vaccinations being approved for 12-15 year-olds by Chris Whitty; recent confusion over vaccine passports; and the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Pope and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew's recent foray into world events, 'A Joint Message for the Protection of Creation'.Our Scripture this week is taken from Daniel 3, the incident of the fiery furnace.Daniel's three book recommendations are: Rowan Williams, Looking East in Winter; Michael Ward, After Humanity; and Sohrab Ahmari, The Unbroken Thread: Discovering the Wisdom of Tradition in an Age of Chaos.Notices:Thanks to our Patreons! Support us from £1.50 plus VAT per month: https://patreon.com/irreverendIrreverend Weekly Sermon Audio: https://irreverendsermonaudio.buzzsprout.comTwitter: https://twitter.com/IrreverendPodTelegram: https://t.me/irreverendpodEmail: irreverendpod@gmail.comYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMAcRZPstCujEN4p8dF_ClQOdysee: https://odysee.com/@irreverend:5Audio Podcast: https://irreverend.buzzsprout.comLinks:Get your children vaccinated against Covid, parents are told Johnson confused about vaccine passportsWelby, Francis and Bartholomew statement on climate changeSupport the show (https://www.patreon.com/irreverend)

I'm going to start, as I do with all the authors that we have on this podcast, by asking you, Gillian, the audience we're aiming at here is people who are interested in how we can do a better job at improving the state of the world and who are interested in public service in some way. And the question to you is, in a sentence, why should people, our audience, read your book?Gillian Tett (GT): In a sentence, most of the problems in policy making and corporate life, and as general citizens, stem from the fact that we have tunnel vision. We can't see the consequences of what we're doing or the context. And I believe that cultural anthropology is one discipline that can really help you overcome tunnel vision, and get lateral vision, a wider view of how our actions impact the world.MB: Now, you've written a fantastically wide-ranging book. I mean, it starts with you as a young student in Tajikistan, studying marriage rituals under a communist state in a Central Asian country. But you go across everything from the Cambridge Analytica scandal and trying to make sense of Trump, the financial crisis back in 2008, the emergence of ESG [Environmental, Social, and Governance] and impact investing, more recently, and sort of interesting issues in car manufacturing and consumption habits and all sorts of things. But can you start us off with what drew you to anthropology in the first place, and how you found yourself in Tajikistan and why that actually led you into journalism, which is where you have spent your career?GT: Well, I got into anthropology, like many things in life, by accident. I wanted to have adventure and travel the world, and I was curious about the wider world, which is something that I hope we teach all of our kids to be. And so, I studied anthropology as an undergraduate, then went to do a Ph.D. in it, and ended up in a place called Soviet Tajikistan, just north of Afghanistan, where I was studying marriage rituals as a way to look at the clash between Islam and communism. And just at the end of my research, the Soviet Union broke up. There was a very brutal war where I'd been living. So, I went to journalism partly because I was frustrated that no one was paying attention, and I wanted to draw attention to it for human rights reasons. But I then quickly realized, actually, the business of telling people about other people can be, in some ways, quite similar to anthropology, but also a way to try and drive some change in the wider world as well.MB: So, it's a very natural follow up to your previous book, The Silo Effect, where you talk about the problem that people lock themselves into siloed thinking and here you talk a lot about lateral vision, this ability to sort of see things from multiple perspectives, but also to see yourself as others might see you. You know, if there's a single message about anyone going into public policy work or policymaking, what is it that anthropology teaches them?GT: I think this single message can be presented in two ways. One, is to think about culture. And that kind of sounds obvious because we all know we're affected by our culture. But defining culture is a bit like chasing soap in the bath. It's kind of everywhere, but nowhere. And we know it affects us, but we don't actually have many ways to think about how to reflect on that. And what I offer in the book is really an argument that we all need to take a three-step process. Periodically, immerse ourselves in the lives of others or people who seem different from us. And that being different can be at the end of the street, in a different department, or the other side of the world. And to do that to get empathy not just for others and realize that not everyone thinks like us, but also then to fit the lens and look back at ourselves and see what we're missing. And see above all else, the kind of social silences, the parts of our world that we tend to ignore, because they seem boring or dull or irrelevant or just too obvious to talk about. So, in many ways, the second way, I think I'd frame it is to say that anthropology gives you lateral vision in a world of tunnel vision. It enables you to see the context, the cultural context, beyond our models, or balance sheets, or simple policy programs. And when you wrap those different points together, what anthropology really gives you is an awareness that if you are engaged in public policy, you need to look at the world in a connected way, with empathy, both for others and a sense of empathy for understanding all the shortcomings in your own approach.MB: You have a very interesting chapter on contagion where you start with the Ebola crisis in Africa. And actually, with a character, Chris Whitty, who went on to be quite a central figure in the British response to this current pandemic that we're going through. You also cite Paul Farmer [co-founder of Partners in Health] in this in this context. At various points, you note that a lot of the international aid failures around Ebola were due to not thinking through and understanding the culture of people on the ground. But then you flip it, I think very nicely, and talk about how we didn't necessarily do a good job of understanding our own culture when we were pushing many of the public health messages that needed to be communicated as we responded to the crisis. In fact, Chris Whitty himself didn't necessarily do a brilliant job in the U.K. I mean, I'm wondering, as you reflect now, on how we've responded to the pandemic, what should we if we brought an “Anthro-Vision” approach to it, should we have done differently?GT: Well, I think, that we could have done two things differently. The first is to actually be curious about people who seem different from us and try and learn lessons from how they've handled pandemics in the past. This is a fundamental point in my book, that actually it pays to embrace strange, not run away or deride it. And to ask questions and be curious about how other people live. If we'd had that mentality at the beginning of COVID-19, it could and should have prompted policymakers to pay more attention to Wuhan. Look at the experience of SARS. Look at what happened with Ebola in West Africa. Not just assume it was a bunch of strange, weird people in a faraway place that had nothing to do with us. Because the reality is that the pandemic has shown us the world is interconnected and prone to contagion at all times and contagions come from people who we don't necessarily understand. And if nothing else, we need to try and understand that to, you know, protect ourselves. I happen to think there's a moral reason why we ought to try and understand each other. But if you want to just play to fear and greed, that's it. But separately, if we had actually paid more attention to lessons from other countries at the beginning of COVID, we might have learned some really good lessons and tips. Like the efficacy of masks, that was well-known by anthropologists from the SARS epidemic in Asia. And what they'd learned was actually the way a mask helps in an epidemic is not just through the physical barrier of germs, but also through the simple act of putting on a mask each day as a psychological prompt to remind you to change behavior, or the fact that masks can be a signaling device culturally to show adherence to a wider group of norms, and a desire to uphold civic responsibility. And that really matters and it could and should have been imported into the West a lot earlier. But the flip side is, of course, that thinking about how other countries handled an epidemic enables you to then look back at yourself, too, and say, “well are we making the right decisions or not?” So again, a tiny example is that in the U.K., there was a tremendous focus on top-down messaging and orders and coercion in terms of trying to change behavior during the COVID-19 lockdown. The messaging was very often conflicting and changeable. And the U.K. didn't use its existing excellent network of health centers, which were bottom-up local areas, which they should have done. If they'd looked at the experience or something like Ebola or even Asia with SARS and others, they would have seen what a mistake that was. And they would have actually asked themselves, you know, “why are we in the U.K. not using our wonderful local network of healthcare providers to try and battle the pandemic, you know, get messages about lockdown across in the way that people feel empowered, and want to relate to?” You know, “what can we do better?”MB: And I mean, this theme of top down versus bottom up is another theme that comes throughout the book. And particularly in a chapter that you start in Davos with the gathering of the World Economic Forum (WEF), where we've both been there many times. And it's hard to imagine a more top-down orientation than the global elite gathered in Davos. What do you feel if Klaus Schwab [founder of the World Economic Forum] was to say, “Gillian, tell me how I should change WEF so that we can get Anthro-Vision at WEF?” What would you say to him?GT: I would say two or three things. Firstly, look at the Davos tribe with an anthropological lens and see all the elitism, see the networking, and see above all else, how it often encourages people to ignore other people's points of view. You know, you need to probably get people who are not part of the Davos elite into the room much more effectively and get their views actually embedded into the conversation. Recognize that not everything can be solved through top-down analysis in the form of big datasets, economic models, corporate balance sheets, political polls. Those can be very useful, but you need to supplement top-down models and intellectual tools with some bottom-up analysis that looks at qualitative, not just quantitative metrics. I'm not saying that, you know, anthropology has all the answers, but I'm saying it's a really useful way to conduct checks and balances to provide other perspectives into a conversation. Or to use another metaphor, you know, most of the tools we use today to look at the world, our bird's eye views, those taken from 30,000 feet. Anthropology basically cherishes a worm's eye view, a bottom-up view. And that can be incredibly important.MB: You touch on that issue a lot. One of the questions I would have is why is it that we're so dismissive? I mean, it seems by now, we should be recognizing that we operate in silos. I mean, you wrote a book about this many years ago, it seems to be a well-observed effect. And yet, you actually quote this one point, a famous author pointed out that getting people to understand when their job depends on not understanding it is actually very hard. Is that what's going on, that our policymakers, our leaders are locked into this? They have too many incentives to ignore the general view, so they certainly don't go down to the worm's eye view?GT: I think the reality is that someone in the book asks "why, dude, don't more companies hire anthropologists” or look at themselves, not other people? One reason is that what anthropologists say often make people uncomfortable. Because if you're part of the elite, if you are in a position of power, you tend to be there not just by controlling economic capital by making money, or political capital, net worth of power. You shape cultural capital in the sense that you have a belief system, which often reaffirms the social order and makes it seem natural, that elites are in charge. And that's very comforting. But the reality is that, you know, every society has creation myths and cultural frameworks, which might prop up the position of the elite, but are often full of contradictions and leave people prone to tunnel vision. And that's why we need to challenge them. To give you a couple of tangible examples, before 2008, financiers working in the field of financial innovation derivatives had this wonderful creation myth about how innovation was going to make the financial system safer, because they were going to create perfectly liquid markets, where risk was dispersed. And that was riddled with contradictions when you dug into it. But the people who were peddling it couldn't see it, because they were such a tribe set apart, such a tunnel, they had so little challenge. So, the value of anthropology to come in and say, "well, this is what you're not looking at". It offers checks and balances above all else.MB: You have this very interesting discussion of Trump and how the media and many people in the global elite missed what it was that gave him a connection to so many voters and particularly you focus on this word "bigly" that he used and how the elite was sneering at this interesting linguistic "cofefe", I guess you might call it. But what is it that we should now be thinking about the Trump tribe who, again, I think, in the elite, there was this feeling that January 6th and the storming of the Capitol would, you know, would somehow bring the Republican base to its senses, whereas the opposite seems to be the case? Are we failing again, to understand what's really going on with the Trump tribe?GT: What I write about in the book about the elite and Trump is really a sort of mea culpa on my part because when I heard the word bigly in one of the debates I laughed, too, instinctively. Laughter is always very revealing, because it reveals the social group boundaries, you know, you have to be in a group to get a joke. If you're not in a group, you don't get the joke. And laughter tends to reveal unresolved contradictions in our own cultural patterns, or ones we don't talk about. And what laughing about the word bigly really revealed was that the ingroup of journalists tended to assume and take for granted that to be in a position of power and have credibility, you had to have command of language. And in some ways, you know, having command of language and being educated, you know, has hitherto been one of the few accepted forms of snobbery in America. And the reality is that lots of people find that very irritating, and they resent it. But the fact that I was part of the in group that laughed, meant that I kind of was failing to see what a lot of Trump supporters and voters were actually seeing in Trump and applauding, which was that he spoke in a way that used not just so much words, more a kind of performance, ritualistic style of communication, that connected very deeply with a lot of his base. I write in the book that a lot of it was borrowed from the world of wrestling, in fact, in terms of how it tapped into emotions, and had stage mock fights and things like that, which was, again, a set of performative cultural messaging and signaling that was very familiar to Trump voters, but not elite journalists for the most part. So, I missed a lot of Trump's appeal because I didn't really get it on an emotional level, because of my own tribalism. I tried to counter that by listening to people in 2016. And that did in fact that help me see the likely victory of Donald Trump.MB: You were certainly one of those people who was, I mean, actually you're harsh on yourself in the book, because you say you missed the Brexit vote, but on both Brexit and Trump's victory, I heard you saying that you were quite concerned that would be the result before they happened. Do you feel now that there's this danger that we still haven't learned that lesson about Trump and his appeal to his tribe?GT: I think there's a danger even today, that we fail to see that what we're dealing with in America today is not just a political split, but an epistemological split. And that sound like a very big grandiose word or at leastMB: A bigly word, I guess.GT: A bigly word definitely. An epistemological split means, basically, a split in the system of knowledge, in how we communicate and actually reason. And anyone who has been trained for years in education, as I have been, tends to have a rational, logical one direct mindset in terms of evaluating knowledge, and to take things fairly literally and to try and pass them. And, you know, that's a very valid mindset. But it's not the only mindset out there. There's another type of mindset out there, which is much more about impressionistic, emotional, holistic reading of situations. And, you know, looking at performative signaling, and that's the mindset that Trump uses as much of the time. In the book, I talk about the difference between weird and non-weird cultures meaning “Western, educated, individualistic, rich, and democratic.” That's the use of man called Joseph Henrich, who is brilliant, who looked at these different modes of reasoning. And I think even today that when we talk about political splits, we need to recognize that there's a part of America that's responding to events like the January 6th events at Capitol Hill, not through one-dimensional, logical reasoning, passing, etc., that we value as journalists, but instead through much more emotional, impressionistic, performative, signaling patterns. I see the same truth in other areas as well, by the way. I mean, you can't hope to make sense of say, some of the mean cultures erupting in the financial markets, unless you recognize that there's performative signaling going on that can be very potent, but which can't be passed through any economic economist's model of rational expectations, or any kind of portfolio allocation approach to mind.MB: Now you talk at various points about the media as a tribe, and maybe a tribe that it's got its own narrative a little out of whack or doesn't look at itself through a lateral lens. I mean, what do you feel is the biggest danger that the media has at the moment, in terms of how it might go, you know, way off track in understanding how the world is going at the moment?MB: Well, I do look at the media, because I think we have to be honest as journalists, and if we're going to analyze other people, we have to analyze ourselves. And the real issue is, I do think we should realize how we're tribal how we're creatures of our own environment. And how, in many ways the sheer polarization in America and the attacks in the media have intensified the sense of tribalism. And that affects us in two ways. Firstly, in terms of how we define stories, and what stories we look at, and how we communicate them. And, you know, I think that in many ways, it's natural that we're tribal, everyone's tribal, it's part of human nature. But it has been exacerbated also by the competitive pressures afoot in journalism today, where essentially, there's a very crowded marketplace for information. So, there's a presumption that you have to shout loudly to get attention. There's a presumption that you have to try and get a really sticky audience, which tends to force people to take quite extremist views. Journalists are under tremendous time pressure. So, they tend to gravitate towards the areas of social noise, the things that are easy to see, and ignore the really important areas of social silence. And also journalists tend to have silos within their own news operations, which reflect a ton of silos in the outside world. You know, we have banking teams, and political teams and legal teams. Stories often fall between the cracks, and sometimes get caught, sometimes not. So, in an ideal world, you know, journalists would be given a lot more money, and the ability to go forth and roam and collide with the unexpected and look at social sciences. They'd be encouraged to try and communicate with audiences in ways that didn't just reaffirm existing prejudices. I mean, you can connect with where the audience's head is up front, as if you're playing dominoes. And match one half a domino to someone else's domino, but then you can take them somewhere else, with a second piece of a domino if you like. And in an ideal world, you'd have journalists who were able to, essentially, you know, get out of their own mental tunnels and explore different points of view. But that's hard to do with the media under such pressure. And when essentially, there's constant demand to create quick hits and returns in the form of stories that meet the normal pattern.MB: So, you're optimistic that journalism will change or are you quite fearful about it?GT: I hope journalism tries and changes. And one of the things that does make me more optimistic is a checks and balances are emerging. Partly because the sheer plurality of voices coming through, partly because we're seeing new models of journalism coming through, like investigative units funded by donations by ProPublica, in podcasts, and in other forms that are actually creating ways to have checks and balances. But I'm concerned about the degree to which it has become politicized and polarized. And above all else, I'm concerned that not enough journalists are flipping the lens and looking back at their own tribe and trying to work out how that is creating a sense of tunnel vision.MB: Now, one of the big trends that's been going on for the past few years has been to see business and finance as a way of making the world better in some ways, you know, through ESG and impact investing and so forth. And that's attracted a number of people who probably would have gone into traditional public service in government in the past, to think they can drive change, positive change through business and investing. And you founded Moral Money at the Financial Times. But in the book, you're quite candid, that initially, you used to roll your eyes at the letters ESG. And so, what caused you to change? And how substantial do you think this phenomenon is? Is it really going to deliver the goods or is it still more in the greenwashing/stakeholder washing category than real change?GT: Well, I initially used to call ESG, "eyeroll, sneer, and groan," because I thought it was basically about corporate BS. And that's the way the most journalists think. And so, I just missed it. I used to delete all the emails about ESG. And then I finally thought you know what, that's my view about what ESG is, as a journalist, who is paid to be cynical. I should at least try and listen to what the people's view is of the people who are trying to do ESG. And when I try to look at the world through their eyes, I realized that there was a bigger Zeitgeist shift going on, which was really to do with the fact that ESG had started out as a, you know, campaign to change the world in a really positive active way, which was very laudable, driven by, you know, nuns and Danish pension funds and people like that. But by 2016/2017, which is when I began to look at it, it was also being driven for the most part by a desire amongst companies and executives and finances to save themselves, and essentially engage in risk management, because people were increasingly realizing that if they ignored things like environmental risk or gender issues and sexual harassment, slavery in the supply chain, they could end up suffering reputational damage, regulatory controls, loss of employees, clients, customers, investors, etc. And you can be cynical and say, "Well, listen, that's just, you know, very hypocritical in the part of ESG it is just a way for companies to engage in self-defense at a time when radical transparency and changing societal norms, and it's all just for show.” Or you can say, “actually, it's pretty amazing that ESG has gone so mainstream, that companies feel they even need to talk about it or make the effort to do it.” And that, you know, revolutions succeed, not when a tiny, committed minority of activists are screaming, but when the silent majority thinks they need to go along with a change, because it's dangerous to resist it. And I think that's where we are with ESG right now. Does that mean there is a lot of greenwashing, woke washing, reputation washing? Yes, there is some. Does it mean that the rituals of ESG, to be anthropological, don't match up with the reality? Yes, quite often. But you know, anthropologists believe that rituals are interesting, because they show an idealized version of what people think the world should be like. And the very fact that people have a different idealized version today from what it was 30 years ago, I think is very interesting. And overall, what is striking is that, you know, as say, fossil fuel emissions become less acceptable, you're actually seeing that feed through to changes in the cost of capital for energy companies, and dashboards embracing renewables, and a change in actual corporate behavior, to a degree. I can't stress strongly enough you need government action too. You know, companies alone, ESG alone, are not going to fix problems. But if people are all rowing roughly in the same direction, and cultural norms are changing, it makes it easier to both force government action, and potentially to do business and financial action as well that's going to be in the right direction.MB: Now, I want to bring up an issue that you touch on at various points tangentially in the book, but not head on. So, I'm going to push you a bit. I'm very concerned at the moment about the quality of government. We could do with better people going into government and we could do with much more joined up government. It just seems to me the narrative around government is pretty horrible, and that most people that aren't in government are quite put off by it. There's not much attraction to it, except for people that have big egos or ambitions to be famous politicians or whatever. It's not an attractive narrative. Have you thought much about that with your “Anthro-Vision” lens on like, why it's got into that bad narrative and also what how we might encourage more people to see it positively?GT: I think you made a great point there, Matthew about the issue of government, because I was very struck, talking to Paul Volcker, the wonderful former Fed Chairman, who had gone into public service in the post-war years, when public service was revered, and spent many years working in public service and was very dismayed to see how attitudes towards public service changed as the 20th century wore on. So upset that when he finally left government, and, you know, had time on his hands, he created a center at the Harvard Kennedy School to try and champion the idea of good governance, and then found it almost impossible to get funding because it was so unpopular and unfashionable. And I think that's terribly dangerous. And I think we need good government. We need respect for good government and better organization. Michael Lewis's book, The Fifth Risk, showed that so clearly. What I think's interesting is that history shows that, you know, we go in pendulum swings in terms of Zeitgeists, and anthropology shows that in fact nothing is ever fixed in stone. Culture is like a river. It is constantly flowing and changing, and new streams are coming in. And I suspect we may, just may, be at a point when the pendulum is beginning to swing a tiny bit away from the idea that government is the source of all problems towards slightly more respect for government. I think the pandemic could end up being a bit of a turning point in attitudes, not just in the sense of public and private are working together, and also private and private, over things like the vaccine, which is laying down train tracks for the future. But also, I suspect that the idea of having a government mission looks a little less unfashionable than in the past.MB: If someone is thinking about going into government or a career in public service, is there a tip that you would have as to how they can use Anthro-Vision to sort of be a different sort of government leader, different sort of bureaucrat, civil servant?GT: In a nutshell, I'd say that a key tip from Anthro-Vision is to embrace a concept that at the heart of the American political system, which has checks and balances. What anthropology does is give you intellectual checks and balances. You embrace whatever field you are passionate about, be that medicine or economics or law, or whatever part of government you're working in. You do that job well, but you never forget to look around corners and think about context and think about the cultural patterns that you're working in and how it might make be giving you tunnel vision and make you blind to what you can't see. And you respect the fact that there are going to be cultural dynamics inside the office and outside the office. And I think that getting that wider vision of what you're doing is perhaps the most important thing of anyone who's working in public service today.MB: Well, that's a great note to end on. And as I say, this is a really interesting book. It's full of great stories and tremendous practical advice about how to learn some of the tips from anthropology, even if you aren't an anthropologist yourself. And I think you certainly succeed in making the case that we do all need to get some “Anthro-Vision”, so we can see the world differently. So, thank you. Gillian Tett and the book is highly recommended. GT: Thank you. Great to be on your show.  This transcript has been lightly edited for context and clarity. 

Brendan Chilton starts the show. Former England player Sol Campbell speaks to Mike about tonight's England game. Andrew Mawson, Founder of Advanced Workplace Associated discusses how worker's are at risk of leaving central London. Former England Manager, Sam Allardyce and Mike chat about England v Germany. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

What the NHS has provided and had to treat over its existence has changed much more radically than most people realise. Some of this change is rightly the domain of politics, but much is driven in response to changing health needs, improvements in medical science and priorities of society. The next two decades of changes in health will be as striking as any seen previously: this lecture will address some of the predictable changes public health and the NHS will need to address.A lecture by Chris Whitty, 19 MayThe transcript and downloadable versions of the lecture are available from the Gresham College website: https://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-events/health-trendsGresham College has been giving free public lectures since 1597. This tradition continues today with all of our five or so public lectures a week being made available for free download from our website. There are currently over 2,000 lectures free to access or download from the website.Website: http://www.gresham.ac.uk Twitter: http://twitter.com/GreshamCollege Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/greshamcollege Instagram: http://www.instagram.com/greshamcollege

Lymphoma, leukaemia and myeloma arise from different parts of the white blood cell system. Unlike the solid tumours they can be widely distributed in the body, and this means they need a different approach. The outlook for people with these very different cancers varies, but in all cases it is improving, and in some types over 90% will be cured. Different lymphomas and leukaemias occur at different peak ages, including some cancers in children and young adults.A lecture by Chris Whitty, 19 AprilThe transcript and downloadable versions of the lecture are available from the Gresham College website: https://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-events/lymphoma-leukaemia-myelomaGresham College has been giving free public lectures since 1597. This tradition continues today with all of our five or so public lectures a week being made available for free download from our website. There are currently over 2,000 lectures free to access or download from the website.Website: http://www.gresham.ac.uk Twitter: http://twitter.com/GreshamCollege Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/greshamcollege Instagram: http://www.instagram.com/greshamcollege

The rising prevalence of obesity is a major threat to current and future health of individuals, the public, and the NHS. It is sometimes seen as too difficult to tackle but there is now progress in this multi-system health problem.In this lecture by Professor Chris Whitty, he lays out the health effects of the rising prevalence if we do not address it. Obesity arises from a complex interaction of genetics and environment. Medical management of obesity is improving. We can reverse the rising trend in society, but only if we understand the reasons for obesity, what can be changed, and what cannot.A lecture by Chris Whitty 24 MarchThe transcript and downloadable versions of the lecture are available from the Gresham College website: https://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-events/rising-obesityGresham College has been giving free public lectures since 1597. This tradition continues today with all of our five or so public lectures a week being made available for free download from our website. There are currently over 2,000 lectures free to access or download from the website.Website: http://www.gresham.ac.uk Twitter: http://twitter.com/GreshamCollege Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/greshamcollege Instagram: http://www.instagram.com/greshamcollege

All of the UK adult population is to be offered a COVID-19 Vaccination by September 2021. Many other countries are aiming for similar roll-outs in one of the largest and fastest vaccination drives in history. In this lecture Professor Chris Whitty will explain how vaccines came to play such a central role in healthcare, and the role they serve today in tackling an increasing range of diseases, including new threats like Covid and old foes like cancer. And with an eye to the future, he will look at four key questions around vaccination: When is a disease worth vaccinating against? How likely is vaccination to work? What about side effects? And how should they be deployed?A lecture by Chris Whitty 11 FebruaryThe transcript and downloadable versions of the lecture are available from the Gresham College website: https://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-events/vaccinationGresham College has been giving free public lectures since 1597. This tradition continues today with all of our five or so public lectures a week being made available for free download from our website. There are currently over 2,000 lectures free to access or download from the website.Website: http://www.gresham.ac.uk Twitter: http://twitter.com/GreshamCollege Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/greshamcollege Instagram: http://www.instagram.com/greshamcollege

Matt Vickers starts the show, talking about the TikToker who accosted Chris Whitty. Professor Hugh Pennington discusses the Oxford vaccine. Neil Oliver joins Mike for his weekly chat and Kate Hardcastle and Mike speak about Jeff Bezos and his innovation. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Why? My thoughts here...

Lögreglan á höfuðborgarsvæðinu rannsakar nú alvarlega líkamsárás í Borgarholtsskóla. Sex voru fluttir á slysadeild. Árásarmennirnir voru vopnaðir hnífum og hafnaboltakylfum. Höskuldur Kári Schram sagði frá og talaði við Ársæl Guðmundsson, skólameistara Þingmenn í fulltrúadeild Bandaríkjaþings greiða atkvæði í kvöld um hvort ákæra skuli Donald Trump forseta til embættismissis. Allt bendir til þess að ákæran verði samþykkt. Ásgeir Tómasson sagði frá. Svandís Svavarsdóttir, heilbrigðisráðherra hefur ákveðið að fresta því að skimun fyrir brjóstakrabbameini miðist við 50 ára aldur en ekki 40. Anna Lára Magnúsdóttir greindist fertug með brjóstakrabbamein fyrir níu árum í skimun. Hún telur að myndatakan hafi bjargað lífi sínu. Þórólfur Guðnason sóttvarnalæknir segir að það hafi ekki áhrif á mögulega rannsókn lyfjaframleiðandans Pfizer hér á landi á áhrifum kórónuveirubóluefnis þó að hluti þjóðarinnar hafi fengið bóluefni frá öðrum framleiðanda, svo framarlega að rannsóknin hefjist innan tíðar. Anna Lilja Þórisdóttir ræddi við hann. Vinnsla í frystihúsi Síldarvinnslunnar á Seyðisfirði hófst í morgun í fyrsta sinn eftir að aurskriða féll á bæinn skömmu fyrir jól. Ómar Bogason, rekstrarstjóri segir afar ánægjulegt að sjá að lífið sé aftur að færast í fyrra horf í bænum. Óðinn Svan Óðinsson talaði við hann. Fólk sem Bjarni Rúnarsson hitti í ræktinni og bumbubolta var afar glatt að komast í spriklið ; rætt við Maríu Kristjánsdóttur, Grétu Bentsdóttur, Guðjón Hólm Gunnarsson, Magnús Dan Bárðarson og Flosa Helgason. ------------- Matarpakkar handa efnalitlum barnafjölskyldum voru breskt deilumál í haust og eru það aftur nú þegar Covid heldur landinu í heljargreipum. Sigrún Davíðsdóttir sagði frá. Heyrist í Marcus Rashford,fótboltamanni, Boris Johnson forsætisráðherra og Chris Whitty landlækni. Í desemberi lagði Bankasýsla ríkisins til við fjármálaráðherra að ríkið seldi eignarhluti í Íslandsbanka og stefndi á skráningu hluta í bankanum á verðbréfamarkaði innanlands eftir almennt útboð. Fjármálaráðherra stefnir að sölu í sumar. Sýnist sitt hverjum um sölu á hlut ríkisins, Willum Þór Þórsson, (B) formaður Fjárlaganefndar er henni hlynntur en Logi Einarsson, formaður Samfylkingarinnar hefur efasemdir um tímasetningu og væntanlega kaupendur. Anna Kristín Jónsdóttir ræðir við þá. Umsjón: Anna Kristín Jónsdóttir. Tæknimaður: Gísli Kjaran Kristjánsson. Stjórn útsendingar fréttahluta: Björg Guðlaugsdóttir.

One of the most powerful tools in public health is screening - whether for cancers like cervical or breast cancer, genetic abnormalities, or infectious diseases. Screening can be transformational, detecting disease early and preventing it taking hold. It is, however, often useless and can be harmful, and its advantages are often exaggerated. This talk will consider the situations where screening can help, where it does harm, and why these are usually predictable.A lecture by Chris Whitty 13 JanuaryThe transcript and downloadable versions of the lecture are available from the Gresham College website: https://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-events/medical-screeningGresham College has been giving free public lectures since 1597. This tradition continues today with all of our five or so public lectures a week being made available for free download from our website. There are currently over 2,000 lectures free to access or download from the website.Website: http://www.gresham.ac.uk Twitter: http://twitter.com/GreshamCollege Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/greshamcollege Instagram: http://www.instagram.com/greshamcollege

Bowel cancer is the third most common cancer in both men and women. A substantial proportion of bowel cancer is preventable. The outlook depends strongly on how advanced it is at diagnosis; caught early the outlook is good, so screening is a major part of the public health response. Other cancers of the gut are changing incidence; stomach cancer rates are falling, while oesophageal cancer is increasing in men. This lecture will consider the prevention and treatment of these cancers.A lecture by Chris Whitty 7 DecemberThe transcript and downloadable versions of the lecture are available from the Gresham College website: https://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-events/bowel-cancerGresham College has been giving free public lectures since 1597. This tradition continues today with all of our five or so public lectures a week being made available for free download from our website. There are currently over 2,000 lectures free to access or download from the website.Website: http://www.gresham.ac.uk Twitter: http://twitter.com/GreshamCollege Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/greshamcollege Instagram: http://www.instagram.com/greshamcollege

Ill health has always been concentrated in particular places; tackling these pockets of ill health is an essential role for public health. These may be driven by environmental factors, demography, deprivation and healthcare provision. In the UK, the geography of ill health has shifted widely over time and continues to do so. Specific areas have particular health challenges, including coastal towns, rural districts and inner city areas. This lecture will consider the shifting geography of ill health in the UK and globally, and its implications.A lecture by Chris Whitty 25 NovemberThe transcript and downloadable versions of the lecture are available from the Gresham College website: https://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-events/health-geographyGresham College has been giving free public lectures since 1597. This tradition continues today with all of our five or so public lectures a week being made available for free download from our website. There are currently over 2,000 lectures free to access or download from the website.Website: http://www.gresham.ac.uk Twitter: http://twitter.com/GreshamCollege Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/greshamcollege Instagram: http://www.instagram.com/greshamcollege

The relative role of the State and the individual is a recurring theme of political theory. It is also a practical question in public health - what are the respective responsibilities of government, individuals and healthcare professionals to protect health? This lecture will explore the areas government is widely perceived to be responsible for, ones where government should have no role, and the areas where medical professionals provide a third dimension to a triangle of responsibility.A lecture by Chris Whitty 16 OctoberThe transcript and downloadable versions of the lecture are available from the Gresham College website: https://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-events/state-healthGresham College has been giving free public lectures since 1597. This tradition continues today with all of our five or so public lectures a week being made available for free download from our website. There are currently over 2,000 lectures free to access or download from the website.Website: http://www.gresham.ac.uk Twitter: http://twitter.com/GreshamCollege Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/greshamcollege Instagram: http://www.instagram.com/greshamcollege

At the time of writing, the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has killed many thousands worldwide, infected many more - and changed lives around the world in ways that were unimaginable just weeks ago. What is COVID-19, how has it been managed and what role will science play in combating it? Gresham Professor of Physic (and Chief Medical Officer for England) Chris Whitty, one of the key figures in the UK's fight against the disease, will explain what we know - and what we don't.A lecture by Chris Whitty 30 AprilThe transcript and downloadable versions of the lecture are available from the Gresham College website: https://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-events/covid-19Gresham College has been giving free public lectures since 1597. This tradition continues today with all of our five or so public lectures a week being made available for free download from our website. There are currently over 2,000 lectures free to access or download from the website.Website: http://www.gresham.ac.uk Twitter: http://twitter.com/GreshamCollege Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/greshamcollege Instagram: http://www.instagram.com/greshamcollege

Lung cancer is the second most common cancer in both men and women, but kills the most people through a combination of being common and currently having much less effective treatment. Both treatment and prevention are currently improving, slowly. Mesothelioma, a lung-associated cancer caused by exposure to asbestos, is now the commonest occupational cancer. While treatment for these cancers is still at an early stage, they are largely preventable through public health measures.A lecture by Chris Whitty 12 FebruaryThe transcript and downloadable versions of the lecture are available from the Gresham College website: https://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-events/lung-cancerGresham College has been giving free public lectures since 1597. This tradition continues today with all of our five or so public lectures a week being made available for free download from our website. There are currently over 2,000 lectures free to access or download from the website.Website: http://www.gresham.ac.uk Twitter: http://twitter.com/GreshamCollege Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/greshamcollege Instagram: http://www.instagram.com/greshamcollege

The most common cancer in men in the UK is prostate cancer, around a quarter of all male cancer diagnoses. Testicular cancer, the other male-specific cancer, is rare, but occurs early in life. Neither are preventable. There has been a steady improvement in treatment for prostate cancer, and we can now safely avoid treating many men with them at all. The outlook for testicular cancer if caught early is now very good.A lecture by Chris Whitty 15 JanuaryThe transcript and downloadable versions of the lecture are available from the Gresham College website: https://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-events/prostate-testicular-cancerGresham College has been giving free public lectures since 1597. This tradition continues today with all of our five or so public lectures a week being made available for free download from our website. There are currently over 2,000 lectures free to access or download from the website.Website: http://www.gresham.ac.uk Twitter: http://twitter.com/GreshamCollege Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/greshamcollege Instagram: http://www.instagram.com/greshamcollege