Loading summary
Transcript63 lines
- [00:00]
A
Foreign. Hey, come see me do a live celebrity panel August 30th in Burbank, California. Then stand up in New York City at Village underground September 13th and then in Chicago September 18, 19 and 20 in Rosemont and Chicago. Go to Jimmy Dore.com for a link for tickets. Establishment media sucks August lighting. So good luck.
- [00:24]
B
Bullshit.
- [00:25]
C
We can't afford why he's fomenting this
- [00:28]
D
Watch and see as his jack golf
- [00:31]
A
comedian spe and jumps the medium and hit some head on. It's the chimney door show. Iran has now completely changed the game. They're done with Donald Trump and his garbage and they've laid down the law. And by the way, it's over for the United States in the Middle East. It. It's over. And the Strait of Hormuz is over for the United States. It's, it's all over. This is the biggest blunder that the US has made, maybe ever. In fact, Iran just blew up two tankers. Just to let you know they're not messing around. Two tankers trying to get through the Strait of Hormuz without their permission. They blew them up. Wow. Hormuz tension surged after reports of another tanker strike. Iran has reportedly hit another tanker in the Persian Gulf off the coast of Oman, setting it on fire. Gulf News reported earlier today noting the information and yet to be it's verified. The information first emerged on social media with video footage showing a vessel on fire. These reports follow earlier ones by Reuters and the Associated Press on another tanker that was hit by Iran on August 8th. So this is their second tanker. The vessel was Emirati and prompted condemnation from the United Arab Emirates and other Gulf governments. Yeah, go pound sand. The attack was confirmed by ADNOC and by the United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations. Vessel traffic in the Strait of Hormuz and the Bab El Mandeb Strait crumbled last week amid a Houthi claim they had hit a Saudi oil tanker in the Red Sea. So there's the two part, there's the Bob El Mandeb Strait that Saudis could get some of their oil and the Houthis have shut it down. Those are the people in Yemen. They have shut it down. And by the way, Donald Trump decided to attack Yemen when he first became president and then he retreated. He's like, okay, we can't, this is stupid. We can't beat these guys. And so now they got the straight and Hormuz closed down and they got the Bab El Mandeb strike closed down. Despite hopes that Oman and Iran could reach a deal on jointly managing Hormuz. Iran tides the Strait of HORMUZ Reopening to U.S. reparations. So now they've made demands. Now, Iran is not messing around. They want their $300 billion to fix all the stuff that we blew up. They want all their money unfrozen that has been frozen for decades. And they want the United States to completely pull out. And that's their demand. You know why? Because they have all the cards. Donald Trump. The United States is out of missiles. We're out of them. And it's going to take a long time to replenish it. Iran demands U.S. compensation ends to attacks, sanctions relief and blockade removal to reopen Hormuz. Iran wants the strait reopened only after US Meets multiple conditions, delaying prospects. And here's a spokesperson. Here's Major General Mohan Rizal. He's going to tell you what they want.
- [04:01]
C
Hormuz will not be opened. No American warship has the right to enter the Persian Gulf. The American presence in the Persian Gulf is the main cause of the insecurity of the last 50 years. Without the US leaving the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz being controlled by the countries of the region themselves, especially US and the country of Oman, who are on both sides of this strait, it is impossible for security to be established. The end of the war is also in our hands.
- [04:20]
A
The end of the war is in our hands. And it is. You know why they're saying that? Because it is. There's nothing the United States, Donald Trump, can do. Nothing. And if they try a land invasion, guess what Iran has been saying for months, try it. We're waiting. We're waiting. They're not going to try it. And if they do, it will be the biggest disaster ever.
- [04:57]
C
We will look at the end of the war when first of all, we have received all our damages from America. Secondly, we must reach a 100% guarantee about the future, which is not possible without the US Leaving the Persian Gulf. Therefore, the second condition is the withdrawal of the US from the Persian Gulf.
- [05:11]
A
So there you go. We want our money and the United States has to leave the Persian Gulf. We want our money and they have to leave now. I wonder if that means all the military bases, because there's military bases all around. We got military bases in Saudi Arabia, we got military bases in Qatar, we got military bases in all those Gulf states. I think it probably means that. So here's Alistair Crook. He's got. He's going to tell you what all this means. Sounds like this is a Precursor to
- [05:47]
C
what Prime Minister or Foreign Minister Arachi said over the weekend, two of the
- [05:50]
A
demands are American departure and American reparations.
- [05:54]
C
Yes, that's right.
- [05:54]
D
Of a chance of that.
- [05:55]
C
Is there 300 billion is what they're asking for in terms of reparations? Yes. None of these. These are really, I think it's fair to say these are quite maximalist demands. And when you couple that with, if you like, the proactive military structure, I mean, stance such as attacking one of the tankers last night and again this morning just before the market opening, when you see this, you can see, I mean, this is a new strategy that is being formulated, and it is one of no surrender to Trump, that we are going to accept the challenge of the United States and we are going to prevail. And that's what this is a message very clearly to Trump. And this is a dilemma. Not only are they not offer him the silver bullet, the way out, the way to declare victory and retire with good grace. No, on the contrary, now what they are doing is actually taunting him and pushing him to say, you have to concede, you have to capitulate on all of these matters in order to get an arrangement that will lead to some sort of opening of the Hormuz. So it's a big shift that is taking place. And of course, it leaves Trump in a huge dilemma. Is he capable of accepting to be the loser in this war? How will that impact in the midterms? I mean, all of this is calculating. But the most important thing is how is all of this going to affect the markets? Because I think, you know, Netanyahu gave it away when he said, look, the thing that really matters after he came back from Washington, I mean, yes, he said all the other things about, you know, greatest meeting ever, but he's in on a campaign. But what he, what he said was, I believe the President of the United States is anxious not to see a market crash. And so that was. I think this is the key thing behind it. This is the. The interest. So Trump has got to sort of balance all these things. But the markets are very, very vulnerable at the moment, particularly the bond market. And will a more aggressive posture on the part of Iran, a willingness to take on Trump, if he escalates or tries to escalate, how will that impact on markets? And this is the calculus, but it could change at any day. Because I just wish to add that the whole region is now burning quietly, whether it is between Yemen and Saudi Arabia. Yemen have been firing up to 10 ballistic missiles at the proxy forces, Saudi proxy forces in the south sent their mercenaries reeling, fleeing from, from, from their positions. They.
- [08:01]
A
So Saudi Arabia was threatening Yemen. They're like, we're going to invade you. So Yemen just started bombing them. They blew up their, what, their biggest oil depot. And he said, they said they're sending missiles all the time. And then Saudi Arabia was like, after they blew up their biggest oil beat, was like, all right, all right, we're not going to invade you. Let's work this out. Yemen, badass. It's one of the poorest countries, and yet the United States, Saudi Arabia, nobody could overtake them.
- [08:40]
C
There has been another attack on the Jizan refinery, Saudis Aramco's refinery on the coast of the Red Sea. Another major attack. I don't know exactly how damaging, but it's still on fire. And it was attacked a week ago. So Saudi is not exporting any. For the first time, its exports of oil are zero. It's more or less the same for the uae. The exports are zero. They've tried to export oil and their tankers have been struck by missiles. And so Saudi Arabia and the Yemen are at war and it's heating up. And the Yemenis are attacking, and the Saudis in America are attacking into Iraq at the resistance group the Hashad. And Iran is attacking into Avil, into Iraq. At the same time, the Kurdish forces, which seem to be being prepared in some way by the United States to try infiltrate into Iran and establish a sort of base inside Iranian national territory. So the Iranians have been assassinating them and attacking them fiercely. And after the attack on the Iraqi resistance, they have attacked into Saudi Arabia too. And they have forces on the border of Saudi Arabia, and Saudi Arabia is concerned about that. And the Iraqi resistance have also moved their forces close to Syria because of the suggestion that the Al Jilani might try and get involved in the war in Lebanon to disarm, to help the forces to disarm Hezbollah. And they said, you go near Lebanon, you go into Lebanon, and the Iraq forces will come into Syria and attack you from that side. So the whole region is really on tenterhooks, you recall, just a few more than a week ago now, but attacks on shipping, a vessel, a tanker in a port in Egypt. So it's widening. And there was an attack by Ukraine on an Iranian ship not so long ago in the Caspian. And so all of this is widening. And the point here is that, you know, the idea that there's a sort of silver bullet deal to be done with Iran that You know, okay, we'll just do these provisions in the MOU and it's all over. It's not because everything is interconnected. I mentioned how in the, in this statement by the National Security Council, they refer to Palestine. Not just allies, our allies, regional allies, they specifically talk about Palestine.
- [10:41]
A
So in the, in the MoU, remember that the Memorandum of Understanding, the Iran did not mention Palestine by name. Now they are, now there's, now they're demanding withdrawal from Gaza. You got it. The Palestinians and people in Lebanon. Iran is now dictating. The whole thing is different. Now Iran knows they have all the cards. They know the United States is out of missiles. They know that we're running out of reserve oil. They know they have the upper hand. And Donald Trump blew it. He had a chance to end this on better terms and now it's, it's, it's over
- [11:25]
C
and Palestine is heating up greatly. Now, we need to be aware of this and look at it because it seems clear that the more messianic, right, the Smotrich and the Ben Gavir are planning to stage a war in the west bank and maybe even a provocation on the Temple Mount because they believe this will win the elections for them, that this will change the whole calculus, but it also will lead to them expelling Palestinians from the West Bank. That's what they want to do. So the whole thing can easily catch fire and take a completely different dynamic in this period leading up to the Israeli elections in October.
- [11:56]
A
So there you have it. And Trump's response is he demands compensation from Iran. So it's a, it's a joke. And everything has changed. As like he said, the region's on fire. They just, they just knocked out two tankers trying to go through Yemen, knocked out a Saudi tanker, they took tanker, they took out a Saudi oil depot. What their biggest, it's not, not looking good for the United States and the Gulf States, not looking good. But Israel's going to keep, wants this, going to keep this going, just like he said, they're going to probably go and do an invasion of the west bank now. So just as Charlie Kirk predicted, they're going to do an ethnic cleansing of Gaza. And that's what they're doing. They want those people out, they want that land, they want the southern half of Lebanon, they want all of Gaza and the west bank. And Iran's not going to let that happen. And they, they own the Strait of Hormuz. And yet Scott Besant, the Secretary of the treasury, saying, oh, it doesn't matter in a year or two. We don't even need to have oil go through there because we're going to have it done through pipelines. And what he doesn't realize is that, yeah, what about all the fertilizer that goes through there? What about all the helium that goes through there? What about all the urea that goes through there, you idiot, you can't build pipelines for that. So not good. Not looking good for Donald Trump. He really got himself into it and there ain't no getting out of it. All right. Hey, you know, here's another great way you can help support the show is you become a premium member. We give you a couple of hours of premium bonus content every week and it's a great way to help support the show. You can do it by going to jimmy dork.com clicking on join Premium. It's the most affordable premium program in the business and it's a great way to help put your thumb back in the eye of the bastards. Thanks for everybody who was already a premium member. And if you haven't, you're missing out. We give you lots of bonus content. Thanks for your support. Blake Neff, the used car salesman, the backstabber and the betrayer of Charlie Kirk and everything he stood for, just outed himself because he made this. You're not going to believe this tweet. Yeah. Are you ready for this? This is real. He. So Tyler Robinson's arrest might have united a MAGA movement that had been tearing itself apart over the Epstein files and the war in Gaza. It might have provided a common enemy a focus on the lefty posters. I think he means posers. The lefty posers who were joking about Kirk's death or antifa that the Trump administration had blamed for Kirk's murder. It might have it not for Candace Owen. So he's quoting this stupid news piece from msnbc. So he's tweeting that out. So what he's revealing here is that they knew the Epstein files and the Gaza war and the Iran war and all the stuff that Trump was doing to go back, that that was a problem. That was a big problem. And so the Charlie Kirk murder gave a chance for them to paper over those problems, come together and win the next election. It's almost like. It's almost like he's saying, yeah, it was a good idea to murder Charlie Kirk because it gave the right wing and the Republicans something to rally around where we can make up that it's the lefties that did it or antifa or whoever. And we could all hate them together and we could go on to win. It's almost like he's admitting that the Charlie Kirk assassination was preplanned for that very reason. It's almost like, it's almost like because he's definitely doing everything he can to stop people from finding out who actually killed Charlie Kirk. He's definitely doing that. All the people at TP USA are definitely doing that. And there's a lot of right wing influencers, Benny Johnson, Jack Prosobiek, they're lying, this blatantly lying about the case, saying we saw a 4K video of Tyler Robinson pull the trigger. So that is the weirdest. And, and I want to show you. So here's the. So this woman that he is linking to, this, this, this is the news report he's linking to. It's by this woman who did hit piece after hit piece after, after hit piece on Charlie Kirk when he was alive, hated him. Did the most underhanded hit pieces on Charlie Kirk you can imagine. And this used car salesman betrayer piece of garbage, Blake Neff, who by the way was seen driving a car that resembled. Who was a car that resembled Tyler Robinson's at midnight in Orm that night. What a bald guy was driving that car and he can't tell you where he was. So this, this is that, this is the, this is the woman's news report. He tweets out. There it is. Moments after Charlie Kirk was shot and killed, the conspiracy theories began and no one has done more to amplify them than Candace Owens, who seized on the death of her friend to build an online empire. She already had an online empire, so of course she's just. This woman is the worst liar. The worst liar, the worst kind of establishment mouthpiece. And here she is doing the bidding of Donald Trump who's also covering up the murder of it because it's most likely Israel. And of course they all work for. It's a Zionist occupied media. So she works for them. And she's doing the bidding of Donald Trump, who also works for the Zionists and Israel. And the, and online empire with baseless accusations. What the people. The baseless accusation is that Tyler Robinson did this murder with a rifle that was never fired. There's almost no evidence putting him on that roof whatsoever. There's more evidence that his roommate, Lance Twiggs is more involved than he is. His fingerprints are on the gun. You mean his own gun. You know whose DNA is more on there? Lance Twigs. They made up the confession. All those are all Made up and. But of course they got a, a paid liar to come and do this piece. So I just want to show you this. Here's a little clip of it. Right now I look at the growing. I don't know if you see that there's yours truly right there. So this is the growing, right. She calls this. I put in with. I'm a right winger. Now watch this.
- [20:18]
D
Right now I look at the growing impact of right wing conspiracy theories.
- [20:23]
A
Right wing conspiracy theories, Really? You, you don't there, no matter what, no matter where you point your eyes on this Charlie Kirk conspiracy. Charlie Kirk assassination. None of it makes sense. None of it. First of all, they, they have video of him walking up and down the steps. He's limping with the wrong leg both times. The one time he's limping with his left leg, the next time he's limping with his right leg. Which leg is it? The guy forgot they paved over the crime scene, they took the car, they drove him to the hospital in, and they immediately steam cleaned it and sold it. There's a million things like that, but it's called right wing. So by the way, I'm a lefty, always been a lefty. I'm for Medicare for all, I'm for unions. I'm for free speech. I'm for my body, my choice. I, I have, I haven't wavered one bit. There's also Ian Carroll, I guess he's also right wing. So any. So anybody who says something that the establishment doesn't like is right wing. We've, we've learned, we learned that during COVID We learned that during Russiagate. You're right wing. This is awesome. Right now we look at the growing
- [21:52]
D
impact of right wing conspiracy theories. In the 10 months since Charl Kirk's death, some of the most prominent voices on the right have shared their own theories about how the Turning Point USA founder died.
- [22:06]
A
I just want to show you this. And there it is. Charlie Kirk show is promoting a journalist who attacked him for years. A blue haired trans loving leftist at that. There it is. Her name is Brandy Zadroni. Turning Point USA spent the pandemic flouting public health guidelines, sowing distrust in the election, and bringing the so called culture wars around, critical race theory and LGBTQ issues off campus and into the mainstream. What did it get them? A boatload of money. So that's the kind of stuff she was writing before this. Next time, lay off the fireworks, gaslighting, fake crying and war profiteering. How about that? That's Owen Benjamin. Wow. You just confessed talking to Blake Neff. You just confessed. Charlie Kirk's assassination was supposed to unite MAGA movement that had been tearing itself apart. When Charlie spoke up about the Epstein files and the war in Gaza, Charlie Kirk spoke up about that. He said Israel is going to try and ethnically cleanse Gaza. And he talked about the Epstein file should be released. But it all went wrong. You literally just provided TP USA's motive for his murder. That's according to Jane Doe. You are confessing. That's what it sounds like, doesn't it? Doesn't it sound like a confession? That's what it sounds like. The Babylon Bibi says didn't need Candace to see you. You all were giddy for fame and merch sales and pretending not to care about Trump's broken campaign promises. They've even pretended that Charlie Kirk would have been for the Iran war. There's only about, I don't know, an hour and a half straight of video clips of him saying the exact opposite. Not only was he against the Iran war, he was against the bombing that they did a year and a half earlier. Lionel says, I've been accused of praising real Candace's work. Guilty as charged. Serious journalism and analysis require focus and an unabashed appreciation for such. But what this man child Blake can't seem to grasp is that the Epstein case screamed for scrutiny, especially after Dr. Michael Barden Baden reported fractures of the hyoid bone and the thyroid cartilage presented at autopsy and argued that they were more consistent with homicide via strangulation. Meaning of Jeffrey Epstein. That did not settle the case, but it absolutely demanded questions. Dismissing that as irrelevant is astonishingly unserious. Neff. So Blake Neff tells on himself. That'll be the. That'll be the title of this video. Blake Neff tells on himself and TPS USA gives away their motive. I became aware of you because when you testified you talked about the connection between the COVID vaccine and cancer. And I just came across this yesterday. This was an interview that Del Bigtree did with an immunologist and let's listen very quickly what he says, how what the mechanism is for the COVID 19 to cause cancer. You've looked at this MRNA technology. What is your opinion about the safety of the COVID vaccine that was injected into the entire world?
- [25:45]
B
So my background is medical biochemistry and looking at metabolism, including RNA. In my 25 years of working on RNA, what we learned is that if you want to do anything with rna, you shouldn't modify it, you shouldn't stabilize it and you shouldn't inject it. So they did all of that when they came out with this RNA idea, we kind of laughed at it because RNA has like a half life of what, two hours in our. If it's not modified, not stabilized. So rna, unless you modify it, you stabilize it, it's actually useless for anything.
- [26:20]
A
They took something that is supposed to leave the body quickly and made it persist. Why is that a problem?
- [26:26]
B
It's a huge problem because RNA should look at it as the blueprint of your house. This is how your cells are translating into proteins and those actually do the work. So if your blueprint is modified in the middle of the construction pattern, just give you an example, then it's going to be a disaster because it's not the same protein as you designed. Fragments can be formed and this is the majority of spike proteins after modification of its RNA and injections. The biggest danger is because the template stays in the cell is reverse transcription, making DNA from rna. And that's the source of anaploidy, which we all know physicians. It's more DNA in the cells that is necessary and that's a cancerous, a transformed cell.
- [27:15]
A
So you think this could end up causing cancer? We're hearing turbo cancers, autoimmune disease issues.
- [27:21]
B
That's a huge impact if you ask me as a medical biochemist. It's beyond a disaster.
- [27:29]
A
So what he's saying there is that the RNA then infects your cell, your DNA, it changes it and then that causes cancer. Is that what you found?
- [27:41]
D
Yes. Well, my first observations were clinical because I noticed that I ran a big melanoma clinic and I was doing immunotherapy 25 years ago when I was told it wouldn't work. But that is a red flag to a ball for me. It means they just have not perfected and worked in it. And I was able to get very good responses to melanoma long before we had these big checkpoint inhibitors like Keytruda, et cetera. And I had these patients done incredibly well. And then in the beginning of 2021, which was after the it's the end of 2021, I started to see patients relapse who've been stable for years. You know, one of them been stable for 18 years, stage four cancers. So I had six and six weeks and you know, they'd been between three and 18 years. And normally you might get a relapse if you get suddenly very depressed, overcome with infection or etc. These people were all perfectly happy, except they weren't happy that their melanoma had come back. And so I wanted to know why, why this should happen. For the first time for years, I started to see relapses like this. And I asked them, as I do everything, tell me everything. They had all been forced to have booster vaccines by their GPS because they had melanoma. And I said to myself, you know, there's old acronym. And I found it in a, in a virology book with vaccines in it where it basically said this. As a general rule of thumb, if a vaccine needs a booster, it's pretty sure, sure that it doesn't work. And if it, if you give yet another booster, you'll almost certainly collapse the T cell response. They knew that 30 years ago. So everybody who brought this out and rubber stamped it is, I'm accused of gross incompetence for doing this. But I thought, well, this must be happening. And we went to check because I actually had a T cell lab because that's how I knew T cells control the immune system. And surely enough, these people's T cells responses had fallen. But before we got round to publishing it ourselves in a big way, there was a fantastic paper by Vernis Bertes who came out of Madrid, who had a paper which was absolutely beautiful. It said, T cell exhaustion after third CoV2 SARS vaccine in cancer patients. And they had dozens and dozens of these patients and they showed that the T cell collapsed. Now for me that was enough because you've lost the control. T cells control your cancer, especially if the cancer's been controlled by immunotherapy. But you know, I tried to publish this and I published it in BMJ so online letters and it was taken down and with no, no communication. But I knew lots of people had seen it in that brief time it was up there because they contacted me from all over the world saying we're seeing the same thing. And I even contacted by surgeons who said we are seeing a total change in people who've been vaccinated, particularly with colorectal surgery. They're seeing them present advanced stage instead of 1, 2. Cut it out, off you go. They were presenting with metastases in the liver and the lung and they are presenting much younger. This led to the term turbo cancer, which they all tried to downplay, but it's just hyper progressive cancer which has been recognized in immunology for years. So I thought there's something else going on here. It's not just the T cell response, because that wouldn't lead to this sort of turbo business, something is driving it. And so I started to look at the molecular mechanisms and I found as the speakers just said, that messenger RNA goes in and it creates a DNA which integrates into the virus and then keeps pumping this stuff out. The integration is totally random. So these things can integrate next to an oncogene that's a gene that will promote cancer or cell growth, but if it's switched on permanently, it will give you cancer. So these genes were shown to be overdriven and even worse, it could show it can sit next to a cell with suppressor genes, that is genes that will switch off cancers if they get switched on. It's part of the overall control. But they were interfering with all the suppressor gene. Now I've worked with several scientists and we had real problem getting a lot of this, getting this. In fact, we've got a paper in press at the moment which I hope doesn't get pulled because of the people interfere. But we found the same as Eldeary and his colleagues, Wafik Eldiri, who presented at the Senate with me that he confirmed that they interfere with all these anti cancer mechanisms. And at the end of the day we counted at least 12 mechanisms how these vaccines can induce or promote cancer. It's really frightening. Now just one mechanism is enough to call a red card and say halt, halt. We don't want to be giving a whole generation of people early cancer. And nobody seems to be of any interest. And all they did. I got accused of spreading misinformation. I said I'm not spreading its information. I'm trying to stop you killing my, you know, my patients and your patients. And that's what staggered me. There's no debate allowed. There's no science allowed to be discussed.
- [33:28]
A
So this never happened before in your career. You never saw anything like this. This kind of censorship, this suppression of scientific research that you did, the scientific debate, which is essential for science to happen, you never saw this before. What, what do you think drove this? What it was? This seems like a. As if some kind of Mengele figure took over the whole western world science. What do you equate this with?
- [33:56]
D
Well, I mean, I thought about that very deeply too. And because I cannot understand it, I was brought up in good faith. You do science in good faith, you might make some hypotheses and you rely on other scientists to show you're wrong and to show no, this is the way. And gradually science builds up and you get a very good understanding. It can also be knocked off Course, by another finding that completely knocks away your rationale for your findings. But this was all killed in Covid. I never saw it really in cancer research. I'll be honest there, I mean, everybody seemed to want for the better. I was unaware of any major suppression, cancellation in cancer research. But what was interesting, knowing what I was seeing and know now in Covid, I realized this had been going on very subtly in HIV days. And what was the one thing in common between HIV and Covid? Tony Fauci. Ah, Tony Fauci. He was given far too much control. He is a total egotist, narcissist and dictator. And a very vile person in my view, because anybody who crossed him, he basically tried to bury them, take away their grants, not give their grants, interfere with grant committees. It was just unbelievable. And I spotted this behavior in HIV days. And once again, there's a lot of parallels of HIV and Covid. You know, the introduction of fear. Be very afraid, you know, nobody's safe until everyone's safe. All this business, you know, take all these precautions and go to hospital and have these drugs. And in HIV days it was azt, which was a repurposed anti cancer leukemic drug that was deemed too toxic for cancer patients. So why on earth would you use it and push it for HIV when it was known that if you treated the patient well and you know, made them healthy, that they didn't progress fast in the way that it did Say they needed azt. In fact, AZT actually caused further immunispression. In fact, you could say that there's an aids. One of them is azte induced immune depression syndrome. So, and that of course, the modern version of what we saw with AZT in Covid was remdesivir, or as the nurses called it, rundesnea, because it had a 5% mortality rate. You didn't need drugs like this, the ordinary, ordinary, simple drugs. And we've been through all this, I was preaching, you just need to treat Covid with standard respiratory drugs, things like high dose vitamin D, soluble aspirin, the, the first defense type, things which used to contain interferon or alpha lipids up your nose. And if you got the cough started going down, you use the steroid spray becatide, just like an asthmatic. And if it went down below, you used dexamethasone. Now those very simple things would save the vast majority of people who died of COVID But certainly in the UK we followed the same textbook now that Fauci wrote for us. Do nothing until they need to go to hospital.
- [37:33]
C
Hospital.
- [37:34]
D
And then I found, when I was in the States that the doctors were paid for each patient they treated with remdesivir, when, you know, simple real treatments would work very well. I was horrified to find out in the UK they inflicted a randomized trial on everybody who was breathless in the hospital. They called it recovery. Now, it was six different drugs, one of which was dexamethasone, and the only one that was effective was dexamethasone. Well, every respiratory physician worth his salt knows that is mandatory. You must use that. So one of my colleagues calculated that that trial killed four and a half thousand people by designing it so they wouldn't get dexamethasone. I mean, this is. This is the absolute big tragedy and crisis. And again, going back to hiv, Fauci was involved in studies that he wanted a positive study from or he wanted a negative. We saw this exactly the same in Covid with hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin and these things. These were superb anti Covid drugs. And I believe it was a crime to tell people not to have these because the only reason they did this is now very obvious. They wanted to be able to inflict the vaccine program on us. And it is well known if you have something that greatly reduces the chances of dying, like I have a mectin hydroxide, you cannot possibly justify a vaccine program. So I think we are uncovering an enormous crime against humanity by the people who pushed all this stuff. But at the end of the day, Fauci was the lead conductor.
- [39:21]
A
But so why? I had someone who worked for this show who bought every piece of propaganda pushed by big pharma and the media and Tony Fauci. And I was trying to show him that, no, you're being lied to as usual by big pharma and the pharma bought media and he said, oh, really? Every doctor in the world is going along with this. So I didn't know at the time that doctors like you and Doctors like Peter McCullough and Per Cory and Robert Malone were being censored. I didn't know that at the time. So I didn't have. I didn't know what to say back. But, you know, most doctors still go along with it today. And so is it. Are you like, how disappointed or chagrined or just mind blown are you, by the. I mean, if you knew this stuff and other. Why didn't more doctors stand up and say something, do you think? Why. Why did. Why did doctors just go along with this if they knew Ivermectin was. I knew Ivermectin was a human medicine. I knew Ivermectin won the Nobel Prize for human medicine. It saved millions of lives. So doctors must have certainly known this. Why weren't doctors pushing back against this? Why would they go along with this death vaccine and not push a safe drug like Ivermectin?
- [40:42]
D
I agree it is an unbelievable question to ask, but I think I can partially answer it is because the control of the health services and the. The medical councils absolutely punished anybody who didn't obey the. The path of you must do vaccine, you mustn't give ivermectin, etc. I mean, it was unbelievable. And I know people who lost their jobs, I mean, even somebody who committed suicide because they just couldn't stand it. They was. They didn't have a single Covid desk death, but they were struck off because they'd used Ivermectin. I mean, this is unbelievable madness. And so it is like a warning to the others. So the others got frightened. Other people get put on leave, they get struck off for the most simple things. And I've been defending these people, whether it be in the uk, Australia, New Zealand and what is incredible and in other places in Europe now, what is actually incredible is that the. This has come tumbling down from the top in all the countries. It's identical. The first thing you must do is induce fear and prosecute any doctor that steps out of line. Now, I uncovered with a guy, a very good friend and very experienced in law, that all this was highly illegal because in grains, and I'm not sure of US law, I'm not a US lawyer, at any rate, with regards to Europe and Australia and New Zealand are very, very similar. There is actually embedded in the law a thing called the magisterial formula. It's embedded as a fundamental right. And what it says is that no doctor can possibly be punished for doing the best for the patient, his patient providing its informed consent, even if it breaches government guidelines. I mean, it's actually there. So they are breaking their own law. They don't even know their own law. So why is. Were they first rule number one, shoot all the doctors who stray out of line. Why would you do that? I mean, they completely deprofessionalized my profession that I went into very proudly. I'm now disgusted with it.
- [43:02]
A
So how did Dr. Fauci get the head of the NHS to go along, the people in New Zealand to go along, the people in Australia to Go along. So it was a top down thing. And I know like here in California, the government actually would disbar doctors who talked about Ivermectin. And they did it and it got held up in court. They did it under the idea that that was called conduct. And so that was instead of being free speech, they give a doctor give his professional opinion to his, to his patient. They called that bad conduct and they would get them disbarred, take away their license. And so that, by the way, that just got overturned. Pierre Corey's case just got overturned in the United States. So that's a big deal. We're gonna cover that Monday. So that's a big, big deal. But so why would the. So is it just because of big pharma money? Is that really what it was? That they, they can corrupt every country like that? It all came from Moderna and Pfizer funding. We know that. The medical journals are corrupt, we know that. But all the, like every head of a hospital, every. The head of the nhs, the head, they were all under the thumb of big money.
- [44:14]
D
Well, I know with regards to the nhs, et cetera, that Fauci phones our top guys personally and basically told them what to think. Their job was to question, what is this guy telling us to do? This is madness. You know, they just did what they said, how he had such power and influence. Influence, it is a disaster and no individual should ever have that again. But yes, indeed, it was top down because I said, I've been to these places trying to defend doctors who've been charged with being very good doctors, only to find the same phrases come up all the time, the same attitude. And these are in countries which would normally like to preen themselves. Oh, we have a much better system than X or so. And so it's me. And yet they all did exactly the same, but they're all incredibly guilty. We have to reform the system so this can never ever happen again. And I do believe it all came out, the whole thing came out of the DARPA plan to basically have everything ready for the next pandemic without actually realizing. Now the irony is that if you didn't have these plans for rapid vaccines and do all the search behind them, you would never have a pandemic. And the pandemics have been artificially manufactured by the who, which basically has got far too much money, far too much influence and nothing to do. So they basically are literally manufacturing the pandemics. Now, when I sort of realized Covid came out of the Wuhan lab, no, ifs no, but it's 100% absolutely impossible for any other explanation what anybody else says. And Stephen Key is one of your best writer scientists in the US Also presented to Senate, you know, basically on the, a basic big computerized analysis. He does Bayesian, he does Bayesian mathematical analysis. It showed that the virus was 100 from the lab or 99.999 recurring. So, you know, we know all that. So why did they all basically stamp this down? Well, the reason I, I really believe they stamped this down is because they were all pushed into this by Big Pharma, who basically this is obvious. I mean, they said we're not going to invest this money unless we get a guaranteed return. And this all goes Back to your 1986 Vaccine Identity act where you removed the liability from all Big Pharma when there was just a handful of vaccines. And ever since then, now there are about 72. And the checking for whether they are one work or two are dangerous has been kind of totally removed. Well, having got emboldened with that, they basically want to create new pandemics so they can use all this technology for another pandemic. And I look back at all the past pandemics and I think that none of them would occurred if it wasn't for human interference and laboratory and leaks. And that's big. And with regards to your question, with regards Big Pharma, I would just like to point out something that's just recently happened. Moderna have just had a messenger flu RNA vaccine approved by fda. It was the same panel that uniformly said that on the evidence given, it's not as good as the ones we've got, and two, it's a lot more dangerous. They were asked to reconsider their ridiculous decision and they 100% changed their mind and said okay, okay, all right, it's all right, you can have it. Now why would on the same data you change your recommendation to a Big Pharma when just think about it, FDA, FDA, big pharma, complete rotation. And our side in the UK, we have the MHRA, that's your FDA. And the two top people have 50 years between them experience in Pfizer. I mean, this is a total revolving door and a totally unacceptable way for drugs and vaccines to be regulated.
- [48:29]
A
So you're saying that the vaccine, the COVID vaccine was not created for the COVID pandemic. You're saying that they created the COVID pandemic for the COVID vaccine because they wanted to use this MRNA COVID vaccine. That's what you're saying, well, I would
- [48:49]
D
say that only a madman would think that. But when you actually look back at all the evidence they were doing all this gain of function work, why would you do a gain of function to make an ordinary dopey virus that would just give you a bit of a flu? Why would you make it much more dangerous? And their aim was to make it much more infectious for human cells. And they say in defense, this is. So when it gets out or a similar virus comes out there, we can make a vaccine quicker for it. They don't realize the irony. If they hadn't been doing this, it would never have gone out and there would be no natural virus that caused that type of chaos. And I honestly believe that the other ones, including bird flu, swine flu and things Ebola, all these ones they try and scare, scare us with, I believe that they're all as a result of this gain of function vaccines. So things that. And most vaccines are not needed. You know, that's. That is my other thing that I've come across. I was horrified how I've been lied to by my education. We are really groomed that vaccines are the biggest success story of world medicine ever. You know, and if it wasn't for that, we'd all be dead, you know, and that has to be really one of the biggest con lies. And I mean, I, like everyone else, felt for it. It was Covid that gave me the telescopes and the microscopes to start looking at what's really going on. And it was. It's horrifying how much we've been lied to and misled.
- [50:27]
A
So do you, do you think we'll ever get to a place where the majority of people agree with what you just said?
- [50:36]
D
You know, that's an, that's an incredible, credible question. Can I just tell you something which I think. I can't answer the question yes or no. But what I can tell you something is that what I have noticed is the more educated people are, the higher up the rank of their doctor or a scientist, the more they will disagree with me and they won't change their minds or be very tough. But if I go to my local village and I go into the local pub or so, and the people there, they're not top doctors or scientists. They know they're workmen, they're builders or policemen or this, that or the other, do you know what I find? I find that they've all agree with me. I mean, they picked it all up. They come up to me and thank me, buying me a Beer and saying, thank God there's somebody up there who does know all this is going. Because they worked it all out themselves. They worked out that, you know, they got friends who died of strokes and heart attacks after they rolled the vaccine out. And now they've got people. And it's happening to me all the time. I mean, I've had a couple of deaths and people I know very well in the last month, and they'd all received booster vaccines and they'd both died of turbo cancer, you know, so I'm actually. I don't need to see the patients. I don't need to see all this wonderful data, which I actually have quite a bit here. I've got all the data from Rod Johnson sitting there, how the cancer incidence has gone through, how it correlates with the booster viruses, et cetera. So I believe that the people out there are gradually coming round to it, the elite, as I call them. The elite whose entire careers and everything depend on funding from a very corrupt system. They will be the last to change their minds. But the man on the street, I believe, has already changed his mind. And the young people, I would say the majority of young people have cottoned on that this is a fraud and that Covid destroyed their lives, their education, and if they've had too many vaccines, their health. They know what the governments are trying to do is drag this into the long grass and drag it out to the point where everybody will say, oh, move on, move on, forget about it, forget about it. No, that is not what we're to do. They have got to hold everybody to account like they did Tony Fauci last week, and they have to hold everybody account, and they got to punish them. So nobody ever thinks of doing this again, because if you don't, it will happen again. That's the whole reason for the whole.
- [53:24]
A
So just to make crystal clear, definitely, the COVID 19 vaccine induces cancer, and cancer that shows up at stage four instead of normally how it does with stage one two. It just. It's been called colloquially a turbo cancer. That's definite according to your opinion?
- [53:45]
D
Yes, it's definitely according to my opinion. And it is backed up by just so much data. And this again tells you what's going on. There was a paper published in. In Curious. It's an article which is a journal that publishes articles that might be a little bit contentious, but it was on the Office of National Statistics in Japan, and it was in millions of patients, and they showed very clearly that each booster vaccine induced more cancers and that was an interesting paper because it wasn't just limited to what I call the immunological cancers like melanoma, etc. A whole range of cancers. That was the first one that told me that the possibility of these viruses driving new cancers and promoting old cancers was real. Now, what happened with this? He had been through every kind of review. The results were so important that it was hyper review. It was published and then a load of bots come up and say, this has got flaws. We don't like the methods. Take it down. The editor said, no, I'll send it out to review again. And then he said, there's no problem. Guess what happened to that journal. Nature Springer bought it out and then removed the paper and then said, carry on, this is what's going. It's going on at a very, very high level. And colleagues of mine have ident that Pfizer pay a team of people to go through every journal basically targeting and attacking the editor to remove it if it suggests that its vaccines are anything less than safe and effective. And that is definitely going on. And it ha. You know, we know it happens in the COVID boom era. We know that. And this is. You mentioned Pierre Cory, but have you. He did brilliant work with Ivermectin and it was clear that it worked very well. And guess what? The big pharma were paying your CVCs and Walgreens, etc. To dishonor ivermectin Scripps, I. E. To ignore them. I mean, this is the level, this is the level of interference and corruption that's been going on and we have to get rid of it because otherwise we're never going to, we're never going to have good health, actually, because this has made me go all the way into everything. I mean, I've spoken to people who used to work for Pfizer who said the culture there is, we're not interested in cures, we're only interested in expanding markets. Well, that fits. That fits with what I see.
- [56:29]
A
So the, the Spike protein, they now it's come out in, in emails and Tony Fauci's diary that he knew it was a bad idea and he was advised by people. In fact, the guy who discovered the HIV virus, there's an email from him to Tony saying, hey, don't do a treatment with this Spike protein because this is a bad idea.
- [56:57]
D
Yeah, I think that was Luke Montagne, wasn't it?
- [57:00]
A
I think so. And this.
- [57:02]
D
And who unfortunately he made a big fuss about it and ended up dying. We don't we don't know exactly why. Some people have been very suspicious because he had tremendous clout being a Nobel Prize winner, right?
- [57:17]
A
Yes. He won the Nobel Prize. And he. There's an email from him telling Anthony Fauci, don't do this. A bad idea to use this spike protein because it creates, you know, your body's going to attack itself. And he.
- [57:31]
D
Exactly the same as I said.
- [57:32]
A
Yeah.
- [57:32]
D
I mean, incredible. So it, it. There just wasn't one or two or three of us. There was lots of us, but we were all silenced. But just certain people certainly like me. No one was going to shut me up because I'm past my sell by date. I, you know, I don't have to work in order to survive. And so I was prepared. And he was prepared too, but he was a real kind of threat to them. And I must say I am suspicious from, because I know I knew Luke and Bob Gallo too, because I had done this receptor in 84 and we had, you know, probably four meetings a year around the world where we all got together and so know all this. So he, he was absolutely spot on. When I saw Luke, Luke copied me in on this, by the way. So I was aware of this.
- [58:22]
A
And then. And so then Tony. So Tony Fauci completely ignored that and went ahead with it anyway. And then this guy who's a Nobel Prize winner, who warned him about it and then was going to make us think about it, he dies suspiciously.
- [58:35]
D
Exactly. Very.
- [58:37]
A
What was. Do you know what the official cause of death was that they say?
- [58:41]
D
No, I don't. I honestly don't. I can't get, get. I cannot get anything out other than that they're very suspicious. He wasn't particularly unwell at the time, why he suddenly died. And you know people of his age and that, they do die from time to time, but you do get a bit suspicious when he was clearly a major thorn being a Nobel Prize winner, saying, this is mad. I mean, I was saying that this was mad exactly the same as Luke Montagne. But I. It was easy to dismiss me. Certainly my own colleagues dismiss me as I'm a sort of maverick cancer doctor and I know nothing about vaccines and immunology, which is actually nearly laughable because they know even less.
- [59:29]
A
Hey, become a premium member. Go to jimmy door comedy.com sign up. It's the most affordable premium program in the business. All the voices performed today are by the one and only, the inimitable Mike McRae. He can be found at mikemcrae.com that's it for this week. You be the best you can be and I'll keep being me. Out. Don't freak out. Don't freak out. Don't freak out. Don't freak out. Don't freak out. Don't freak out.
- [60:16]
D
I'm not in it.
- [60:17]
B
Do not.
- [60:17]
D
Do not.
- [60:19]
C
I'm not. I'm not.
- [60:20]
A
I'm not. I'm not. I'm not. Don't freak out. Do not freak out. Freak out. Freak out. Freak out.
- [60:28]
C
Freak out.