Following my recent communication about my very real concern over the recurrence of cancer in many of my melanoma patients who have been stable for long periods, at least five years and in one case 18 years, other oncologists have contacted me to say they are seeing the same phenomenon.
Seeing the recurrence of these cancers after all this time naturally makes me wonder if there is a common cause? I had previously noted that relapse in stable cancer is often associated with severe long-term stress, such as bankruptcy, divorce, etc. However I found that none of my patients had any such extra stress during this time but they had all had booster vaccines and, indeed, a couple of them noted that they had a very bad reaction to the booster which they did not have to the first two injections.
I then noted that some of these patients were not having a normal pattern of relapse but rather an explosive relapse, with metastases occurring at the same time in several sites. Obviously, I began to wonder whether the booster vaccines could be causing these relapses and were not just coincidence, as my colleagues were willing to suggest.
Within a three-month period I have been able to identify eight people who have developed B-cell malignancies following the booster, with two of them reporting that they instantly felt very unwell after the booster, having had no problem after the first two vaccines, then describing the symptoms of extreme exhaustion and long Covid before being investigated and finding out that they had a B-cell leukaemia in two cases, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in five and a very aggressive myeloma in the other case.
Scientifically, I was reading reports that the booster was leading to a big excess of antibodies at the expense of the T-cell response and that this T-cell suppression could last for three weeks, if not more. To me, this could be causal as the immune system is being asked to make an excessive response through the humoral inflammatory part of the immune response against a virus variant which is no longer in existence in the community. This exertion leads to immune exhaustion, which is why these patients are reporting up to a 50% greater increase in Omicron, or other variations, than the non-vaccinated.
Having communicated these observations I was rapidly reminded that I had written an article, published in the Daily Mail in the middle of 2021, which encouraged people to get vaccinated, particularly younger people. This was a very thorough article, written under my name but essentially conducted by interview, for the purpose of condoning the vaccine rollout at the time. Although I had started to have concerns, the overwhelming push by the Government and the medical community was that this would be in everyone’s best interest. So the environment at that time was completely different to what it is now. Indeed, my own take on this was soon to change very dramatically when my own son developed myocarditis after having a jab he did not want but that he needed for work and travel purposes. I also then found out that one of his friends in his early 30s had suffered a stroke and that a niece of my close colleague had a fatal heart attack at the age of 34, having had the vaccine for her occupation as a nurse! I began to be highly alarmed that it was the vaccines causing these symptoms, and that just as we had written right at the very beginning of the pandemic, a genetically engineered virus had serious implications for vaccine design. This paper, which was suppressed and therefore did not appear in print for many months, reported that the sequence of the virus was completely consistent with having been genetically engineered, with a furin cleavage site and six inserts at places that would make the virus very infectious, and the reason this had such tremendous implications for vaccine design was that 80% of these sequences had homology to human epitopes. In particular, we had noticed a homology with platelet factor 4 and myelin. The former is also certainly associated with what is known as VITT (low platelets and clotting issues) and the latter associated with all the neurological problems, such as transverse myelitis, both of which are now recognised as side-effects of the vaccine even by the MHRA.
Although it took some time to get these findings out into press, they were delivered to and widely circulated to the Cabinet and various medical committees as we thought these observations were crucially important. Unfortunately, they were ignored.
However, the cases of myocarditis did not even need this trigger as young hearts over-express the ACE-receptor, which the virus had been trained in the laboratory to bind to with very high affinity and it is this that sets off the inflammatory response, which leads to myocarditis, pericarditis, stroke and deaths, which it is now clear are far more common in the under-40s than caused by the virus infection itself.
It was also shortly after this time that it became evident that the virus was attenuating, as all viruses do. In addition, treatment was improving so the virus was leading to fewer hospitalisations and deaths. I believe this is a very important factor to take into account as it was clear at the end of the first year that the pandemic was reducing and the virus becoming less aggressive, with the emergence of the Omicron variant, just as large sections of the population were being vaccinated.
In late 2021 it was becoming manifestly evident too that the vaccines were anything but safe and effective and that the disease was not nearly as problematic as it was at the beginning of 2020 when it was being rendered much worse with what I believed at the time to be ludicrous responses. These included both lockdown and the refusal to treat Covid as a respiratory airborne virus with consensus mechanisms but instead pushing patients on to a randomised trial, known as RECOVERY, which ended up showing what everyone knew: that if there is an acute inflammation in the lungs patients need dexamethasone. The early responses also included putting patients on ventilation, which now is known to be the last thing that should have been done as it seemed to encourage early death.
When the facts change, or new facts emerge, the position of all those in authority directing mandates should change but unfortunately, they did not.
I tried desperately to point out that all the evidence that vaccines might have been useful in helping to curtail the pandemic was changing; that it was becoming very clear that there were highly significant side-effects to the vaccine programme that Pfizer had gone to great lengths to cover up, and that it was only a court case in the U.S. that led to them becoming available. At this stage the whole vaccine programme should have been stopped but nobody seemed to want to address this, neither the Government, the medical authorities or the media.
Having written many articles for the Daily Mail arguing against lockdown and for it never to be used again, I was extremely keen to address my change of opinion on the vaccines and to warn people of their dangers particularly to younger people, and to point out there were no grounds at all for giving it to children. Unfortunately, all my efforts and approaches to the mainstream media on this subject have been rejected. This, I believe, is something that will come back to haunt all those who introduced an Orwellian kind of suppression to the emerging truth, which labelled doctors trying to save their patients along the lines of ‘first do no harm’ as outcasts or villains.
Angus Dalgleish is an expert in immunology and Professor of Oncology at St George’s Hospital Medical School, London. This article first appeared in TCW Defending Freedom.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Why are non-white people vastly over-represented in TV commercials? It’s now incredibly rare to see a white man in TV commercials who is not a simpering clown.
The ad agencies are DEI obsessed. To be fair, my bank balance is looking really healthy now that I avoid spending with companies that hate me, my family and my values.
“The ad agencies are DEI obsessed.”
They have taken it to a whole new level. I would love to know why. I would love to be a fly on the wall. Do the clients ask for this (somehow I doubt it) or are they too afraid to call it out when they are presented with the finished product, for fear of being called racist? I mean, they are spending serious money, and you’ve got to think that these firms have a damn good idea of their target markets.
Look at the ppl who work at ad agencies. They arent exactly sound Christian folk.
I don’t know anyone who works at an ad agency so I can’t really say. My gut feel is that they are, like so many professions these days, full of people who want to change the world, or think they want to change the world, and their chosen profession is secondary to “doing good”. The Lord preserve us from do-gooders.
I like Jordan Peterson’s take on people who want to make the world a better place. Most of them, he observes, are barely capable of managing their own lives well.
That includes most politicians.
Indeed. I like this from Krishnamurti:
4th Question: Won’t we find the truth you speak of through loving service to humanity, through acts of love and compassion?
Oh, this is a lovely question!
The do-gooders are always helping society, the poor, devoting their life to poverty and helping others to accept the poverty or to move out of that poverty. This is going on, recognised by religious people as a great act, making them into saints. You know all this, you read about it almost every day in the papers. The missionaries that go out. It’s all so ridiculous!
Now, the questioner says, through acts of love, compassion, service, do we find that truth which is not yours or mine or doesn’t belong to any religion? Now, do you love? Do you have compassion? Do you want to help or serve another? When you set out to serve another, to help another, it means you know much better than the other fellow does. I think there is a great deal of vanity in all this, in the name of service, in the name of love. Don’t you think so? A great deal of self-expression. I want to fulfil myself through various activities, maybe service, maybe that which is called love, or through what we call love and compassion. Isn’t it natural and a healthy indication to help another? That’s natural. Why do we make a dance and a song about it?
3rd Question & Answer Meeting | J. Krishnamurti (jkrishnamurti.org)
Why indeed do they. Probably just another expression of the will to power. One that is very influenced by the modern day meme of making the world a better place. Few things concur status and bloats the ego in the modern world as someone supposedly committed to making the world a better place.
I don’t think it’s like that, ToF. I think they don’t actually ‘think’ because they are already indoctrinated into thinking that this is normal and OK. It’s sort of in-built without any desire to change the world plus the main advertisers who do TV commercials are mostly based in London. It’s ‘their’ world they reflect, not the one normal people live in.
Maybe. At some point there must have been a big drive to have way more non-whites – it’s now beyond a joke
The road to hell……
I think this works at the level of dogma, which means that it’s on autopilot and not much discussion takes place.
It’s the zeitgeist. Colour good, white bad.
if any of these people actually thought, we wouldn’t be where we are.
Where and how did this zeitgeist start? What were the key milestones that got us to where we are today?
My brief experience of commissioning ad agencies in the ’90s showed they are quite arrogant. They are the experts, they say, and then generally ignore their client’s wishes.
Failure of the advertising is then levelled at the product, not the execution of the ad.
I enjoyed sacking one very large agency as a consequence.
I can well believe that.
“I enjoyed sacking one very large agency as a consequence.” I’m jealous!
They were so upset that they didn’t get the balance of their £225k annual fee that they sued. Unfortunately I had a letter from the deputy MD apologising for not giving us the service we had paid for. It was a sweet moment as they didn’t have a leg to stand on.
This agency had been forced on me by my company chairman who wanted the kudos of saying he was using a big agency.
I ended up working with my choice of smaller agency who was my choice from the 2 shortlisted.
With the big agency we were way down their client list, behind a car manufacturer, a soap powder maker and many other FMCG brands.
With the smaller agency we were their biggest client. You can imagine the difference in attitude and level of service.
Sweet.
Working for a small firm myself that I believe gives good service, I agree about attitude.
It’s not just about customers they have, it’s about customers and a market they *want* to have. British Rail did this with some stations. Bushey station is in Oxhey, but they wanted to appeal to potential passengers who lived in Bushey. So they called it Bushey and Oxhey. And now it’s just called Bushey.
OK, so the clients are all desperate to capture the huge, wealthy “ethnic” market?
Whilst the advertising agencies are very likely to be willing accomplices, the fact that this change from white to non-white happened so fast and so thoroughly is, I suspect, because the Advertising Standards Agency have made it a requirement https://www.asa.org.uk/.
Could be. The link just takes me to the home page – do you have something more specific?
No, I couldn’t be bothered to read all the way through, but I bet it is in there in the standards required ie they will demand ethnically representative adverts. And, if an advert has just two people in it, then one black one white is required. If a family, then mixed race parents and some suitably curly haired kids will be required.
A quick search on their site for “ethnic” just throws up stuff about non-discrimination and not stereotyping – nothing about “representative”.
I wonder if they have rules about not stereotyping white men as effete clowns?
Secret revenge of the advertising nerds on white van man who bullied them at school… Oh dear, here I am stereotyping people…
Yes, I did read that. It doesn’t nail the point down, but a nod and a wink is all it takes. I note the ASA does have rules about not stereotyping, but doesn’t seem to have a problem with the hapless white man stereotype.
I am sure there are plenty of nods and winks, yes
And every family seems to be mixed race. Haven’t the advertising agencies learnt from Budweiser?
Beats me. The ads seem like such crap as well. Who on earth takes any notice of them? I can’t see how many of those ads would increase sales. You’d think they’d be better off just sticking the name up for 90 seconds with a bit of music or a picture of the product.
It’s the same when your buy clothes online the ethic models male and female are vastly over represented. Anyone would think the black/white population in this country was 50/50 when it’s more like 10/90. We know what they’re doing.
Down here in the still largely monocultural South West, where one might not see a POC for days, it was news to us that the country is now all POC.
They forgot to tell us. Maybe we should black up so we can join in?
You don’t have to go far from London to see the demographic change very quickly, and it varies hugely from area to area even in London. Incomers naturally congregate.
Saville is dead, he cannot therefore be pursued (or defend himself).
The questions the ‘fearless’ BBC should be asking are: Who knew what, when, and why did they fail to act. Anyone still with us, with knowledge of what was going on but failed to act, should be on trial.
The BBC facilitated a show called top of the pops, filled the studio with young girls, so that persons like Savile could be let loose. Let’s not let John Peel off the hook either who I am very reliably informed was just as bad.
Before any comment is made on the whys and wherefores about this program, the real question is how can the bbc be allowed to profit from the concealement of a paedophile in their midst for many years?
Anybody except the bbc should have made this documentary!
Totally f ing disgusting!
It wasn’t a documentary and it wasn’t made by the BBC.
It was commissioned by the BBC and shown on the BBC, but it was made by ITV.
So some people here are now downvoting facts!
Ok thank you for that detail that does not reflect well at all on ITVBBC or MSM!
I did not down tick it is good to give detail.
BBC employed JS in the first place they had a bigger responsibility to check it and not show it and expose the inaccuracies.
The BBC showed it and presumably they paid for it. The point still stands. Not technically a documentary but a dramatisation of real events – again the point stands.
So the BBC have not started to make untainted, for want of a better word woke drama, I wouldn’t know because I don’t watch anymore.
The funding they have means they will visually make the settings look convincing and perhaps lavish; nothing to lose they think as they brainwash all the viewers young and old.
Done this for many years but in recent times it is brazen propaganda. Constant rewriting history and context.
At my school teachers show ‘horrible history’ clips which change the colour of our ancestors and lots more lies but the teachers do not open any discussion and the children are them brainwashed too.
That poor girl who suffered due to the BBC looking away, has now been cancelled in death, she did not exist they say and replaced, rather than telling her true sad story.
As usual the BBC employees are liars, evidenced again in this drama, as they changed Claire’s character to be Asian, she was a white girl !!
Liars.
It is supposed to be a true story they have made this drama fiction. Unwatchable.
Wonder why the BBC didn’t cast Lenny Henry as Savile?
Because maintaining the rainbow of diversity is more important to the morally deranged imbeciles at the BBC than accurately telling the story of horrific child abuse perpetrated by one of its highest paid stars. Abuse that they absolutely knew about but did nothing.
Diversity & Inclusion™️ innit.
With the BBC it’s carefully constructed social engineering, supported by cunningly worded, pre-prepared justifications, one after, as if on a conveyor belt. With most others It’s just groupthink. That’s all – just low-calibre people incapable of abstract thought, gormlessly following protocol for fear of losing their jobs. Not a jot or iota of philosophical or moral principle out there. Just awful.
Are they referred to as “Naan’s People” on Top of the Pops?