dr-shankara-chetty-professor-david-miller-on-the-sonia-poulton-show-04-april 2024
On today's show, Dr. Shankara Chetty will delve into his upcoming trial at the Health Professionals Council of South Africa, likely discussing the circumstances and implications of the trial. Later, Professor David Miller will provide an update on the situation in Gaza, including the recent tragedy involving 'World Central Kitchen' aides who were murdered by an airstrike. Additionally, Professor Miller will address the controversy surrounding David Lammy, the UK's Shadow Secretary for Foreign, Commonwealth, and Development Affairs, who allegedly received a significant sum of money from an Israeli lobbyist and South African apartheid profiteer Gary Lubner, coinciding with the ongoing crisis in Gaza. These discussions promise to shed light on critical issues at the intersection of healthcare, international conflict, and political accountability.
GUEST 1 OVERVIEW: Dr. Shankara Chetty is a distinguished Medical Doctor and Biological Scientist with an extensive background spanning over 30 years in Rural and Remote Primary Care in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Notably, he has rendered care to over 5,000 COVID-19 patients, achieving a remarkable feat of zero hospitalizations or deaths among his treated cases. Dr. Chetty is renowned for his groundbreaking treatment approach in the early intervention and out-patient management of COVID-19.
You can connect with Dr. Shankara Chetty on Twitter via @ShankaraChetty and find more information about him on his website at https://www.drshankarachetty.com/.
GUEST 2 OVERVIEW: Professor David Miller is a distinguished academic and expert on Islamophobia, holding a position as a Professor at Bristol University. He recently gained attention for successfully winning an unfair dismissal case related to his academic work and expertise. As a prominent figure in his field, Professor Miller contributes significantly to research and discourse on issues related to Islamophobia.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
TRANSCRIPT TO dr-shankara-chetty-professor-david-miller-on-the-sonia-poulton-show-04-april 2024
This is the Sonya Poulton Show on today's news talk. TNT. TNT. Oh, wasn't Tanya Edwards lovely? An absolute joy and delight to talk to.
And cancel culture is just horrible, and I think it's really important what she was saying. It is the chilling effect. They literally don't need to do anything in Scotland now because the message has been sent out, hasn't it? And so people will And, I don't I now listen, forgive me, but I'm just gonna promote something that's coming up on Netflix more. And it's not necessary that I'm gonna promote that as such, but I want to make a comment about it.
Huge amount of promotion for Scoop. You must have heard about it. It's the story behind the interview with prince Andrew, with Emily Maithe It was the Newsnight, interview, and it's really the story of Sam McAllister, the booker, who was then at Newsnight and how she went after being able to get it. And there was, you know, the BBC was, there's no way you're gonna get this. Everybody wants these interviews.
Absolutely. No way he's gonna give an interview. And Sam McCallister managed to get it. And it was indeed a scoop, a fantastic scoop. And so the program that's coming up is the story really behind the story about the sort of clash between the ideals, the traditions of Buckingham Palace and their needs and demands and the needs and demands of the BBC and how it all came together.
And, you know, I do think this is obviously it's an interesting story, isn't it? No doubt about it. Anybody who saw that interview, that was a car crash interview in every sort of respect of the word. I mean, this whole thing about how I don't sweat very much and I was at, I can't remember what it was, Pizza Hut or or, you know, or whatever on that particular date because he remembered his children were at a party. And so it was all really, really odd.
But, you know, really, the thing is it's always disturbed me It's because there is a a massive story here that I think is the scoop that isn't touched, that that isn't covered. We know it's gonna be a blockbuster for Netflix. And, and, you know, for me, what about the man behind the story? A man who has spent his entire life in a state of great privilege and great entitlement. You know, the fact is he may or may not have had sex with Virginia Dufres at the request of Epstein.
But given that she was above the age of consent when it happened, I'm not sure and I've never been that that is really the story. The story for me is why the royal household, queen Elizabeth the second now departed, felt the need to pay millions of pounds to Virginia Giuffre in the first place. Obviously, the idea was that you pay Virginia Giuffre, the lawsuit stops, and we don't go to trial, and then all this stuff can't come out. But what was all this stuff that couldn't come out? Because those millions of pounds, really, there's a lot of question marks over them.
Right? We paid millions of pounds. It was used to silence a potentially bigger story that may have involved national and international trafficking involving rich, powerful people, including presidents, tech giants, media moguls, you name it. Millions of pounds to stop further exploration of the potential for secret services to be involved in blackmail, including our own MI five, MI six, and Israel's Mossad. Millions of pounds to stop the royal family and government secrets tumbling out and exposing the whole rotten lot for the fraudulent and abusive bunch of people that they really are.
That's the crime in my opinion, and that is the scoop. The fact that the son of the queen potentially linked to trafficking networks and the queen pays for it to go away. That is absolutely the story. Yeah. I'm sure it's all really brilliant how we got prince Andrew for that interview and how he, you know, it was just an absolute car crash.
But the real story is why somebody as influential and head of state as a queen would pay for sex trafficking allegations to go away. And I think that that's something worth pondering on. And, certainly, people like me, we've pondered on it for a very long time. Do you feel slightly duped by Goofray, in the comments? And I understand why that is.
Obviously, it's very difficult. Clearly, this was somebody who was taken around, you know, was seen on the yachts and at the parties. There's that image, that famous image of Virginia looking, you know, just like a seventeen year old, and you can see Naomi Campbell and various other people. So I do I'm I'm in no doubt whatsoever that she was trafficked. There's no doubt about it.
But the story is not about pedophilia where it comes to Virginia Giuffre because even by her own admission, she was above the age of consent. So it's odd. I've got yes. It's a psyop. I do believe that it is a cover for something much bigger, Brett.
I absolutely do unquestionably so. Look. And on that note, let's go and find out the second lot of UK headlines from our Gemma. Be right back. Be a part of the conversation.
I want representation I can trust. Have your say. Biden isn't doing enough. This is today's News Talk Radio, TNT. And here she is.
Welcome back, Gemma. Anything exciting happened in the last hour? Not particularly. I'll just make a quick comment because obviously I did used to work for the the BBC. The the the the former producer who I don't think works at the BBC anymore, and, of course, Emily Maitlis, the interviewer, who doesn't work for the BBC anymore either, and her nose is a bit out of joint because she's actually producing her own, film about the scoop, alleged scoop.
But was it an alleged scoop because was it a scoop rather? Because, the the reports I read at the time was that prince Andrew, actually on the advice of his daughters, decided he wanted to do the interview. So it wasn't like he was being hounded and chased. It was his daughters. It was either Beatrice or Eugenie that said, well, go on, daddy.
Set the record straight. If you if you give your side, then it will all go away. You know? They're not the brightest, are they, those two? And he took his daughter's advice, and said, look, I'll do it.
It wasn't like the BBC was suddenly, you know, journalistically brilliant and got got this scoop. It was actually the palace's decision, based on his advice from his his daughters who he's very fond of. So I don't you know, again, the way it's being presented. Oh, look at this. We don't we actually we actually did some journalism.
I don't think that was the case at all, and I I'm sure that will not be kind of mentioned in this Netflix, program. It will all be about, you know, Sam McCallister's book and how the BBC got got this interview. I think, actually, if you go right back and look at it, it was Beatrice and Eugenie saying, daddy, do it. Daddy, then it will be like, yeah. They're being really horrible to you, daddy.
You know? So I actually remember that. Where it came from. Yeah. Interesting you say that, you know, because, Sam McAllister's character is played by Billy Piper, and Billy Piper in all the press shots and, the press releases has talked about how this is an important tradition of journalism.
And it's so important to have captured this because a lot of the time when we've had, documentaries or dramas about scoops, it's always involved men. Whereas this was a team of women going after prince Andrew, and that's how it's being set up. But you're absolutely right. I remember that about, Eugenie and, Beatrice. And one of the quotes that has kind of come out that has been put out is that, he did it because he was surrounded by yes people who were telling him he should do it.
But I actually have not seen any mention of his daughters, but you're absolutely right. In the original, publicity around that issue, it was about that. You're absolutely right. See, this is exactly why we love Gemma because she remembers stuff like this, these twists and turns. Gemma, make us happy.
Tell us something happy. You're not going to then, are you? I can't really today. I wish I well, one of the stories makes me happy, and it's the digital one for obvious reasons. But the headlines really haven't changed in the in the last hour.
Obviously, we talked about this, earlier at the top of the last hour about hundreds of legal experts and judges that have written to Rishi Sunak warning he's breaching international law by allowing, arms exports to Israel from the UK to continue. The the this letter, seventeen page letter joins, a clamoring of MPs now saying we must halt arms exports to Israel after the death of the aid workers earlier in the week. We talked about that. Second story staying with with the legal profession, actually, and judges in the UK have been told by the UK Sentencing Council to consider giving more lenient sentences for offenders that come from deprived backgrounds. The the proposals came into force earlier this week, and they've today come into criticism from the lord chancellor who says they are inaccurate and patronizing, guidelines and put people from more well off backgrounds at risk of more tougher sentences for the same offenses.
Also a story with parallels to the post office scandal, people facing huge tax demands from his majesty's revenue and customs in the UK that they didn't know they were liable for under the loan charge scheme. They've spoken out for the first time about their suicide attempts, depression, and mental health problems due to the handling of the cases by the UK tax man, and this is being described as as big as the post office horizon scandal. It's been bubbling around for quite some time, but but more and more people are speaking out. And I I will say, Sonia, this headline does make me happy at least. It's warnings about the reliance on digital technology after huge outages in the UK and globally of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp yesterday.
The parent company, Meta, went down in an IT outage, leaving, you know, millions of people, billions of people unable to use digital tech. Warnings of today about our reliance of using online technology to live our lives. Personally, I'd be very pleased indeed if it all went down forever. So I'll say that's that's the that's at least a good news headline from my perspective, not everybody else, obviously. I think we, we should look at the reduced sentencing.
That has a personal, resonance for me. So do tell us more. Well, the sentencing council is the body in the UK that, gives judges and magistrates guidelines on sentencing. There is a book called the sentencing guidelines that judges consider when they're that's why often the the the actual guilty verdict and the sentence are very far apart in, in criminal courts because the judges wanna go away, look at the sentencing guidelines, consider mitigating factors, and then come back with with a sentence for criminal offenses. But for the first time, the sentencing council has decided to issue its own mitigating sentence, circumstances that that it wants judges especially to consider before passing a sentence.
And it's it's deprived background. So a difficult deprived background or difficult personal circumstances, mainly including poverty, low educational achievement, discrimination or insecure housing situations should be put top of the list when it comes to giving sentences. And if those factors are in play, the the sentencing council wants judges and magistrates to give more lenient sentences. The changes were brought in earlier this week, and despite warnings from the lord chancellor and the justice secretary, Alex Chalk, who is himself a lawyer, he said the guidelines is patronizing to working class communities. It's inaccurate, and it risks, poor schooling and poverty being the go to excuse when when you consider how many people in the UK are actually in, not just abject poverty, but destitution.
But then that's the excuse. Oh, I did it because I haven't got any money. I did it because I'm poor. And he says this will also leave, better off criminals, who who have higher education achievement, have stable housing, at risk of tougher sentences for the same offense, and where your background should have nothing to do with why you've committed an offense. Even Esther McVeigh, the Tory minister for common sense, has waded in, and she's made the point as often those from poorer communities, they're at risk of crime, not the ones committing crime, and we shouldn't be stigmatizing a entire demographic of UK society.
The sentencing councils themselves said they went to judges with these proposals, and a lot of judges don't like them and say, look. We do that anyway. That's why we're judges. We look at the whole picture. You know?
Is it a first offense? What mitigating circumstances were they? Was the was the was the offender under significant personal, stress at the time? Had they have a sick had they had a difficult life event? That type of thing.
They said we do that anyway. That's our job. But the sentencing council has introduced these twelve factors of disadvantage this week, and a lot of people don't like them. And it also is a kind of sticking plaster approach, I think, to, the fact that UK prisons, a story we've covered widely Mhmm. Here on TNT, are massively overcrowded, and criminals are actually being let out early from their sentences because there's nowhere to put anybody now if they're convicted of serious offenses, which warrant a custodial sentence in our court.
So there's an epidemic of crime, nowhere to put people. Will this work? I don't know. It's a very, sticking plaster approach possibly. And if you have committed an offense and you plead one of these mitigating circumstances for quite a serious offense, you'll be out in society, which many are arguing is not good either.
Well, that is interesting. I have a lot of complex emotions as you're telling that story, Gemma. And one of the reasons being is I was born into a family. We were born into poverty. My mom was extremely sick.
She was pretty much dying from the moment that I was born, sadly. And her husband had died with, cancer, the father of my three siblings. And then my my father, and he left when I was, like, three years old. So we had a lot of poverty and a lot of ill health. And, my brother, god rest his soul, and, you know, I thought it was absolute I mean, when I look back on it now and see what he was prepared to do, he did things like because we had no money, so we couldn't eat oftentimes.
It was, you know, sometimes we had gravy, right, as a meal. And, mom did her best and tried her best. Free school meals were absolutely vital for us. But my brother did things like he stole the lead off my school roof to sell it in order for us to be able to have food. He stole lead from a local scrap yard.
And when I look at things like that, I have to say that, obviously, maybe I have some bias in me, but I do think that that that that these are circumstances which should be taken into consideration. I think poverty, oh, we should. I don't think that they should be that there should be any consideration place when it's when it comes to serious crime like murder or rape or anything like that. But if you're talking about stealing in order to feed or heat, then that is a whole other story for me. And no, I'm not sat here advocating for people to be, you know, thieves.
Not at all. But I am saying that I do have an understanding of why the council may have reached that conclusion. So I'm quite torn about it, really, Gemma, because even though, obviously, on paper now, I lead a very nice, comfortable middle class existence. I never forget my roots ever, and I think it's important not to. So and I do think that we're not tackling what's at the heart of this and that is dysfunction in our society.
So many fatherless homes. This is obviously a huge problem. A lot of single parents primarily mothers who are raising children and there are obviously issues here of discipline of poverty and all manner of other things that are taking place. So I'm glad they are taking it into consideration, but I do have lots of questions about it. But but what are your feelings?
What's your gut instinct? Does it feel like sticking plaster solution to you? It does it does, has come amid the overcrowding crisis in the UK prisons, which has been a story I've been covering on TNT for since I started actually here. There's there's clearly a problem that needs to be addressed there. I agree with you.
I do think there are always mitigating circumstances, but judges already do take that into account. That is part of sentencing somebody. You look at the whole picture of why somebody has ended up in the court system, especially if it's a first offense, and the circumstances surrounding a first offense. But there there there is serious problems in prisons, and I wonder if the sentencing council is trying to help with the government's crisis here. Of course, the issue is why, are our prisons in such a state?
Why is there no rehabilitation? You know, people argue, don't they? The best place to learn how to be a criminal is prison. You know, if you wanna increase increase your criminal skill set, go to prison and you'll certainly be taught by some of the, you know, some of the best. I'm not making light of that at all, but it, it does depend rather on what, says a deprived background will get you off a custodial sentence that they, that hasn't been detailed by the sentencing counsel because you're quite right.
If you're talking serious offenses, if you're talking armed robbery, rape, murder, these are the ones that would absolutely deserve a custodial sentence, then then, you know, that those kind of factors don't mitigate at all, do they? But the epidemic of crime in UK society, most crimes still, I I talked about this earlier this week. I have a friend who works in the criminal justice system, and he says most crimes that end up in courts are to do with drug addiction, fueling addiction, trying to fund addiction, trying to get money, anything, theft to fund addiction. Why are so many people addicted? That that's the that's the the real crux.
He said about ninety percent of cases that he sees coming through magistrates that are then referred to Crown because they're too serious to be dealt with by magistrates are to do with fueling drug addiction. Why are we such a sick society? Why do people feel the need to anesthetize themselves against real life? That that's the issue. That's a that's a really deep issue in in our in our society in the UK.
It's not just the UK as it's global. That is exactly what I'm talking about. Thank you so much, Gemma. Really appreciate that, And, we will see you tomorrow as ever. We'll be right back.
I was such a young age. Everything changed. My name is Chloe. When I was thirteen, my dad was diagnosed with cancer. When I found out, I just didn't know how to react.
I felt like everything was just kinda closing in on me. It just became a routine. Dad's doing chemo. I'd come home from school, wait for mum to finish work, and we'll go straight to the hospital, spend a few hours there, just draw. It was hard to navigate going to school.
Hundreds of kids, and I I was the only one with a dying dad. He was diagnosed in March, and then he died in October. Towards the end, I heard about Canteen. It kinda felt nice to know that they had other people like me. They understood what I was going through, and we didn't even have to chat about cancer.
In twenty twenty, I became a youth ambassador, so I can help others the way they helped me. I've done so many things since I was thirteen. I've graduated high school, university, gotten my license, made a move across the country. Life in the eye is just a whole lot more fun. Please give a gift today to support more young people like me experiencing cancer.
So many people who had no history of heart illnesses have got it now, or blood clotting after the COVID nineteen vaccination. Punish those who hurt people with COVID madness, lighting the fuse for freedom. TNT Radio. Welcome back. Yeah.
That's a really interesting story, isn't it, what Gemma was just talking about? I'm as as I say, I'm completely torn and split about it. So let us move on. Now as you know, although much of this show is focused on what is happening in the UK, it's important also to acknowledge that we are dealing with a globalist structure. And what may be impacting a doctor in one part of the world will almost certainly be impacting a doctor in another part of the world, I e, in the UK.
That is the case with doctor Shankara Shetty in South Africa who will be put on trial this week for his views on COVID mRNA technology. He's charged with malfeasance. Now for our viewers, what we are about to discuss is reminiscent of the witch hunts that we've brought you before about British doctors and surgeons including doctor Mohammed Adil, doctor David Carland, and doctor Hamid Malik. They've all experienced that here. And, well, welcome, first of all, doctor Shetty.
Thank you for joining us this morning. Thank you for having me, Sonia. And, welcome to all your guests. Thank you. We really appreciate you joining us all all the way from, South Africa.
I believe you're in South Africa at the moment, are you? Yes. Yes. I am. I am.
Thank you. It's well, it's good to have you with us. You are, of course, you are being subject to a witch hunt. There's no other word for it as far as I can see. And this week, you're having to face a trial.
How are you feeling at the moment? I'm feeling very optimistic, Sonia. It's, it's four years of being silenced and so it's an opportunity to be heard. So, yeah, if the jury has to be tied down to their seats and listened to me, so be it. You treated thousands of people during c nineteen.
Many people are prepared to stand up and be counted regarding supporting you, including Steve Kirsch. And you've what you've done has been described as a novel and an orthodox approach. Tell us what that is and why that seemed to irk the medical authorities. Okay. Sonia, the the the basis of my work, I saw COVID patients from the start of the pandemic to understand the illness.
I noticed a biphasic nature to it. I noticed that those that went into the second phase were those that had severe illness and were at risk of morbidity and mortality. That second phase seemed to be triggered by a protein that was causing a an an inappropriate immune response to the virus. So it wasn't the virus causing the pathology. It was the body's reaction to the virus in some people that was causing the pathology.
I later identified that the protein that was causing this problem was spike protein. And that was in twenty twenty when I identified spike protein as the primary pathogen. So coronavirus was just a vector. Everyone got over the coronavirus. But when it left behind this protein, some people had a severe reaction to it.
And that was the basis for understanding acute COVID. And, of course, treating that meant suppressing that reaction. As soon as it happened, you have to suppress it very quickly because it's an allergic process that spirals out of control very, very quickly. So my treatment had great success success because I think the underlying understanding of the pathophysiology was there. I was treating exactly what was causing the problem.
Now with that understanding of spike protein at the end of twenty twenty when the vaccine designing was out, I found it strange that they were using a pathogenic protein to vaccinate people. If this protein was already causing problems as part of a virus, why would you want to make it a basis for a vaccine? And I foresaw that the exposure to spike protein through the vaccinations is gonna cause more problems. I'm gonna just get worse cases than I've ever seen before with the vaccine. And of course, spike protein is a pathogenic protein.
It's got other epitopes on it. So it causes this wide diversity of illness. So I think, I was, that made me controversial. And the reason for my prosecution is that I was, I think, too close to the target from the start or too close to the truth from the start. You've very much upset your regulatory body.
Same thing happened in the UK. And, they targeted you essentially. Right? And that's what you're fighting off at this moment in time, isn't it? Yes.
It's, it's another attempt to be silenced. But I think robust scientific debate is what's needed to solve the problem. Now we're sitting with the planet of vaccine injured patients who are being sidelined, and we need to we need to address that. So if we can't have a scientific debate that's robust and take all consideration into, to factor in, we're never gonna get to help these patients. It's the most peculiar approach science I've ever known in my entire life, doctor.
It's this whole idea that somehow what their science was settled. Well, really, science is very rarely settled. Right? Yeah. It was never settled from the start, and that's the reason I spoke out against the vaccine, Sonia.
This, this idea that it was ninety five percent effective, it was, erroneous. They use the, relative risk reduction rather than an absolute risk reduction and so misled the public in that way. They talk about breakthrough infections. When you give a patient a vaccine, you expect it to to stop any infection and transmission and that gives it a population based benefit. And seeing that we were aiming for herd immunity, that population based benefit was absolutely vital in recommending the vaccine for everyone.
Now they eventually and I mean, if you're talking infection and transmission, the first patient that I saw that was fully vaccinated that had an infection proved to me that the vaccine was not effective. That is not a breakthrough infection. That's a vaccine failure. So every person that was vaccinated that got COVID was a vaccine failure. And if the vaccine only stops severe illness and death, that's an individual benefit and you can't use an individual benefit to justify vaccinate vaccinating the entire population for a group benefit.
And that's all I'm just I've got you. Let us quickly go to some news headlines, and we will be right back. Now TNT Radio News. Newsflash. Yeah.
Yeah. Are you ready? Now without further ado. Matt Boland here with your TNT headlines. NATO is preparing a one hundred billion dollar plan to support Ukraine's war effort against Russia for the next five years.
It comes as the block moves to reduce Kyiv's reliance on Washington. The world's oldest man has died just two months before his one hundred and fifteenth birthday, and a six point three magnitude earthquake rattled parts of Japan on Thursday, one day after a powerful seven point four tremor rocked Taiwan. The common housefly caught in the clutches of the spider's web. Every move it makes just makes matters worse. Then dinner time.
Feast on the captivating stories, videos, and helpful information on our website. Woah. Dinner's ready. Oh, man. Escape is futile.
Just one more video. Video. Get stuck in our web. TNT radio dot live. I'm joined by doctor Shankara Shetty all the way from South Africa this morning, and he's being put on trial essentially for the crime of being a doctor.
Gosh. Where have we heard that before? Oh, yes. Julian Assange put on trial for the crime of being a journalist. Looks like you're not allowed to do your job anymore these days.
Doctor, we were just talking in the break about that sort of moment when you realize that you cannot continue, you know, to follow their protocol. You can't follow their direction. Tell us about that moment for you when you realized that you had to speak out. I think, Sonia, the the the narrative forced me to speak out. At the start of the pandemic, before I saw the first patient, I looked at the genome of the virus and I knew there was an insert in it.
And that insert told me I'm dealing with a non natural virus. This was probably made in a lab. And of course, they didn't want doctors to see patients and that was gonna prevent us understanding what exactly is happening. At that point, I thought it was a lab leak and we were trying to contain it. And so I took the time to understand the illness and save those lives.
But very quickly, I realized that there's a pathogenic protein triggering the problem here with COVID illness. And so when the vaccine came out, I I was concerned that this is gonna cause problems. And so I spoke out. But the one thing I found strange was that no one was listening. If you found a way to negate the mortality and morbidity in a pandemic, why won't they listen?
If you draw attention to your understanding that there's a pathogenic protein that's gonna cause harm with the vaccine program, why wouldn't they listen? So immediately, I knew there's a nefarious agenda at play. And it seemed that this wasn't a lab leak, but more deliberate, attempt as seeing that they weren't making any effort to negate a lab leak. It was more like an agenda being pushed, hoisted on the public whether we liked it or not. Now with the understanding that spike protein is pathogenic, that means we're dealing with the toxin.
At the start of the vaccine program, they limited it to old age homes and, healthcare workers. But I knew a poison on my desk doesn't kill anyone. If you decide to drink it, then maybe I'll have to I'll have to treat you and that was a bad choice. But the day they decide to force that onto people, it becomes a criminal act. And so the day I saw the the first country mandating the vaccine, I felt obligated to tell the world what I thought.
And it was at that point at the Caribbean summit that my conscience got the better of me and I decided to speak my opinion. And to to this day, Sonia, everything I stated in that interview that I'm being prosecuted for is proven to be true. So you were really doing what we expect from a doctor, and that is you were putting patients first. You were saying there is a problem here. There is an agenda here.
There is something very wrong with what we're we're essentially mandating people to do. The level of coercion that was taking place around the world was quite astonishing. And, but you also you published information, didn't you, in Journal of Modern Medicine. Is that correct? And did Yes.
That is there. Did did because I think that opened up the world for you, didn't it? Because this that's that is a journal for frontline doctors. Right? That is widely read.
So that would have been interesting. How was that received? Look. I I I I pinned the article in May, June twenty twenty. So very early on in the pandemic, and I covered all the signs.
I covered what I'd seen, the observations. I covered what I thought was the pathophysiology, the treatment of COVID. And of course, there was one very controversial line in that article that made it, disappear. I mentioned that if, early treatment could negate all the mortality and morbidity of COVID illness, it would make an mRNA vaccine rush to market without, long term evaluation wholly unnecessary. And of course, that was the scientific truth.
Now it was published by Modern Medicine. The editor was very keen because he he vetted the science and he felt that that that was perfectly on target. He published it in August, September that year and for the first five or six months, we had absolute silence. He actually contacted me to say I'm I'm astonished that this article hasn't drawn any attention. It was a professor Chris Newton, a molecular biologist from, the UK that noticed my unusual comments on LinkedIn and looked through my article.
And at that point realized that the entire world had missed the boat. And he arranged the first interview with doctor Philip McMillan to, interrogate the science. And it was at that point that it became, globally known about what I had found. It almost spread around the world and came back to South Africa and that's when people became aware of it. The editor for afterwards contacted me and said it's the most requested article from around the globe from his magazine.
So yeah, it's a it's something that took a little while to get around and for people to understand what was going on. I think we were too focused on vaccines. Yes. Absolutely. I I feel very sorry for doctors because doctors just tried to do what they're supposed to be doing, the whole Hippocratic oath and all of that, you know, patience.
First, first, do no harm, all of that sort of stuff. And so heavily penalized. And the problem is all around the world, there are so few of you standing up. And that that is in part, I think, part of the problem because they've been able to isolate you and pick you off, haven't they? Yes.
They've managed to do that. But I think we need to relook at what the regulators are supposed to be doing. I think a lot of these regulatory authorities have been captured. They have been financed by a private enterprise, pharmaceutical companies. And so they, I think that their trust, has been lost because they're not doing what's best for the patient.
As a doctor, I first do no harm. And of course, Sonia, when we look at the controversies around hydroxychloroquine ivermectin, the treatments that came out, yes, I understand that they tried to hide it simply to authorize the emergency use and that would have negated an emergency use. But we're talking about absolutely safe medications that do know how. And so why shouldn't I be able to use it? I mean, suddenly recommendations became, I can be prosecuted for not following a recommendation.
And remember these regulatory authorities, it's beyond their scope to tell me how to treat a patient. At the end of the day, it's my name that appears on my script pad. And if they feel that they have a better medication to suggest, they should write it on a script pad with their name on it and take legal responsibility for their recommendation. Interesting. What do you think is going to happen this week in in terms of this malfeasance charge?
Well, Sonia, I'm looking forward to it. I think it's a great opportunity to highlight exactly what has gone on. The charges range from me calling this a bioweapon, to being, the insisting the vaccine safe and effective. It covers the pathophysiology that I've, understood around COVID, and it also covers my treatment intervention. So it's a broad case that covers almost the entirety of COVID.
And I've got expert witnesses from around the world in each little nuance of this case to testify. So we're going to show the intent of the vaccine, the lack of safety and the injuries the vaccine caused, the lack of efficacy and effectiveness of the vaccine. And then of course, my treatment intervention, the pathophysiology around it. And of course, I've got data that's been analyzed and shown the significance of what I've done. So well, they're going to hear it whether they like it or not.
The problem is the bias. We've got a jury that needs to tell me their vaccine status if I'm gonna remove all the bias from the case. Unfortunately, the vaccine was promulgated on prejudice And that prejudice still exists to this day and it's gonna influence the outcome of my case. And so I think the jury should be half vaccinated enough, unvaccinated for me to have a fair trial. Otherwise, the prejudice is gonna reevaluate head in the decisions they take.
Doctor, what has gone on here? It it can't just be about money, surely, this agenda that we all often talk about. I mean, what what is your opinion about what has taken place over the last four years? What is it ultimately about? So, Sonia, I think it's, it's a far bigger agenda.
COVID COVID was just a small part of it. It was a it was a part of manipulating the public, losing hope, following an agenda, forcing us to comply with nonsensical things. I think the reason the public health strategies went nonsensical was to test people to see whether they will actually comply with things they don't really think I said. And, the bigger agenda is to get the regulatory authorities of the world, the UN, the the World Health Organization, and the World Economic Forum to wield more power than they actually have. These were organizations that gave suggestions.
Now they want a power grab and they want our sovereignty. And so, yeah, it's a it's a global agenda where we're going to see big business controlling governments to control the world and its money. Now at the end of the day, it's money that's going to try and rule the world. So at the end of the day, our sovereignties are being challenged. And I think, taking away one freedom at a time, we won't notice it until we realize we're enslaved.
If you look at what they did, Sonia, they told us the safest place for us would be in jail and they took away our freedoms and put us all in jail during lockdown. And then when we decided it's safe enough to come out, they said, no. You can't get your freedom back till you take a vaccine. So we were herded like cattle into a crowd, and the only way out was through the dip. And that's what they did to us.
So I think, yeah, there's really is a bigger point that I'd be chair at play. It is absolutely insane. I want to thank you so much. I think you are absolute proof that not all heroes wear capes. And, thank you so much for being who you are, for standing up and being counted because this is what counts.
This is what people will remember in the future. And I don't wish you luck. I don't believe you need luck. I think that what you're going to be doing this week is so important, and I think that you're gonna make plain to the entire world about what an absolute sham has taken place here. Everybody, this is doctor Shankara Shetty, and he's standing up for all of us regardless of what part of the world we're in.
Thank you so much. Take excellent care of yourself, doctor Shetty. We'll be right back. My name is Stacy. I'm fifty seven, and I was adopted in two thousand twenty.
We were adopted in twenty nineteen. And we were adopted in twenty twenty one. We had a house, and it sounds crazy, but it wasn't a home. The one thing that Jake and Emma brought is it became a home. When I met Dakota, he had just turned fourteen.
You weren't there for the first this and the first that. I missed the first words, but we got a lot of other firsts. Watching her say, oh my god, I cannot believe I got my license. And she's like, I passed. And I'm like, girl.
See them grow. It is They chose to love us. They didn't have to. They chose us. Family.
You and you. Kids in the middle. What I thought was a complete life was nowhere near complete, but it is now. Learn about adopting a teen from foster care. You can't imagine the reward.
Visit adopt US kids dot org. Eggs. You can fry them, scramble them, poach them, boil them, or race them on a spoon. But uncooked eggs can be a risk for food poisoning. To be safe, avoid buying dirty or cracked eggs.
Always wash your hands after handling eggs. And if you're concerned, pregnant, elderly, or have a poor immune system, make sure you cook eggs until the yolk starts to firm, or look for new pasteurized eggs. For excellent eggs, handle them safely. This is the Sonya Fulton Show on today's news talk. TNT.
TNT. I absolutely adore and love people who are prepared to put their head above the parapet. I think it's so vital in this cowardly world, and I'm just reading so many of your wonderful comments that are coming in. This is from five eyes. The medical boards are captured and get instructions from above regarding certain targets.
This was not about science. This is about keeping dissenters, whistleblowers, and people who stumble across criminality, under the boot and made an example of absolutely it's that chilling effect, isn't it? It's like, let us go after this one because it will send a message to everybody else to keep this quiet. Well, I'm delighted to say that even though they went after my next guest, he's never kept quiet, which is, I think, always a splendid thing. Welcome, professor David Miller, to the Sonia Poulton Show.
How are you this morning, David? I'm very well, especially after an introduction like that. Good. Well, I I am delighted to have you here because you are as I think I'd said to you a little, a few minutes ago, you are a rebel with a cause. There's no doubt about it.
You are somebody who's been heavily demonized, like heavily. And when I first started to read about you, I was like, oh, he sounds like a thoroughly unpleasant individual. Excuse me. Because that's the whole idea, isn't it? It's to make you seem that way.
For those who aren't familiar, David very famously challenged, Bristol University, which we will get into. But David, we we asked you here because because we wanted you to make a comment on some of the things that are happening in Gaza and Israel this week of which you know a great deal and certainly about the complicity of politicians as one example. And one of the things that we wanted to get your response from was to do with the labor MP David Lamy. And it's very interesting because there's this whole thing that's going on where they're now saying to obviously to Rishi Sonaq, you know, we have to stop sending arms to Israel, etcetera, etcetera. But guess who's spoken up and said, well, you know what?
I think we need to be careful about this. We need to look into this. I'm paraphrasing him, but we're talking about David Lamy. And then when you look, and this is what we want your response from really, was, Mint Press News. They had tweeted a few days ago about David Lamy, about his involvement with Israel, about him receiving seventy thousand pound from Israel lobbyist, Gary Lubner.
And this money, according to Lamy's parliamentary registered interest, was seventy thousand pound towards paying for additional staff, and it should be noted that this was paid eight days before the ceasefire vote in parliament to which Lamy abstained. You've had lots to say, haven't you, about politicians and their complicity with Israel? What are your thoughts about this, David? So I mean, David Lamay is bought and paid for, isn't he? But it's not just a question of the the payment for the ceasefire vote.
He does a lot of other things for the Zionists, which he has paid for. But he's also aligned as our many, many politicians in the UK. Forty percent of Labour MPs are members of, or supporters of Labour friends of Israel. And it's something like seventy or eighty percent of Conservative MPs who are friends who are who are members of supporters of conservative friends of Israel. So they have a kind of grip on parliament, and the and the grip is extended by the fact that if you step out of line and you don't support those organizations, that they bully and intimidate you and make you fall back into line as as we have seen with countless examples.
Any MPs says something moderately progressive isn't pounced upon and then issues a grovelling apology and, doesn't say anything ever again. So this is a a stranglehold on the whole of British politics, and it doesn't just end there. But the example of Lammy is a is a good one because he's also, of course, very close to the US. He is, known in some circles in the UK as the CIA's man in the Labour party. So he's a kind of a he has a dual loyalties if you like to both the US and to Israel, as opposed to his loyalty to his alleged loyalty to his constituents who voted to put him in place.
So, yeah, there's a there's a significant problem here of, almost all MPs effectively being silenced or being complicit, silenced by or complicit in the genocide. And that and that's a problem with the whole political system. It's not just one or two MPs who have a a conflict of interest. It's the whole political system. And we've been saying this, those of us who say these kind of things, for a long, long time.
And it was the case also, if you recall, with the the, illegal invasion of Iraq when at least back then in two thousand and three, twenty one years ago, at least there were some MPs who were willing to stand up and speak out about that. Of course, notably, Jeremy Corbyn and then slightly later, George Galloway, who, of course, has just got back into parliament. So, yeah, this is a significant problem of corruption in politics. And we we we are now witnessing. Let's just finish on this.
We're now witnessing the potential end of that contradiction, which is that, that these aid workers, especially British military, ex British military people who've been killed, have turned so many people. And it now looks like Britain will move against Israel for the first time. And that's a very that's very good news. It is very good news. One one of the things that one of my producers raised up to my attention today, and I'm very glad she did.
And because I was talking about it yesterday, there appears to be a sort of hierarchy of who's important being killed. And the reason I say that obviously is we've seen all western media very focused and not to take anything away from the losses of any lives at all. But one of the things that was pointed out to me was that, the Palestinian driver, for example, Saif, little to no mention of him in western media. And I think that's that's interesting, isn't it? Well, yes.
And and most of the western media I've listened to, in the period since it happened, he's not even been referred to as being Palestinian. He's been referred to as it's been referred to Western people who have died and then others. So they don't even get, a nationality, never mind a name. And, of course, the names of the the white, ex military people from Britain and from other Western countries are put out there and they're discussing their relatives are brought on to to decry what's happened. Of course, there is a hierarchy, and of course, it's, you know, people have been commenting about how, you know, it takes the killing of three white British ex squadies to change people's minds.
And that and there's there's merit in that point, I think, but let's remember that also it's it's a kind of tipping point. So it's not that the the people have have no care at all for the the Palestinian. Actually, what you see in the people who are now turning, who've who've been silent or complicit, who are now turning are people who have put up with a lot, who've given Israel, you know, a measure of appreciation to to get on with counter terrorism or whatever it is that they say that that Israel is doing. And they cannot stomach anymore. That they cannot stomach any more deaths.
So the the deaths of the Palestinians have mounted on their consciences, and they and then now, finally, after all this time, they're starting to say we should stop arms sales to Israel, which, of course, have been given by the British government, as well as, intelligence help and overflights and as well as training of Israel defense forces personnel in the UK. So these things are now up for grabs. It's now being discussed seriously for the first time that the hundreds, perhaps thousands of British citizens who have gone to fight and kill Palestinian children, may when they come back be arrested. And that's a very good thing as well. I mean, these people should all be arrested and, held for war crimes.
Well, you and the thing is is that if if anybody's in a position to say that it's you because you sort of been dragged over the coals because of your outspoken criticism of Israel, of Zionism. And, of course, I I you you were clearly subjected to something of a witch hunt at Bristol University. I mean, you've been an academic at a number of universities, but it was Bristol where all the controversy, I think, primarily took place. And you won a tribunal against them. You claimed unfair dismissal, breach of contract, and discrimination or victimization on grounds of religion or belief.
And that was, I think, quite key, you winning that. Tell people about it and what it actually means. So I was dismissed by the University of Bristol for saying things, based on my research about the Zionist movement and in particular about the connection of, the Zionist movement to the pushing of Islamophobia. And that's based on research I've done over many, many years stretching into decades now. And, there was a campaign to to have me dismissed.
More than a hundred members of the Houses of Commons and Lords wrote to the university demanding I'll be dismissed. Fifty of my colleagues, Zionists at the University of Bristol wrote demanding that I be looked at. Hundreds of Zionists from across the world in in academia and other places. A laundry list of Israel lobby groups. Far too many for anyone in the UK to even remember the names of wrote to demand that I be, dismissed and they, of course, lied about me and they lied about me and they lied about me.
And then we went to the tribunal and the tribunal determined that the university had not properly investigated and and that they had not properly considered the investigation and considered whether they could give me a warning or or or some other alternative to to sacking, to to preemptory sacking. And so I was I was trying to be wrongfully dismissed, but the most important element of the case was that I was claiming to have been discriminated against, not on the grounds of my religion, but on the grounds of my philosophical belief, my philosophical belief in anti Zionism. Where I was making the case that anti Zionism is not racism. Anti Zionism is not antisemitism, which is, of course, is the case, which is made by the Israeli government and all of this shills and, propagandists that there are these two things are the same. And the court determined that these two things are not the same and that, my views are not akin to Nazism, are not racist, are not antisemitic, and that they should be protected in a democratic society.
And that's the legal terminology from the Equality Act. So now we've established the principle that anti Zionist views cannot attract the sanction of being sacked or any discrimination by employers anywhere, in the UK. So that's a very, very important, principle. It's it's it's become it's the start if you like, of a whole range of of, victories against the science which have happened, in the last few weeks, including libel victories and, and other setbacks that they faced. So I I'm hoping that this will this, will become a flood of reversals for them.
Well, let's hope. I mean, it does set a precedent to a certain degree because, obviously, what we've seen is this complete inability that we we have where we're being blocked from criticizing genocide, what's going on with the Israeli government. And, you know, tarred and feathered, I mean, I have the amount of, correspondence that's been received by to by various people about me just because I questioned the Israeli government. I mean, it just absolutely ridiculous. So I think that's really important what you fought for because we need to be able to call out people who are doing these things, and it's almost like it's designed for us not to be able to.
Well, it is designed that way. And I mean, this is my research. Right? So I I looked at where where does the idea come from? The antisemitism and antisemism are the same thing.
Well, it comes from the Israeli government, and it's been advancing this idea since well, before that, but since nineteen seventy two, at least when the foreign minister Abba Iban made a speech in the US where he said that anti, Zionism is the new antisemitism. And since that that that that day, they've been trying to advance this, policy prognosis on the world stage that there is no distinction between antisemitism and anti Zionism. And, of course, they were able to have it codified, in a in a legal document called the working definition of antisemitism issued by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, which sounds like an independent NGO, but which is largely made up of of Israel itself and, its western allies. And so they've they've managed to institutionalize this document, which is used as a weapon to beat, everyone who is pro Palestine, whether they're Muslim or Palestinian or whether they're or not. I mean, you've you you received a tremendous amount of support including from public figures, didn't you, when they came out against you at the universities like Judith Butler and Noam Chomsky.
I mean, these are, you know, very well known academics. And I think the attack on, on universities and academics is particularly chilling, isn't it? Because isn't this where we're supposed to be exploring ideas? And it seems horribly sanitized these days, and it's it's almost like we're just churning out the the same kind of people that we churn out from from our our our school system. There is there there seems to be no advancing of ideas anymore around this particular issue.
Well, that's that's true. I mean, academia I mean, that's the job really for me was that, I'm a social scientist. I do research, and I find things out. And the the kind of implication for me was that I I was not supposed to say what I had found. Right.
Or I was actually, the things I found, I didn't really mean that. I didn't really find that. So I had to the pressure on me was to falsify my research. I I find evidence that the Zionists were pushing Islamophobia. I find evidence that they were engaged in all sorts of activities in the UK and indeed, of course, in occupied Palestine.
And the the implication was that I was supposed to shut up and not say that because it's too controversial. And I, you know, I couldn't do that. I mean, I I couldn't be a social scientist and refuse to discuss my research findings. It was absurd. And that that's, of course, why I got into this this situation because I refused to say, I I I made a mistake.
I I I didn't mean to offend you. And that's what they want you to say. They want you to say, I didn't mean to offend you and to be careful. Everything else that you say in the future. And I and I I was never gonna do that.
So here here we are. In the end, I I've won and, you know, we we go on forward to to defeat Zionism overall, I think, in the future. Well, more power to your elbow, frankly, because I don't conflate the two. Absolutely not. But this must have had quite a profound effect on your mental and physical health because these things are not easy to deal with at all, and I know that from personal experience.
How are you? Well, I think you can tell from all the interviews I've done since the fifth of February that I'm pretty well. And, I don't know. Yeah. Of course.
This is this is difficult. Of course, you know, financial hardship and appropriate, these are these are difficult things and people not speaking to you again, which of course happened. These are difficult things, but I, you know, I was always clear that, that I was right and that I would never apologize for saying things which are true, which I could evidence. You know, if if people said to you to me, oh, this is ridiculous what you're saying. It's awful what you're saying.
That show me the evidence. I would I've shown them the evidence, and then what will they do? They would have nothing to reply. Nothing at all. Not a not a single time have they found that anything I've said has been wrong.
Well, of course, now you're perfectly placed to comment on these matters because you've, you know, you you've been at the coal face now, and you've dealt with it, and you know exactly what's going on. We started this conversation talking about the complicity of politicians. We talked about how many, labor politicians are friends of Israel, but, of course, so are the tourists. And I just want your comment on this. David Cameron seems to think that while, obviously, it's deeply distressing what happened with the aid workers, he seems to think that Israel is in a position to investigate themselves.
Would you agree? Well, of course not. I mean, I see that, some people have been saying there's no point in having an investigation because we already know it was cold blooded murder, murder and that's true. We do. We already know from the facts about the the three separate attacks kilometers apart that this is a deliberate and sustained attack on people who they who they knew were workers.
They they had the information, and they knew they were workers. And we've already seen in the Israeli press that the, the IDF are admitting that that it was David Stewart, and that that company commanders in the IDF are giving carpalace to do whatever they want. And, of course, the government is saying, oh, it's a terrible mistake. But everyone in the IDF knows it was a terrible mistake. They deliberately target aid workers just like they've been deliberately targeting hospital workers and journalists and and teach and the academics.
Every single university in Gaza in ruins. These are deliberate acts of the occupying, genocidal power. Absolutely. Listen, professor, we're really grateful for you joining us this morning, giving us the benefit of your insight of which it is extensive. And, Raycan says everything is heading towards answers that can't be questioned, not questions that need answers.
Interesting. Thank you so much for joining us this morning, David. Truly appreciate it. And that kind of brings us to the end of the show, and it's been really interesting because I've been talking. My guest this morning all seem to have quite a common theme, and that is they have been persecuted for doing their jobs.
Whether that's doctor Shetty in South Africa or Tanya Edwards being a comedian and and being subject to canceling or the good professor here. And I think that we really need to question what kind of world we want to live in. I want to live in a world where people are prepared to stand up and be counted just like the professor did, just like doctor Jeff Chesty is this week where he's going to be put on trial. And And I want to thank you all for joining us this morning, all your wonderful, wonderful contributions. Thank you.
We truly appreciate that, Penelope. Penelope is telling us we're amazing, and we think you're amazing too. And, but this show, of course, would be nothing without its wonderful guests. Stick around with us. Today's news talk, lots of brilliant shows coming up.
David Curtin after me. I will be back tomorrow when, of course, it is Friday. And, really, if you can take any inspiration from today's show, and that is be prepared to walk your talk. Take excellent care of yourself. See you tomorrow.