Transcript to 23min interview Wake Up Asia 3 with Dr Shankara Chetty may2024

Okay. So we have, next up, we have doctor Chetty from South Africa, and he first appear I met first met him in 2021, and he was one of the first few brave international doctors who who came and spoke for Singapore. And he has, since treated 14,000 patients suffering from COVID. None of them required hospitalization. None of them needed oxygen or deaths and so forth, and there was no need for any COVID injections, okay, even until now.

He's a general practitioner with a natural science background in genetics, advanced bio biology, microbiology, and biochemistry. And, he has published a paper that you can see in modern medicine 2020 issued at 3 50 to 53. And currently, he's also being persecuted in South Africa. He's accused of unprofessional conduct and contravening ethical rule 19 subsection, which requires health care practitioners to only use health technologies which have been proven. Alright.

So, I'm gonna pass the time over to doctor Chetty. Thank you for joining us here today. Thank you, Alice. You have any Can everyone hear me? Yes.

Yeah. Okay. I think I think for the audience to understand why I'm in the trouble I am, I think my journey is important. I did from the start of, COVID before the first case in South Africa. Understood that we're dealing with the lab, touched virus.

There was an insert in the genome. I didn't know what that insert did, but, clearly, it was not a natural virus. And I needed to understand how it was killing people. So I, faith virus, trust in God. I put myself out there and said, I wanna see patients.

I wanna see how this evolved. And that's how I understood the biphasic nature of the illness, that there was a second phase that was, killing people, and I needed to be aggressive with that second phase if I wanted to save lives. In understanding the way that second phase presented, it was clearly a reaction to some sort of, debris in this virus, a kind of hypersensitivity trigger that if not stopped quickly and aggressively spiraled out of control into a cytokine storm very quickly. By late 2020, we had the South African beta variant. And, of course, I was, concerned about this insert and what it might be doing in the human body because we were exposed to coronaviruses previously and never had this sort of reaction, with with this kind of virus.

And so it was likely that whatever that insert, program the body to make was causing a problem. In the second wave, it became absolutely clear that a that insert was coding for the furin clebit clebit site on the spike protein. And, it was definitely the spike protein that was triggering the second phase of this illness. And those patients that were hypersensitive to spike protein were having this dysregulation following recovery from the virus itself. So I started talking out against spike protein as the primary pathogen of COVID illness in 2020, that we're chasing the virus when the virus is not clearly not the primary pathogen causing all the mortality and morbidity.

And, of course, at that point, the vaccine hadn't come out as yet, but spike protein in my mind was a toxic. And it seemed to be engineered because there was an insert on this virus put in by a lab. It wasn't something natural. So I started speaking out against spike protein and, of course, the upcoming vaccine. Now understanding messenger RNA and, the technology that was gonna be used, clearly, the technology wasn't a vaccine based technology.

Messenger RNA, codes for proteins, and those proteins are meant to do certain things in the body. We've never used that kind of technology on a mass scale before and don't understand the implications of it. I knew that the messenger RNA would need to be modified so that it could stay in the body for a little length of time to produce sufficient protein, even though the understanding was incorrect that this protein would stimulate an immune response. So I had my concerns about the messenger RNA from the start. Why weren't we using, known technologies that are tried and tested to solve the pandemic itself?

If you have something urgent to do, then you don't go digging your toolbox for a tool you haven't used before. You know how the ones that you used work and you start to use what you know so that you'll get predictable outcomes quickly. And I think that's where I was my my concern was. With the lipid nanotechnology that they used as well, I was aware that this lipid nanotechnology was derived to biodistribute so that it can permeate tissue. It has a very similar structure to cell surfaces, and so it can dissolve into a cell surface, disposing of its payload into the cell.

So when you look at a vaccine, a vaccine's not supposed to do that. It's supposed to stay at the site of injection. So clearly, I knew that this is gonna bio distribute and cause, systemic issues. So I started speaking out against the vaccine from that point, but they limited the vaccine to old age homes and to essential workers at that point. So I was looking closely at those 2 subsets to look for injury.

And clearly, we were seeing a lot of deaths in those groups. Come mid mid 2021, I was aware now that spike protein's a toxin, that it has the ability to kill. And so, a patient having to take the vaccine should be given the option to weigh up his individual benefits and risks and determine whether this was appropriate for him. Now once the mandating of the vaccine came out in 2021, clearly it was a criminal act to force someone to take a substance that you know was toxic. And that is where Iris I realized the intention.

It came to bear. I realized that this was not a lab leak, but an intentional event. I could see the, lack of, logic in the public health strategies that were brought out from the lockdowns to the masking to denying natural immunity, suppression of early treatment, no profile access besides the vaccine that we had to wait for. So it didn't didn't make sense. And of course, my work was about using what I knew to try and negate what I was seeing.

So I knew that doxycycline might have benefit in suppressing, this virus because it inhibited protein synthesis, a well known medication that can have antiviral properties. We were aware of, hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin and the zinc ionophoric effect of them and how they would, actually stem this virus. And remember in the choice of prophylaxis, these are medications that are absolutely safe. So fulfill the principle of first do no harm. Whether they worked or not is actually then irrelevant because you're not actually doing harm.

And we could have assist them for their efficacy in their prophylactic benefit, which we did not do. The world just banned it. And so I saw this illogic around me. And that's the reason today, with all the with all the truths that I've seen happening around me and the understanding of that truth, like doctor Hoefer said, sometimes the analysis of a response to something tells you clearly what the intention is rather than trying to figure the intention without looking at the illogic of the response. And so when I saw the global response to it, I knew something's up.

This is not an educated way of dealing with the pandemic. And so I felt that a lot of the fraternities that were in charge of the pandemic seemed to be captured and didn't mind being called idiots because they were paid. And I mean, an educated man making an illogical, argument doesn't make sense. There's some reason he's doing it. Can you do you don't go on stupid overnight.

And so I looked at that, and I thought, no. I need to speak out against that. And I knew that the the the, the plan was to divide the world. Mangafear, take away our ability for logical thought, force us into giving up our freedoms to in in the, in the extent to to secure ourselves. So basically, what happened was we were told that if we went into jail, we would be safe because we didn't know what was out there.

And so they took away our freedoms and stuck us in jail. When we realized the low mortality and that there are certain subsets that are not at risk, we wanted to come out of jail. And they looked at us and said, no. You can't. You better take a vaccine to come out.

So we were herded like livestock into a crowd, and, the only way out of it was through a vaccine. And when I saw that and the mandates came out, I knew that this was about depopulation. There was a bigger agenda. It was about taking away freedoms. It was about global control.

And of course, everyone was talking about the great reset. And so I saw clearly the diversity of effect this was gonna have on society itself, and I needed to speak out. My aim was to share the information I had on saving lives, to the rest of the world. I wanted to form a good base to develop on early treatment strategies and profile access, and I wanted the understanding of the pathophysiology to direct research so we can get to these solutions a lot quicker. Unfortunately, that proved to be controversial because it went against the intention of what, the global manipulators were trying to do at the time.

It was at that point, Iris, that we started speaking out with Healing the Divide, understanding that they were trying to separate vaccinated and unvaccinated people based on that status. And the way I saw it, this was just another way to divide society by giving certain people privilege and prejudicing others. And, of course, we deal with the fickle society that's, that's been coerced over years. And so they'll be proud of that privilege they were given even though that privilege meant nothing. It was not earned.

It was given to you by a vaccine. And, of course, that privilege could be manipulated depending on your vaccine status. So if you were unvaccinated, you were prejudiced, and if you were vaccinated, you got privileges. But, it's the first time in all of history that I've heard of this concept of unvaccinating someone that's already vaccinated. And so it's a classification rather than a true scientific, understanding.

If you did not take your booster, then suddenly you're unvaccinated. But what happened to the vaccine that you took that was supposed to give you long term immunity? And so I saw this as a manipulation of an underlying, division for the dispensation of privilege and prejudice based on their own agenda. And so we started speaking out against the virus, that my case itself and my case covers everything from the, intent and the effect of the vaccines itself to the understanding of the pathophysiology of COVID and how it led to the infection and how it led to the mortality and morbidity and how that ties into the toxicities of the vaccine. And, of course, the treatment strategies I chose that proved to be highly effective in seeing the results of, my my intervention and, how those should have been used and why they were actually suppressed.

So there was an agenda to this. Just coming back to why I'm in in the predicament I am in, if you look at who governs this world, we have these group global regulatory authorities that have come to the fore, again, out of fear that we've accepted them. These organizations were formed after the world wars that were meant to, harm people, make people fear. The the entire aim is to create anarchy, divide so that we never come together. And so with those fears, they form these organizations.

But these, regulatory frameworks, the the World Health Organization, the World Economic Forum, the United Nations, born out of fear, people accepted certain guidelines that they proposed. But these, regulatory bodies are unelected. They're unrepresentative. And even though we have representatives in them, the representatives that represent the countries itself are unelected. So they have the ability to go to these bodies and without a second thought, sign away our sovereignties, which we've not even given to them to protect in the first place.

And so I think like with the World Health Organization pandemic treaty, the affront to our sovereignties are coming from institutions that are wholly private clubs. These governance structures must not be looked at as anything else but private clubs. They are financed by private entities. There was a time where countries contributed to them and countries had a say in their power. Today, they have private enterprise that are funding them, and so they pander to the needs of these private enterprises.

So they are private clubs. And in in our aim to exit these structures, I think that's the best strategy. At the end of the day, we'd join the private club as countries for the benefit of our our citizens. If these private clubs are no more of any benefit to our citizens and seem to have another agenda, then we don't go trying to change the club. It's not our club.

We exit the club and form our home. And I think that's where we stand today. Trying to fight what's happening to us is never going to solve the problem. The law is like a spider's web, and every strand up, holds up the other. So if you cut one at a time, you're never getting through that web.

Why did we need to want to walk through this web in the first place? We can come together at grassroots or form our own organizations and find a way to actually move forward. And my case highlights this. So at the end of the day, Iris, I have a regulatory authority who feels that my conduct was unprofessional, though it followed all the tenants of medical care. In that, I attempted to find a solution.

When I did, I made sure that I shared it with the world. I did not need to do randomized clinical trials to prove that what I did was working. At the end of the day, I have 14,000 patients that are alive today, and they are testament to the success of my treatment. So the pharmaceutical industry can't corrupt the truth. They can't corrupt what's, absolutely, right from wrong.

And they try to do that by corrupting what how we get to the truth. And I think that's that needs to be addressed. So at the end of the day, coming down to the basics of what we need from an individual perspective, Our sovereignties are being challenged by an, elected representative of your country who is willing to go to these governance structures and give away your sovereignty. So as, individual coming together as groups, we need to make it very clear that anyone that signs on that dotted line to give away our sovereignty should be charged with treason. We did not give them the opportunity to do such.

So we shouldn't fight the fights. At the end of the day, they are going to these bodies to give away our freedom, and we need to threaten the people that are going to do this in the first place. It is my sovereignty, and I did not give you any jurisdiction over it. So you have no right to go sign a tool. And if you do, that's treasonous, and they should be made aware of it.

They should be terrified of putting pen to paper to do that in the first place. As as individuals, I think we are awakened to what has happened around us. I think the fear has made us make very poor choices, and we see that this agenda hasn't come to fruition as yet. So I think faith needs to be restored, and it's faith that opposes that fear. Like, doctor Hoffman, I'm willing to, forego everything that I've worked for in my life, that I've earned in my life, that I've achieved in my life for the truth itself because of my unwavering faith.

So the council can bring it on. At the end of the day, it seems the only place that I'm allowed to speak is in court. I've been censored. I've been banned. I've been, sidelined.

I've been, shadow banned. And I think they now that they've charged me, I get a I get a chance to speak. I get a chance for my witnesses to come forward and speak. So if they drop the charges, I will give them something else to charge me with so that I can have my day in court. And we have these regulatory bodies that seem to think they have jurisdiction over my opinion.

Now there was no doctor patient relationship in the video that I'm, that was recorded. Neither there was there any medicine or or medical advice, dispensed to anyone. So I think they're out of their jurisdiction in trying to curb my constitutionally protecting freedoms of speech and freedoms of expression. So I made it clear at the hearing that if they think it's within their jurisdiction, I will approach the high court to give me an opinion on this matter. And I'd like the high court to oversee the case so that any biases that exist should be dealt with moving forward.

Now remember that the vaccine rollout was promulgated on prejudice and propaganda, and the aim was to divide the world. And they did that quite effectively. Today, brothers and sisters don't talk to each other. Doctor Hoffa is probably having the problems he has with his family simply because of that simple prejudice that was instigated, institutionalized, and, mandated onto the public itself and exists to this very day. Now we've got to accept that that single bias has disrupted the entire judicial process.

Because if a judge is vaccinated, he is never going to admit that he made a mistake. So the first bias I want addressed is the vaccine based bias. We've got pro vaxxers that have pushed this agenda, that have their their their opinions based on propaganda. They intentionally divided the world based on vaccine status, and today think that they can stand jury over me. No ways.

If I'm gonna have a jury adjudicate my case, I want half of them vaccinated and half of them unvaccinated for me to have an unbiased fair case. And if not, I'm sitting in a kangaroo court trying to convince a judiciary that they did something wrong. And it's easy to fool someone. It's hard to convince someone that they were fooled, and it is not my job to convince the jury that they were fooled. At the end of the day, I want a fake case.

And if I have half unvaccinated and half vaccinated on that jury, they can go discuss it for the next 10 years for overall IK, but the outcome will be fair. So a hung jury is not my business. I want a fair trial. And so I think these things need to be addressed. The conflicts of interest need to be addressed.

And of course, we're all being charged for not doing what's best for the public. So the public is actually a victim in my case. And so by being a victim in my case, they should have access to all the proceedings that's that are going to follow. So I think, yeah, we we need to take a step back. We're not gonna win this fight with anger and division.

We need to take a step back and look at it very childishly. Like someone trying to play a game with you and corner you. And in that childish, fearless innocence and faith, I think we'll find truth, and we'll find a way forward. I think that's that's what we need. So, yeah, for going forward, no more fear.

They scared you. You made some wrong choices, and, of course, all our intuitions turned out to be correct. So follow your heart. It'll guide you to safety. Wow.

Thank you so much, doctor Chetty, for that very powerful and inspiring message. Does anyone want to add anything? I'm gonna bring doctor Hartley up because he's still here. So maybe I don't know whether he has anything that he wants to add following, doctor Chetty's, very inspiring speech. Yeah.

I I I 100% agree with doctor Chetty. I have really enjoy I've used his protocol in my own patients. I have, I have enjoyed seeing his videos, you know, that that have been shown across the world. I've been I've learned from him. I've been inspired from him, and we need to learn from each other and be encouraged by one another.

And and, you know, often it just takes one person to stand up and other people will gain courage. You know, just as fear is contagious, so is courage. And we need to just try and, you know, it just takes a few people who are willing to risk all to stand up and then other people say, okay. Well, if he he can do it, then I can do it. And so, but this is the time for us all to we have to push back.

We have to spread that truth and light. The the the the well-being of all of humanity is at stake. And so, so thank you, doctor Chetty, for that that excellent, analysis. Very good. Yes.

Thank you, Charles. Thanks for the acknowledgment. Thank you. Thank you so much. Okay.

And, with with that, I I just, this is the persecuted doctors segment, and I want to invite all of you to continue to stay on because the next one is going to be, Steve Kirsch, who is also planning to sue a medical journal for for not publishing his his article. And and he is and I think he's discovering fraud in the in the in the medical journal. And, then followed by Raymond from Singapore who is we are using AI in our judicial review. We are we are planning to sue HSA in Singapore, and we are gonna update you the actions that we are taking. And then followed by after that will be, professor doctor Mustafa from Malaysia and then followed by Kenji, doctor Ken Kenji fu Fujikawa, and he's got he's he's got amazing stats.

Okay. And then finally, we'll go to, US for the for Johnny Betmore about the the CIA connection in the WEF. These are all very important topics. Okay. So, with that, I'm