by Rhoda Wilson, Expose News:
In a Hearts of Oak podcast, Professor Angus Dalgleish shared his insights on covid injections, expressing concerns about their impact on cancer patients.
He questioned the mRNA technology and emphasised the need for data transparency in the medical field. He also discussed the virus’ origins, indicating the evidence showed the origin was a laboratory, and criticised the government’s handling of the pandemic.
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
If you are unable to watch the video above on Rumble, you can watch it on BitChute HERE. You can find a transcript of the interview HERE.
Angus Dalgleish is an expert in immunology and Professor of Oncology at St George’s Hospital Medical School, London. He is probably the only person in the UK who’s been a National Health Service (“NHS”) consultant in virology, immunology, general medicine and oncology.
In the following, we have focused on what Prof. Dalgleish had to say in the interview above about mRNA vaccine-induced cancer. He covered other covid-related issues and more. As our readers can imagine, we have barely touched the surface of his very informative interview and we recommend everyone watch his interview with Hearts of Oak in full.
In January, he published an article in The Conservative Woman titled ‘The covid booster cancer time bomb’ which is useful complimentary reading.
Because of his several years of experience working on the pathogenesis of human immunodeficiency viruses (“HIV”) and designing an HIV vaccine – which authorities rejected in favour of an ineffective unsafe HIV vaccine – when the genetic sequence of the covid virus became available, Prof. Dalgleish was requested by his colleagues to do the same process with SARS-CoV-2 as he had done for HIV. Prof. Dalgleish agreed.
“And we started to plan a MAPA plan when they came back and said, this is not an actual virus, this has been released from the lab in Wuhan, or escaped as we then put it. And the reasons for this was absolutely plain, is that there were charged inserts around the receptor binding site – not one or two but six – as well as the fusion site, fusion domain,” Prof. Dalgleish told Hearts of Oak.
“It occurred to me that these inserts, some of them, had been previously published [ ] by the Wuhan group,” he added.
Prof. Dalgleish explained that the virus had been altered so that the amino acids derived from these inserts were very positively charged; they would act like a fridge magnet and so “zap” onto human cells over and above its natural ACE receptor. The rules of biology would have edited out those changes because, to keep things simple, the charge was around pH8, Prof. Dalgleish explained.
An AI-generated answer to the question “Determine virus charge and pH levels” states that virus charge and pH are interconnected due to the isoelectric point of a virus. The isoelectric point is the pH at which a virus has a neutral charge. When the pH is below the isoelectric point, the virus has a positive charge, and when the pH is above the isoelectric point, the virus has a negative charge. This relationship between virus charge and pH affects the adsorption of viruses to surfaces, such as silica, depending on their surface properties and the surrounding environment. (Note: As with all AI-generated information, it should not be taken as accurate or fact. Critical facts should be verified.)
“When I realised [SARS-CoV-2’s charge was so positive], it was 100% I was convinced it could not have come from anywhere [other than a laboratory] because it had broken the rules of biology,” he said. “The charge of any normal virus is around 6 or less. So [a charge of pH8] was just a supernatural leap.”
Not only was the spike protein fully charged, Prof. Dalgleish said, but 80% of it was homologous (similarity due to shared ancestry between a pair of structures or genes) to the human epitopes (the part of an antigen that the host’s immune system recognises, eliciting the immune response to an invading pathogen).
“So we said, ‘do not use this as a vaccine, because it will cause all sorts of terrible side effects’,” Prof. Dalgleish said. “We knew there was going to be a big problem, if they use the spike protein, with autoimmunity, etc.”
“And we told everybody about this. We had access to the cabinet, the SAGE, Chief Medical Officer of Science. Who basically deemed it all interesting but not relevant. Can you believe that?”
Prof. Dalgleish attempted to publish his findings in science journals such as Nature or The Lancet, but his papers were turned down. “[They] said, this data is not in the public interest.”
“I realised then that a discussion about the science was being banned,” Prof Dalgleish said. “We suddenly realised everything was being censored. I was told by my own university we were not allowed to discuss or research the origin of the virus.” This draconian censorship led to him writing the book ‘The Death of Science’.
The initial alarms Prof. Dalgleish attempted to raise had nothing to do with his interest in cancer. His concerns about the “vaccines” causing cancer began when they started the booster dose programme.
It’s important to note that “if a vaccine needs a booster, it doesn’t work,” he said.
“Apart from the fact that we’d widely published, and it had been downloaded over a quarter of a million times, our objection to using the spike protein,” he said, “[vaccines] all fail because the vaccines against coronavirus lead to antigenic sin or immunological imprinting.”
Prof Dalgleish explained what this means: “Once you are vaccinated against a component of that and you challenge with a different variant, it will only see the first component. And it will not see the variants. But it will make antibodies that will bind to them. And then that enhances infection and this explains why people have just woken up, scratched their heads and say ‘why does everybody who gets a booster get infected again with covid?’”
From this respect, “[the] booster is a complete waste of time. Not only will [they] induce antibodies to a virus that doesn’t exist, but they will lead to more infection,” he said.
But what Prof Dalgleish wasn’t prepared for was his melanoma patients whom he was monitoring carefully, and who’d been stable for years, relapsing after the booster. “I had half a dozen of them go down within six to eight weeks of the booster programme being wheeled out. And they had relapsed. And some of these had been stable for over 15 years,” he said.
“I knew then something was going on because melanoma patients, once they’re induced to be stable with immunotherapy like they all had … I knew there had to be a tremendous immune suppression event going on.
“I reported it. I was told by my own people to shut up and stop frightening the patients. There is no evidence. Get the evidence.”
For people who have their cancer under control, it is due to T-cells and not antibodies. What was discovered is that T-cell responses were suppressed after the booster. “Not the first and second [dose] but after the booster,” Prof. Dalgleish said. “The T-cell suppression was so bad they called it exhaustion in cancer patients.”
And then, to make matters worse, Prof. Dalgleish found papers that showed the booster injection switched the IgG1 from fighting viruses to one that tolerises the IgG.
