Professor Angus Dalgleish became animated in robust exhanges under cross examination
Eminent and internationally respected cancer specialist Prof Angus Dalgleish strode to the witness box and took an oath to tell the truth.
He is the third witness to give evidence at the Irish Medical Council’s (IMC) fitness to practise hearing into allegations of professional misconduct against Wexford GP Dr Billy Ralph.
Before him, the committee’s expert witness Dr Rukshan Goonewardena gave evidence on March 26 last. Billy Ralph was next to enter the witness box and earlier today, he answered final questions from the committee itself, consisting of Chair Paul Harkin, Jill Long and Dr Liam Conroy.
Chairman Harkin asked Billy Ralph to explain how he would assess when it is necessary to move from a position of fundamental adherence to medical guidelines to a ‘more nuanced position where you are interpreting with a degree of flexibility.’
Billy Ralph replied that once the medical guidelines begin to diverge from his core principles, then he will fall back on his personal and ethical values.
“If there’s a clash, coming from a Christian background and from a working class background and a humanitarian background, they all inform me over and above any other guidelines,” he said.
The committee thanked Dr Ralph for his evidence and then Prof Angus Dalgleish was called to the witness box.
“I swear by almighty God the evidence I shall give this committee to be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth,” he said.
Billy Ralph explained that since the professor’s CV is over a hundred pages long, he would abbreviate for the inquiry.
“You are Professor Emeritus at St George’s University of London?”
“Correct.”
“And in your career you have held four senior medical speciality positions, one in internal medicine, virology, immunology and now oncology, correct?”
“Correct.”
“You’ve also been and currently are principal of the Institute of Cancer Vaccines Immunotherapy since the year 2,000 and you’ve published over 500 peer reviewed articles, correct?
“Correct.”
“And your articles have been cited over 20,000 times, correct?”
“Yes.”
“You’ve given presentations to the All Party Parliamentary Committee in the UK, is that correct?
“Correct.”
“And you’ve been invited by Senator Ron Johnson and RFK Jr to present to the US Congressional Committee on Covid, correct?”
“Correct.”
Opening his series of questions, Billy Ralph set the scene by asking if there was a single consensus among medics concerning covid during 2020 and 2021?
“No. They tried to make out there was a single consensus but there was anything but a single consensus and it was obfuscated by such phrases as ‘following the science’ when no science was followed,” he said.
One of the most important exercises in challenging the presentation of a single consensus he said, was the Great Barrington Declaration, which he was one of the first to sign.
“This challenged the whole narrative of consensus and it was basically shouted down in the UK parliament by Matt Hancock and others because they had already decided what they were going to do and this was rather inconvenient,” he said.
Prof Dalgleish told the inquiry that the declaration – now with almost 1 million signatures – implied there was no need for the population to be ‘rescued by vaccines’ because herd immunity was far more important.
“This was something that was obvious,” he said. “But we were essentially shouted down.”
The professor noted the Diamond Princess cruise ship as an important ‘petri dish experiment’ that showed the virus was airborne, that of those who got covid very few became ill and even fewer died. Those that did were over 70, he said.
“This showed early on that restrictions need not be applied and covid should have been treated like any other airborne respiratory virus,” he said.
The professor was scathing in his criticism of the use of masks and lockdowns.
“A whole generation of children were affected by lockdowns,” he said and these effects can be seen today right up to college age students. He said lockdowns caused massive societal damage and raised the issue of suicides linked to lockdowns, noting that isolation is not natural or beneficial for society.
“Humans are social animals,” he said.
“I personally am aware of four suicides during lockdown, one was a close friend.”
This information may well have touched a nerve with Billy Ralph, who has written previously about an attempt he made on his own life on July 25 2022. What emerged from that point on, he wrote, was ‘not the same person and certainly not the same doctor.’
Amid the legal setting drama of revelations from Prof Dalgleish on the topics of the suppresion of ivermectin as treatment, vaccines as gene therapy, booster shots causing cancer, continued censorship, Pfizer lobbying of journal editors in a bid to hold market value, this Substack was reading posts in a Whatsapp conversation among injured Irish vaccine recipients, who have no help, no acknowledgement and no means of support.
It is his perhaps his personal understanding of this damage that prompted Professor Dalgleish to become animated in his scathing remarks on vaccines as gene therapies that integrate into people’s DNA.
“The very concept of using this was absolutely heinous” he said of mRNA technology.
The tweets posted by Billy Ralph between October 2020 and June 2022 were critical of several aspects of official covid public health policy – in particular, the vaccination of children.
On that topic, Prof Dalgleish declared robustly:
“Children should never have been vaccinated.” He said there were no safety checks completed and that he has lost faith in the MHRA, the UK’s medicines and healthcare regulatory authority.
“I have lost total faith in all the authorities particularly the MHRA,” he said.
The professor raised the issue of excess deaths and the signing of the Hope Accord by more than 65,000 medics, scientists and members of the public calling for the suspension of mRNA ‘vaccines.’
In lively exchanges with barrister Neasa Bird, BL for the IMC committee, Professor Dalgleish pointed to interference by pharmaceutical companies amounting to censorship that continues today. He said a paper he has worked on based on his own cancer patients that received booster shots will be published imminently, but it’s release is being hampered by Pfizer.
He said giving boosters to cancer patients was “unbelievably negligent” because the vaccine only reponds to the original variant, he said.
“There is no way these vaccines should be given to cancer patients” Prof Dalgleish said.
”Is your view shared by most oncologists in the UK?” Ms Bird asked.
“It is not a mainstream view but it is rapidly becoming one,” he replied.
His scientific paper that is ‘coming down the line’ will show evidence of boosters linked to cancer, the professor said.
“The more vaccines you have the more likely you are to go down with cancer,” he said.
“I can assure you that Pfizer does not want these pre-prints published. They are lobbying editors to label it as ‘misinformation’. Pfizer do not want their market interfered with,” he said.
Breaking for lunch, the hearing was due to resume with Billy Ralph’s second witness, NHS pathologist, doctor, co chair of HART group and author of two books on covid, Dr Clare Craig.
However, it emerged over lunch that Dr Craig, who was due to appear via videolink, would not be available for the afternoon session. Adjourning proceedings for today, the committee selected the date of May 18 to resume with Dr Craig’s evidence and closing submissions from both sides.
This Substack live tweeted proceedings in detail earlier and readers can follow that thread here.
Irish Times coverage of the hearing is online now and readers can see that report here.
There is much more detail to parse through and since today’s proceedings may be the closest we get to an actual covid inquiry, I will return to the topic again before May 18.
Prior to the opening of this morning’s session, at morning Mass, this Substack learned that today is the Feast of St Joseph the Worker, marking the dignity of human work, equity and fairness.
Is that a coincidence?
Pope John Paul II put forward a strangely apt explanation of the concept in his encyclical Laborem Exercens.
“… the Church considers it her task always to call attention to the dignity and rights of those who work, to condemn situations in which that dignity and those rights are violated, and to help to guide (social) changes so as to ensure authentic progress by man and society.”
Thanks to those that support and share this work – much appreciated.