British radio presenter surprised by visiting medical professor ben fordham It offers a blistering takedown of Covid lockdowns, quarantines, masks and vaccines.
Angus Dalgleish, Professor of Oncology LondonSt. George’s University, also part of the European Commission cancer The board said Fordham Australia’s response to COVID-19 was ‘absolutely appalling’, ‘insane’ and ‘disgraceful’.
His unconventional views run counter to the recent Covid Response Inquiry verdict that ‘Australia has fared well compared to other countries that have experienced greater loss of life, collapsed health systems and more severe economic downturns’.
But Professor Dalgleish claimed Australia had failed to respond to COVID-19.
He also spoke scathingly of Britain’s treatment of ‘Australia; New Zealand and Canada Everyone overreacted equally.
‘The only people who get it right in the long run are: sweden“said Professor Dalgleish.
‘They had nothing closing ‘They had no other obligations and the vaccine was intended for people over 70 years of age and has the lowest excess mortality rate in the Western world.’
Sweden implemented measures such as voluntary social distancing, wearing masks, working from home, and avoiding public transportation, and 80% of citizens responded that they complied with them.
Angus Dalgleish, a professor of oncology at London’s prestigious St George’s University, took fierce aim at almost every COVID-19 measure adopted by Australia and other countries.
Professor Dalgleish attacked mandatory masks worn outdoors.
“The only reason to make people wear masks is to instill fear in them,” he said.
‘With the best masks, we said from the very beginning that the smallest hole is three times larger than the largest virus. There is absolutely no science behind (the mask mandate).
‘Wearing a mask in a (operating) theater to stop someone coughing into your stomach is not for the virus.’
He also believed that closure was nowhere near achieved.
‘We know it is a respiratory disease, so lockdowns make absolutely no sense. Especially when I wasn’t in the UK when quarantine started.’
He believed hotel quarantine was a ‘complete waste of money’ and ‘didn’t save any lives’ because it only delayed natural herd immunity, which has always been the best defense against Covid.
“If you catch a virus naturally, you build up an innate immunity to it, and they denied that,” Professor Dalgleish said.
Professor Dalgleish said he did not believe lockdowns, quarantines, masks or even vaccines had saved lives.
Fordham asked whether lockdowns were needed to protect older people, but Professor Dalgleish welcomed Sweden’s approach as being much more pragmatic.
“They said, ‘Be careful, your grandmother and other people are in danger,’” Professor Dalgleish said. “Don’t get too close to them.”
‘They didn’t lock everyone up so society didn’t strangle them.
‘And it worked very well. Why did we have to lock up young, healthy people who can’t work?’
He also criticized controversial vaccine mandates.
‘I think it was a real shame. “It was a totalitarian, Orwellian descent into dystopia,” he said.
‘Especially when the vaccine became available, the virus as we know it has completely changed.
‘I don’t believe (the vaccine) had any beneficial effect because the virus changes and mutates so quickly.
Sydney radio talkback king Ben Fordham was clearly surprised by some of the professor’s claims.
‘We know that when the vaccination program was rolled out, the wave of infections naturally abated. No help was needed to dampen the waves.
‘It was the same with the lockdown. As the first wave was fading, we introduced a lockdown. ‘If we hadn’t had a lockdown it wouldn’t have made much difference.’
Clearly embarrassed, Fordham asked Professor Dalgleish if he thought the vaccine had not saved lives.
‘They came in too late. ‘It seemed like it was saving lives, because they were coming in waves of people dying, with casualties,’ he answered.
‘It may have been a very small number, less than 1 or 2%, but it may not have been significant compared to what they wanted.
‘(That is) in a situation where the disease is killing 0.085% of the population at an average age of 82, and there is no evidence that it prevents transmission, the vaccine is distributed and vaccination is mandated for everyone.
‘It was complete blindness and madness.’
Considering the ethical implications discussed in the interview, how can societies best balance individual freedoms with the needs of public health during a pandemic, particularly regarding measures like lockdowns and vaccine mandates?
Here’s a thematic breakdown of the interview with open-ended questions for each section, designed to encourage discussion and diverse viewpoints:
**Section 1: Initial Criticism and the Sweden Comparison**
* Professor Dalgleish staunchly criticizes Australia’s COVID-19 response, calling it “appalling,” “insane,” and “disgraceful.” How does his perspective differ from the findings of the COVID Response Inquiry cited in the article? What factors might be contributing to these differing viewpoints?
* Dalgleish praises Sweden’s approach, stating “they got it right in the long run.” What specific aspects of Sweden’s strategy does he find commendable? Do you agree that their approach was ultimately more successful? Why or why not?
* How do different cultural and societal contexts influence the effectiveness of public health measures like lockdowns and mask mandates?
**Section 2: Mask Mandates and Lockdowns**
* Professor Dalgleish argues that masks are ineffective and primarily serve to instill fear. What scientific evidence does he cite to support this claim? How do public health experts typically view the role of masks in pandemic response?
* Is there a point at which the potential harms of lockdowns outweigh the benefits? Dalgleish suggests this is the case. What are the arguments for and against this perspective, considering both individual well-being and public health outcomes?
**Section 3: Vaccines and Herd Immunity**
* Professor Dalgleish expresses skepticism about the efficacy of vaccines, particularly in light of virus mutations. How does his view on vaccines differ from the widespread scientific consensus? What are the potential risks and benefits of delegitimizing vaccine efforts?
* He mentions the concept of herd immunity. Discuss the role of natural herd immunity versus vaccine-induced immunity in controlling epidemics. What are the ethical implications of relying on natural infection for herd immunity?
**Section 4: Societal Impact and Future Preparedness**
* Professor Dalgleish describes the vaccine mandates as “totalitarian” and a “descent into dystopia.” How do his views reflect broader societal anxieties and debates about individual freedom versus collective well-being during a pandemic?
* What lessons can we learn from this pandemic and the diverse responses it elicited around the world to better prepare for potential future health crises? How can we balance individual rights with public health needs in a way that is both effective and equitable?
Remember, the goal is to foster thoughtful discussion and explore multiple perspectives on complex issues. Encourage respect for diverse opinions and encourage participants to critically analyze the arguments presented.
