Share Hearts of Oak Podcast
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
By heartsofoak
4.5
1515 ratings
The podcast currently has 572 episodes available.
Sonia Elijah, an investigative journalist, discusses her research on the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in an interview on "Hearts of Oak." She reveals alarming statistics from FDA-released documents, including over 40,000 adverse event reports and 1,228 deaths shortly after vaccination. Sonia critiques vaccine trial integrity, highlights concerns regarding adverse effects in pregnant women and infants, and calls out regulatory bodies for their lack of transparency and accountability. She emphasizes the need for thorough investigations into vaccine-related deaths and advocates for vigilance regarding the pharmaceutical industry's motives, underscoring challenges faced by independent journalism amid censorship and misinformation.
Connect with Sonia…
𝕏 https: https://x.com/sonia_elijah
SUBSTACK: https://www.soniaelijah.com/
Connect with Hearts of Oak...
𝕏 http://x.com/HeartsofOakUK
WEBSITE https://heartsofoak.org
PODCASTS https://heartsofoak.podbean.com
SOCIAL MEDIA https://heartsofoak.org/connect
SHOP http://heartsofoak.org/shop
DONATE https://givesendgo.com/heartsofoak
https://donorbox.org/hearts-of-oak-fundraising
Dan Wootton - Media, Musk and the Future of Freedom in the UK
In this compelling episode, we dive into the UK media's evolving landscape with a prominent journalist who has transitioned from the glitz of showbiz to the gravity of political commentary. The conversation begins with an exploration of the guest's career shift, sparked by the divisive Brexit vote, which highlighted the mainstream media's reluctance to embrace democratic outcomes, pushing our guest towards independent platforms.
We discuss the inception of GB News, intended as a conservative counterbalance in a left-leaning media environment, and the challenges that ensued, including the guest's personal battle against media constraints, particularly after hosting a controversial figure. This leads into a broader discussion on cancel culture, where our guest recounts facing repercussions for promoting free speech, drawing attention to the media's uneven handling of controversial discussions.
The episode also covers a recent petition in the UK, gaining nearly two million signatures rapidly, as a testament to public unrest with the current government and establishment. This is portrayed as not just a call for electoral change but a deeper demand for systemic reform.
The conversation touches on Elon Musk's influence on social media freedom, suggesting a hopeful shift towards more open discourse. Finally, we explore the rise of populist movements across continents, advocating for a grassroots approach to political change in the UK, challenging the traditional political duopoly.
This episode is a clarion call for listeners to engage with their political environment, emphasizing the transformative potential of independent media in an era where free expression is under threat. The discussion underscores the importance of diverse voices in media, highlighting how one journalist's journey reflects broader societal shifts towards seeking truth and accountability in governance.
Connect with Dan…
Dan Wootton Outspoken airs weekdays at 5PM UK/12PM ET/9AM PT
𝕏 https://x.com/danwootton
SUBSTACK: https://www.danwoottonoutspoken.com/
YouTube https://www.youtube.com/@danwoottonoutspoken
Connect with Hearts of Oak...
𝕏 x.com/HeartsofOakUK
WEBSITE https://heartsofoak.org
PODCASTS https://heartsofoak.podbean.com
SOCIAL MEDIA https://heartsofoak.org/connect
SHOP heartsofoak.org/shop
DONATE https://www.givesendgo.com/heartsofoak
https://donorbox.org/hearts-of-oak-fundraising
Hearts of Oak:
[0:24] And hello, Hearts of Oak. Thank you so much for joining us once again. And I'm delighted to have someone who our UK viewers will know very well. Maybe the war room posse may not know as well, but you will over the next 45 minutes. And that is Dan Wooden. Dan, thanks very much for your time today.
Dan Wootton:
[0:39] So good to be here, Peter.
Hearts of Oak:
[0:40] Great to have you and obviously people can follow you at dan wooden is your handle on x on twitter and your outspoken show airs every weekday monday to friday 5 p.m uk time which is noon for you guys on the east coast or for those earlier risers want to watch it maybe in your first hour and work on pacific standard time it's 9 a.m so catch dan monday to friday on that and Now, Dan, there is a lot to discuss about, but I'd love to maybe just start on your background. Your background was kind of in media, but showbiz. It's quite a movement from showbiz, which probably a lot of us now would think is not that important, to now you discussing real issues that affect real people. Tell us about that move from the showbiz background in media all the way now to current affairs.
Dan Wootton:
[1:39] Yeah, well, it's interesting, actually, because in the UK newspaper scene, there is this weird transition, actually, where people go from being in tabloids, writing about the entertainment industry, and editing this column called the Bizarre Column at the Sun to then moving into news. Piers Morgan is the most famous example of that. So I guess in some ways that wasn't unusual, but I think for me, it was about why it happened and when it happened. And it happened between 2016 and 2019, when I could see the entire British establishment.
Dan Wootton:
[2:21] And the mainstream media, which remember I was a part of trying to overturn the Brexit referendum. So I was associate editor at The Sun and The Sun had campaigned very hard for Brexit.
Dan Wootton:
[2:34] And it was over that period that I got my first news show on talk radio, which is now Talk. And over that time, I really did become, I guess you could say, radicalized because I was so horrified and mortified to see the entire mechanism of state work with the media to try and overturn the biggest democratic vote in British history,
Dan Wootton:
[3:09] which was the vote to leave the European Union. And then just to give you the very potted history of course we finally get to the point where we're out in january 2020 i decide i'm going all in on this and i take over the drive time show on talk radio in the uk uh from amin holmes so i was on air every afternoon monday to thursday 4 p.m to 7pm UK time and I started the show in February 2020 and we all know what then happened within days so uh by that point I was just utterly furious over the whole course of um.
Dan Wootton:
[3:55] Covid and that scandal and sham and that then led me to leaving the mainstream media i guess to to join gb news which i thought was going to be a true alternative.
Hearts of Oak:
[4:08] Right that is a whole other story and you ended up again with with emin homes there um but i mean you studied what was it uh politics and media so that was an interest anyway it wasn't doing a an arty course at uni but you kind of were focused on that i came from yeah you did it in new zealand do you see do you see yourself because i sometimes think we have too many u.s guests on i thought oh dan great uk was kind of a bit kiwi as well
Dan Wootton:
[4:35] But how.
Hearts of Oak:
[4:36] Do you how do you see your identity in terms of
Dan Wootton:
[4:38] That it's really interesting actually because lots of people who are by the way always on the left and always everything that they claim that we are so i get lots of people on the left saying to me go back home to new zealand stop talking about british issues what what what do you think you know you new zealander well i actually get pretty offended by that i'm not gonna lie because i'm a british citizen but i'm a dual citizen because you're allowed to be that for americans that's obviously quite a weird thing isn't it because you have to have citizenship of one country but as a new zealander i am absolutely able to be a british citizen but i've been a british citizen since birth, because my father was born on a British Army base in Malta.
Dan Wootton:
[5:28] My grandfather fought in World War II. In fact, three of my four grandparents fought in World War II for the Allied forces. And my mom was actually born in Essex, and they were part of this wave of emigration to New Zealand. It was described as the 10-pound Poms, people who were leaving sort of war-torn Britain, the life of rationing to go and set up a new home in New Zealand. But as a result, I had so many British influences growing up, as you can imagine. I ate the Sunday roast and we had our Yorkshire puddings and I watched Coronation Street every night. So it was always my goal to move to the UK.
Dan Wootton:
[6:15] Professionally and personally, I guess, I always had such an affinity with this place. And I moved here when I was 21 years old. I'm 41.
Dan Wootton:
[6:25] Two now just past 40 yeah that's so disturbing you get to a point where you actually don't know i don't know if i'm 41 or 42 i think i'm 42 and and i've spent my whole adult life here i've chosen to live here but in saying that i have a huge affinity to new zealand i love it but again i find it so fascinating that if you're on the left that's absolutely accepted you know that your heritage can absolutely be part of your identity, but you are accepted in this new place. Whereas with me, it's like, go back to New Zealand.
Dan Wootton:
[7:01] But no, I view myself as a British New Zealander. That's a very long answer to your question.
Hearts of Oak:
[7:05] You're half and half exactly in terms of time-wise. So from here on in, it's more Brit than New Zealand time-wise. Tell GB News, you were there at the beginning, weren't you? You were one of the first hires. What was that period like because a lot of excitement on gb news it's builders kind of the fox for the uk i guess you could look at it that way um something fresh and exciting to push back on the the legacy media and that's very much to the left and how did that all come about and you've been on gb news right at the beginning yeah
Dan Wootton:
[7:41] I was so excited i was the first presenter to be named andrew neil who was the very short-serving chairman had been announced, and then I was the first announcement. So I was all in on this right from the start. I knew that the UK needed a media revolution, and I thought GB News was the vehicle for that to happen. And I actually hosted the first regular show on the station as well, which turned out to be a complete disaster because people who had followed GB News yeah there were loads of technical issues and the channel wasn't really ready to air but while lots of other people moved on i so believed in the mission because it's very odd for american audiences to even wrap their head around this but we had no sort of conservative television whatsoever. Uh, or even by the way, uh, TV news that you could describe as being from the center or the center, right. Everything was liberal. Everything was from the left. And actually a lot of it was from the hard left. Actually the guardian parts of the BBC channel four news, woke eye TV, sly news, as I call it. So.
Dan Wootton:
[9:00] I was really a believer, a passionate believer, in the need for there to be a broadcast revolution in the UK. I thought the vehicle was going to be GB News. The unfortunate thing is, again, this is so odd for Americans to even wrap their head around, but we have a government censor. Officially, they're called Ofcom. I call them the Ofcomunists. To begin with, they left GB News alone, really, because we were viewed as a bit of a joke. But what we did was build up an incredibly loyal audience. And all of a sudden, certainly my show, Nigel Farage's show, a couple of other on the channel were number one.
Dan Wootton:
[9:39] We were beating the BBC. We were beating Sly News and the ratings. We were doing huge numbers on YouTube. And at that point, there became a mission to silence us, to shut us down. And it's very sad because I say us, I say we, you know, it was like a little family for me and then in ludicrous circumstances i was cancelled because lawrence fox uh who's the former actor turned politician has he been on with you peter yes.
Hearts of Oak:
[10:13] We had him on a couple of weeks ago so
Dan Wootton:
[10:15] Yes so you guys know lawrence and yes look he's a firebrand he's an absolute firebrand but He came on the show, he was very, very angry about the fact that a woman called Ava Santina, who... There's an awful, hard left, hypocritical woman who is a regular on the Piers Morgan show, Piers Morgan Uncensored from the left, that she had been so dismissive about the need for there to be a minister for men because male suicide in the UK is just out of control. It's one of those national scandals that the MSM just doesn't want to talk about because it doesn't fit their narrative at all, does it? Who gives a damn about white working class men? White working class men in Britain actually are underrepresented in virtually all statistics. So Lawrence was very furious about this, said in quite a tirade during my show that he didn't want to shag this woman. And all of a sudden, you would have thought that I had just gone out on the street and shot an elderly woman. I mean, I was enemy number one. I hadn't even made the comment, but I didn't apologize for it. That seemed to be what my crime was.
Dan Wootton:
[11:34] And all hell ensued. And actually, GB News unfortunately gave in to the mob. They gave in to the left-wing mob. They gave in to the off communists. This was ridiculous, Peter. I mean, my show was after nine o'clock at night. So in the UK, there's this thing called the watershed, where basically if you air on TV after nine o'clock, you can do whatever you want. There are honestly, on Channel 4, they have, well, they have people that they would describe as trans women, but they have men with their penises out playing the piano. Naked on television. And that is considered completely acceptable. But Lawrence Fox saying he wouldn't want to shag a woman for political reasons. That was the line that had apparently been crossed. But unfortunately, what happened is GB News gave in to the mob. Their content has massively changed as a result. But for me, I just view it as.
Dan Wootton:
[12:37] This incredible sort of opportunity that I wasn't expecting because all of a sudden the US election has proven the MSM, something that I've known for a long time and in fairness have been arguing for years and years and years, just switch it off, turn it off. The MSM is finished. But I mean, the MSM has never been more finished. It's over. It's dead. And here in the UK, we're probably usually about five years behind America. I don't know if you agree, Peter, when it comes to sort of trends, media trends, political trends. And the great thing is I'm now at the start here of what is a true independent media revolution. I'm not the only one. There are other people who are doing it brilliantly, but I'm very excited to be a part of it because what it means is I'm not censored. I don't have the off communists able to take me off air. Or there's this ridiculous thing that america got rid of in the 80s which is sort of like a concept of equal time you know if you have someone on saying uh you know a man is a man and a woman is a woman you have to drag on some absolutely hysterical human being from the far left who tells you that you're wrong so everything becomes a sort of confected performative debate just to please the government censors and i don't have to do that on outspoken at all yeah.
Hearts of Oak:
[14:02] I agree and and i i saw you i think lauren i don't think lawrence actually knows what the watershed is but that's a whole other
Dan Wootton:
[14:09] Thing look at it oh he doesn't oh he doesn't but but.
Hearts of Oak:
[14:12] You seem to be um the wrong
Dan Wootton:
[14:14] Party in that because.
Hearts of Oak:
[14:15] Lawrence had said something and he said look if i've said something then i should be punished and then calvin got sucked into it just simply for backing you yeah father calvin robinson
Dan Wootton:
[14:23] Who's not a regular part of my show outspoken to be honest though this was the direction of travel and that's why i think this is actually a brilliant opportunity for all of us.
Dan Wootton:
[14:37] I was very inspired by, over that period, the people in America who had gone through something very similar, I guess. So Megyn Kelly, who was a regular on my show, she came on every week and we became friends over that period of time. She could not have been more supportive. I mean, number one, she quit GB News overnight. She was gone. She had actually been sitting watching the whole Lawrence Fox incident because she was my next guest on that show. And she just couldn't believe it. She just could not believe that this would become a national story and that we would lose our careers from it. So she quit overnight. But not only that, she provided me a huge amount of inspiration in terms of how she came out of her situation with NBC. All of the confidence issues that you go through is anyone going to want to watch me does anyone care should i just retire and just go away gracefully she really got me through all of that so i've based a lot of my show on what she did in america actually with hers but there were other people who were incredibly supportive as well uh like dan bongino and dave rubin have obviously both been a big part of the rumble revolution.
Dan Wootton:
[16:02] And so it was a really difficult time because, look, let's just be frank about it, I had not intended to leave GB News when I did.
Dan Wootton:
[16:15] However, I absolutely could see the direction of travel. And there's just a complete revolution going on. You don't want to hear from someone who you think could be having their strings pulled. And unfortunately, you know, I've, the thing is I know about the mainstream media, Peter, because I've worked in the mainstream media and the whole reason I've been cancelled from the mainstream media is because I wasn't prepared to
Dan Wootton:
[16:40] play by the rules and I wasn't prepared to do whatever my billionaire boss has told me to do. But trust me, there are limitations if you're part of the mainstream media there are things that you know you just can't talk about because rupert murdoch doesn't want you to or one of the billionaire owners of gb news doesn't want you to and for example um.
Dan Wootton:
[17:06] There are some shocking stories in the UK at the moment that I have covered massively on my show since we launched in July. So we launched on July 5th, the day after the UK election. And obviously this has turned out to be a seismic election because the UK's effectively been taken over by socialists, which I knew was going to happen. And I always knew that this was going to be a really shocking turn to the hard left and free speech and a whole load of civil rights were going to be under threat in the UK. I'd been talking about it on GB News for four years beforehand. So to be able to come back the day after the election was incredible.
Dan Wootton:
[17:47] But I'm talking about lots of issues that GB News simply ignores now. They have banned their presenters, for example, from talking about the cover-up in regards to the Southport Massacre or the truth about Keir Starmer's family, which he's kept hidden from the public. So there's a whole load of issues now where I'm like, oh my goodness, there's no way I could be on GB News being told not to talk about this. No way. Or being forced to describe patriots as far right thugs or pretend that you can't even utter the words Tommy Robinson or Katie Hopkins. So I got out at the right time. And I think the bigger point is now, and you can see this from the US, trust an individual because an individual is far less likely to have been corrupted than a media organization.
Hearts of Oak:
[18:45] 100 i want to pick on one or two of those topics that you dropped in um but let me ask you last thing on on the media side because um you kind of came across as someone like calvin you could say things but you could say them in a way that you rile people with your words but not with how you put across lawrence and maybe even mark stein or or rougher and they will push more but you seem to have the gift that the calvin said to say it with a smile and this is less even more yeah totally
Dan Wootton:
[19:18] I mean and that's the thing i look it's ridiculous the way that father calvin and i were painted in the media i mean honestly it does our viewers know that the way that we were portrayed was completely ridiculous and actually even mark and and lawrence sure they might say it with a bit more force, but fundamentally, they have been proven to be right on so many issues, from grooming gangs to mass immigration to, everything connected to COVID and the vaccines. So, In some ways, I'm sad about the fact that it was all shut down at GB News, where we were there doing it as a little family. But probably it was inevitable.
Hearts of Oak:
[20:11] Yeah. Tell me, the two pressures are advertising and Ofcom, certainly in the legacy media. And you went up against Ofcom. And, of course, the advertisers would make decisions. I mean, does that mean in the UK you can't have a legacy media or mainstream media that actually tells the truth? Because there'll always be no pressure.
Dan Wootton:
[20:33] A hundred percent. A hundred percent. No, no, no. I mean, there's not even any question about this. You cannot tell the truth on the mainstream legacy media in the UK and you are censored. That is just a fact. Everything that happened with Mark Stein, myself, Lawrence Fox, Father Calvin proves that. But I can just say that from having worked in it. Now, yes, I pushed the boundaries more than virtually anyone. And I would do it with a smile, absolutely. And I'd always want to do it as respectfully and carefully as I could. But as I say, GB News, which is meant to be the Fox News of the UK, has not spoken at all about the cover-up connected to the Southport Massacre. That's all you need to know. That is all you need to know.
Hearts of Oak:
[21:27] Tell me, we've just had on some of the issues, you mentioned Southport, I'll touch on that. We've had a petition going around, which, as we record, I think is about 1.9 million.
Dan Wootton:
[21:41] By the time this is on, we're going to be well over 2 million.
Hearts of Oak:
[21:43] But that's in 24 hours. And I watched Jess Phillips, sadly, I know. Forgive me, but you have to watch it. I know. She was on LBC, and she was asked about, what do you think about this petition, having 1.5 million signatures? She goes, well, you'd have to ask those who signed it. that level of arrogance and just refusing
Dan Wootton:
[22:02] To understand totally dismissive.
Hearts of Oak:
[22:04] To tell us about this petition what that means because when i initially saw it i was like oh it's not going to do anything actually it is a vehicle for people to express their frustration
Dan Wootton:
[22:13] Yeah i i was the same as you to be honest so i was watching this initially and i thought oh another petition, why not but actually it's not going to make any difference however this is not a petition this is a people's revolt and they are very different things i mean when you're talking about getting two million signatures in less than three days in a country of 67 million people i mean this is phenomenal and the issue is is that we have a government that is effectively illegitimate because they lied about virtually every major policy issue, point blank lied.
Dan Wootton:
[22:59] And actually, they didn't just lie. They lied and then they spat in our faces with the glee in which they immediately instituted their lies,
Dan Wootton:
[23:11] treating us all as fools. And then the second thing is the UK has this, I now believe, ridiculous and antiquated electoral system first past the post, Which means a government that actually didn't get that many votes, was voted for by less than one in five of the population, can have such a massive majority in the House of Commons at Westminster that they are able to effectively tear the heart out of this country over the next five years. So this petition will clearly not lead to a general election. It's not about that. It's about saying, the British people, we have had enough. We are sick of this. We are sick of the Uniparty. We are sick of the establishment.
Dan Wootton:
[24:03] And we're turning to heroes, free speech heroes like Elon Musk, who is pointing things out going on in the UK in a way that unfortunately very few people are. And he predicted just a couple of days ago that the establishment parties in the uk so that's labor and the conservatives who let's be honest have had a stranglehold on power in the uk since before the world wars he predicted that they will be crushed at the next election now the westminster elite what they do is they laugh and they mock because that's what they do even when you're talking about the richest, most successful man in the world, right? They laugh and they mock. What does he know? What does he know about our electoral system? Our electoral system is designed to stop a revolution, is designed to stop a democratic process actually saying we've had enough of politicians who lie to us.
Dan Wootton:
[25:05] But I disagree with them. I predicted before the last election that Nigel Farage, the leader of Reform UK, will be prime minister in 2029. Now, Nigel was a colleague of mine at GB News. I would count him as a friend. I also would say I don't think Nigel is perfect. There's lots of issues that I disagree with him on. But the point is, he's the only politician in this country who is promising true reform, smashing up this absolute shower that we've had to put up with now for decades, where we're promised that immigration, for example, will come down to the tens or net immigration will come down to the tens of thousands a year. And it's a million. It's had a million.
Dan Wootton:
[25:56] And that's just the people we know about. There is an actual invasion of our southern border via the English Channel happening on a daily basis, and they will not even stop that. So I agree with Elon Musk on this. This petition is not going to lead to a general election, but what it is going to show to the world is that you cannot lie to us anymore. You cannot treat us as fools. And we are, as Donald Trump famously said,
Dan Wootton:
[26:30] going to fight, fight, fight. And if it's five years, we'll fight for five years. Now, for me, as you know, Peter, I believe that we need to find ways to fight within the system and do it in a way that isn't violent. But I have had people on my show from David Starkey to Father Calvin and many others, Douglas Murray, who predict civil war coming to the UK.
Hearts of Oak:
[27:01] I think that's where we're going and i think that the frustration people can sign a petition and they feel trapped because politically at the moment there is no solution we're stuck with this awful government and it's this weird position you mentioned elon musk where elon musk is actually the opposition to the government that's a strange position we'll be in and it's an exciting position where someone of that size and importance is focused on the dangers that we face in the uk can in terms of free speech.
Dan Wootton:
[27:32] Well, I just think, thank God Elon Musk bought X because that is what has shifted the Overton window. That's what allows us to feel a little bit more free. I don't know if you agree, Peter, but a little bit more free on some of the mainstream big tech platforms like YouTube, where I broadcast, for example, which was awful during COVID, booting people off willy-nilly for... Stating facts. I think Dan Bongino was booted off YouTube for revealing that masks were a complete sham. I mean, imagine that now. So I think Elon Musk has changed that, has changed that discussion, has hopefully shifted the Overton window. He is allowing us to present the truth about what's going on in the UK. And what he's doing is he is exposing the corrupt and crooked mainstream media. Now, this is something that I've been doing, obviously, within the UK for the last six years. But to have someone like Elon Musk doing it on his platform, it's just a game changer. It's just a complete game changer. So over the weekend, for example.
Dan Wootton:
[28:52] Elon Musk asked, why has Tommy Robinson been jailed for 18 months? Why? Now, that is a question that no one in the mainstream media in the UK has the balls to ask because Tommy Robinson is discussed and treated as if he's Hitler. But actually, even worse than Hitler, because Hitler, you're allowed to discuss. You're allowed to talk about his manifesto. With Tommy Robinson, you're not even allowed to discuss if you're part of the mainstream media he is non-personed and that's what has happened to katie hopkins that's what then happened to mark stein that happened to me that happened to honest fox that happened to father calvin you are thrust out of the mainstream media now in the past being thrust out of the mainstream media used to mean to an extent you were finished right, Katie is a force again, because who cares whether you're on the mainstream media? I'd never accept an invite from the mainstream media now. Absolutely not. What's the point? I don't need to go on the BBC to be berated for me to spread what I'm trying to say. And I think so much of that change is down to Elon and what he's done with the ex. No, I agree.
Hearts of Oak:
[30:07] And anywhere, and I've known Tommy for a decade and a half. I'm probably known Katie for a decade. But you go with him anywhere, and everyone wants a selfie. There's no anger. And we are given a narrative that these people are hated figures. You spend 10 minutes with them walking down any high street, and they're bombarded for pictures. And it points out that, actually, we are fed lies. We see the danger is that normies, or however we call it, some people, see the world through the prism of the mainstream media, and they're seeing things completely wrong. And I think your show, Outspoken, and many others, gives an opportunity to show, actually, this is the real side. This is what is really happening.
Dan Wootton:
[30:54] Yeah, and just include them as part of the conversation. I mean, to try and pretend that Katie Hopkins and Tommy Robinson do not have a role in the UK political ecosystem is lunacy. They do. And even if you disagree with them, you can't just wish them away anymore. And that's what used to happen. And I mean, the lawfare, for example, that Katie had to deal with, the complete, I mean, they de-personed her. it was more than just debanking.
Dan Wootton:
[31:30] Katie is very bold about the fact now that she owns nothing, so nothing can be taken away from her. And they tried that with me a lot over the past year as well. They've tried it with Lawrence, but the differences, and this is the change now, it doesn't matter because who cares anymore? I mean, and remember, I work for these newspapers. I devoted my life to them, but I don't give a damn if someone is in the sun or the Daily Mail anymore or appears on gb news that's irrelevant i don't need those platforms to be able to choose who i can hear from because i'm going to choose myself whether i want to watch katie's video on x or uh tommy's interview on you know rebel news or wherever he or maya to see or whichever platform he happens to be uh speaking on so basically the game is up for the mainstream media, and that will help lead to that change. But it's not over. I mean, this is still...
Dan Wootton:
[32:32] An ongoing fight in the UK. We are nowhere near as developed in the US when it comes to this independent media ecosystem, which drives the agenda. I mean, it was just fascinating and really inspiring, actually, looking at the Republican conference and seeing who's alongside Trump. And it's Dan Bongino and Tucker Carlson, and who's broadcasting there, Megyn Kelly and Russell Brand and the other people who are important Republicans want to speak to. We're not at that point yet. Politicians here still think that to spread your message, you've got to go on LBC or the BBC. But I have a really strong belief that that is going to change over the next five years.
Hearts of Oak:
[33:17] I agree 100 percent. And we are following the US and taking their lead and learning from them.
Hearts of Oak:
[33:23] I will be much better for that. And some of the issues you touched on, immigration issue, I think the Tories basically went to the same economic school as Rachel Reeves in terms of working out the numbers coming in. And then you've got the hate speech, criminalization of memes. And this is one thing that Elon Musk has got involved at the utter shock of people posting things online. And yet sex offenders seem to get off with community service. Do you want to just touch on that to give our US viewers a kind of highlighter window to understand what we face in the UK?
Dan Wootton:
[33:59] Well, I mean, again, US viewers will not understand this because with the First Amendment, none of this would be allowed to go on. It is utterly appalling and disturbing what is happening here. So Alison Pearson, who's a good friend of mine, she was on my show last week. She is, I believe, Britain's best mainstream newspaper columnist. She writes for the Daily Telegraph, but she's one of the few people in the legacy media who challenges the agenda time and again. And as a result, she finds herself pilloried by the establishment. But a couple of weeks ago on Remembrance Sunday, and I remember she texted me on the day saying, I can't believe what has just happened. Two police officers turned up at her house because of a post on X from a year ago where she had described some Jew haters as Jew haters. I mean, these were people who were members of Imran Khan's political party in Pakistan who have a long history of anti-Semitism and Alison had slightly confused
Dan Wootton:
[35:04] which political grouping they were a part of. She thought to begin with, they were part of the pro Hamas demonstrations, which were going on a lot at the time.
Dan Wootton:
[35:13] So she deleted the tweet, but that was on a factual basis. She had made a very small error. She hadn't said anything in any way that could be considered incitement to racial hatred. Yet that's what the police, three police forces in the UK, spent a year investigating. Now they have, after an international outcry, including lots of coverage from Elon Musk on X, dropped that, but it took a long time for this to become public. And remember, this is going on every single day in the UK. 60 people every single day in the UK are hounded because of something that they have said online, which is legal. Now, then you look at the rest of the justice system, and absolutely your point stands. And there are some horrifying examples of it, which again, the mainstream media wants to overlook. So a Muslim man called Muhammad Hassan, I would describe him as an extremist, was at a petrol station in Bradford, and he was caught doing this on CCTV. So there was no question about whether he was guilty or not. He spotted three fellow Asian women at the petrol station who were in Western dress, who had assimilated into English society.
Dan Wootton:
[36:36] He physically destroyed them. He beat them up on this petrol station forecourt. One of the Asian women, he put her head into the car and he smashed it for 45 seconds. This was all captured on CCTV. He is a woman beater. He beat up three women.
Dan Wootton:
[36:59] Muhammad Hassan did not spend one day in prison he was let off then you have Hugh Edwards the face of the BBC the guy who announced the death of Queen Elizabeth II, guilty of making child sex abuse images.
Dan Wootton:
[37:24] And being in possession of hundreds of these things He did not spend a day in prison. So you have pedophiles and women beaters being released. Well, not just being released, actually, never spending a day behind bars. Then to make room for people in prison who literally posted on Facebook and X after what happened in Southport where...
Dan Wootton:
[37:53] Three young, beautiful girls were butchered to death at a Taylor Swift dance class, a crime which horrified the whole country, and which we still don't know the truth about for a whole load of reasons.
Dan Wootton:
[38:07] People who posted something maybe a bit unartful maybe a bit inelegant in some cases probably they even went too far but who made a post on x or facebook over that time are in jail peter in some cases for well over two years so take the case of julie sweeney she's a grandmother and a carer for her husband. She has lived a completely faultless, quiet life in the north of England. After seeing what happened on the Southport massacre, she made one post to a Facebook group of 5,000 people. She soon regretted it. She realized she had overstepped the mark, but she certainly didn't, in my opinion, incite any specific violence against anyone. She has been locked up for over two years for a facebook post lucy connolly a housewife who is married to a conservative party local counselor also in jail for over two years for a post on x after the southport massacre meanwhile and this is actually true and elon musk sometimes points out these stories and people say this can't be true it is true people have been released on the street who are hardened criminals in some cases murderers to make room.
Dan Wootton:
[39:34] For these criminals in prison. And it's all part of, I believe, a campaign by this Labour government against the white working classes of the UK. They want to terrify the white working classes into silence.
Hearts of Oak:
[39:48] And that's why I'm struggling to understand how you change this from within,
Hearts of Oak:
[39:53] because that makes people extremely angry. And we saw the Southport, the demonstrations, whatever you call them, people expressing anger and feeling trapped in a system the police don't seem to be there to help you and i grew up i'm sure you did dan trusting the police trusting the courts that was part of the system that kept us safe now in many ways they seem to be the enemy in how you see them prosecuting how you see people who have been arrested yeah and then you look politically and you have silence from the conservative government um and you've got five or four mps so where we are at the moment so it's understandable that we don't have a first and second amendments we don't have freedom of speech or the right to bear arms. Therefore, oh, what do we do? We can't even meme. So I kind of, you understand where that frustration comes and boils over people thinking, actually, I don't know if the system will work, but you still want to hold within that. And you still believe that actually it is possible to get to where we want to get using the system.
Dan Wootton:
[40:55] Well, I think it's the only choice that we have, But I do think there will be a shifting of the Overton window over the next five years, and Nigel Farage and Reform UK are going to have to fill that space, because if they don't, someone else will.
Dan Wootton:
[41:13] So I would like, and I do support Reform UK, not as a member or anything like that. I'm completely independent. I'm not a member of any political party, but in terms of my personal vote, I switched my allegiance from the Conservative Party to Reform UK at the last election. So I've given them my vote and I want them to be the force to do it. But if they can't provide that, then another force will come along.
Dan Wootton:
[41:42] And right now, I would say they're dipping their toe in the water. They're doing some brilliant things, but they're not going far enough. So, for example, Nigel Farage has said, we'll get rid of all of these hate crime laws that saw Alison Pearson targeted by police. Great, you're dipping your toe in the water, but that's not enough. That's not enough. There has to be a First Amendment free speech, our equivalent. It obviously wouldn't be called the First Amendment because we don't have a constitution in the first place, but there has to be the equivalent of that. It's not enough just to say, oh, you're going to get rid of these hate crime laws. No, no, no. You have to enshrine free speech in British law. So there's a whole load of areas where I think Reform UK are dipping their toe in the water. But remember, we're entering a changed world now. And I do think Donald Trump will send out a lot of inspiration about what is politically acceptable. And we've seen that change from Nigel Farage, even in the past few weeks. He received quite a lot of criticism a couple of months ago for ruling out the concept of mass deportations altogether. And I can already sense that after Trump's election, now he's changing his rhetoric on that issue. So.
Dan Wootton:
[42:52] I mean, we knew that Trump's victory was essential for saving the Western world. And I guess, look, there's not much hope at the moment in the UK. So there are a couple of people that we can put a lot of hope in. One is Trump and his administration, because it's going to have to change some of the dark forces and the globalist forces that are doing some terrible things. To the uk and then of course the other is musk so you know we've got to find hope from somewhere at the moment because otherwise this is going to be a very bleak five years do i think it can change within the system yes i do actually but it's going to need a true people's revolt and that's going to be one of the messages on my show today look two million of us have signed this petition imagine if two million of us joined a political force you know we'd be the biggest political force in,
Dan Wootton:
[43:50] british history so there's hope i think and.
Hearts of Oak:
[43:56] And just to finish off on that point as well i think that hope comes from and i would certainly feel very much like calvin well let's just let's just burn this thing down let's call for revolution but that doesn't always end very well and you're left
Dan Wootton:
[44:09] With no how's it gonna work that's the problem how is how is that going to work i think, I think we have to try and make this work through democratic processes, but that doesn't mean working through the system, if that makes sense. The system has to be smashed.
Hearts of Oak:
[44:34] No, I agree. And looking at what's happened in the US with Trump, the most important election, I think, in most of our lifetimes because of what we faced, and not only for a country, but for the world. And then looking at what's happening, I mean, you've got the Freedom Party just came top in the Luka election last night in Austria. Of course, they're not allowed to form a government, even though they're the winning party. You've got the election coming up in Germany. Then you've got Orban and Maloney, and you've got...
Dan Wootton:
[45:03] Or Le Pen in France. I know. Who they're trying to, you know, again, ban from running through lawfare, which won't work.
Hearts of Oak:
[45:13] It won't work, but as they're trying to do in Germany on the AFD. But I think those two pressures for, because I haven't been very hopeful for a while, but actually I think those two pressures could lead to something in the UK. The UK will have to up its act and pressure like that from both sides, I think, will produce good leadership that we can move forward. And to me, actually, the electoral success of Trump and the electoral success of populist parties across Europe, I think, shows that there is hope for the UK.
Dan Wootton:
[45:48] Absolutely. Absolutely. I mean, look, there are certain things in terms of our setup that does make it very difficult, but these are extraordinary times. No one believed that Donald Trump would get through the Republican primary process.
Dan Wootton:
[46:05] No one believes that a Le Pen will ever be able to be president of France. Well, let's see, because I think as things look at the moment she probably will be so to smash the two-party system in the uk would be a massive ask but these do feel like historic times yeah.
Hearts of Oak:
[46:27] I i agree dan i appreciate your time people can obviously follow um outspoken every monday to friday at 5 p.m uk time or midday eastern uh find look at his twitter account or x shows how old i am uh to find it there or even go directly to his website dan wouldn't on outspoken.com dan wouldn't outspoken.com sign up to that and find out everything that happens um and i guess dan wouldn't outspoken or dan wouldn't i guess is the handle for your youtube channel also
Dan Wootton:
[46:59] Yeah dan wouldn't outspoken and outspoken is also on now because um i have been looking for a free speech platform and i think sub stack is the best of those outside of x obviously i i'm on it it's very very strong on x but i post a lot of my long form things and we do an uncancelled.
In the most recent episode of Hearts of Oak's news review, hosts Peter and Rick Munn delve into several pressing issues facing the UK. They open by addressing the UK government's decision to provide £536 million in aid to foreign farmers, contrasting this with the increasing tax burdens on domestic farmers.
Rick Munn highlights the economic paradox where UK farmers, despite owning valuable land, often lack the cash liquidity needed to manage inheritance taxes, potentially leading to the sale of family farms.
The conversation then shifts to Prime Minister Keir Starmer's economic policies, particularly his partnership with corporations like BlackRock for economic growth. Rick expresses skepticism over whether such alliances will truly benefit the average British citizen, suggesting a shift towards right-leaning economic strategies within Starmer's Labour government. They also discuss the implications of a possible ICC arrest warrant for Israeli PM Netanyahu, questioning the UK's potential response to such international legal actions.
The episode further includes a cultural critique, with Rick commenting on the concept of 'self-partnering' popularized by pop star Sam Smith, viewing it as a reflection of bizarre modern cultural trends. Finally, they touch on national defense, examining the UK's preparedness for conflict with Russia, and how domestic and social issues might be impacting military spending. Throughout the discussion, there is an underlying theme of accountability, questioning the alignment of government actions with the actual needs and values of UK citizens, and a call for a more equitable distribution of benefits from policy decisions.
*Special thanks to Bosch Fawstin for recording our intro/outro on this podcast.
In this episode of Hearts of Oak, Dr. Robert Malone discusses his recent work, including his successful Substack platform, "Malone.News," where he mixes serious analysis with light-hearted content. He talks about his new book "Cywar: Enforcing the New World Order," now an audiobook, and reflects on recording challenges and its reception. The conversation then turns to U.S. politics, with Malone analyzing recent election surprises and his involvement in political events, including support for Bobby Kennedy.
He critiques the current health and food industry, highlighting the need for reform due to corporate dominance, unsafe food practices, and the decline of small farms. Malone expresses hope for health policy changes under potential new leadership, emphasizing the battle against industry lobbying for public health improvements.
*Special thanks to Bosch Fawstin for recording our intro/outro on this podcast.
PRE-ORDER PsyWar: Enforcing the New World Order amazon.com/PsyWar-Robert-W-Malone-MD/dp/1510782958
Robert W Malone MD, MS
Connect with Dr Malone.....
Interview recorded 3.9.24
Connect with Hearts of Oak...
Hello, dear listeners!
Welcome to another thoughtful episode of the Hearts of Oak podcast, where we dive into the depths of cultural and philosophical narratives shaping our world. Today, we're joined by a guest whose journey into activism and intellectual exploration has been both inspiring and provocative. Together, we'll explore the tapestry of history, politics, and theology that underpins one of the most divisive issues of our time: the sanctity of life. So, grab your headphones, sit back in your favorite chair, and join us on this journey of discovery and dialogue. Let's embark on this conversation with open hearts and minds.
Connect with Seth Gruber:
Connect with Hearts of Oak...
In this episode, Nazarin Veronica delves into her journey from questioning mainstream COVID-19 narratives to becoming a vocal critic of vaccine mandates and media manipulation. She reflects on her isolation during lockdown which led to skepticism towards official information, resulting in strained relationships due to her dissenting views. Veronica discusses her efforts to spread awareness, like handing out leaflets, her disillusionment with mainstream media tactics through her experience with the BBC documentary "Unvaccinated," where she felt her views were misrepresented to serve an agenda. Post-documentary, she leveraged social media to correct the narrative, gaining unexpected support. Now, years later, she sees slow shifts in public discourse towards vaccine safety but remains vigilant about government overreach and continues advocating for critical thinking and personal liberty.
*Special thanks to Bosch Fawstin for recording our intro/outro on this podcast.
Connect with Hearts of Oak...
Interview recorded 11.11.24
Connect with Hearts of Oak...
(Hearts of Oak)
And hello Hearts of Oak, thank you so much for joining us once again with a brand new guest, and that is Calum Miller.
Calum, thank you so much for your time today.
Thank you for having me
Hearts of Oak
Great to have you, and of course, I was at the March for Life in the UK, which kind of spurred my thinking, and you're a name that I've seen in many different areas, but actually being at that event solidified it.
So I want to get your thoughts on that, the UK pro-life movement, your background, all of that. But people can find you at Dr. Calum Miller on X (formerly Twitter), and of course, callumsblog.com is your blog.
All the links will be in the description whether people are watching or listening; everything is there, so make sure to make use of those links.
But, Calum, your background as a doctor, you're involved, very involved in the pro-life movement.
Maybe I could just step back a little bit and ask you to introduce yourself to our viewers before we get into the actual issue at hand.
Sure, yes. I'm a medical doctor, and I actually became pro-life while I was at medical school.
So I grew up, like most of the UK, just being pro-choice, at least most of Great Britain, at least.
And I think, yeah, it was being at medical school, seeing the reality of life in the womb, seeing the reality of abortion and its impact on the woman as well as the child that convinced me to be pro-life.
So I still work as a doctor.
I'm also a researcher on the topic of abortion and various other bits and pieces, but that's from an ethical, medical, and legal perspective, whatever it might be.
So I try to look at it from every angle and publish on that. And so I've done quite a bit of academic work on the topic as well.
And then I do a lot of work just speaking and writing about this as well, so yeah, I didn't expect to end up here when I started medical school, but that's what I've ended up doing because I think it's one of the most important things that can be spoken about, so here I am.
Maybe ask you what actually changed your mind?
I want to delve into that, your background, and what kind of led you to that.
But what kind of led up to that?
Because most people, I guess, shrug their shoulders, and they think, you know, if it's people's choice, and you want to do this or that.
People don't really think about it in the UK, I don't think, as much as intentionally as maybe in the US, where there are two kind of blocks on each side, and you have heated, and sometimes even constructive arguments.
In the UK, it just seems to be, "Bleh," just kind of shrug your shoulders.
So, what kind of persuaded you? What led you, as you were studying as a doctor, to the position that actually life in the womb matters?
Yeah, it was a number of things, really.
I think being a doctor, you have to think about it at least a little bit.
That's not to say most doctors think about it much or have a well-formed view on it.
But at least in my case, it was something that came up in medical school.
And so that sort of provoked me a bit more into thinking about what I thought about it.
And then also, you know, reading about it, it was very much academic arguments, you know, thinking through the idea of human rights and equality that convinced me.
I thought if humans are equal, then they have equal rights, and that has to include every human.
And, therefore, the main question in abortion is just: Is this a human being?
And I was, you know, I knew from medical school that it was.
And therefore, for me, it was very simple: that if this is a human being, as science teaches, and if every human being is equal, as most of us claim to believe, then it just follows really logically that we should be pro-life and protect the child in the womb just as much as anyone else. And so that was a big part of it.
I think, you know, part of what brought it up, you're right, is globalization which normally makes people—normally it's sort of very progressive Western values going to other parts of the world and making them more liberal.
In my case, I think globalization took me the other direction to a more traditional view because, you know, I grew up in a very sort of insular progressive country, and it was actually exposure to the fact that most people around the world don't agree with this, and most of them are pro-life, that was part of the thing that got me to reconsider in the first place.
So, yeah, it was a mix of a whole bunch of things: experience, looking at the arguments, but at its core, it was really that conviction about human equality, human rights, and seeing that if we really believe in them, then they have to apply to everyone and not just the people that it's convenient for now.
There are two approaches: at the March for Life, you have a strongly Christian approach in that the understanding of the Bible is that we are made in the image of God, and therefore, everyone has value, no matter where they are or who they are; everyone is equal and has value.
But you've also got, as you pointed out, an ethical argument, a philosophical argument, which is a completely different take on it.
What about you as a Christian, then? How did that affect your approach to this idea?
Yeah, it wasn't actually a huge part of what convinced me because, you know, I had Christian convictions before I became pro-life, and I thought that was compatible.
Later on, I realized that Christianity does have a clear position on it, but it was really the arguments about science and philosophy that convinced me primarily.
And I think one of the striking things in that sense is that the Bible doesn't actually say when life begins exactly.
It talks about conception a little bit, and it clearly respects that there is life before birth. And so, you know, at least at some point before birth, life begins.
But of course, fertilization hadn't been discovered when the Bible was written.
And so when people say, you know, you only believe human rights begin or life begins at fertilization because the Bible says so or because of your religion, it's actually the opposite.
The Bible doesn't mention fertilization; no one in religion mentioned fertilization until it was discovered scientifically.
And it was because of that scientific discovery that Christians said, "Oh, OK, so we knew that life was valuable from the beginning because the Bible teaches that life is valuable from the beginning.
But we didn't know when the beginning was. But now that science has shown us when the beginning is, at fertilization, the Christian position, informed by science, tells us that life begins at fertilization and should be protected from that."
And so I think clearly, you know, I think if you believe in Christianity and you believe in science, then there's no way to sort of support abortion.
But in terms of that claim about when life begins, I think that's ultimately a scientific claim, not a religious one.
And so anyone can agree with it.
And if, for some other reason, say you're not religious, you just believe that all human beings are equal and should be protected regardless.
Regardless, if you believe that and you believe in science, you should also be pro-life.
So religion certainly supports the pro-life position in many cases, but it's not needed for it. And so in my own journey, it was not really connected to religion.
It was only later that I sort of united them in that sense.
Okay, let me see where I go in this, because I want to pick up.
Those are two aspects, I think, and it's interesting your view of being a Christian, and yet not necessarily being pro-life.
I mean, I have a, to me, it's a red line as a Christian that actually we speak up, as Proverbs says, for the voiceless, and who has no voice more than the unborn.
Literally, they're not able to speak, and therefore it is up to us to speak up for them.
So for me, even that Proverbs is enough to actually step up. And if no one comes and says, you know, that's not life because of X, Y, and Z, if there's no argument for that side, then surely the flip side has to be that you speak up for that.
And I have, I mean, I've talked to, I grew up Baptist, now in a Pentecostal church, but talked to a lot of C of E vicars who struggle with this and privately have a view, but publicly seem unable to speak.
And it seems to be a fear of what man may say, as opposed to a fear of God.
I mean, what have your conversations been like with different Christian leaders on actually speaking up on this?
Yeah, I mean, I don't think your experience is unusual, especially as someone who goes to an Anglican church. I think we're all, every Anglican is, humiliated by the quality of our leadership, I think, especially at present.
That's not about my church; my church leaders are great, but I think everyone knows at this point that Welby's a bit of a clown, and no one, you know, thinks he has much courage or credibility.
And so certainly, you know, we don't expect anything remotely controversial or that might upset the sort of powers that be from Anglican leaders, but it's not only an Anglican problem.
You know, the only time I've ever heard abortion preached about in a church, as someone who has been going to church most of my life, was I only heard it once, and that was when I was giving a sermon.
And that was an invitation by a very bold pastor because he wanted it to be preached on, and that's the only time I've ever heard it preached on in a UK church.
So this is a huge problem across denominations.
And I think ultimately there's a vicious circle because, you know, people will not know how to speak about abortion in a winsome way.
So they don't speak about it. And therefore, the next generation or the people in the congregations don't know what to think about it.
And then if they don't know what to think about it, they're even less likely to speak about it in future.
And that just sort of reinforces itself. And so I meet quite, you know, the Christian position on this is about as clear as anything could be.
It's like absolutely clear. You know, the evidence from church history and from the Bible for the pro-life view is as good or better than the evidence for the Trinity, which is like a core foundational Christian doctrine.
And yet I meet a lot of Christians, even otherwise orthodox, kind of Bible-believing Christians who just don't know what to think about this issue.
And that is because of this reinforced silence on the issue.
So, I would say that in some cases, it is just cowardice; in many cases, it's just cowardice, but in many cases, it's because the church leader might want to speak about this but genuinely has never seen it spoken about in a way that is convincing, full of grace, and full of compassion, and you know, winsomeness.
And I think in that situation, at the very least, our job is to present to those pastors and church leaders a way of communicating this message that is winsome, that does make sense, that is compassionate and full of grace and the gospel.
And so, yeah, I think, you know, that once we've sort of equipped church leaders with that, then I think we will see which church leaders have a sort of genuine fear that they're willing to overcome once they're equipped and which church leaders are just always going to be too scared, no matter what you do.
And I think there'll always be a mix of both in churches, but we're hoping that, you know, over time, once people are equipped, they'll be able to speak out more, and that a lot of them will be willing to do so.
I'm wondering, is it a cultural issue?
I remember visiting a church in Houston, and in the middle of the sermon, they emphasized the importance of life.
I’ve seen similar moments in other large U.S. churches, where they pause to discuss that life is sacred, including life in the womb, which they believe God has created.
There seems to be a greater focus on the sanctity of life there. In contrast, you’re right—it's rare to come across that in UK churches.
For example, in my own church, KT, the former pastor once issued an apology during a Sunday service.
This happened after J. John, a Church of England canon, was speaking on the Ten Commandments. When he came to "murder," he paused to say that taking the life of the unborn is also murder.
He spoke about it briefly, emphasizing forgiveness at the cross, and then moved on. That Sunday, the church leader made a public apology in case anyone was offended.
But when it comes to weighing offense against addressing the issue of life, I’d prioritize preventing the loss of life over potential offense.
Is this reluctance to speak out part of a cultural issue—a difference between transatlantic perspectives?
Yeah, I mean, as you say, there are some great church leaders in the UK.
I'm not saying every church leader avoids this topic; J. John is a fantastic example of someone who’s been willing to speak about it.
Vaughan Roberts from St. Ebbe’s in Oxford is another example, and there are others, so they’re not the only ones.
We’re very grateful for church leaders like that.
Even among church leaders who are somewhat fearful of addressing this issue, I think there are two main reasons. One is a kind of legitimate worry—misplaced, perhaps, but still legitimate. The other is less defensible.
The legitimate worry is from those who are genuinely fearful that if they speak out on this issue, they will turn away people who are not Christians, making them less open to Christianity.
Of course, Christianity is even more important than the issue of abortion, if we frame it that way.
So, there’s this worry that if someone is turned off from coming to church or listening to anything we say because of this issue, they might never come to believe in the end.
Their concern is for the most important thing.
While I think this worry may be misplaced, I understand it.
Then, there are others who are less concerned about the evangelistic impact and simply worried about, as you say, causing offense.
The Bible doesn’t teach us to go out and deliberately cause offense, but it does tell us to speak the truth. If the truth offends, then so be it. As I mentioned, there are ways to address this issue that are winsome, compassionate, and full of grace.
There are certainly ways of discussing it that lack those qualities and can be genuinely harmful.
But if a church leader is unwilling to even broach the topic in a good, winsome, and compassionate way, then I think there's a real problem.
I would say the U.S. has less of an issue with this, but it’s still present.
Many pastors there avoid discussing it, and there is a lot of confusion. Globally, one might expect church leaders in conservative regions to be more vocal, but even then, the response is mixed.
For example, in many parts of sub-Saharan Africa, church leaders are very vocal, clear, and forthright about this issue, without fear or hesitation. In parts of the Caribbean—though not everywhere—even where abortion is mostly illegal and Christianity is widespread within a traditional culture, there is often significant hesitation among church leaders to address it.
So, even in traditionally conservative cultures worldwide, the response is mixed."
Okay, let's look at legislation.
Every country will be different, of course. In the UK, there has certainly been a push to extend access to abortion up to birth, depending on certain circumstances.
In contrast, as you look further east in Europe, abortion tends to have more restrictions.
We also have the issue of buffer zones.
Could you update the viewers and listeners on the current situation regarding abortion in the UK?
Yeah, so in the UK, we have a law that, in practice, allows abortion for any reason up to 24 weeks, or six months.
By this point, the baby is quite developed; they’re viable from about 21 to 22 weeks and could survive outside the womb without their mother.
The baby is able to feel pain, has a heartbeat, brain waves, can taste food, and so forth.
They’re very much developed, yet the UK allows abortion up to six months.
If the baby has a disability, the law permits abortion until birth.
Although it specifies a 'serious handicap,' initially intended for life-limiting conditions—where, for example, the baby might only survive a few days—in practice, nearly any disability can justify abortion until birth.
We know of cases where abortions for Down syndrome, for instance, have taken place in the 8th or even the 9th month in the UK.
It’s also important to clarify that, technically, abortion is not fully legal for any reason up to six months.
The law specifies that it’s legal to protect the physical or mental health of the woman. Originally, this was meant to be fairly strict, requiring two doctors to genuinely assess that carrying the baby to term would pose a significant mental or physical health risk.
However, in practice, you might go to the doctor—or sometimes only a nurse—and say you don’t want a baby.
If you indicate that this would cause you emotional difficulty, that counts as a mental health reason, qualifying you for an abortion.
So, in theory, we only have abortion for health reasons or for disability in the UK, but in practice, it’s permitted for almost any reason up to six months.
This is much more permissive than in most of Europe, where abortion is usually allowed only up to 12 weeks, if at all.
For example, Germany has a 12-week limit, and I believe some Scandinavian countries, like Norway and Denmark, also have similar 12-week limits.
Sweden’s limit is 18 weeks, and, as everyone knows, Sweden is considered one of the most progressive countries in the world.
Even they have a limit at 18 weeks, while in the UK, we’re a month and a half beyond that. This makes us an outlier—not only globally but even within Western Europe—as we are far more extreme.
That’s why over 70% of women in the UK believe the law should be stricter than it currently is.
Despite a population that is 95% pro-choice, most people recognize that our law is far too extreme and believe it needs to be tightened
I mean, does the law state when life begins? Because that's what it boils down to. In the UK, if you talk to liberals—or even family members, as I have—they seem to believe the birth canal somehow bestows the properties of life. The moment a baby passes through that point, it’s alive, but 20 seconds before, it’s not.
I think that’s not really a scientific definition of when life begins; it's more of a positional argument rather than one grounded in the actual question of life.
So, in the UK, is there any definition of when life begins? Because that seems to be the central issue.
Yeah, not really.
I mean, in terms of when a child is fully protected, it would be when birth is complete.
There has actually been a bit of legal debate about partial birth abortion, which is when the baby is half delivered.
You deliver the legs and body, and then the head is still just inside the birth canal, and an abortion is performed at that stage of pregnancy.
It’s absolutely barbaric and grotesque, but it seems to be legal in the UK.
So even halfway through delivery, it appears that an abortion can still be performed, meaning that the baby is not considered a full legal person who is protected at that point.
The law does actually define pregnancies in two different ways.
When measuring the time limit for abortion, it states that it is up to 24 weeks.
This is actually measured from the last period of the woman, which is two weeks before conception.
In that sense, it doesn't define pregnancy as beginning at conception; instead, it says pregnancy begins two weeks before conception, at the last period.
However, when defining what abortion is versus contraception—what's the difference between contraception and abortion—the law defines pregnancy as beginning at implantation, which occurs a week or two after conception.
The reason for this is that there are forms of contraception that act after fertilization, technically causing very early abortions.
This makes doctors and contraceptive manufacturers very unhappy because it means they would be subject to more regulation.
Therefore, they prefer to classify all of these drugs as contraceptives, since the law is less strict about contraceptives.
So, in the UK, the law defines a legal person as only being recognized once birth is fully completed.
And it defines pregnancy in two different ways: either from the last period or from implantation, neither of which is conception, which is the scientifically accurate beginning of life.
So, the law in the UK is a total mess; it's completely contradictory and inconsistent.
All I can say is that while the law might not define it clearly, if I were asked in my medical school exams when a human organism begins, I would say that it starts at conception.
There's only one answer that would be remotely acceptable, and that would be fertilization.
That's the scientifically obvious answer.
I mean, how is it that someone can go through the medical field?
I went through aerospace, so it’s very different.
But in the medical field, how is it that someone decides to become a doctor?
They must have the intellectual ability and, more importantly, the desire to do good; they want to help.
That’s what they want to do in their career.
I scratch my head thinking about someone who decides they want to be a doctor. What do you want to do?
Well, I like to kill babies.
Is that really an option on the list of motivations?
How does someone move from wanting to help people to that being a part of their profession?
As someone in a non-medical field, it’s quite confusing.
Yeah, I think part of the answer is that doctors themselves and some of the public have an unreasonably inflated view of doctors.
You know, a lot of doctors do a lot of what they do for goodwill and get into it with good intentions.
But it's also a highly prestigious career that earns a decent salary; there are many reasons why people want to be a doctor other than because it helps people.
And to be honest, if you really want to help people, there are much more effective things you can do.
You could go into banking, earn a lot of money, and then donate it all; that would actually have an impact hundreds or thousands of times bigger than being a doctor.
So, that's not to say all doctors are just in it for the money and the prestige, but there's a lot of that, and there's certainly a lot of pride in the medical profession.
So, I don't think we should just have this view that doctors are just saintly people.
They might be better than average morally, but that's not saying much, and certainly not all of them are better than average.
In terms of the ones who might get into it for reasons of goodwill and good intentions, I think it's best reflected by there's a paper on second-trimester abortion.
by what's her name, Lisa—I've forgotten her surname, I'm afraid—Lisa Harris, I think it is, and she writes a paper on second-trimester abortion, and she says we need to stop being dishonest about this; this is, in some ways, a horrendous procedure.
And she describes it; she talks about, for example, when she was doing an abortion and she pulled the legs off the baby, and at the same time, she felt her own baby kicking inside of her because she was pregnant while she was doing this abortion. And she said, like, tears were flowing down her face, and this sort of thing.
It was a very visceral experience.
And so, she's, in that sense, quite open and honest about what abortion involves, and she even says explicitly in that article that abortion is violence.
She doesn't hold back; she says abortion is clearly violence, but she says it's an even greater violence to force women to stay pregnant against their will.
And so, I don't know if every abortion practitioner thinks of it that way.
Probably not.
Probably many of them are in total denial and just try to sort of deny the fact that they're doing anything violent.
They're probably just trying to treat it as no big deal.
But when you get an honest doctor who really knows what they're doing and still does it, I think that has to be something like the justification that they think, "Yes, of course, this is violence, and it's horrible, but it's even worse to force a woman to stay pregnant, and therefore, it's the lesser of two evils."
So that's how some people would think of it, at least.
I want to get your kind of view on the pro-life movement in the UK.
You've been very heavily involved in campaigning for that, being a high-profile activist, and you emceed the March for Life event a couple of weeks ago, a couple of months ago in London.
And I'm embarrassed to say that was the first one I attended, and I attended the seminars in the morning and then went for the march in the afternoon to Parliament Square. But 10 years of that, do you want to give us an insight?
I mean, half of our viewers are US viewers; I think it'd be good for them to also understand what the situation is in the UK, what your experiences have been being involved in the pro-life movement, trying to win the public over, win public support, win political support, engaging in the media.
Give us an insight into what that journey has been like.
Yeah, so I certainly wasn't there from the beginning of the March for Life.
I've been maybe three or four times now to the UK march, a few times in other countries.
I'm told that it began very small; I think it began with just a couple of dozen people in Birmingham about 10 years ago, and then, really incredibly, it has expanded to thousands and thousands in London now.
I know other countries do it a bit differently; they do hundreds of marches across the country.
So every country does it a bit differently.
We have a big one in London each year, and it's been incredible to see how that's grown over the years and how many young people are involved.
It's not just some fading generation that's gradually losing momentum and losing ground. If you go to the march, it's absolutely full of young people, and I think it's growing each year.
And so, yeah, that's been hugely encouraging.
And I think it's interesting because what the abortion lobby is trying to do is to say that this is a settled issue, it's a decided issue, and that there's no room for debate.
And they could probably get away with that for many years because there wasn't really much pushback for a good long time.
And now, I think we're at the point where sort of teenage and young people's rebelliousness is actually getting, you know, the new conservatism is actually being pro-life.
That's the thing; we've had in this country for 50 or 60 years, and people who want to sort of grow up questioning things and going against the establishment are increasingly recognizing that the establishment and the older generations are pro-abortion and that they're trying to maintain that at all costs.
And so, I think there is an increasing generation of young people that are beginning to ask questions.
And naturally, the establishment's getting very nervous about that and trying to shut it down and pretend there's nothing to debate.
And so, yeah, I'm excited about what the next few years might show.
There's some polling, and I don't know, it's a little bit mixed, but there is some evidence that the youngest people in the UK are the most pro-life.
That's not to say the majority are pro-life; it's still tough being a pro-life person at university.
But it does seem to be that the youngest generation is more pro-life than any other, and so our hope is that this will build over the next few years, and hopefully, we'll be able to have even more significant conversations about what is really good for women, what is really good for children, what is really good for society, especially as we see the costs of not having any kids—the economic costs and other things. We're gradually seeing that that's going to cause huge economic problems.
I don't know if anyone in my generation is actually convinced they're going to get a pension when they're in their 60s or 70s. I'm certainly not.
And that's because we don't have enough kids.
And so, I think as those problems increase and get worse, and the economic reality of that hits home, I think a lot of people will be wondering, did we make some mistakes when it came to suppressing childbearing, breaking up families, and encouraging people not to have them?
I mean, isn't it, and I was really pleasantly surprised by the number of certainly younger people at not only the event at the beginning of the day but also in the march.
And you realize there is hope when you see that, a different generation actually standing up for life.
But I mean, in every generation, faces its own issues, and in this generation, it's an issue of it's about me; it's about putting off having children later in life, putting off commitment, actually zero commitment; kind of do what you want.
And that different, I guess, focus on life is more on the individual as opposed to collective, much less responsibility towards society, and much more on "I can do what I want, and screw the world" type of thing.
That is a difficult concept to bring into this, which is about thinking of others, so how do you kind of marry that with this maybe a more selfish attitude to this issue, which has to be selfless because you're thinking of someone else.
It's tough.
And, you know, there are arguments that abortion is bad, even if you're self-interested.
You know, the mental health evidence is quite clear that if a woman has an abortion, she's more likely to be anxious, more likely to be suicidal, and more likely to do drugs and alcohol and all sorts of things.
So even from a selfish perspective, abortion is bad for women and for people making that decision.
On the other hand, you know, those arguments haven't persuaded so far. Maybe that's because the establishment sort of denies that evidence, or maybe it's because people just aren't motivated in that moment by theoretical knowledge of what their mental health might be like in the future.
It's more of a panic decision. It's more of a, you know, freaking out.
"My life's going to be over as I know it," and I just have to get rid of this and change this situation.
I'm not thinking about, you know, potential mental health outcomes 20 years down the line.
I don't know which of those is the reason that those arguments haven't persuaded. But for that reason, it's always going to be a challenge in a culture that is primarily about the individual and about doing what you desire and what you want, forgetting about your responsibility to others and the need to care for others.
I think it will always be challenging to get rid of abortion in that context. So we don't really know how to solve it in that sense.
We're hoping that people will wake up. Of course, there is a significant sentiment of helping others; you know, some people call it social justice, while others refer to it by different names.
However, this sense of societal responsibility among young people isn't completely dead.
They can be very selfish in some respects, and then the next week they’ll spend all of their time at a protest for something that helps society—or at least something they think helps society—in some way. Some of that, I'm sure, is grandstanding; some of it is virtue signaling. However, I think a lot of it is genuine sympathy.
I believe that when people spend their Saturdays marching for Palestine, whatever you think of that issue or whoever you think is in the right, many of the young people in those marches genuinely believe that there are people suffering and that it is their responsibility to spend some of their valuable time speaking for them.
And so, in that sense, the sort of societal duty and that sense of duty is not gone; it’s just very selectively targeted nowadays.
There's not a general sense that with everyone around me, with my family, with my neighbors, and with my society, every decision I make has to be something that contributes to them and their flourishing.
It's more like, okay, in most areas it's all about me, and I should do what makes me happy and follow my heart.
But then there are some things that are just so bad that I have to, you know, give a bit of my time to.
I think it's just much more targeted in that way rather than a complete sense of, you know, irresponsibility.
So the question is, how can we challenge the sort of channel those remaining desires to do good and to show that they apply to all of society and all of life, and not just to a few select issues?
I think once we are able to build that sort of virtue and responsibility in a more global sense, then we might be in a better position to fix this issue as well.
How do you look at this from a campaigning point of view?
There are many angles you could take, and where you focus is important.
Do you look at the media and push the message through that?
Do you focus on MPs in the political sphere?
Do you look at the church and engage with it?
There are many aspects you could consider using for influence.
So how do you see the movement, the breakthrough, or the focus for you personally?
Yeah, I think it's always going to be a mix of those.
I think any societal movement requires getting all the different sectors on board.
Even if you look at, you know, people pushing the other way, even when it seems hopeless—in many parts of sub-Saharan Africa, where almost everyone is pro-life, the abortion industry globally will still target politicians, doctors, the media, and even church leaders.
Even though they know that almost all the church leaders are against them, they will try to get church leaders on board with them just so they can say this is not an issue where, if you're Christian, you're pro-life, or if you're Muslim, you're pro-life.
You can be a Christian or a Muslim and still support abortion, and therefore try to shift the population that way.
So, I’d say it involves all of them.
But I think the thing that has struck me about public opinion on abortion and how pro-life movements have succeeded around the world is that it is very, very difficult for a pro-life movement to succeed without having, at the very least, a core base of enthusiastic supporters among Christians or Muslims.
I think that's just the reality.
You know, if you look at the U.S. pro-life movement, yes, 25 percent of atheists in America are pro-life, according to polls.
And that's significant; that's a lot of people who are totally non-religious and pro-life. But when you look at people who are actively engaged in pro-life campaigning or volunteering at a pregnancy help center, or whatever it might be, the overwhelming majority of them—about 99 percent—are Christian.
There are some exceptions; obviously, that's why it's only 99 percent. I have some great atheist friends. F
or example, Monica Snyder, who runs Secular Pro-Life, does a fantastic job. Everyone's convinced she's secretly a Christian, and I can tell you from knowing her that it's far from the case.
There are great people like that, but the reality is that 99 percent of pro-life people who are actually doing something in the U.S. are Christians. Therefore, it's very difficult to even make a start unless you have a core group of Christians who are willing to take action.
And so, you know, we can still affect the politics.
At the moment in the UK, they're trying to legalize abortion up until birth.
Even without the church being engaged, some of our groups working in politics have been able to stop that.
And so I'm not saying we should just forget everything until we have the church on board, because we can do a lot even without them.
But I think in order to make really significant change long term, I think the place to start has to be the church because that's where people are going to get involved and get motivated and actually do something
All right, I’m always curious about the different aspects of the transatlantic issue and how they engage with it in the U.S. versus the UK. I’ve been confused by being accused by different CV vicars of being “one of them”—one of those Americans who spread hate against the women who are coming in.
I know I’d just like to offer a different solution or even pray.
In the UK, we’ve got a horrendous situation where silent prayer is now illegal in many areas, including a place that was likely the first to institute this ban, which I could walk to in about 30 minutes.
Sadly, my MP has been one of the most vocal advocates for criminalizing anyone who may dare to pray around an abortion clinic.
How in the UK have we reached the point where praying to God in certain areas is illegal?
Silent prayer is remarkable.
I should say that if a CV vicar is saying it, then it's probably not true; you're probably doing a decent job.
I think this is an area that fascinates me because I hear a lot of Christians in the UK saying, “Look at these Americans; they don’t actually do anything to help women,” or whatever.
However, if you look at the numbers in the American pro-life movement, the overwhelming majority of it consists of practical pregnancy centers supporting women.
It's probably about 90% of the pro-life resources in the U.S. There are 3,000 of those centers, and on average, they have about 28 volunteers and five full-time paid staff.
Of course, all of those salaries are coming almost entirely from charity and private giving.
And so, you look at the American pro-life movement and what the American church is doing, and it’s overwhelmingly supporting women practically.
Then you ask those same Christians in the UK who are criticizing the Americans for being hateful and political what they are doing for women in crisis pregnancies.
The answer is almost always absolutely nothing.
It’s astonishing; I guess it’s just a false narrative that the media has spread about American pro-lifers.
Sadly, even many Christians in the UK have adopted this narrative without becoming educated about the facts or getting to know anyone in America who is involved in this.
I think part of our job is to educate people about, firstly, what the American pro-life movement is like, and secondly, how churches can get engaged here to do something similar.
We need to show that we’re not crazy, fanatical hate preachers; we actually just want to protect women and children.
That’s all it’s about.
So, yeah, we’re obviously in a very difficult position in the UK with these censorship zones.
I’m told that the guidance is just being released, indicating that it might not actually be illegal to pray silently.
However, that doesn’t sound like much of a consolation; it’s still not necessarily permissible to pray silently.
I’m sure this change is due to some of the great campaigning work that has been done on this issue by many organizations.
And so, you know, there’s still room for fighting on this issue. We don’t know where the boundaries of the law are.
It’s obviously a complete farce; there are so many basic civil liberties being violated here—not just freedom of religion but also freedom of conscience, freedom of thought in some cases, freedom of speech in some cases, and freedom of assembly.
What’s crazy is that when you look at the way this law was introduced with the bill about protests in general, all of the far-left and progressive groups said, “This bill is absolutely draconian. It limits all of these civil liberties.
The government is absolutely authoritarian,” and so on.
Yet, the form of protest or assembly that was most limited was outside of abortion clinics, and they actually supported it.
So it was just a case of not only hypocrisy but also, in reacting to the whole bill that way, they were conceding that yes, this is absolutely draconian, crazy, and a gross violation of civil liberties.
The government even admitted this. They said, “We think that this section of the bill does violate the Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act.”
It wasn’t put there by the government; it was added by a Labour amendment that received enough votes.
They acknowledged that this violates human rights, but they still supported the bill as a whole.
So everyone agreed that some part of this bill violated human rights.
The government said that the abortion part violated human rights, and the left said that the whole bill violated human rights.
There should have been an overwhelming consensus that this particularly draconian part of the bill was absolutely crazy and authoritarian.
But sadly, that’s the part that has somehow managed to gain the most support because, ultimately, it’s not liberal democracy that most of these people care about; it’s preserving their own civil liberties rather than everyone’s.
That’s, unfortunately, how we’ve got here, because we’ve lost.
We’ve lost the ability to understand politics in a genuinely liberal sense.
It’s only about putting forward your own point of view and protecting your own liberties or the liberties of certain special interest groups.
There are very few people nowadays who understand the need for civil liberties and why they have to apply to everyone, even if you don’t agree with them.
I think it’s really just a failure in civics and a failure in education about what liberalism actually is that has led us to this point.
Oh yeah, and part of this slide is the move towards assisted suicide, which is very much part of the conversation in the UK.
You’ve got abortion, which has been legal since the 1967 Act, and now they’re looking at end-of-life issues.
There seems to be a full-on attack on life, suggesting that if you’re young, you don’t have value, and if you’re old, you don’t have value either.
They talk about putting protections in place, but we’ve seen in Belgium that if you’re a teenager and you feel a bit down one day, the question becomes, “Would you like to end your life?”
Canada has similar proposals, and whatever safeguards our politicians seem to discuss, they won’t be effective once the bill is in place; loopholes will inevitably be found.
We seem to be in a massive push in the UK towards ending life, as evidenced by the assisted suicide bill currently being debated and pushed through Parliament.
I think so.
Yeah, maybe 30 years ago, when the Netherlands was one of the only countries that allowed assisted suicide, you could have argued that the Netherlands has done it badly and has experienced a slippery slope.
But we can do it better; we can implement real safeguards and have a much stricter law that is better regulated.
When I hear people say that now, after seeing the Netherlands, Canada, Belgium, Oregon, and all these other places, honestly, all I can do is laugh.
I don’t think anyone at this point seriously believes in their heart that you can implement significant safeguards for euthanasia and prevent the slippery slope.
If you do believe that, you’re completely delusional and know absolutely nothing about how this has gone every single time in other countries.
Thirty years ago, you could get away with that sort of naivety, but if you have that same naivety today, you shouldn’t be in politics; you shouldn’t be speaking about politics.
So, yes, I think it’s clearly very, very dangerous.
I’ve been a little bit encouraged—I’m rarely encouraged by politics in the UK—but in this case, I’ve been pleasantly surprised by the genuine debate happening in Parliament.
It’s not just a matter of one special interest group getting their way; it’s not just about Labour or Conservatives following their lobbyists.
We’ve seen significant figures in the Labour government, who would typically support legalizing euthanasia, actually opposing it.
We have a Labour health secretary and a Labour justice secretary who have both come out in opposition to it, apparently to the great concern of the Prime Minister.
And that's been hugely encouraging—that these very far-left progressive politicians, whom everyone would expect to support euthanasia, have not only stayed silent or abstained but have actually come out vocally in opposition to it.
Of course, this means that there's a real chance of us succeeding.
If we can succeed with a Labour supermajority, and even in that situation protect life, I think that will set a significant and important precedent for hopefully many years to come.
We would have convinced enough of society that this is genuinely a very bad idea, regardless of ideology.
Hopefully, this can make us more resilient to the continual attempts every couple of years to reinvigorate the issue.
No, Absolutely can I one last point to squeeze in just to find and end with the the industry kind of looking into a planned parenthood see in the u.s seems to be a well-funded organization and it seems to be not only ideology, but actually making money through the murder of children.
In the UK, I mean, BPAS and it's part of the NHS, it's not private and therefore it doesn't seem to have the same ability to make money.
So it seems to be more ideological.
Maybe we can end on that note, as there are very different pushes toward abortion.
For me, it seems as though, in the US, it is a money-making scheme, while in the UK, it doesn’t seem to have that same incentive. Is that a fair assessment?
I think it certainly can make huge amounts of money anywhere, and that seems to be the trend.
I mean, globally, there are tens of millions of abortions a year, so that creates a huge market for, in many cases, an expensive medical procedure.
There’s a significant amount of money that can be made from this.
Of course, it's tied to other money-making industries, which are often even bigger, like contraception, as well as promoting that to teenage girls.
I’d say it’s all part of one industry—the global sex industry—which is connected with pornography, prostitution, contraception, sexually transmitted diseases, and abortion.
All of these elements go together, and because sex is a big part of life, most people, at some point, have sex; many people have a lot of sex.
Therefore, there’s a significant amount of money to be made from it.
Inevitably, even if some activists aren’t doing it for financial reasons, I think it’s likely that this will be hijacked by those who are.
Industries and corporations have strong financial interests in being involved in it in some way.
Absolutely, it's a significant factor in the UK and the US. One of the most significant developments is the move from surgical abortion, which requires seeing doctors in person and having the procedure performed by trained professionals.
Now, what they’re doing is essentially having you call the abortion clinic, where you don’t even have to speak to a doctor.
You answer a few set questions, and I imagine they will probably start using AI for this before too long.
Then you receive the pills, and that’s it.
This process is far cheaper, and in the end, you don’t even need to have a physical building.
And I don't know if they're still being paid the same amount per abortion, but it wouldn't surprise me.
I'm sure they're still being paid a lot per abortion.
The cost is much, much cheaper as a result. What we see above all in the abortion industry is a desire to cut costs.
We can see that not necessarily by what they say, but by what they do.
Their actions are clearly intended to cut costs dramatically.
I’d be very surprised if they were just as happy to see their income cut just as dramatically.
So, while I don't think money motivates everyone pushing for abortion, that’s not the point.
We’re not claiming that everyone who supports it is just interested in financial gain; we’re saying that once it becomes normalized, legalized, and a big part of society, it will be hijacked by groups who do want to make a lot of money from it—groups like MSI (Marie Stopes International), groups like Bypass, and others.
They are making a lot of money.
You can see how much their CEOs get paid; for example, I think Marie Stopes’ CEO gets paid £200,000 a year, with a £200,000 bonus.
I believe he is one of the highest-paid charity CEOs in the UK.
So, while it’s not about money for everyone, there is a lot of money involved, and it is about money for a lot of very powerful people.
Calum Miller, I appreciate your time today on this huge topic, which is not a contentious topic at all; it's simply a matter of common sense regarding life and standing up for the voiceless.
I have great respect for what you do in championing the case of the unborn and speaking up for them when, often, we find that many in the media and the political realm don’t.
Thank you for joining us and giving us an update on the situation in the UK and your work. Thank you, Calum.
Thank you, and yeah, just thanks to your listeners.
I would say: get involved! Don’t just sit there being pro-life; go to the March for Life, which is such an easy thing to attend.
It’s usually every September, so it’s a while until the next one, but put it in your diary and plan to go to that in London.
Maybe get involved with some of the other pro-life groups; there are many around, and I’m sure you can find them easily on Facebook or Google or whatever.
So don’t just be pro-life, but find some way to get involved and support this cause, and you won’t regret it.
And if you follow Calum on X (formerly Twitter), you’ll know when the next one is and any other events. We will certainly promote the next one next year. So, Calum, thank you so much for your time today.
Thank you.
Take care.
Welcome back to Hearts of Oak, where the heartbeat of American politics resonates loud and clear! In this electrifying episode, we're thrilled to welcome back the spirited Karli Bonne who's not just bringing her trademark wit but also a Halloween costume that doubles as a scathing political commentary.
Join us as we dive headfirst into the tumultuous waters of the 2024 presidential election, exploring everything from the grassroots movements stirred by Donald Trump to the unexpected resilience of figures like Steve Bannon.
Karli, with her unique perspective, will guide us through the maze of election mechanics, sharing firsthand accounts of voting irregularities, and the urgent mobilization efforts for Trump. But it's not all serious business; we'll also explore how meme culture is reshaping political discourse, making waves in the digital realm like never before. Get ready for a conversation that's as informative as it is inspiring, where we'll tackle the big questions: Can grassroots efforts and the power of social media memes sway an election? How does the current administration's narrative stack up against the reality on the ground? And most importantly, what does the future hold for America in this pivotal election year? Tune in for an episode packed with insights, laughter, and a call to action that might just make you want to hit the polls or start crafting your own political memes. "Hearts of Oak" – where every episode is a step towards understanding the heartbeat of America.
Don't miss out!
Interview recorded 2.11.24
Follow Karli on these links...
Connect with Hearts of Oak...
*Special thanks to Bosch Fawstin for recording our intro/outro on this podcast.
The Week According to …. Karli Bonne
Simpsons voting machine malfunction - VIDEO
Bannon is back! - VIDEO
Jason Miller discussing the GarbGE TRUCK - VIDEO
TOGETHER—WE WILL FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT—and we will WIN, WIN, WIN! - VIDEO
Trump rally in Warren Michigan - VIDEO
Gutfield - VIDEO
More Bannon - VIDEO
Charles V Payne @cvpayne
Karli Bonne’ 🇺🇸 @KarluskaP - VIDEO
God sent me Donald Trump - RFK Jr - VIDEO
Joe Biden biting babies - VIDEO
Reactions to Trump in New York - VIDEO
Democrats book of Joy - VIDEO
Trump Campaign Ad
Do you need this:
Welcome back to Hearts of Oak, where the heartbeat of American politics resonates loud and clear!
In this electrifying episode, we're thrilled to welcome back the spirited CarinBonne' who's not just bringing her trademark wit but also a Halloween costume that doubles as a scathing political commentary.
Join us as we dive headfirst into the tumultuous waters of the 2024 presidential election, exploring everything from the grassroots movements stirred by Donald Trump to the unexpected resilience of figures like Steve Bannon.
Karli, with her unique perspective, will guide us through the maze of election mechanics, sharing firsthand accounts of voting irregularities, and the urgent mobilization efforts for Trump. But it's not all serious business; we'll also explore how meme culture is reshaping political discourse, making waves in the digital realm like never before. Get ready for a conversation that's as informative as it is inspiring, where we'll tackle the big questions: Can grassroots efforts and the power of social media memes sway an election? How does the current administration's narrative stack up against the reality on the ground? And most importantly, what does the future hold for America in this pivotal election year?
Tune in for an episode packed with insights, laughter, and a call to action that might just make you want to hit the polls or start crafting your own political memes.
Don't miss out!
Follow Karli on these links...
Connect with Hearts of Oak...
*Special thanks to Bosch Fawstin for recording our intro/outro on this podcast.
The Week According to …. Karli Bonne
Simpsons voting machine malfunction - VIDEO
Bannon is back! - VIDEO
Jason Miller discussing the GarbGE TRUCK - VIDEO
TOGETHER—WE WILL FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT—and we will WIN, WIN, WIN! - VIDEO
Trump rally in Warren Michigan - VIDEO
Gutfield - VIDEO
More Bannon - VIDEO
Charles V Payne @cvpayne
Karli Bonne’ 🇺🇸 @KarluskaP - VIDEO
God sent me Donald Trump - RFK Jr - VIDEO
Joe Biden biting babies - VIDEO
Reactions to Trump in New York - VIDEO
Democrats book of Joy - VIDEO
Trump Campaign Ad
Join us on Hearts of Oak for a powerful conversation with comedian and advocate Abi Roberts as we dive into her latest work, We The People: Letters from Dystopia.
In this interview, Abi reveals the heart-wrenching stories behind her book—a collection of real-life testimonies from individuals affected by the COVID-19 lockdowns and mandates.
More than just stories, these letters shine a light on the lasting impact of government overreach, personal loss, and the fight for freedom. Abi shares her journey of gathering these voices through her podcast Abby Daily, emphasizing the importance of truth and remembrance, especially in a time clouded by misinformation. With the evocative illustrations by Bob Moran, We The People stands as both a historical document and a beacon of hope.
Tune in for a deeply moving and thought-provoking discussion that balances the weight of serious topics with Abi’s sharp wit, underscoring her mission to give voice to those who suffered and to remind us all of the importance of freedom. Don’t miss this interview—watch it now on Hearts of Oak.
Interview recorded 30.10.24
*Special thanks to Bosch Fawstin for recording our intro/outro on this podcast.
Connect with Abi Roberts:
X |https://x.com/abircomedian
Connect with Hearts of Oak...
(Hearts of Oak)
Hello, Hearts of Oak!
Thank you so much for joining us.
We have a returning guest who hasn't been with us for a while, and we've missed each other—it's Abi Roberts.
Abi, thank you so much for giving us your time today.
Hi, Peter! Thanks for giving me the time—it's good to see you amid all this craziness we're living through.
I'm in my kitchen, and you're in a place that looks much more professional than mine—you can even see my microwave.
I had to move my oven gloves a minute ago and so you know what.
Mine just looks professional.
Abi's all about it's all about how it looks isn’t it.
All about appearances exactly and let's not talk about the big American studios exactly as we were talking about earlier yeah but I mean, you know, I think it's content isn't it, and you know size isn't isn't everything sorry Americans it is.
But it's content and it's engagement and it's actually being honest, yeah.
I think sometimes people worry way too much about things like lighting or other details.
As long as people can hear and see you, does it really matter?
I watch different things, and, weirdly, the more 'slick' they are—with all the 'hey guys' razzle-dazzle—the less interested I am.
I know that sounds a bit counterintuitive, but I really appreciate the grassroots approach. Stuff is where it is that’s for me personally.
100% agree.
Before we dive into discussing the book, Abi has been involved in, let me just mention that you can follow Abi on Twitter at @Abircomedian.
She’s a comedian—or at least just about one!
We might touch on that, but today's topic is far from comedy.
It's about the tragic reality we’re all facing, no matter where we live—in the States, the UK, or Europe.
We've all experienced the same tyranny, and today we’re here to discuss We the People: Letters from Dystopia, illustrated by Bob Moran and compiled by Abi herself.
Now, before people switch off if they get bored of us after two minutes, could you tell them where they can find this book?
After that, we'll dive into the background and the journey of bringing this project to life.
]Bless you, Peter.
You can get it from lulu.com.
Lulu as in, you make me want to shout that lulu.com.
Just type in Abi Roberts.
And actually it comes up pretty quickly with the people.
Designed by Martin Baker, you can find the book on Lulu.com.
Importantly, it's also available for free on Amazon Kindle and Apple Books.
I’ve mentioned this in a few places, but it’s worth repeating—the book is printed at cost, so I don’t make anything from it.
It’s not like I set out to profit from a collection of people's letters about the harrowing lockdowns and the issues surrounding the vaccines.
The harming and killing people.
And I'm going to make some money.
It's not that.
This is people wrote to me when I started my podcast, Abi Daily, which is on Substack, Apple and Spotify.
In, I think it was March, April 2022, that kind of time.
I asked people to write to me about their experiences during the lockdowns—the dreadful, barbaric restrictions and the tyrannies.
You know, like being told you can’t visit a dying relative in the hospital or that you must get vaccinated whether you want to or not.
No one even questioned what was in them—you were just expected to roll up your sleeve.
So this book is a collection of testimonies, a record not only for the UK but for everyone, especially for doctors, politicians, teachers, unions, and the media, to truly understand what happened over the past four years—and, unbelievably, continues to happen.
The vaccines, for instance, and the return of mandates—it's all fear-based.
I was just thinking about this the other day, Peter.
People are shocked because we’ve seen this kind of tyranny before in places like Soviet Russia.
In Germany in the 1930s, in Mao’s China, and under regimes like Pol Pot’s, we saw similar patterns. We looked at those histories and thought, 'That won’t happen here.
It won’t happen to us.'
But history has echoes, and it’s crucial to pay attention.
As you mentioned, this book includes powerful illustrations by Bob Moran—let me show you so you can get a sense of it.
The book looks like this, with all the letters beautifully illustrated.
Can you see that clearly?
That’s one of Bob’s cartoons alongside the letters.
It’s really beautifully done, thanks to my friend Martin, who designed it.
The book contains about 37 deeply moving stories—harrowing accounts.
Thank you, Peter! Actually, that particular cartoon is one of my favorites of Bob’s, because it touches on the theme of worshipping fear, doesn’t it?
It’s about not believing in God, Christ, justice, or light; it’s about worshipping darkness and evil.
The book includes 37 letters and cartoons—letters written to me on all sorts of topics.
I read one aloud during a show in Ledbury.
A woman named Hanni, a podcast listener who had come to the show, had written it.
And honestly, Peter, you could hear a pin drop.
I’d done some funny material beforehand, but then we shifted to the serious topics you mentioned—things that are not funny in the slightest.
People need to pay attention and understand the reality of what’s happened.
Will people face prison? Will we see justice?
No, likely not. Instead, the wrong people—those who are simply angry—will be the ones punished. But we’ll get into all that, I’m sure.
We will, because I know Abbey could just interview herself.
I've got to know he
I could try and put on your accent, like insult, like all the Northern Irish.
I’d fail at accents—I’m so jealous of people who can do them well.
Very jealous!
But there’s so much to unpack here, from Bob Moran’s genius to the letters included in the book.
And that back cover—it really struck me; we’ll definitely come back to that.
But let me ask, because some people might say, 'Abi, we just need to move on.
This is in the past.
There's so much happening today, and we have a future to build.
The pandemic was a blip, and everyone did their best with the information they had.
Why spend time rehashing the past?'
I hear this argument often, especially from people who aren’t fully aware.
How would you respond to that?
Well, my response would be that all the information was already available to the powers that be, to the government, and to Big Pharma.
They already knew that what was going to happen would destroy people's lives: the barbarity, the lockdowns.
They also knew that they were experimenting with these vaccines.
And so, you know, it’s interesting to say, well, obviously some of us woke up maybe earlier than others.
I was a little bit slow in 2020, which I’ve admitted to.
It’s amazing, actually, that I get more flack than people like politicians who quite happily went all the way through for two years and pushed the vaccines, the so-called vaccines.
But you know, that’s just who I am.
As you know, I’m honest; I wear my heart on my sleeve.
But getting back to it, I think it’s because people don’t understand the crimes that have been committed.
People were told, 'You can’t go out,' or 'You can’t go to a hospital to see your loved one.'
We lost our morals and ethics during the last couple of years.
It’s because people just don’t understand how important they are.
For instance, with the vaccine rollout in particular, there are three stages of crime.
I think I tweeted about it yesterday.
The crimes are in three parts: coercion without informed consent, or even, in many cases, actual consent. They put sedatives in people with Down syndrome.
There’s a man called Adam— not his real name— and they put sedatives in his orange juice
Even though he didn’t want the vaccine, they gave it to him. So there’s a case going on at the moment. His poor mother is having to fight the Court of Protection.
Irony, that term is. So that’s the first part: coercion.
The second part concerns what’s in the vaccines. If I were a lawyer, that would be my argument.
The third part of the crime is the cover-up—the enormous global cover-up. People need to start getting their moral and ethical heads on straight—not just focusing on the information, the data, and the statistics.
What’s happening is honest; it’s the likes of which we will probably never see again. The crimes that have been committed stem from the fact that people don’t read history books, Peter.
They’re too busy saying that nothing’s real, everything’s fake. Much of history has been positioned, shall we say, to favor one side, like the causes of the start of the First and Second World Wars.
I agree with that perspective, but history does show us truths; it exists for a reason.
The testimonies in this book, We the People, will serve as a warning.
I’m speaking to my lovely nephew tomorrow about cancel culture and my arrest, and about the importance of having a moral structure—a backbone.
I think any Christians watching this will understand that importance.
Sort of thinking, is this good?
Would Christ be?
I mean, Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury, said—and I quote—'to love one another, as Jesus said, get vaccinated, get boosted.'
I’m not a biblical scholar, Peter, but I’m fairly sure that Jesus did not go around suggesting that his followers—the good people who were following him, watching him, listening to him—should take experimental things. It’s just, it’s kind of obscene.
And I think that’s…
hope, and I have to thank everybody, by the way, who wrote to me with these letters.
Because, Peter, some of them—as you know, you’ve read some of them—are so powerful.
It’s important to write down the truth.
I’m still getting emails, Peter.
I’m still receiving emails from people who have been harmed by AstraZeneca, which, of course, the media is using to downplay the situation. I know what they’re going to do; they’re positioning it to say, 'Well, just don’t worry about it; it’s AstraZeneca.'
By the way, that vaccine was taken off the shelves secretly, so nobody knew it was being rolled out.
I’ve had heart-wrenching emails just the other day.
After I tweeted, I received a message from a man who got a blood clot that then turned into avascular necrosis, which is, for those watching, an awful condition.
If you Google it, you'll see it’s a blood clot that actually destroys your bone.
He’s had to undergo double hip replacements because he can’t walk.
So, the other thing I want to say to viewers and your listeners, Peter, is: don’t be ashamed.
Don’t be ashamed that the absolute relentless, military-grade propaganda got to you. People have lives to live.
They have families, jobs, and all sorts of things to worry about—money, etc.
Some say, 'No one was forced because no one actually held people down.'
Oh my God, is that the level we’re talking about?
People were threatened and bullied.
I’m very much of the view that I will relentlessly criticize the media and celebrities who pushed and advertised the vaccines. And then suddenly, they’ve become ill. I’m afraid I will
I reserve the right in my comedy to do that. But we, the people—the ordinary men and women, and sadly, children—who have been affected by this, I have nothing but love and sympathy for them. That’s who I fight for.
That’s why I do it.
Not for any other reason.
I can’t understand people who would laugh or ridicule.
And Abi, I agree with your point that we all make decisions.
Often, we can regret those decisions, and we can look back and say that was a good decision. The decision to get a jab is one that many people may regret.
I think people, after getting two jabs, thought, 'Well, surely I’ve got the jabs; therefore, I’m protected.' And they’ve begun to see through the BS that the media told us.
Whatever point you woke up, it’s important to wake up. I like the way you’re telling the stories, Abi, because this is not about leaving people behind.
This is about people who have been damaged.
Yes, they may not have heeded the initial warnings, which could have been due to their friendship circle, or because they don’t watch certain things—whatever it was.
Yes, yes.
And the fact that the media didn’t put out any warnings—not a single mainstream platform, not the BBC or any other—didn’t comply with their Ofcom rules.
It’s actually weirdly stated in their Ofcom guidelines.
You know, if you advertise any kind of medical product, there has to be a disclaimer.
In the Ofcom rules, particularly in their health and wealth section, it states you have to present the other side.
But nobody did that.
None of the channels said, 'Actually, we have to draw attention to the fact that when the swine flu vaccine was released in 1976 in America, Gerald Ford stopped it because there were too many deaths.'
And when I say 'too many,' it doesn’t even touch the surface compared to what has happened since the end of 2020 with this.
So there’s a real issue here. And again, back to people who say, 'We’ll move on.'
Would you say that about...?.
Kristallnacht—would you say that about Nazi Germany?
After that, would you say in 1945 or '46, 'Well, let’s move on'?
Would you say it after Stalin’s purges, the Harvest of Sorrow, the deliberate starvation and annihilation of 40 million people in Soviet Russia?
Would they say, 'Well, it’s probably just a blip'?
I mean, people went to bloody gulags for it.
You know, it’s that mentality.
I do understand, by the way, that people are horrified.
I’ve spoken to a lot of them, Peter. When I go out, whether I’m getting a cab or whatever, I get into conversations with ordinary people.
I have no agenda; we’re just chatting about the last four years, and it’s honestly unbelievable—the number of people who know it was wrong, who know it was morally wrong, and who regret having taken the vaccines.
I didn’t have any of the vaccines, and my view is not, 'Ho-ho, aren’t I intelligent, aren’t I wonderfully clever and educated?'
My view is, 'There but for the grace of God go I.
And that's what we have to, I mean you don't have to but I would advise that should be people's attitude moving forward and so mixing yeah, I mean I Yeah, the idea that no justice, that nothing will be done is so keenness.
I just can't, you know, I just can't. I mean, maybe I should, you know, we should have a crowd funder and build a museum for all the, you know, and put all the stuff in it. So people can see, or some kind of exhibition.
In fact, that's just come to me, Peter, so we could do that.
Because I just think this is a lesson, this is a warning.
This is a warning.
And these testimonies, and the last four years, by the way, are only a small part of what they're trying to do to us, as you know.
The global, the cabal, the socialists, the third-way socialists, Frankfurt's you know all the things we've spoken about in the past it's part and parcel of we want to control as many people as we possibly can and we're going to stamp out we're going to do this to the individual the divine spirit, the divine flame, we're going to blow it out because we hate humanity because.
This does give a little insight into part of what we are facing.
You mentioned, and we showed the picture of Bob's artwork depicting the jab vial as a cross.
Yes.
And on the back was a quote, which is a Bible verse that has been ringing in my ears for the last two years.
One of the key verses.
And it is this, from John 18:37: 'I was born for this. I came into the world for this, to bear witness to the truth, and all who are on the side of truth listen to my voice.'
'Truth,' says Pilate, 'What is that?' That line, 'Truth,' says Pilate, 'What is that?' is from when Jesus was arrested before he was crucified at the trial. That was Pilate's line: 'Truth.'
And that question, 'What is truth?' has rung through the ages.
I think that most generations have had some kind of concept and understanding of what truth is.
We now find ourselves in a time where you mentioned Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury, supposedly the spiritual leader in the UK—our Pope.
And yet he has capitulated, is silent, and is more worried about plastic bags or environmental issues than about any other biblical truth.
But that concept of truth—because what you've done is show something that is true, which is people's experiences.
This is the truth, and this is what the media are trying to cover up, saying that this is nonsense.
So, I mean, tell me about that idea of truth.
The idea of truth. Well, truth, God, Christ, the divine—these are the things that we’ve lost throughout time, even for people who aren’t particularly religious.
I heard Alain de Botton, you know, the philosopher, say he doesn’t have a particular faith, but he realizes that this is what has been lost: a pillar, something foundational.
Christ is who I speak to every day.
And I’ll go into it—I'm Russian Orthodox, as people may know or may not know; it’s a long and complicated story.
But what’s happening now makes me realize that there was a point to it; there was real meaning in it, even though it was when I was in my 20s—well, in fact, when I was 20, when I got baptized just outside Moscow by a well-known priest, Father Alexander Men.
But that’s another story.
Yes, we’ve lost this idea that there is one truth—something we should have in our lives and that we sort of gravitate around.
I’m looking at a light on my table; it’s a sphere.
I think of it like that: we gravitate around it.
And if we move too far away from it, then things like what has happened over the last four years will occur.
So, we need to navigate our way closer to Christ and God
Abi Roberts
I can only think of it as something that people should aspire to.
Always. And we may know—we look up to it. In fact, we don't look up enough, do we?
We don’t look up enough and say that’s what makes us humble.
That’s the other thing as well, Peter.
I think these letters, these testimonies, these stories from brave, courageous, wonderful human beings, are very important.
It’s not about baubles; it’s not about awards or, you know, chasing fame or fortune.
And that, again, is another thing: having belief in God and the divine makes us realize how tiny we are, actually—tiny little humble beings, like little ants.
But it is important, though, that we do this; it’s channeling something.
And that’s our, whatever our roles are in all this. Without getting too grandiose, I’m wary of the Russell Brand-esque idea of, ‘Well, you know, God spoke to me, and all of a sudden I’m a Christian.’
I think we both know, Peter, that it takes a lot; it’s a lot more than that.
It’s a struggle, isn’t it?
It’s a daily process of having to check in with yourself, looking in the mirror, just being quiet for a few minutes, and getting centered.
Yeah, it’s constant reflection.
To me, Christianity is not about big stages or whatever people may think about the recent converts, shall we say.
It’s very much about this—about we the people and being humble as much as we can in this weird, I mean, look at us now.
It’s like we’ve got a mic, and we’ve got little bits of jazz hands, kind of showbiz stuff. But it’s fine; that’s okay, as long as often enough we take a few quiet minutes for prayer and gratitude.
I agree.
And for me, it’s the same, Abi.
It’s about looking to Jesus. If you want to know what is true, remember that Jesus said, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life.'
The way, the truth, and the life.
Exactly.
Yes, you just said the exact quote.
He also says, 'I am the light of the world.'
So if you want to find the way forward in this dark world, then for Abi and myself, that would certainly be Christ.
I could talk about that for the next hour or two, but I’ll just leave that thought hanging.
Let’s talk about people writing to you.
I think for many, including myself, I've focused more on the data and statistics.
You and others have personalized this experience and emphasized that it’s not just about numbers; it’s about individuals.
Can you share your thoughts on how people started writing to you?
It must have been traumatic to read these accounts, but how did that evolve into your decision to catalog these stories and publish them?
Yes.
Good.
Very good question.
I started gathering everything together at the end of 2022. Initially, it was in PDF form, which was quite basic. However, thanks to my friend Scott, who helped compile it, we realized that it warranted something more substantial—a book.
Martin and I decided that we needed to set it out properly, featuring Bob's wonderful illustrations.
I always feel that calling them 'cartoons' is slightly demeaning; they are more of an artistic record of everything that has transpired.
In fact, I wanted to share a letter with you, Peter.
I try to read one from different people when I talk to audiences, so I mix it up.
This one is from Paul, and it’s important to remember that much of this is from back in 2022, reflecting on 2020 and 2021.
It’s interesting to read people’s various perspectives.
Here’s what Paul wrote:
'Hi Abi, my 81-year-old mom has undergone a noticeable personality change since her second Pfizer, along with immediate excruciating headaches.'
My father-in-law was advised by his doctor that the AstraZeneca vaccine was safe right after he finished chemotherapy.
This was a provably false statement, as the vaccine had only been tested on healthy individuals under 55, and he was 79.
Within 48 hours, he was hospitalized with lung clots.
His lungs were destroyed within a week, and he died an awful death two months later.
He never once had a positive PCR test while in the hospital, yet his doctor wrote 'COVID' on his death certificate.
It seems they do this to prevent post-mortem investigations.
They are bastards.
Please keep fighting them.
Regards,
And there are so many stories like this in here, Peter.
For example, there’s a wonderful teacher named Maxine who came to my birthday gathering.
I have these gatherings not just for the presents; I invite my listeners who are just ordinary people
So, she came to my birthday this year, and she has been actively standing up for children, telling them the truth—not just about the COVID nonsense but also about all the other cultural weirdness that’s happening in our schools.
As you know, we’ve discussed these issues before.
There’s a lot of content in the book as well, and I want people to be aware that there are warnings throughout.
I’m just going to find an example of that.
Yes, you can phone those people up and they will help you.
Yes, they will.
Exactly.
You can.
It’s interesting because during the process, when I had this in the original PDF, Martin and I realized the extent of the situation.
We started receiving support from organizations like Samaritans, Shout, and Vaccine Ninja Bereaved UK.
Alex Mitchell and Wayne Connington are included in this work as well.
As you know, Alex had his leg amputated due to complications from the vaccines that were coerced onto people.
I find it astonishing that anyone could think we can just move on from this. It’s absolutely absurd.
It reminds me of Dr. Mengele—oh, he was just fiddling around in a lab, right?
It’s easy to say we should just move on, but that’s not acceptable.
The reality is that many people don’t know their history, and I keep coming back to this point.
We seem to be a society that shrugs things off too easily, especially with the constant churn of news.
So, returning to We The People, I encourage everyone to get it.
You can find it on lulu.com, and it’s available for free on Kindle and Apple Books.
I’m not necessarily happy, but I’m very grateful for the support I've received.
Someone mentioned to me yesterday, a listener of Abi Daily, that I shouldn’t forget how many people feel they’ve been saved through my podcast.
When I first started my little podcast, it provided a space for people to connect and share their experiences with each other.
I thought, 'Oh, yes, that’s true!'
This listener emphasized how important it is to acknowledge the connections that have formed, especially for those going through difficult times.
For instance, Trudy, whose story is featured in this book, faced the tragic loss of her son, Benjamin, who took his own life in July 2020.
These little networks are essential for people who are struggling and don’t know where to turn.
My friend Jules reminded me to mention this today and to recognize how many people rely on my podcast for support.
It's so important for personal stories to be told completely.
I’d like to touch on the cartoon aspect, particularly about Bob.
There are a few illustrations that I remember vividly when they first came out.
For instance, I remember this one very well; it really struck a chord with me.
And this one here? This was perhaps one of the most memorable for me.
It it's sort of like what's his name captain Tom.
Yes, Captain Tom!
But let’s talk about Bob and his contributions.
We’re all familiar with his work, but it's worth mentioning that Bob has a unique ability to blend comedy with deep, profound pain.
His illustrations evoke a range of emotions—from smiles to moments where you think, 'Oh wow, that was dark.'
It's fascinating how he captures different feelings through his art.
I've known Bob for a while now, and I think it’s important to highlight how the written text and the drawings come together.
The combination of words and cartoons creates something incredibly powerful and impactful.
Yes, I’m incredibly grateful to Bob for his contributions.
He wrote a beautifully crafted foreword for the book, showcasing his remarkable talent as a writer.
He has this unique ability to channel thought with both clarity and humor, which really brings the narrative to life.
Bob wrote the foreword at the end of 2022, as it was included in the original PDF.
His family—his wife, Sal, and their three kids—are always supportive, although they sometimes mention when I swear too much!
Sal has had to say, 'Let’s tone it down a bit,' especially when there were quite a few colorful words.
I have eased off on the more extreme language, though, just out of respect, as they know me well.
It's all in good fun, of course!
Lovely children.
And where was I?
Oh yeah, so when I was compiling the letters—because they listened to the podcast—they knew I was doing the letters.
I said to Bob, 'Can I have your cartoons?
Can I put them in?' and he was like, 'Yeah, of course, absolutely!'
And the other thing, I'm actually drinking—I don't know if you can see it—I’ve got to show this: you know, for my birthday last year, Bob did a cartoon of me
Yes, I remember I remember that
And then somebody made a mug for my birthday, so it’s got the cartoon and it’s got 'Be seeing you,' which is my catchphrase.
At the end of Abi Daily, I say, 'Be seeing you,' which, of course, is from The Prisoner. It’s funny because I didn’t think about that at the time, but when I did the intro for Abi Daily, it was to the tune of 'Sweet Home Alabama,' you know, 'Sweet Home Alabama, where the skies are so blue.'
And then, at the end, I remember when I was recording it for the first time in 2022, I said, 'Be seeing you.' I thought, 'Oh, that’s interesting.'
It just carried on, you know, the way these things happen; you just sort of do it.
But Bob's contribution to this cannot be underestimated. And, of course, he’s got his own book out showcasing his incredible work from the last four years.
So this is like a little sibling, a little sibling to Bob's book, you know?
It’s a companion piece, isn’t it? It’s all part and parcel of the same narrative. We’re singing from the same hymn sheet
It is.
I know we’ve learned a lot over the last few years, and it hit me that the reason for cartoons, the reason for comedy, and the reason for imagery is to elicit a response.
I remember one of the cartoons he did on Israel.
We may have different views on that, Abi, and we’ve never really discussed it, but I thought, 'Goodness, that goes too far.
How dare he?'
I got quite annoyed. But then I sat back and realized that this is the point of a cartoon: it’s supposed to elicit a response.
If I’ve been upset by something, laughed, or cried, that’s a response, and that is the purpose.
He has done his job, and well done to him
If I dig deep, I feel angry, and I totally get it.
I’ve received flack for doing a thumbs-up on the Netanyahu cartoon.
And don't forget, there were other people in the picture; it wasn’t just him.
There was also Rishi Sunak and someone else—I can’t remember who—so it was a criticism of the abhorrence of war and conflict as well.
But you’re right. You know, I did a Delingpole the other day, and oh my God, that’s causing a real kerfuffle because we actually had a disagreement.
Peter, I thought, isn’t that what friends do?
It’s going to get heated sometimes.
I’ve stayed out of the Israel debate a little bit, not because I don’t care, but because it’s interesting, isn’t it?
People often use the straw man argument, implying that if you don’t speak up, you must be okay with destruction, war, and killing.
No, that’s clearly not what I’m about. It’s actually because I can only deal with one atrocity at a time.
It’s true.
Over the past four years, that’s all I’m strong enough for, along with my writing and my comedy.
But that’s no disrespect to my Jewish friends at all, and I hope I’ve made that clear in my podcast. It’s complex, very complex, but...
It's a whole area we don't need to touch on; it was just that response that really struck me.
Yes, that made you think, really good.
Brilliant.
Yes, it is brilliant because it does make you think about who wins in these situations.
You know, we’re back to the whole war machine and the reasons for war, etc.
And it’s the little people, Peter, who are crushed underfoot, a bit like we the people.
Yeah, well, the world needs the war machine, just as some parts of the world need the pharmaceutical industry and others need the food industry.
Yes, quite.
You realize those lobby groups are hugely powerful—hugely powerful.
Can I mention one thing that actually struck me, which is the back cover, and that is the quote?
You know, I'm so glad, Peter, that you brought that up about the quote because there was a suggestion on...
The back quote caught my eye, and I thought, 'Oh, I like that; that's quite cool.'
I’m glad because when we were considering quotes, there was a suggestion to use something I’d written, like a line from an article or whatever, and I said, 'Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no.
You cannot get better than this.
It’s like choosing Adele over Aretha Franklin.
That’s my view.
So, in the conversation, should we use a quote from Abi or a quote from God?
In the end, we went with the God quote.
Yeah, that was kind of the conversation.
It wasn't quite... It was, yeah, because, I mean, you can't put it any better than that, can you?
There are no words that are better than that. So thank you for noticing, because I want people to realize the beauty of the design as well.
You know, Martin, by the way, designed this book for Naut.
So, obviously, I compiled it, and he designed it.
I'm actually grateful to him for providing me with a microphone and the nice setup because before it was a bit like, 'Crikey!
Is Abi going to appear like this?
Hello, Peter!
I'm doing all like this!'
So, yeah, I'm really grateful because there wouldn't be this version without him or without Bob.
The other thing that struck me, Abi, was that your name's not on the front, and that is obviously personal.
To say that.
Obviously, you're not wanting to be rich and famous; that's the first thing.
It's always nice to know when you connect with people, because there are some who do want to be in the spotlight.
You put Bob's name on it, but it is about the individuals who are involved.
You obviously say it’s compiled by Abi inside, but that struck me.
You give credit to those who aren’t jumping up and down to get attention for themselves.
Yes, thank you, Peter.
Actually, you're the third person who has said that.
Lovely Dick Delingpole, you know, James' brother, mentioned that I’m not on the front. I mean, weirdly, that wasn't my decision; it just... that's how it happened.
And to be fair to myself, I never once said, 'Oh, hang on a minute.
Where's my name?'
It just seemed...
And where's my picture on the back?
Exactly—underneath the statement by God.
Yes, exactly.
Where's my picture?
Next to the best quote of all time.
Exactly.
In the little kind of, yeah, don’t forget about me there. Yes, thank you.
Because, well, yes, it is about the people inside the book.
So it's not about me, Martin, or, with all due respect, Bob; it’s about the people who wrote in. But thank you for saying that because people have noticed.
Honestly, it didn’t even really occur to me. I was like, 'Oh,' and then people said, 'You're not on the cover.'
Well, I’m in the book, Peter. I’ve got quite a long introduction where I share the backstory of these letters, so I thought, 'That’ll do.'
And then God bless the people. I’ve received messages from individuals who knew they were in the original PDF and are now included in this version as well.
A lady on Twitter said, 'Oh my God, I’m overcome with emotion; I’m just so wowed that my letter’s in here!'
They can give that to their friends or their doctor or whoever they want to share it with and say, 'My testimony is in here, so you better read it.'
In fact, I’ve ordered several copies, Peter, and I’m going to take one to my GP, who has been very helpful to my husband.
My late husband was diagnosed with cancer, and he had a private GP whom I’ve kept in touch with over the last three to four years.
I’ve even gone in and deliberately paid to sit down with him to tell him the truth about what’s happened.
He’s going to be delighted when I say, 'I’ve got a little something for Christmas. Would you like to read it?”
It is a perfect gift.
Yes. Last question: just to prove it, Abi's name is on it.
So just in case you thought we were doing this just for a laugh..,
We picked up someone else's book.
There is the content page with all the names. Just my file thought, it's could have been I've talked to people who've written books and putting in the information and often never having written a book often you have to dispense with a lot of you have more than you need yes and this is a perfect example of that that I'm sure you had so many and it's actually you'd want to just take a spread difference of different stories, but actually the book could have been much bigger because of the response I'm sure you've had
Yes, it could have been a lot bigger, and that's due to the time and, frankly, the emotional toll.
I mean, we did have to take breaks, feeling a bit dizzy from just processing it all, because we can't comprehend some of the cruelty and immorality of it all.
But yes, as I say, this is the tip of the iceberg; this is just a sample.
My podcast is not like a mass market thing, you know what I mean?
It’s not like a Joe Rogan podcast, but in a way, I see that as more important.
It’s just something that I wanted to do; it's my little contribution during this time, Peter.
So it could have been a lot bigger, and I'm sure there will be more.
Actually, strangely, no one else has done it. I was quite surprised.
I thought, surely there’s going to be something where people's experiences come out.
So I was going to suggest that there might be another one of these coming out, but I think, yeah, that’s enough for now.
It is a lot to work through, and it is emotional completely.
Abi, I really appreciate you coming on. We the People, that is from Bastopia, just in case I haven't shown it already.
Do get it from lulu.com; all the links will be in the description, whether you're watching or listening.
And of course, it's at the top of Abi's Twitter/X feed.
Abi Roberts
Yeah. And sorry, Peter, you can get it for free, don’t forget, on Kindle and Apple Books. Also, just a little something as we're chatting: I am back to doing live shows!
I’m going to be up north in the Dales, and I'll put that on Twitter.
Thank you for reminding me about my Abbey or Comedian, my new Twitter handle.
I was mad; I abandoned my Twitter account—crazy! But anyway, you do what you do.
We’re not living in normal times at the moment.
So yeah, look out for my live shows; I’ll be doing more next year.
I’ve got a thing called Abi’s Kitchen Table, which is filmed at my home with some guests around my table. It would be great, Peter, if you want to come on as a guest. We’ll just sit around, eat, and reminisce like in those old shows from the ’90s where people would sit around a table, and it’s all filmed.
So that’s kind of what I’m doing.
We can eat and drink poteen and Vodka together
Yes, yes, indeed, indeed!
In fact, there was vodka at the last episode—or was it the one before?
There have only been two episodes of Abi's Kitchen Table, but I’m sure there will be more vodka coming out soon!
Yes, that’s what I’m doing—that’s what I’m up to at the moment, just trying to be a good human.
Well the viewers and listeners can get the book, follow Abi wherever she is going comedy-wise and obviously follow her on X and Twitter for that.
So, Abi, I appreciate your time.
Thanks so much for coming and sharing the book.
Bless you, Peter.
Thanks ever so much for having me.
Connect with Hearts of Oak...
Share
(Hearts of Oak)
And hello, Hearts of Oak.
Thank you so much for joining us.
We have a brand new guest today, and that is Dr. James Thorp.
Dr. Thorp, thank you so much for your time today.
Peter, thank you so much for hosting me on your platform.
Great to have you and you're one of the the names that have popped up to those of us in the non-medical field that we have looked to for wisdom and navigating the last four or five years of the the chaos which we've all faced and people if they're not following you they can obviously find you there is your twitter handle and freedomintruth.substack.com.
Make sure and sign up to that and get the regular updates more or less every other day that Dr. Thorp puts out.
Now, you've got a book coming out.
It is not, I think it's out on the 10th of December, and the links will all be in the description for whether our viewers or listeners can jump on that. But it's Sacrifice, How the Deadliest Vaccine in History Targeted the Most Vulnerable, And that's published, I think, by Children's Health Defense Books, isn't it?
Actually, this is published by Skyhorse.
Oh, Skyhorse.
And yes, I think they do have some affiliation with RFK Jr.'s Children's Health Defense.
And we've had Tony Lyons on before on Skyhorse.
Anything published by Skyhorse is worthwhile getting hold of.
But that is 10th of December. Make sure you can pre-order now and get hold of that.
But Dr. Thorp, you're a board-certified obstetrician gynaecologist with maternal fetal medicine physician, over 45 years of experience.
And you saw 27,000 high-risk pregnancies in four and a half years while serving at one of the largest catholic health care systems in st louis where I was three weeks ago and the best part of your twitter handle is you're a follower of Jesus Christ, so that to me is is the best and immediately I know what your worldview is one of of hope.
And your story I think fits in very much with that of what you saw, but maybe you can give us a little bit of kind of touch your background 45 years in the medical field was medicine what you always wanted to do growing up?
It was, Peter.
You know, my mother was a labor and delivery nurse.
And my father, I come from a long line of military heroes.
My father was a naval officer, served in World War II and served after World War II.
My older brother was delivered in a military hospital.
My mother did not have a good experience, so my mother was a labor and delivery nurse and delivered me at home.
So, you know, I became very focused on obstetrics, and I became very focused on whom I considered a mentor, and that was Dr. Ignaz Philip Semmelweis.
You've probably never heard of him, but he was a mid-19th century.
Of course, he died before I was born, but a mid-century obstetrician in Vienna lying in hospital who actually had the fortunate or unfortunate happenstance of being in a time in Central Europe in one of the major academic hubs where we were losing almost 50% of healthy pregnant women who were dying after delivery.
And it was a puzzle to everybody and it was largely ignored.
But Dr. Semmelweis diagnosed and figured out exactly what the problem was.
And the problem was that the physicians were going from the autopsy room, vivisection, up to labor and delivery and infecting the patients and in essence, killing them.
Now, back then, they didn't have any idea of germ theory.
They didn't have any idea of washing their hands. And they had no idea of doing clinical studies.
So Dr. Semmelweis was actually considered, first of all, the father of the germ theory because he developed it and theorized it and believed that by washing the hands with Lyme water, that disease and death and destruction could be prevented.
He successfully carried out the first clinical study.
So in essence, he's also thought of the father of clinical studies.
So you would think, and he proved that he could decrease that rate of death, which he did. Was he accepted and embraced?
No, he was mocked, rejected, derided, and thrown in an insane asylum.
Some believe he was killed. Others believe he died a very horrible death, a pauper.
And it wasn't until 20 years after his death that he was lauded and praised and confirmed.
I became mesmerized with that story as a young man.
And I thought it was just, I learned a lot of things from his life story.
Little did I know that 50 years later, I would be put in a situation, a horrible situation, in obstetrics that would make Dr. Semmelweis' situation look like a walk in the park.
So because your your your Substack is called Freedom in Truth and your the tagline on that is my dedication to uphold my deepest convictions has no price.
I will never sacrifice the health of my patients for a pay check so when I was called by God to pivot, I did so.
Tell us about what that pivot meant because it's easy to go with the crowd we've seen many individuals have become leaders I think over the last over the COVID tyranny, because they've chosen to speak what they believe is true as opposed to follow the crowd but what was that like for you personally?
Yeah.
For me personally, my mother, I've always been a follower of Jesus Christ.
Of course, it's a very young age, but like most followers, there's been periods in my life where I've taken it less seriously and then more seriously.
I became then the next person that had a huge influence on my life, another gentleman, again, who died before I was born, but I looked to as a hero, as a follower of Jesus Christ.
And his name was Dietrich Bonhoeffer.
And does that name ring a bell to you?
It does.
It does.
So you stood by his beliefs.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer taught me a lot.
And, you know, the third person currently, and all three of these people have converged in my walk in faith with Jesus Christ and in my professional work.
They've converged to a time such as this.
And that person is Eric Metaxas. Eric Metaxas is the author of the probably the greatest treatise on the life of Dietrich Bonhoeffer.
And then he's published two books, many books.
He's an incredible author. I had the opportunity to visit with him and meet him last week.
But he has solidified the Bonhoeffer experience.
Bonhoeffer was a prophet to the American people today, and we are ignoring him. This is Metaxas' theory.
In his book published last year, A Letter to the American Church, and his book published this year, religionless Christianity.
And Metaxas highlights the essence of my existence and the reason why God put me in this situation in the last four years.
And that is that we as physicians, as an American society, and as an American church have failed miserably to heed the warnings of Dietrich Bonhoeffer.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer begged, he begged the German people to wake up and smell the coffee or they would be a catastrophic destruction of Germany.
In the early 30s, he warned against Hitler, against anti-Semitism, against the evil regime.
And then when Hitler was in, when he was elected into office in 33, he continued that.
And, you know, what Bonhoeffer did, and, you know, this is emblematic of Metaxas, what he's doing now.
Bonhoeffer was a prophet.
And whether Metaxas wants to admit, you know, he's a strong follower of Jesus Christ.
He, too, is a latter-day prophet.
He doesn't proclaim himself as such, but he is.
A prophet is somebody that proclaims a message from God to the fellow, to the world, to the believers, to the alleged believers, to the church.
That's what a prophet is.
And both of these gentlemen were prophets.
So in Bonhoeffer's day, there were 18,000 pastors. Okay, there were 3,000 that were strongly supportive of Hitler.
The majority, 12,000, remained silent. So we had 84% of the pastors that supported Hitler by actively supporting him or remaining silent.
Peter, today it's worse.
Whether you look at the American people or you look at the American church, it's worse. You're looking at 95% of the American people that they think that they would have gone on the side of righteousness, you know, of the horrible, authoritarian, murderous regime of the Hitler.
They like to believe they would, but they wouldn't.
95% of the Americans are remaining silent or more, and 95% of the pastors are corrupted.
They don't, they're fake Christians.
They're false Christians.
They're demonic.
They resemble nothing.
Of what the Bible tells us to believe. If Jesus were here today, he would have railed on 95% of the churches worse than he railed on the religion of his time, the Sadducees and Pharisees, whom he called vipers, whom he called satanic. He called them their father, Satan.
He was very angry.
He was very aggressive and demeaning of the religion of the time.
If Jesus Christ were here and when he comes back, he will be more critical.
So this is where the rubber meets the road, where Eric Metaxas says, you know, are you going to be a true follower of Jesus Christ?
Are you willing to die for truth or are you going to be a fake Christian and promote all of this ideology of transgenderism, which is a social contagion, this ideology of murdering babies, this bail worship?
So are you going to promote the truth of this COVID-19 vaccine and this pandemic, what has been obvious now, or are you going to continue to parrot this state, Stalinistic.
Communistic narrative that is safe, effective, and necessary?
Can I pick up, because Eric Metaxas, we've had him on, and his letter to the American church is a clarion call to the church to wake up and actually be the body of Christ and to do what he did.
So, I've followed Eric Metaxas for many years, so I echo everything you say about Eric.
But you touch on, at the top of your, I think, a Substack, you have Psalm 139, which was that we are knit together and we are fearfully and wonderfully made and and that understanding of being made in the image of God.
And therefore everyone has value the unborn has value from the moment life is conceived someone at the end of life has value and we're fighting against the assisted dying bill which assisted suicide bill in the UK and we've got all those pressures against life.
Is that one of the issues why there was no concern about the effect of a new job to the unborn.
Is it that failure to understand that we are all made in the image of God and then every life has value?
I'm just trying to work out why there was silence, really, of the impact to the unborn of a new medical procedure.
Yeah.
Well, just remember, this is nothing new.
You know, in 2003, after the turn of the century, you know, again, I'm board certified obstetrician, gynaecologist, and I'm board certified maternal field medicine subspecialist.
There aren't many of us around the United States.
I've heard only 1,200 of us now practicing. At the turn of the century, there were only 2,400.
There's 60,000 OBGYNs, but after the turn of the century, you know, God had kind of put me in the right place at the right time after my fellowship at University of Texas, Houston.
And, you know, I had the opportunity to treat the fetus inside the womb as a patient, right?
So I had done many, many, arguably more than most other experts.
Closed fetal surgical procedures, closed fetal surgeries.
So, I wouldn't open the womb up, But through ultrasound guidance, I would do closed fetal surgeries on many fetuses, maybe as many as 2,000.
And at the turn of the century, the Bush administration dared a maternal fetal medicine doctor to step forward and to help them take down the partial birth abortion bill, which is a gruesome procedure for those of you who don't know it.
Basically what they would do is take a baby. It could be the day before the due date.
And they would basically put a massive trocar in the baby's brain, suck the baby's brain out and pull the baby out piecemeal.
It's a gruesome procedure.
So the Bush administration asked me to testify in my experiences treating the fetus as a patient, which I knew would destroy my career, which I was happy to do.
Many declined that because they knew the results.
There's been a cult of baby killing in every dynasty, every social, every kingdom since the beginning of humanity.
Baal worship has, you know, throwing babies in pits of fire, honoring this false satanic gods. This is nothing new. And this is what the United States of America has done.
This is what the Democratic Party stands for. Listen, remember, they've extended killing babies to afterbirth.
Now, you remember a few years ago, they lit up the New York City Bridge when they passed the ability for an obstetrician to decide to kill a baby after birth or kill a baby after an abortion that failed. And they celebrate this.
Whether they know it or not, this is a satanic death cult.
So this is what they focus on, what Jesus said, Satan comes to kill, steal, and destroy.
And that's his mission.
And that's what the globalists are doing.
That's what the Democratic Party are doing.
They are either demonically controlled or indwelt by Satan or unbeknownst, useful idiots of Satan following this death cult.
So in 2003, the Bush administration successfully overturned the partial birth abortion, only to be reinstated by one of the most dangerous presidents who began destroying the United States of America.
And that would be Barry Sartoro, more commonly known as Obama. And Obama's mission, he's also a satanic death cultist of the globalists.
And by the way, he was a Manchurian candidate.
He was installed as a president to achieve the globalist goal to destroy the United States of America.
And, of course, the Clintons and really many others since then have succeeded in his goal.
Tell me about, right and I 100 agree with everything you've said.
That's why this election is so so important and I say that as a Brit that actually is for freedoms worldwide and for the freedoms for Christians to actually live their faith and for the issue on life it's so many, so many parts of our very existence are at stake.
On the 5th of November can I ask you about putting pen to paper for this book, Some might say hey that's kind of all old old news you know move on look forward but there's something essential about a record being put down for people to actually be aware of what's happening because that's the only way we can learn from our mistakes in the society.
But tell me about your thoughts of actually writing this book and why you've spent the time doing that.
It's been a long journey.
It's been four years.
When I went into this pandemic in 2020, as you stated correctly, I was arguably one of the most senior, busiest clinicians, MFMs in the country, if not the world.
I'm 71 years old.
I've been in practice doing this for 45 years at that time. And by the way, I was fired from that job for testifying in the United States Senate and for being on many shows, including Tucker Carlson's many hundreds, if not thousands of platforms.
So, yeah, I think that I saw that in 2020, it was business as usual.
I knew that this was false for many reasons, which I don't know we have time to go into. But after the vaccine rolled out, I just saw death and destruction.
I saw almost 28,000 high-risk obstetrical patients before and during that pandemic.
I had my fingertips on the pulse of obstetrics, like really arguably no other experienced maternal fetal medicine physician in the world.
I saw what was going on with my own eyes. And then I saw the corruption.
I had the opportunity to surround myself with some brilliant researchers on my team, one of whom is Maggie Thorp, JD, a brilliant attorney, just happens to be my wife.
And I said, Maggie, what happened was in the period of a gestation, about 280 days, about nine and a half months is a pregnancy period, from December of 2020 to September 27th, 2021.
The narrative completely went backwards right out of Isaiah 520.
Woe is those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, bitterness for sweet and sweet bitterness.
This transpired in the period of 280 days, a period of a pregnancy, ironically.
And the narrative went from, you know, we're not going to use this in pregnancy.
There's no safety record. Nine months later, September 27th, 2021.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists colluded with the Department of Health. The United States Department of Health and Human Services.
CDC and FDA, they took massive, massive amounts of money, secretive, unethical, immoral, illegal, hidden from the American people.
Remember, a public or a governmental organization capturing a private NGO that controlled 60,000 OBGYN doctors and that you have this money and we'll continue to give more money.
Okay, but you've got to sign this cooperative agreement, which was a legal contract, binding them to push the Draconian narratives of the CDC, COVID-19 narratives of the CDC and FDA on ACOG and all their 60,000 members. And then in that letter, an email, they sent that out.
They had the audacity to send that out to 60,000 OBGYN doctors, and they colluded with the other medical organizations that have the teeth, okay, to strip away licensures.
That would be the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynaecology.
And then a third foot of that stool was the Society for Maternal Fetal Medicine, my specialty society. Now, these organizations had honored me my entire career.
I was a board examiner in the 90s for the American Board of OBGYN.
I was a board of director for three years for the Society of Maternal Fetal Medicine.
I was given research awards, teaching awards by ACOG.
So this, they became captured organizations. And then in that email, they said, if you dare deviate from the narratives, we will destroy you by taking away your licensures and by taking away your board certifications, which essentially destroys us.
We can't practice without that.
And I said, no, you're wrong. You're dead wrong. This is not going to happen.
I got a hold of George Wendell, the then director, executive director of the American Board of OB-Joints.
That I was a colleague of mine that I examined with in the 90s.
I said, this is fascism.
This is communism. You don't do that.
I'm a former, I'm a disabled military veteran.
I swore an oath to this constitution.
You don't act like that in the United States of America.
This is unprecedented in medicine and in the United States of America, not happening.
I said, shut up or you're losing your license. I said, we'll see.
So I wrote a 98 page letter.
Anybody can get to it.
98 pages published it in January of 2022.
Okay.
This is a 98 page letter that reviewed the government's own data, reviewed some Brits and other experts all over the world showing how it was catastrophic in pregnancy.
And if that weren't enough, if that weren't enough, Peter, I read and studied over a thousand manuscripts, to be exact, 1019 manuscripts published in just 12 months after the release of COVID vaccine, documenting that it caused death and injuries.
And I put the reference in abstract for every single one of those 1019 articles in this letter.
I sent it to ABOG, ACOG, and SMFM.
And I not only did that because I knew they'd ignore it, I published it on multiple platforms.
It's still available today.
Just Google James A. Thorp, open letter to ABOG.
And guess what?
I defeated them.
God defeated them.
They knew that they were wrong.
They broke the golden rule of pregnancy.
They knew I was right.
And crickets, they never touched me.
They never threatened me again because they knew if they did that I would sue them.
And if I sued them.
There's this process called, in the United States of America, in a lawsuit called discovery, right?
And discovery, I would obtain those documents.
But my research team went further.
I charged my research team.
I said, I know they've been captured.
Let's do a Freedom of Information Act and let's prove it.
That we did. Attorney Maggie Thorp, JD, executed a brilliant FOIA, Freedom of Information Act request.
And this was published a year or a couple of years ago, 18 months ago. It was published in, I want to say, May of 2023. Finally, we got it.
1,400 pages between the government, CDC and the American, a private organization.
They redacted half of those pages, but they gave us enough information that we struck gold.
We proved it.
So basically I've been accusing them now for three years of, you know, genocidal killing, you know, killing and injuring the most vulnerable, thus the name of my book.
This is Sacrifice, how the deadliest vaccine in history targeted the most vulnerable.
My patients, my pregnant women, pre-borns and newborns.
It's out there for the world to see.
SSM Health, St. Louis University, who employed me.
I knew I was going to get the axe after I testified in the United States Senate to this data. Multiple other state senates.
Multiple other senates around the world.
And on many platforms, they also had to fire me while acknowledging that I was a model physician for their healthcare system.
CEO Kevin Alledge last summer called me up and said, listen.
We've decided to terminate you for no cost.
It's in your contract.
And this is, you know, you've been a great physician, but we're having financial difficulties.
He lied.
They terminated me because they too signed the cooperative care agreement, which my research team, again, thanks to Maggie Thorp, JD, and others, proved that in, and we published this in early 2021.
The United States Department of Health and Human Services paid over $186 billion, Peter, to over 420,000 hospitals, including SSM Health.
Same deal with the American College of Obstetricians.
You keep this money, but if you deviate from the
Draconian narratives, And if you don't push it in all your employees and your employees push in all the patients.
You pay us back.
So I got too vocal.
I was telling too much truth.
And so they had to be faced with either terminating me or paying back $306.9 million that they took.
Again, an illegal, unethical, immoral, secretive contract that violates the First Amendment.
It violates the First Amendment.
And of course, these are all secretive agreements.
And then they tried to bribe me with almost $100,000 to sign a non-disclosure agreement or a non-disparagement clause, which was the most aggressive non-disparagement clause my legal team had ever seen.
And I said, no, thank you, Mr. Kevin Elledge.
If you're having financial difficulties, you keep that money.
And in my contract, I had another 120 days to work. You know, they could have fired me or I could have fired them, but I would get another 120 days to work and receive pay.
After I refused the bribe, they sent an email to the entire system.
The very same day I was seeing patients Dr thorp is no longer with us.
Okay, tell them because you talk about those 27 000 pregnancies at risk and that you saw met doctors all over the country in the US and the UK.
They would also be seeing abnormalities and really be joining up the dots and you talked about the the power of the the associations that give the licenses to a doctor to practice you also meant touched on a big pharma is it those two or the two levers that basically keep people in place?
It's much more complicated than and extensive than that and in our most recent publications of my research team this summer, part one and part two, and it's published.
But we have gone through what I refer to.
You know, right from Isaiah 28, I think it's verse 15 through 18, Prophet Isaiah 2,600 years ago talked about in the end times the covenant with death.
Now, I don't think this is the ultimate fulfilment of the covenant of death, but I termed this cartel the covenant with death, these cooperative care agreements with a lethal deadly vaccine.
I coined the term covenant of death from Isaiah 28.
This covenant of death is a circle of people, entities, powerful entities that have been in operation for 50 years, but it's really accelerated.
It's the government, specifically HHS, CDC, and FDA that have colluded with multiple, multiple, mainstream, powerful academic universities as one component of the circle of death.
Another one is the medical journals themselves.
Another component is the pharmaceutical industries.
And this is a circle of self-gratification, a circle of control, a circle of using the American people and spreading disinformation, false information, by mainstream medical journals.
And I'll give you just one example that we outlined in our recent publication. And this was perpetrated.
This is a classic example.
You take the two most powerful journals in the world. One is one of your journals, Lancet.
Another one is the New England Journal of Medicine.
We'll take the Lancet, you know, the Lancet In 2020, they were used by a cardiologist, Mandeep Mara, at Harvard University.
And what they do is these entities, the Pfizer and the pharmaceuticals, ghost write these manuscripts, right?
They had to falsely villainize and execute Hydroxychloroquine because it was extraordinarily safe, extraordinarily effective.
And it stood in the way of blocking the emergency use authorization.
So, they had to villainize it and they had to execute it and they had to rewrite history because before that, just years before, I had used hydroxychloroquine for 40 years in pregnancy.
The CDC and FDA were promoting it as very safe and effective in pregnancy, in breastfeeding moms and women.
They deleted that. And then they colluded with a company called Surgisphere.
Surgisphere manufactured false data to falsely villainize, demonize hydroxychloroquine.
And they did it through Harvard University.
They wrote the manuscript.
They, in just five months of the pandemic, the first five months, this is a joke.
This is a sick joke, but it's true.
In five months, they allegedly took 95,000 patients with COVID from all around the world. They synthesized that data.
They performed the study.
They analyzed the data.
They did all the statistics, they wrote the data, the manuscript, and they published it in just five months.
That's impossible.
Anybody with a brain, I've been publishing, you know, I published, you know, well over 250 publications, 270, you know, in my career.
And, you know, that would have taken five years, you know, maybe expedited two years. Okay. You don't do that in two months. It's impossible.
But they did it. And the Lancet published it. And game over.
The media was bought. They put it all over the world.
And hydroxychloroquine, the Trump administration, had procured 62 million doses with Dr. Stephen Hatfield, Dr. Peter Navarro.
And if they had deployed those to the American people, the pandemic would have been over in the United States of America by August of 2020, just eight months later, it would have been over.
They executed it with false data.
Now, when anybody with a brain like myself saw that article, they knew it was fraudulent.
We called for, let us see the data.
They couldn't procure it.
It didn't exist.
So they retracted the article five months later in October, but the damage was done.
And, you know, Mandeep Mara is still in good standing.
You know, these people who executed, these people committed genocide.
They killed and injured millions of global citizens, right?
Not only by paving the way for the vaccine, but by withholding early treatment.
Such as Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin, that is now proven to be 99% effective, right? So these are mass killers.
They not only committed fraud, but they should be indicted to criminal courts.
So that's what happened.
And then a year later, the same thing happened with the New England Journal of Medicine.
They colluded Rochelle Walensky, the main editors of the main editors of the New England Journal of Medicine, Eric Rubin and Richard Morrissey, had Walensky.
And they did a publication that was published April 21st, 2021. And then a second article that very same day was published by Shima Bakuro and 20 other federal employees. Both of these publications pushed the vaccine as safe, effective, and necessary in pregnancy.
And it was fraud.
It was criminal.
They, too, should be indicted for crimes against humanity, not just spanked.
They need to have criminal charges of genocide brought against them, and they need to be tried in a court of law.
They breached their own ethical guidelines that are published in the New England Journal of Medicine that says you must reveal your conflicts of interest.
Well, there was massive amounts of money that flowed from Rochelle Walensky's organization to the Massachusetts kind of laundering through the Massachusetts Department of Health.
Then to the Massachusetts Medical Society.
Massachusetts Medical Society owns the New England Journal of Medicine, Peter.
So, it was a massive circle of money laundering.
And in the very least, they were compelled by their own ethical guidelines published in their own journal to disclose that.
They never did.
And, you know, it gets worse.
It gets much worse.
The New England Journal of Medicine article in April 21st, e-publication by Shima Bakuro and colleagues, alleged that it was safe, effective.
They alleged a miscarriage rate of 12.6%, which, by the way, was three times greater than it should have been for an established pregnancy in an obstetrician's office.
But it wasn't 12.6%. It was 82%.
And I've published that.
I've proven that by manipulation.
And this Shimabakuro study was taken from the V-SAFE data link, which has been now proven to be corrupt and manipulated.
The ICANN attorney, Aaron Seary, has published 10 articles in his Substack on the corruption.
The ICANN, Informed Consent Action Network, Aaron Seary, look it up, look his up.
There's 10 articles showing the horrible perversion and lying and fraudulent manipulation of this V-safe system.
So this is, and this is published in my articles.
This is all published in reference.
You know, nobody can sue me for slander or defamation.
As the attorneys tell me there's one solid defense against slander and defamation it's called the truth.
No, 100 percent.
Can I just, where we're nearly out of time, just wanted to touch one of the articles give people a flavor what they'll get on your Substack and there's a four-part series you've just put out.
I think it's a guest author has written it the covid 19 vaccines and beyond what the medical industrial complex is not telling us and the first one looks at looks at flu and Covid and looks at miscarriages and fetal deaths.
And I actually felt quite sick just looking at the 10 times the rate if not more on some of those and that little chart that you have on the top of that Substack really drives home the huge impact that we've seen the devastation with those jabs.
So I just would encourage, because that four-part series is really important.
But the figures you have on that chart at the top of the part one is devastating when you see those.
Thank you, Peter.
And by the way, we have published a book.
That was my first book, COVID-19 and Beyond, and that's available on Amazon. The lead author is Sally Saxon.
The second author is Dr. Deborah Viglione.
The third author is myself.
And volume two, a new book, following that book up is also soon to be published in addition to Sacrifice, how the deadliest vaccine in history targeted the most vulnerable. It's such an honor and a privilege to be on this platform with you, Peter McIlvenna.
It's great.
Dr. Thorp, thank you for what you do.
And as someone who follows Jesus, the most important thing is truth and is speaking truth and doing what you're called to do.
So thank you for your example.
Thank you for the work you put in, the huge amount of research.
And the public can pre-order your book.
It'll come out the 10th of December.
Great Christmas present, get some people help them wake up.
They sacrifice for the deadliest vaccine, in the history, targeted the most vulnerable, make sure and get hold of it and get a copy.
Dr. Thorp thank you so much for your time today.
Thank you Peter for having me on. I am looking forward to meeting with you again
Thanks for reading Hearts of Oak Substack! This post is public so feel free to share it.
Share
The podcast currently has 572 episodes available.
431 Listeners
877 Listeners
447 Listeners
16 Listeners
122 Listeners
209 Listeners
295 Listeners
276 Listeners
482 Listeners
580 Listeners
75 Listeners
259 Listeners
532 Listeners
27 Listeners
88 Listeners