'They Refused to Publish'
Prof Angus Dalgleish told the Irish Medical Council it was 'considered a crime' to publish anything that might affect covid vaccine uptake
“the government had made it very clear that they considered it a crime to publish anything that might make the public lose confidence in the vaccine” - Prof Angus Dalgleish at the Irish Medical Council, May 1, 2026.
In his sworn testimony at the Irish Medical Council (IMC), Professor Angus Dalgleish said something that struck a nerve.
Undergoing questions from barrister Neasa Bird, he spoke about how he changed his mind from a pro-vaccine position published under his name in the Daily Mail to seeing people ‘damaged by it’ to ‘fighting and screaming’ against the vaccines.
He told the IMC committee that once he had changed his mind, the newspapers refused to publish.
“But when I realised it was wrong, I was the first, you know, fight and scream. And it’s very interesting when I did fight and scream about it, they refused to publish,” he said.
Prof Dalgeish was giving evidence on day four of the fitness to practise hearing against Wexford GP Dr Billy Ralph. Dr Ralph is under investigation for tweets he posted on X (formerly Twitter) between October 2020 and June 2022 that were critical of the authorities response to covid, including vaccines.
“And what I was told by the editor, and also I used to do a lot in GB News interviews for these things, is that, there was the producer on the television, and the editor on the Daily Mail said, the government had made it very clear that they considered it a crime to publish anything that might make the public lose confidence in the vaccine,” he said.
Who in government is responsible for this decision?
Who communicated this decision to the newspaper editor?
I have a particular interest in obtaining answers to these questions because of my own experience of ‘they refused to publish’ here in Ireland.
Did the Irish government make a similar position clear to Irish newspapers editors?
That would explain a lot. I am interested in names, dates, accountability.
In essence, the same logic applies to the case against Billy Ralph.
He is not being investigated for any wrong-doing concerning his medical practice or patient care. He is being investigated for undermining public health guidelines.
Prof Dalgleish’s experience with the Daily Mail aligns with my own attempts to document mounting evidence of vaccine damage during the roll out.
One such effort was for the Irish Times, for whom I had been working almost ten years. A feature length article on adverse effects post vaccine was written by myself and Paul Cullen (then Health Editor) for the paper in June 2021.
It was never published.
Cullen and I worked together on a series of articles from concerned medical professionals citing what they believed to be vaccine induced harms they were witnessing in patients, back in June and July of 2021. These reports were written up and completed but never published.
One of the contributors, a nurse employed by the HSE, cited blood clots, tremors, neurological problems, chronic fatigue and persistent vomiting and diarrhoea among a list of issues she observed in patients post Covid 19 vaccination.
“We are seeing strange presentations post vaccination and we need to talk about this,” she said, back in 2021.
(You can read the full article here:)
Dissecting excess deaths
Protesters blocked traffic outside RTE on Saturday, citing what they believe to be biased reportage on the topic of vaccines. On the same day, the Irish Times published the first article in a mainstream national newspaper raising the issue of covid 19 vaccines in relation to elevated excess deaths.
We know that there was widespread censorship, but we don’t know who instigated this censorship. Certainly, the European Commission played a role, as documented here. But it doesn’t explain the UK government’s position.
The following exchange between Barrister Neasa Bird for the Irish Medical Council and Angus Dalgleish, oncologist and Professor Emeritus at St George’s University of London.
It documents Prof Dalgeish’s dealing with the Daily Mail, his change of mind on covid vaccines and his defence of the language used by Dr Billy Ralph on social media.
In the end, the discussion found it’s way to ‘humanity.’ Committee chairman Paul Harkin agreed ‘we are all human, we can all make mistakes.’
“… and Dr. Ralph is not being accused of making a mistake and not being human, he clearly has given very good evidence that he cares about his patients,” Mr Harkin said.
But there was no humanity shown to the wider public by the faceless entities that ‘considered it a crime to publish anything that might make the public lose confidence in the vaccine’.
Who are they?
Neasa Bird: You wrote a number of articles for the Daily Mail during the pandemic, isn’t that correct?
Angus Dalgleish: Which article are you referring to now?
NB Well, did you write a number of arms for the Daily Mail during the pandemic?
AD I wrote lots of articles
NB Okay.
AD -- all bar that one, I wrote and signed off myself.
NB Okay, so that one, you feel the Daily Mail misrepresented you in that one?
AD Yes, and I pointed it out that I was very annoyed.
NB Okay. I am just going to hand in another article, which I think you wrote for the Daily Mail, so this will be Exhibit 22. So this was from 18th February 2021, and I think you are writing on delays in cancer diagnosis during Covid?
AD Mm-hmm.
NB Then I think we can see on the -- sorry, there is a lot of adverts with this, but can you see page 4 of 21, it is just actually the end of the article, so at the very bottom of the page it says:
“Angus Dalgleish is a Professor of Oncology at a London Teaching Hospital.”
Do you see that?
AD. Yeah.
NB And do you see just above that, two paragraphs up, you wrote:
“The success of the vaccination programme, accompanied by the enormous drop in Covid infections, hospital admissions and deaths means we are well placed to adopt this course.”
So you were referring there to the success of the vaccination programme?
AD Yeah, and that was written in very early 2021 based on the data that we were being given.
NB Sure.
AD And it was very clear that this was what everyone wanted to hear. But at an individual level, it was very clear it was not. And this was just before we made -- we had absolutely been lied to and misrepresented. So, yeah, which reads --
NB So you don’t stand over your published words there?
AD Hmm?
NB You don’t stand over your published words there, is that correct?
AD Based on -- this article, that bit was put in at the end, this article --
NB Sorry, is this something that was misattributed to you again?
AD Yes.
NB Oh, okay.
AD. But I mean I did -- I did see this -- I did see this article and signed off on it.
NB Sure.
‘We started to see damage’
AD: But it was very much -- it is a success, this is the story that was being given. But at the same time we started to see people who had been damaged by it, and that’s when we started to challenge all this. So it is very important that, you know, we basically went along initially with the data before we realised we had been lied to. And I gave the data that they said all their effective 95%, and we thought, well, that would appear to be the case, they have done big trials, but then we hadn’t realised this gross misrepresentation of the data, and we could see in front of our eyes people being damaged with it. So to me, it didn’t matter then. I mean I changed very, very quickly after these articles, and with averments realising I couldn’t have been further wrong than to have gone along with this.
And people still attack me for that now. It basically meant, I was prepared to go along with the guidelines and what have you, but when I saw it with my own eyes that this did not match up, then I was -- I turned on it, because I had already predicted this would happen.
And then, you know, for a short time I thought the authorities and these massive trials they must know something I didn’t know, and perhaps I could have been wrong, you have a bit of doubt about that. And it is only when I started seeing it with my own eyes, I realised I should have had the faith to stop this all along.
What I did do, as I presented it all to the Cabinet, and it went through Michael Gove and to Johnson, it was given to all the others, so they saw, they saw everything like I said and predicted, and they decided to ignore it, with one comment, on the grounds I was a cancer doctor, what did I know.
NB: Thank you very much for answering my questions, Prof. Dalgleish. Dr. Ralph might have some further questions for you, as may the Committee members.
AD Thank you.
Dr Ralph I have no further questions, thank you, Prof. Dalgleish.
This exchange brought proceedings almost to lunchtime. At this point the inquiry switched from legal cross-examination of Professor Dalgleish to questions from the committee itself, made up of Chairman Paul Harkin, Jill Long and Dr Liam Conroy, who are tasked with deciding whether Dr Ralph’s criticisms of the response to Covid amount to professional misconduct.
‘They refused to publish’
Chair Paul Harkin: I might start off with the last point of the exchange you had with Ms. Bird, I want to be clear in the evidence you gave; so the article, this article, Exhibit 22, was an article that you wrote, you said you wrote?
AD Which one are we talking about this time?
PH Exhibit 22, it’s just this -- Ms. Bird --the Daily Mail article, Ms. Bird took you to the end of it, the success of the vaccination programme.
AD That was very early ‘21.
PH Yeah, and I think I am clear that you said that the evidence changed, and you are a reasonable person who changes his opinion when the facts change, so I am clear about. I just want to clarify, I think, so I understand, are you saying that that the last sentence “the success of the vaccination programme” was inserted by somebody else and it wasn’t written by you?
AD You know, to be quite honest, I doubt that. These get edited and subbed an unbelievable amount of times. When you write for the Mail and the Telegraph, they edit it and they push you to go along with certain views, which initially I was happy to do so. But when I realised it was wrong, I was the first, you know, fight and scream. And it’s very interesting when I did fight and scream about it, they refused to publish.
And if you notice I haven’t published very much the Mail, not about vaccines, because they wouldn’t let me. And what I was told by the editor, and also I used to do a lot in GB News interviews for these things, is that, there was the producer on the television, and the editor on the Daily Mail said, the government had made it very clear that they considered it a crime to publish anything that might make the public lose confidence in the vaccine.
PH Okay.
A. I will leave it at that, because that tells you everything. This was being censored at the highest level.
PH I am just trying to clarify your evidence so I don’t misunderstand you, and I think you have been consistent and clear, so I understand your position. I just wanted to make sure I understood, and it quickly changed, I think Ms. Bird asked you, did they misrepresent you there, did somebody else write that article, and you don’t --
AD Do you know, it is so long ago --
PH I accept that.
AD -- and I think that conclusion may well have been written by somebody else to be quite honest, because the one thing I did write, and I have a big conscience about, I let them do the one about pushing the vaccine very early on. And what I did discuss was, if it was to be effective, rather than do everybody, you’d want to do people at the cold face, that was my... assuming it worked. And I said, of course, we don’t know that that it worked. So I was misrepresented. But the one thing that they did do, they allowed me to write articles on the lockdown many, many times, because they totally utterly agreed with that. And the Telegraph allowed me to write articles pointing out that early treatment with this ordinary thing would save a lot of lives, why wasn’t it being approved.
And I had correspondence with Michael Gove over this who said he would look into it. That’s the last I heard of it.
PH No, that’s clear, you have clarified something I was slightly concerned about, I just wanted to make sure that I was absolutely clear, so thank you for that. Ms. Long I think has a question for you.
Jill Long (IMC Committee member) Good afternoon, Prof. Dalgleish. My question is have you read the Notice of Inquiry?
AD The notice of...
JL Inquiry, in which the allegations against Dr. Ralph are set out?
AD Yes, yes.
JL And have you considered the appropriateness of Dr. Ralph’s tweets?
AD Well, yes, I have. I have and I totally understand them, because I have known lots of people in this position, you just get exacerbated with replies and the trolls; people give you total abuse if you try and say anything. And so they are pushed, and I know he is not alone, there are a lot of doctors like this. And then there are people out there who will focus on this as, this is inappropriate language for a doctor, when you have got to put it in context, this is, you know, trying to be normal and rational and reasonable, and then you get this constant abuse, you are bound to -- I mean I am very, very guilty of this myself, of using words which other people might find offensive in order to get my point across when standard English vernacular seems to fail. So I would defend that. I think a lot of other doctors are driven to distraction for this. I mean this is one of the reasons that I won’t do social media, because I know that I would be very susceptible to getting annoyed with people if they persist with inane accusations, and often with language that leads to -- you know it is not -- it is hard to be -- use barrister speak when you are on Twitter or Facebook, so I would defend that.
‘We are all human at the end of the day’
JL What are you exactly defending, the tweets that Dr. Ralph posted, is that what you are defending?
AD I am defending his -- the things that he said. But one of the things was the language, and that’s what I am defending is, it can be so exacerbating the way people attack you on these things, yet people are driven to upping the language to get the point across. I completely concur with that, and I am guilty of it myself in discussions, so I rest -- I rest that answer on both points. You know, I agree with what he said on everything, but this part, the language, is, I understand, is something you say. But what I am defending is, sometimes you get so exacerbated, so overwhelmed with what you know is completely and utterly wrong. We are all human at the end of the day.
Chairman Paul Harkin: So I will pick up on that point, which I think is actually a fair point to make, that we are all human, we can all make mistakes, and Dr. Ralph is not being accused of making a mistake and not being human, he clearly has given very good evidence that he cares about his patients.
Billy Ralph’s hearing continues at the IMC Dublin on May 18th.
Thanks to those that support and share this work - much appreciated.
Previously:
This is utterly fascinating to read.
I find the remarks by Harkin most interesting. Because he said that Dr. Billy is not being judged on his medical abilities.
I can’t see how they can possibly strike him off on what has gone on so far. And it’s also interesting that more information is coming out here than the IMC might like or the Government either.
Prof. Dalgliesh is superb and I think Dr. Clair Craig will also be superb.
I hope my reading of the case is accurate because I think it would be a complete travesty of justice if any punitive action were taken.
I think it’s appalling the massive psychological pressure put on this excellent Doctor!
Thanks, Louise. It’s a long and winding road.
The accusers are so ridiculous, it’s difficult to listen to them. The debasement of language, meaning, science and justice writ large. Pitiful.
Thanks to Dr. Ralph and his fellow-persecuted.