Indian Bar Association vs WHO | Adv. Dipali Ojha with Rajiv Malhotra

a young team of lawyers in india deserves credit for standing up to the world health organization and filing a lawsuit against them this is a very important lawsuit because they've called out the bluff of the who the duplicity of the whr and they have challenged whether the who has acted in good faith or whether they are aligned with big pharma and with various foreign interests in what they have promoted and how they have throttled and and choked free speech and free scientific inquiry it's also interesting the role of an indian physicist indian doctor indian medical expert working as at the top level of who but in their on their side aligned in a way that is not very necessarily good for india or any developing country or for that matter people around the world so i want you to listen to this why they filed a lawsuit what does a lawsuit allege and claim against the who and what is the likely outcome if they were to win this lawsuit what would be the consequences and the indian government and policy makers should be watching indian lawyers should be watching people around the world who are medical scientists should be watching because this could be path breaking please pay attention and watch till the end namaste i have uh deepali oja who's who represents the indian bar association uh to talk to me about some very serious issues these are not only legal matters or technical kind but these are this is an issue that affects lacks of lives of people uh maybe crowds of lives around the world uh so rather than uh me giving you too much background from my own perspective i'm going to let her introduce herself and then i'll ask her a few questions uh and you you find it very interesting to know what is going on the important role she's playing in this matter so let's get started uh the apology welcome to my show so give my audience a little background on you who you are and what kind of legal work you do namaste rajivji thank you for having me on the program it's an honor to be here and to have got an opportunity to interact with you thank you once again i am a practicing lawyer in mumbai at bombay high court and at supreme court of india and i am also part of indian bar association i am the head of legal cell at indian bar association and i have co-authored a book on law of perjury the second edition of uh it was out in 2021 and we at indian bar association we work towards bringing in more transparency and accountability in the judiciary so now let's talk about uh the the topic of our discussion which is that uh certain medicines for kovid which have been uh which are no longer under patent because they're very old medicines they were created for uh other purposes uh and and i'm referring to iver mechtin ivermectin so those who are not familiar with i v e r m e c t i n ivermectin uh is an old medicine no longer on patent it's manufactured for a few pennies per pill and available to poor countries poor people around the world and has now been found to be very effective in treating kovid not only treating after you got kovitt but also preventing kovid so but it is being suppressed and it and and people who are talking about it are being admonished from social media they're being blocked and banned not just indians but people all over the world i have interviewed a british scientist who is a medical scientist of high repute including having served as a consultant for who and she's been banned and and i i'm also discussing with u.s people who are well-known researchers authors with decades of experience in medical science who have also discovered the benefits of ivermectin and for speaking out they've also been banned so the topic today is that the indian bar association under the leadership of the apology has filed some legal cases uh cases against some very big big entities including who and various other people so i will let the policy tell us a little bit uh what is the basis of your legal action and what so what what what is your allegation in in the legal action you're taking and against whom are you taking it please the apology yes thank you rajunji uh we have served two notices till date so i will uh take the viewers through the cause of action for which we have issued these legal notices so this was around may 2021 on 9th of may 2021 we got to know that the health minister of goa mr vishwajeet rani had decided to administer ivo mecten to all the adults in the state of gova that is about 18 years of age and this was uh done to prevent the spread of uh for the virus for v2 virus and uh on 9th of may we got to read about this announcement and immediately on the next day on 10th of may there was tweet coming in from dr samya swaminathan she is the chief scientist at world health organization and she tweeted that w i cho does not support the use of iowa mechanic except in the clinical trials and to support this stand of hers she had embedded a link in her tweet and this link was a company statement of the pharmaceutical company merck now merck is a leading manufacturer of this drug iowa medicine ivomectin is an anti-parasitic drug it is uh it has been around for 40 years now it uh since 1975 and there are around 4 billion doses administered till date and it is used for scabies head lice and a disease called as uh onco cersei which is a river blindness so it is basically an anti-parasitic but of late what my reading and my research goes it also is effective as an antiviral and anti-cancer drug so this particular statement of merck was dated 4th february 2021 where then merck had given its own rational as to why it feels iometin is not safe for use for the treatment of cobalt 19. it said that there is lack of safety data and there are not enough studies which show that ivermectin could be safe and efficacious for treatment of over 90. so this was the statement now ideally uh as for the medical ethics uh a doctor not dr swami swaminathan is a medical doctor and she is relying on a statement of a private company a pharmaceutical company so you know we could sense that you know something is wrong here and we decided to take a deep dive and conduct an in-depth research into what was this all about because just a previous day there is an announcement which was uh you know about giving this tablet to everybody all adults in gova and immediately there is this tweet which says no do not go ahead with it a warning kind of a thing an advisory coming in from wh so while we conducted this research we were led to the websites of flccc which is the front line forward 19 critical care alliance based in the us and it is led by dr paul marik dr pierre cory and a big team of physicians and also the british iowa mechanic recommendation panel which is based in the uk and it is led by dr test lori now while we researched on this website the data which was available on this website we could see that they had in fact we could see the patient testimonials who were treated with iomedian in the early stages of the disease and also those who were seriously ill and who were admitted in the hospitals and in fact few interesting cases were about the court orders wherein courts in the u.s had to intervene to facilitate administration of this drug on the patients the reason being us fda does not approve the use of iowa medicine so if a doctor has to prescribe to a hospitalized patient and hospital is not ready to you know go for this treatment which includes iowa medicine then the patient's family had to approach the poor and there were testimonials of the patients themselves and their family members who said that the patients were actually taken off the ventilator when i was in was in included in the line of treatment now i also wish to inform all the audience that i will make in first say like in itself uh may not be effective it is only when it is included in the line of treatment so i will mention along with other things other drugs or other you know nutritional elements which as per the physician's judgment what is appropriate so we have to be very careful and we have to use it only as for the physician's guidance so after going through all this data we were we were very perplexed i said i mean the main question that came up to my mind was why was who so much against this drug and uh then there was this public statement from flccc dated 12th of may now we being a members of public we decided to take cognizance of that statement public statement and go in depth as to what what they were talking about so this is a very exhaustive document this public statement it is still there on their website and it talks about all things like big science big data big tech big pharma and you know what their role is in this dynamic and what have they been doing in this fundament that we all are facing right now so in that there is a section wherein flccc brings up its uh a very detailed explanation as to how who's advisory against the use of iowa mechanics fallacious so it is essentially about analysis of the clinical data how it is analyzed by who and how it is analyzed and how ideally it should have been analyzed so what flcc team is trying to say is uh there is a possibility of an inherent bias that wh doesn't want ivamectin to be recommended or to be used for the treatment of over 19. so we thought that this is the right time that we should issue a legal notice because it is a question of life and death so if certain group of physicians who are reputed physicians and who have you know a lot of papers published peer-reviewed studies published to their credit if they are saying that this particular drug is effective and in fact if it is administered in the early stages it would prevent a person from you know getting admitted to a hospital in case his condition is deteriorated because of the sarcomere virus so this was the time we felt this something wrong and uh we again you know we uh analyzed all the reasons for which we should make who answerable that they should answer as to what is what is the data what is the scientific information that they are relying on when they say that you know ivan should not be used and notably when dr swami swaminathan relied on a statement of public this private company merg she deliberately ignored the study of wh o because who has its own report dated 31st of march 2021 which they call it as a living guideline and in that they have a particular section on ivormectin and they have their own reasoning as to why ivo mctin is not effective or is not recommended for uh treating covet 90. so we wondered why did we sh why shouldn't she refer to this particular study and she referred to the company statement of this pharma company and then this was the cause of action for issuing the first legal notice which went out on 25th of may wherein we have you know laid out the entire actual position as to what the iowa mechanism studies the clinical data suggests which is given provided by flccc and bird and we have also reproduced that section from the public statement of flccc and you have questioned her and we have called upon her to answer each and every point which is raised by flcc now we have not received any reply but she has deleted that contentiously immediately after the notice was received and this was witnessed by all the netizens that soon after the notice went out uh she decided to delete the tweet so thank you thank you apology uh like a good lawyer you are to the point you're very articulate you don't mince words you're direct very logical and i'm very happy when i get a when i get a conversation with somebody who's so together regardless of the subject matter because i learn a lot that way so i'm going to recap briefly the main points i heard for my own benefit to make sure i got it clearly and for the benefit of viewers because when they hear something complex twice uh two different ways then you know there's a better chance they've got the it gets deeper into them so i'm just going to basically restate the main highlights of what i heard so iver mektin is a medicine that is 40 years old in originally invented by merck but it is no longer on patent so no no that patent has expired so merck doesn't make much money merck as i understand it has only a small percentage of the manufacturing of ivermectin now because it's being manufactured all over the world a lot of poor countries manufacturing it so it is not a rich man's drug it is not a drug that big pharma make any money on because it's no longer on patent and anybody can manufacture it a lot of people are so this is one point second point is that iver mechtin has been given four billion doses is what i heard ripali say uh so it's it's got a 40-year history and the and there aren't any very serious uh you know side effects that have been documented and for many many other diseases it's a very safe drug and it's being used so there are two criteria for for approving a new for approving a drug for a disease one is whether it is safe uh to use that is very important and the second is whether it is effective in solving the problem as far as safety is concerned if a drug is safe because it's been used for certain disease then it's also safe in other situations because safety is safety which means that human beings can you know take this medicine without too many serious effects so the safety should not be a problem that they can complain about and if anyone wants to complain about the safety of ivermectin they have to go back to all the data all the clinical trials over 40 years all the experience and try to come up with counter arguments which is not going to be easy and they have not attempted to do that so they just declared something which is not a very scientific thing to do they've declared an out a conclusion without any evidence so that is an issue that is very suspicious that because the big pharma is is interested in making billions of dollars from new medicines which will be under their patent and they will license it and they'll make a ton of money because that is their vested interest and merc i think uh it's fair to point out and correct me if i'm wrong that merck is developing its own treatment for or kovid19 new one not iron mechan which is its old drug but the new one because it will be under patent yes old drugs leave patent after a certain time so they they want to keep inventing new drugs to even if it's no longer is not much better than the old drug because then it is under patent so the motive there is a motive of mark that is clear why who is backing them is uh kind of you can surmise that they have a conflict of interest maybe they are being aligned maybe and so on uh for some reason but we are not we are not able to give a pinpoint logic as to why who would do that now what has happened is uh iver mektin is being used for treatment in many countries including united states where where families have to go to court get permission uh court order that their doctor is allowed to do this because doctor is banned from doing it from a legal point of view uh which is part of this whole conspiracy against cyber mectin and so those cases where uh families have been successful in in getting this treatment for their their loved one who's ill people have been very successful in in in in the outcome in the disease outcome in the cure outcome and a lot of testimonies from uh you know patients who've recovered are out there on in the public domain yes so the question is this my question is this uh the big pharma industry forget that their profit motive fine their profit motive they want to make money they also doing a lot of good forgetting the profit motive the reality is that they do not have enough supply to for eight billion human beings around the planet it's only available to some rich countries these these uh and only available so when you talk to people in africa or latin america or many other poor countries nepal doesn't have you know a lot of places just don't have any any alternative so when the when the medicines that the big pharma want to push whether it is vaccines for for for uh preventing or whether it is you know uh medicines that are supposedly going to help cure which none of them really can't perfectly but when they want to push these medicines first of all these medicines are not universally available they're barely available to 20 of humanity barely available to 20 of humanity and what about the other majority the rest of the majority they have nothing so if they have nothing to offer to those people and here is this one drug which has been used for 40 years for other things without without side effects and a lot of people want to use it why aren't they allowed to use it why why would the why would their law come down in such a big way and who passed things against them this is very heavy-handed legal and marketing agenda kind of driven and political driven action against a drug which ought to be which ought to be used which ought to be they should be doing aggressive clinical trials yes whether it is useful or not without coming up with this banning and all that stuff right and and uh so i this is my reason it got my attention uh because uh uh in a later uh later discussion uh uh you know the pali is going to interview me and she's going to ask me she's told me that she want to ask me questions like about ai bias machine learning big data about the bias of the or all kind of things that exist and how algorithms are enhancing the bias so and therefore this is a topic of interest of mine also i'm not i'm not a medical person per se but any area of bias and medical bias can be very serious any area of bias which is then being turned into algorithms and these algorithms are banning uh you know uh youtube videos and all kind of uh discussions on ivermectin because they feel that uh the algorithm has been told that there's something wrong you should block all that yes uh so i'm sure i'll get some warnings also on this video and then my team has to pour my team has to go and say oh no no no deepali is a good person don't just because i spoke to her i mean it's very strange they tag people whom they've banned and then if the person shows up somewhere else my british guest told me the same thing my american guest told me the same thing that they've been tagged and so now i'll be tagged because i'm interviewing them and also because i use the word ivermectin and that that is the red flag in the algorithm so i'm i'm really concerned and upset at this uh massive hijacking by uh algorithms algorithms becoming like devatas you know google devta and facebook and who's the developer all these kind of big dev tas producing their ideological biases and then putting them into algorithms and then enforcing them this is nonsense this has to stop and i will i will support anybody who's fighting the good fight so therefore i'm here as a matter of principle as a scientist uh you know we are trained that science is open-minded science looks at all sides yes there has to be a debate there has to be a debate and then the people who are for either mechanics should be submitting they have submitted their evidence it should be given a response those who want to be against it should submit there and there should be public debate the indian authorities should have the indian health people should have uh you know held discussion yes before reaching such a thing because india is a poor country before india can uh you know vaccinate and all that or all of its people it will be 2023 maybe who knows and where all this money also come from whereas a fiber mechan is uh able to reduce the infection rate suppose it's not able to bring it down to zero because even the vaccines can't bring it down to zero they can reduce the yes yes if it can reduce the rate to a large extent then those people who are getting nothing because there is nothing available for them at least they have something so i i i that's my logic for uh supporting what the indian bar association action has been so can i add something here yeah please yes so in india um we are thankful to the government to include ivermectin in the protocol so we have ivermectin included in our national protocol and also by the protocol given by our national task force comprising of aims and icmr and since april 2021 uh it continues to be a part of our protocol so physicians could go and prescribe if they according to their medical judgment they feel that they want to prescribe they can go ahead and prescribe it is for patients with mild to moderate symptoms and those who are in home isolation so um over here i uh i i need to share with you that i feel so lucky that we are here uh in india that ivan you know could be used by physicians and we could save lives of and stop people from deteriorating their health or due to this virulent virus only because they are allowed to have our mechanic it's possible for them to procure ivor mechanic but belief is good this is good you mentioned it so the indian so the indian ministry of health is on the right side as far as you're concerned right but sir but i'm sure i'm sure there there has they might be facing pressure from the you know international body especially the world health organization and uh over here i wish to narrate uh you know what uh the cause of action for the second legal notice it was something to do around around the same this the same topic of fibromyalgia so after the first legal notice went out on 25th of may uh this this legal notice uh was available on all social media platforms it was widely discussed and you know everybody started there was like the intense discussions around this topic as to people who did not know what ivor mentioned is about they inquired with us as to know what what is it drug about is it does it really cure covet 19 and we used to share whatever information the scientific information we had with us we were very happy to share with them and educate people about this drug we received mails from you know countries uh other countries wherein they said uh iowa mexican is banned in their countries and people in certain countries people had to you know go underground and procure it in the liquid form or maybe tablet form so um this was the case uh you know in few other countries and some countries have not even heard of fibromyalgia so they sent us you know males uh thanking us for letting them know that such a drug exists and then i'm sure they would have read more about it and got to know so uh there was a lot of suppression around you know not letting the world know that this drug exists so you know i'll tell you i i until a few weeks ago i didn't know about it i had heard it and didn't take it seriously and then after someone educated me recently and and suggested i should talk to you and a few other uh experts uh i started talking to people here who feel they're very well informed about kobed nobody had heard about it and these are highly educated people and i said go go google to search this that and the other and they started looking up things so there's a news blackout so the media has a hand so we have a big pharma with a clear agenda we have they have appropriated who to kind of go around the world and ban what is a competitor to their program and and then the big media is into it too and so we cannot forget the fact checkers the fact checkers so so when we when we say something uh you know uh like if i were to say that okay this is my stand on ivermectin and i base my stand or support this take support of these particular scientific studies maybe i am i i will get fact checked and they would say that okay deepali oja has been saying this but it is not true to be correct so uh you know there is a lot of censorship around it and suppression then a common man who is searching for ivan information around ivor making on google would be confused would be left confused because if this put my name supposedly they have heard that okay there is some legal notice going around by indian bar association by an advocate named oja and if they see something like a fact check then they would say oh we don't know what is correct and what is wrong so there's a lot of confusion around it so so so i think so basically and and uh in a later uh conversation we'll have a separate conversation where uh you send me questions you want to ask me i definitely want to answer those those will be about you know bias in the algorithms bias in social media yeah because social media is driven by algorithms and and algorithms are trained algorithms are trained based on biases that the inventors and the developers of these algorithms have because while they may consciously consciously be nice people and good people and not biased according to their own themselves they're not biased but unconsciously the kind of evidence that they are throwing is one-sided and the mach algorithm is learning on one-sided unbiased evidence and therefore it is also becoming biased so i we will talk about that it's a favorite subject of mine and i'm glad that you've highlighted this issue in the light of kovid and that's uh it brings my work and what's happening at the cutting edge of kovit together it shows that uh this business of ai bias is very real in the sense that lacks and grows up lives are being lost so we got we got to take care we we have to be very concerned about it so uh now that we have a good uh you know good sort of uh background on on what your actions have been i want to ask you this are these in the in in in a particular high court or a supreme court and what is the legal status where do things move from here as far as legal action goes okay okay so these are the legal notices like the first went out on 25th of may and we waited for a reasonable time for her to revert which she has not reverted and then as i said there was a strong cause of action to issue the second legal notice uh could i explain what was the cause in detail for the second legal notice yes so um it was around 7th of june after this first notice went out on 25th of may on 7th of june we read in the mainstream media the headline which stated health ministry removes ivormectin hydroxychloroquine doxycycline zinc and few other popular drugs from the national protocol and we were like shocked as to you know how come all of a sudden uh you know this is all removed and we checked the websites so it was actually dghs bghs is the directorate generator of health services this is a unit under our health ministry and it is a technical repository so it is essentially uh performs the role of an advisory role to the health ministry so it would advise the health ministry on uh areas like uh you know public health medical education and so on so it was this dghs who had come up with a protocol for adults or covent management in address and it had removed these drugs so it was not the health ministry so see the misinformation the misleading news that came in the mainstream media otherwise mainstream media never highlighted you know what does that please say about i19 or what scientists probably are saying about effectiveness of fibromyalgia but this was prominently highlighted and you know we had calls coming in from people saying okay you guys had just issued a notice but look uh health ministry has removed it so we have to explain to them no it's not the health ministry but it is a bghs and dghs since it is not equivalent to the health ministry it its protocol is not certainly not mandatory and there are two three observations around this if you see this document pghs suddenly came up with the protocol never before this we had protocol coming in from dghs it was always the national task force under the government of india so any protocol the algorithm as they call it which they put up on the website it had logos of a government of india aims and icmr and if one has a look at the document of dghs it does not have any of these locals either the government of india nor ames so it's it's very uh you know it appears that there is no consensus between the national task force and the djhs so obviously according to us somebody has you know uh captured the dghs and has made uh them to issue a protocol sans ivo mexican so that whatever this um you know awareness or whatever discussions were happening around iowa mechanic after this first notice went out were suppressed and over here i wish to mention that we have two judgments of bombay high court which are in support of ivormatic what happened is in the state of boa after the health minister made this announcement of giving ivormatic to every adult in the state there were petitions being filed where the petitioners questioned the state government's action of giving iowa mectin and going against the advice of who so this matter was being heard by the bombay high court goa bench and the judgment came on 28th of may 2021 and it said and of course there were affidavits being placed by the state government and the government of india and they gave their explanation as to they have relied on studies and opinions of experts and clinical data before arriving at decision so wh did not come and uh you know oppose the stand they did not come or no such argument was advanced which explained the stand of petitioners so obviously the judgment came in the favor of iowa mexican the uh court said okay there has been a reasonable uh data on which the government has relied on so it's okay they can go ahead as for their judgment and there was a pil in the state of maharashtra again around iowa and a few other drugs administration a few other drugs in the forever protocol even this judgment the second one in the pil which came on i think 16th of june again it was in support of iomometric so despite these two judgments being in place who continued its stand against ivormectin because when dghs came up with these guidelines we had a second another tweet coming in from dr swami swaminathan on 7th of june where she tagged our then health minister dr harshavardhan and she congratulated him or she expressed her happiness over you know having removed hypomectin hydroxychloroquine and other drugs and she emphasized that evidence-based medicine is the way to go and it's a good thing that these drugs have been removed so that physicians now have clarity on what to prescribe for covid19 treatment so she continued her stand against the iowa in her disinformation campaign against the iowa medicine and this was the cause of action for issuing the second legal notice because she had committed the contempt of court for the former high court judgment and in this we had three people to whom this promoters was served number one dr swamy swaminathan number two the head of bghs uh professor sunil kumar and dr ted ross so we have issued notice to all three of them because dr tetras by his acts of commission and omission because he was supposed to correct he was supposed to you know take action against when there is there is a legal notice served to his staff he is vicariously liable he has to see what his staff is doing so he he he chose to remain silent and he has not done anything so he has in fact uh uh you know contributed in continuing this disinformation campaign so he was also being served as notice so the apology so the apology for those of us who are not lawyers does a legal notice by itself stop something or do you need to make a petition uh asking the court to squash this who ban and to reprimand this these doctors who are towing the line uh without evidence and who are spreading this information in other words uh is a legal notice enough of a call to action or just a kind of a warning and where where do you plan on taking your case next okay so this is just a first step issuing a legal notice wherein as for the principles of natural justice we inform the person to whom the notice is served as to what is the reason for issuing him legal notice and of course we warn him that if they do not answer they comply then we would approach courts for the further action so we are currently drafting a case a petition which we will be filing very soon now um i would just uh you know inform you about what happened when we started around iowa meccan and other early treatments drugs which were being suppressed uh we we got a lot of calls from ngos activists and common public and they urged us to take up the vaccination issue also and at that point in time we were concentrating only around illegal action around only the early treatments especially the iowa making separation of fiber methane and the disinformation campaign around it but with you know uh the overwhelming uh request from the general public and activists they said we should also consider vaccines uh the mandates which have been coming in uh there were people who said that we are being threatened and we are being forced unless we take a vaccine we would not be allowed to come to our workplace or we would not get our salary so that was the point in time when we decided to get into this domain also and we had to study and you know get data around what it is all about so currently we are preparing a very comprehensive petition because these two are inseparable so so may i can i intervene here yes sir your honor can i say something charlie okay so so i beg to differ i think you should keep these two separate because you could win one and not win the other you don't want to bring down both i'll tell you what what my thought is yes my thought is let there be many solutions many ideas from different sources going in parallel because to save eight billion people one solution won't be enough uh the vaccine won't be enough it won't can't be affordable they can't manufacture enough of them fast enough either either mechtin may turn out to be extremely good and effective uh for certain types of situations people of a certain age people have a certain level of severity it may be very good for them but it may not be the holy grail that's going to solve everybody's problem either so you you do not want to suppress modern research nor do you want to suppress the previously known drug ivermectin you want all of this in parallel i am also in favor of uh you know ayurvedic treatments being supported and all kinds of other things so by saying that the case for ivermectin has to be bracketed with the case against vaccines you may actually be these in my opinion are two separate legal cases the the the fact that ivormectin should not be banned without due process and has a safety record and is affordable by poor people is a case unto itself has nothing to do even if the even if the virus even if the vaccines are effective so what if they're effective people have a right to have options and the second case which is against uh against the heavy-handed uh rollout of vaccines and all that is is a fine case i mean i i've been vaccinated i've been vaccinated fully by the pfizer i got it done several months ago i'm very happy i got it done i've recommended it to many people i think if you look at a a whole portfolio of tools and weapons that we have against this covad there are many weapons of and this vaccine has proven that it has brought down the rates uh uh you know for for serious illness and death not rate of infection but the rate of serious illness and death and that's good so i i my recommendation is you know i'm wondering why do you want to bracket them as opposed to having two independent cases each has to be fought on its own merit yes sir so there is a reason for this uh i had mentioned about a pil a public interest litigation filed in the state of maharashtra the decision of which came in around the 16th of june now this was around using um the main amongst many of the main prayers one prayer was to use ivormectin as a prophylaxis so prophylaxis is a preventive yeah so right and also for the treatment so during the course of arguments and you know uh what happened in the code the discussions between the petitioner and what the court arrived at is currently it is being included in the protocol so it is allowed to be used in india since it is in a national protocol all states could go ahead and use it so so there were no two thoughts about you know whether we should use or not use we have it approved whether to use it as a prophylaxis was something which court said it is best left to the opinion of scientists and experts because it is not the domain of course to adjudicate on you know ivermectin's effectiveness as a prophylaxis because they are not expert in medical science so the judgment said that this is best left to the um you know this issue was kept open so if we have a discussion between the you know the health ministry and health bodies and scientists on using ivormectin as a prophylaxis and then there are some parties which see that they have not got their problems or redressed appropriate regression like especially those who want it to be used as prophylaxis then they could again approach court so this is what the position is of the bombay high court yeah so so okay so i understand so couldn't you have two cases case one is that uh it should not be stopped from being a treatment uh that's one case uh you know it it doesn't have harm it's been used for 40 years on 4 billion kudoses yes and and if and these poor people in many countries even rich people in america don't have any other options so they should be allowed to it should be part of the mix and the best person to decide is a doctor and it's not anybody else that's case number one i think that's a very strong case that you know medical science cannot be suppressed case number two is as a prophylactic as a preventive it's it's kind of in the same space as vaccines and and even in case number two uh nothing says that uh for solution x for vex for uh prophylactic x you have to ban why i mean why couldn't you say that we have vaccines for those who want and we have either victim ivermectin for those who want this approach not a vaccine approach even there you could say that we want to be in the space rather than saying that the others should be others should be stopped because trying to stop uh trying to stop vaccines trying to get vaccines banned as a precondition to your primary action and primary prayer primary petition is an uphill battle then it means that uh in order to win a simple straightforward argument you have to go around and argue against very heavy forces you're going to argue against the gates foundation against all these pharma companies and so the indian court is going to just keep moving around for a long time there'll be counter petitions there'll be appeals it'll go to the supreme court because the case will be a very huge case because there'll be a lot of legal actions from big pharma coming in to protect their their turf so aren't you going to be better off in either case to make separate separate lawsuits right right sir so that that certainly could be considered wherein we uh would want uh them to consider iomethin as a prophylaxis as a preventive as we said which is you know in same what a vaccine achieves and secondly um our contention is around mandatory forceful coercive vaccinations because there have been uh forceful mandates as in people are being blackmailed and they have to go for vaccination otherwise they will lose their jobs so this is against the settled legal position in india and as per the international covenant on civil and political rights a vaccine can never be made mandatory so you know so i would say that's a sorry for the interruption but i would say that's a fine case but that case is has its own merit whether iva bechten is a good thing or not is irrelevant uh the the right to the the government right to force you to take it versus the citizens right to say i don't want to take it yes that is that has to be discussed and debated on its own merit yes even if there were no alternative the point is even if there's no alternative do they really have a right to force me that that's the point that you are making so i am still i'm still requesting that you please consider separating the cases so that they are the less burden of proof you know when you bracket too many uh things together then your burden of proof is the sum total of all the separate uh cases and either you win the whole thing in a big way or you lose the whole thing you know so you're better off winning smaller victories if they are more easily attainable certainly sir sir noted well noted so so let's then let's discuss i mean that's something for you to discuss of course now where does the gates foundation come into all this because you know i keep hearing as i talk to people they all accuse bill gates personally and gates foundation and fouchy and all that now those are separate issues they whether whether those guys are bad guys or good guys regardless of what you think of them the point is my basic reason for supporting you is science should not be stopped based on innuendos and false rumors and smear campaigns and certainly a a big pharma like mark having a vested interest in certain drugs going and hitting out against other drugs and convincing on twisting w.h.o this is all wrong wrong this is complete corruption it's a corruption this is corruption it's not like corruption is not just bribing with money corruption is all kinds of other armed twisting and pressuring people to do what is wrong especially without transparency so i agree with all of that but so we've got we've got two cases that we've already talked about one is whether ivormectin should be banned the way it has been or whether it should be allowed to have its own you know mark future in the marketplace and defend itself with through clinical trials and all case number two is whether uh vaccines should be forced on people or whether it should be their right to deny what is the what is the rights of the government versus right and on employers versus the rights of the public that's case number two i think there's a case number three that should be separated also and that has to do with what you think of all these there's all this talk about you know you know uh the people who are into case number one and two often have a a kind of horrible impression of fouchy and bill gates and so on and i see that that should not be brought all together in one place that's a separate case and not easy to not easy to prove so what do you think of this uh uh because i hear this in your in your statements also yes statements that you are also uh concerned about fouchy and his lack of transparency yes and whether you know whether he's he's got an agenda and bill gates all of that so tell me about what about your position on those that's the third area yes yes yes so in fact so you're right we have we have a complaint a registered ngo in india human rights security council has submitted a 132-page complaint to honorable prime minister honorable home minister on 30th of june to which iba has sent its representation letter on first of july so we have gone through the complaint and we have requested the honorable prime minister to look into it and you know initiate action and this involves a lot of issues it is an extensive complaint and of in which dr fauci and bill gates and the foundation they are also you know one of the entities and persons who we have requested investigation for i'll tell you the reason why if we take uh dr have been closely watching the senate hearings you know uh of where dr fauci is uh being intensely interrogated and right from uh the funding the nih funding to the wuhan research laboratory in china one research institute in china it is still being he's still being interrogated as late as just two days ago i could still uh you know see the senators are still using him and in fact one of the senators has uh referred to the ministry the department of justice because he according to him uh dr fausti has lied to the senate and he has testified that he has stated certain things under oath in the month of may 2021 wherein he said that no he has not sent any funds to the gohan institute whereas there is a paper which has come from wuhan institute and wherein the bat woman dr she from china she has mentioned the grand number which has come in from nih and of course there is some you know a laundering kind sort of laundering that has happened because the funds did not go directly from nih to the research institute but they have been rooted through this uh ecohealth alliance which is headed by dr peter desant and you see there there is a very uh nexus kind of a very criminal nexus uh i will not miss men's words here but it looks like a criminal nexus why do i say this how dr peter this person peter does that through whom the funds were directed to the gohan research institute he was the lead investigator you know a lead investigator in the team uh formed by who went first to china to investigate into the origins of the virus now see we all are into this pandemic it's an unprecedented and like no first of a time in living memory of everyone everyone who is on this planet earth today we never had these lockdowns and we are experiencing something for the first time and uh we were caught unaware suddenly in the month of march and third week we were made to sit inside and we could not know what is happening around so certainly uh we need to get into the roots of it where did this originate from so i think what the senators are doing by interrogating dr fauci is very right because we need to know we need to trace where this originated from because we can't we cannot afford to let this repeat in future whatever has happened has happened we are now dealing with it but we need to know the root cause of it the root cause so you know i see that i see that as a third area yes i see that there is a third area and then then that leads to the fourth area which is american politics because american politics of right-wing versus left-wing and democrat republican and trump biden all that i think india should not in india really cannot solve its problems by taking a side this way or that way the americans are fighting enough let them fight it out and figure out what happened i mean there's no reason that a a a medicine like ivormectin could be alongside the the the vaccine there's no reason that a vaccinated person could get even further immunity by taking some of these other other medicines so i think you have to uh strategize all your problems all the issues look at which is very certain that you will win your case is very strong others are not need more evidence uh others are very very obscure you need a lot of evidence which will be difficult to get some cases are uh short-term quick you can win you are there's not going to be it's not going to take years some are going to take years so you know if you combine all of them into one big case the point is that what is certain to win quick to win necessary to win may drag on because the rest of the battery is not solved and i'm very disappointed but not surprised at the media uh not wanting to give you any coverage uh the media people are like uh you know not tanki they're just jumping up and down at the beck and call of the western uh media and the western opinion makers uh the the indian media has lost a lot of credibility uh in in the sense that they just danced to the tune of uh what somebody is telling them so these people like who and bill gates and all these big pharma people are very rich very powerful they have huge pr budgets and indian media is not known for its ethics it's not known for its transparency they're not hardworking people who go and dig up and do their own research they just follow the bandwagon and they follow whatever whichever way the fashion is going i mean they're very superficial people when you get to know them yes and some of them with shoddy not only shoddy journalism but ethics so i'm not surprised that the the media has not supported you to expose biases in the age of artificial intelligence is very dangerous because ai is a force multiplier it takes those biases and expands them the people with power can get their biases into these algorithms the people without power they are bewildered they're confused they are blocked and banned and given all kind of incentives so i'm into that and i want to thank you for providing a very sharp like a case study of how bias from positions of power positions of prestige can be abusive and turn turned into a whole machinery uh which is which is which has consequences are very serious and very adverse so do you want to make a closing statement uh uh uh the apology about the future outcome that you are hoping for from your from your cases yes sir so currently um our whole team at indian bar association is working on a draft and as i said the issues are uh concerning with life and liberty of all citizens like over here we are approaching the courts of india but the issues which we are going to cover and we are going to uh seek redressal from the ports here in india are going to have impact on people across the globe so it is going to touch upon all lives of all people on the globe and we are really working hard and you know we plan to build up a very comprehensive uh case so that we get uh you know immediate relief on you know the medical tyranny that we all are facing right now so i would seek your blessings in our efforts that we are currently taking now i am so delighted that we got connected uh uh i'm always uh interested in logical arguments from intelligent people like you regardless of the subject matter and and when it overlaps with my basic areas of uh you know interest that's even more exciting so i wish you all the best i want you to come back and give us updates on how this case is proceeding and we will give you all the support and coverage and i and i will be back soon when we will reverse the gaze she will be grilling me on my book namaste everybody thank you sir thank you so much [Music]

Channel: Rajiv Malhotra Official

Views: 60,470

Rating: 4.9564934 out of 5

Keywords:

Id: eD9BYCYwsUI

Length: 53min 0sec (3180 seconds)

Published: Thu Sep 16 2021