“Do You Swear to Tell the Truth?”

James Roguski interviews David CM Carter on mRNA, captured regulators, and why informed consent is non-negotiable

“I’ve spent my life helping CEOs figure out what the real problem is. With COVID, vaccines, and mRNA, I’ve come to believe we’ve been looking in the wrong place.”

When James Roguski sat down to interview David CM Carter (DCMC), co-Founder of The Truth Contract, he opened like a courtroom deposition:

“Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?”

David didn’t hesitate:

“I do.”

What followed wasn’t a technical debate about spike proteins or regulatory clauses. It was the story of how a 66-year-old former global CEO mentor ended up founding The Truth Contract – and why he now believes informed consent, regulatory independence, and political courage are among the defining issues of our time.

This is his journey, in his own words and perspective.

From serial entrepreneur to chief executive mentor

David left school at 18. For the next few decades, he built and ran companies as a serial entrepreneur. Then, for over 30 years, he did something unusual: he mentored CEOs full-time.

He eventually built what became, in his words, “the world’s leading Chief Executive mentoring company”, with offices and clients around the globe. The work was always the same at its core:

“The problem a client turned up with was almost never the real problem. Our first job was to discover the actual problem. Only then could we solve it.”

That mindset – question the presenting story, look under the surface, find the structural issue – became the lens through which he later viewed COVID-19, vaccines, and the rise of mRNA technology.

A routine health check that changed the questions

When David turned 60, a friend suggested he get a full health MOT – the UK slang for a comprehensive check-up: bloods, stool, urine, the works.

“The only thing that stood out was this: I had 3,900% more than the recommended maximum amount of mercury and aluminium in my system.”

The side-effects weren’t dramatic, but the numbers were. He was advised to do a year-long heavy-metal detox, which he did. By January 2020, he’d completed it successfully and could finally “eat nice food again”.

Then COVID hit.

Like many of his generation, David had spent much of his life trusting the system:

“I’d had 30-odd jabs in my life – school, travel, all the rest of it. At the same time, I’d just spent a year detoxing from mercury and aluminium that had likely built up from those very vaccinations.”

So when talk of a new COVID vaccine began, a simple, practical question popped into his mind:

“If they bring out a vaccine, is it going to have mercury and aluminium in it? Because if it does, I’m notdoing that disgusting diet again for a year.”

That question – grounded more in lived experience than ideology – was the thin end of the wedge.

Falling down the rabbit holes

A friend in Australia suggested David watch The HighWire, an online show hosted by Del Bigtree that has showcased many critics of mainstream COVID policy.

“Since January 2020, every Thursday at 7pm UK time, I’ve dialled in.”

From there, he began following interviews with doctors, epidemiologists, virologists and other medical professionals from around the world – particularly those raising concerns about policy and technology choices.

“For the last six, nearly seven years, I’ve been a rabbit going down lots and lots of different rabbit holes. COVID, the jab, mRNA – but also PSYOPs, command-and-control systems, surveillance and financial complexes, energy, you name it.”

Whether or not readers share his conclusions, it’s clear he’s done what most citizens realistically cannot: thousands of hours of digging, reading, watching, and cross-referencing across multiple domains.

For him, one pattern kept reappearing:

• governments and major media presenting one “settled” version of truth

• large numbers of independent scientists, clinicians and data analysts presenting another

And both couldn’t be right.

The Truth Contract: when official truth and lived reality diverge

A year ago, David co-founded The Truth Contract – a project and platform aimed, in his words, at “looking into situations where government or media say ‘this is the truth’, but many credible experts say, ‘No, this is the truth.’”

“They can’t both be true. The Truth Contract is our attempt to hold that tension up to the light and ask: what’s really going on here?”

Today he hosts a podcast under the same name, publishes on Substack, and collaborates on projects like SpermEggGeddon, which James Roguski was involved in.

The focus is often health-related, because that’s where policy, profit, and personal vulnerability collide most acutely. But the underlying question is always civic:

• Who gets to define “the truth”?

• How independent are our regulators?

• What does informed consent actually mean in an era of complex technologies and centralised narratives?

“Facts don’t change deeply held beliefs”

One of David’s recurring themes is how hard it is to reach people who still fully trust the institutions around them.

“Most people have been trained from childhood to trust their teachers, the police, the government, the Prime Minister, the BBC, their doctor, the NHS. To even suggest that they should question any of that is to pull at the foundations of their world.”

He quotes a line he loves:

“The one thing you can’t rely on to change someone’s deeply held belief is facts.”

So, with his own children and now grandchildren, he has taken a more relational approach. Rather than lecturing, he sends them material and asks them to consider it before consenting to more injections on behalf of his grandchildren.

He points, for example, to a recent documentary called “An Inconvenient Study”, which presents an analysis of health outcomes in vaccinated vs unvaccinated children in a particular dataset. David found it “eye-opening and shocking” and simply asked his family to watch and tell him what they thought.

“If I knew then what I know now, I wouldn’t have let my kids have any jabs. But I can’t go back in time. What I can do is say: before you let anyone put another needle into my grandchild’s arm, please watch this, read this, and then decide.”

His core principle is not “Do what I say”, but “Make your choice with your eyes open.”

A private conversation with a former Prime Minister

In the interview, David describes a recent off-the-record meeting with a former UK Prime Minister. He doesn’t name them, but he is clear about the tone of the conversation.

He began not by accusing, but by empathising with the overwhelm of political office:

“You had zero knowledge of the medical-industrial complex, demographics, all the technical areas that suddenly became central. So you relied on your Chief Scientific Adviser, your Chief Medical Officer, the senior civil servants.”

He notes that this kind of deference to “the experts” is understandable – especially in a crisis – but then adds another layer:

“What you probably didn’t know was that the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) receives the majority of its funding from the biopharmaceutical industry. That creates a web of potential conflicts of interest.”

His question to the former PM was simple, and human:

“With the benefit of hindsight, what have you learned that you wish you’d known before? And if you’d known it, what would you have done differently?”

The same question, he says, could be put to leaders elsewhere – from Donald Trump to heads of EU member states – who leaned heavily on a small circle of scientific advisers, some of whom have since faced sustained criticism and scrutiny.

David’s challenge to them is not to posture as experts, but to model humility:

“If you’re a real leader, you might have to publicly acknowledge that you were lied to or misled, that you trusted the system to give you honest counsel and it didn’t. Then commit to properly investigating what went wrong and make it right, rather than doubling down.”

From his perspective, such an admission – if followed by real reform – would be an act of courage that could change the course of history.

What, in David’s view, needs to happen now?

Throughout the conversation, David returns to one big idea: informed consent as a non-negotiable civic principle.

He argues that most citizens:

• don’t really understand what mRNA technology is

• don’t know where and how it’s now being deployed

• aren’t being routinely presented with a full, balanced picture of benefits, uncertainties, and possible harms

He also highlights (from the sources he follows) clinicians who are now reportedly declining certain boosters themselves, and sometimes avoiding shifts where they would be required to administer them.

From David’s perspective, three things are essential:

1. Pause and re-evaluate

He believes that the large-scale, rapid expansion of mRNA technology into a wide range of therapeutic areas without long-term safety data should concern us all — whatever our politics.

In his view, citizens should be insisting on:

• transparent publication and review of emerging safety and effectiveness data

• open debate among experts with diverse views

• honest acknowledgement of uncertainty where it exists

2. Update the information – and make it readable

David argues that the product information given to patients (and the briefing information given to clinicians) must be updated in line with new evidence over time, in clear language.

“Every nurse, doctor, or medical practitioner should have to sign an affidavit that they’ve read and understood the updated package insert. And the patient should confirm they’ve had it explained and understood it before they consent.”

Whether or not one agrees with the specific mechanism he suggests, the underlying principle is straightforward: no more “just sign here” on a complex, evolving technology.

3. Protect clinicians and empower citizens

David is acutely aware that many frontline clinicians feel caught between institutional pressure and their own conscience.

“They’re under pressure from health systems and regulators to ‘jab away’. If they’ve looked at the emerging data and have concerns, they’re in a bind – professionally, ethically, even emotionally.”

His view is that:

• clinicians should be free to speak openly about their concerns and clinical observations

• patients should feel equally free to ask hard questions and, if they wish, to decline without being shamed or coerced

In short: no more theatre of consent. The decision to accept or refuse any medical intervention must be rooted in an honest conversation, mutual respect, and up-to-date information.

“I don’t expect everyone to do what I’ve done”

David is clear that he doesn’t expect the average person to replicate his deep dive into research papers, Substacks, specialist institutes, and alternative media.

“I’ve spent thousands of hours on this. Most people are too busy living their lives to do that level of homework. I don’t blame them.”

What he does ask is simple:

“Before you let someone stick a needle into your arm – or your child’s arm – at least give yourself the courtesy of watching one documentary, reading one article, hearing one dissenting expert. Then make your own choice.”

He also notes a wider shift in public mood:

• trust in mainstream media and political institutions is collapsing

• opinion polls suggest a growing majority of people in the UK, for example, do not trust MPs, government, or civil service

• readership and viewership of mainstream outlets continue to fall

Some of that cynicism can slide into paralysis. But it can also, he believes, be the start of a healthier civic posture: less naive deference, more active discernment.

An awakening, not a witch-hunt

At The Truth Contract, the goal isn’t to replace one dogma with another. It’s to create conditions where truth has a fighting chance:

• independent investigations

• transparent data

• honest acknowledgement of mistakes

• a culture that treats changing your mind as a strength, not a weakness

David’s final concern is blunt, and it reflects his view, based on the sources he follows:

“I fear that, if unchecked, this mRNA technology could become one of the greatest existential threats humanity has ever created.”

Others disagree. Many regulators and institutions continue to stand firmly behind current programmes. That tension is precisely why we need open, mature, and evidence-based civic conversation, not censorship or character assassination.

Where we go from here

If there’s a single takeaway from David’s journey, it’s this:

The real battleground isn’t left vs right, vax vs anti-vax. It’s truth vs opacity, agency vs automation, informed consent vs managed consent.

You don’t have to agree with everything he says to see the deeper questions he’s raising:

• Who do we trust, and why?

• How captured are our regulators?

• How do we ensure that, as technologies race ahead, the ethics, safeguards, and consent frameworks keep pace?

Those are civic questions, not niche ones.

Watch the full conversation & stay in the loop

Watch the full interview between James Roguski and David CM Carter on Rumble

Subscribe to The Truth Contract on Substack for more conversations with scientists, clinicians, data analysts, and whistle-blowers.

James Roguski has published a series of other interviews speaking out against mRNA:

Interview with Albert Benavides

Interview with Dr Ellapen Rapiti, MD

Interview with Wayne Peters

Interview with Albert Benavides

Interview with Robert Chandler, MD

Interview with Brett Hawes

For more see: James Roguski’s Rumble

Stay with TTC as we continue to map the gap between official narratives and emerging evidence – and explore what real, grown-up informed consent could look like in Britain and beyond.

Because whatever side of the debate you’re on, one thing is non-negotiable:

You deserve the truth. And you deserve the right to choose what you do with it.

The Truth Contract – not just more content, but a commitment.
You’re here because the surface story doesn’t hold.
You’re ready to question, contribute, and help shape a future worth showing up for.

This is the contract: Truth. Action. Together.
Add your voice to the conversation. This is how we grow the mandate for change.