Bret Weinstein Speaks with Dr. Aseem Malhotra on the Darkhorse Podcast
Dr Aseem Malhotra is an NHS Trained Consultant Cardiologist, and visiting Professor of Evidence Based Medicine, Bahiana School of Medicine and Public Health, Salvador, Brazil. He is a world renowned expert in the prevention, diagnosis and management of heart disease. Bret speaks with him regarding the Covid 19 mRNA vaccines, and what he is seeing from the perspective of cardiology.Find Dr. Malhotra on Twitter: @DrAseemMalhotra (https://twitter.com/draseemmalhotra)Find Dr. Malhotra at: https:/...
I have the distinct honor of sitting this morning with Dr. Asim Malhorta, who is a consulting cardiologist, president of the Scientific Advisory Committee of the Public Health Collaboration, a bestselling author, among many other distinctions.
Dr. Malhorta, welcome to Dark Horse.
Thank you, Brett.
Lovely to be here.
So, many in my audience will be familiar with your story, but some will not.
I know you as someone who has been a very forceful voice in the COVID dissident community, but a late emerging one.
Do you want to explain how you ended up as a COVID dissident before we get into the questions that are raised by it?
Sure.
It's a great question, Brett.
So I think for me, more recently, this label of being a COVID dissident has come from my U-turn, if you like, or I would more likely want to describe it as evolution in my understanding of the benefits and harms of the COVID-19 vaccine, specifically the mRNA vaccine, so the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.
And I was actually one of the public advocates very early on in the pandemic, when the vaccine rollout started in December of 2020, January 2021, I was one of the first to take two doses of the Pfizer vaccine.
And a month later, I was actually on Good Morning Britain, trying to help tackle, in a compassionate way, vaccine hesitancy, which was particularly prevalent amongst the ethnic minority communities in the UK, and I know that's similar in the US, because I convinced a friend of mine who's a well-known film director called Gurinder Chadha, well-known for movies like Bend It Like Beckham, Blinded by the Light, which is on Bruce Springsteen.
She was receiving a lot of what at the time I felt was, in quotes, anti-vax misinformation through blogs, and asked me around whether or not she should take the vaccine.
And I said to her, there's some vaccines, and I still believe this to be the case in traditional vaccines, certainly one of the most safest pharmacological interventions in the history of medicine.
So I didn't in any way, shape or form even conceive of the possibility of any vaccine causing significant harm, let alone the COVID vaccines.
But over a period of around a year, Brett, my opinion changed quite significantly because of a number of different events.
Probably the first that made me think about it was my father, who was a retired doctor, the honorary vice president of the British Medical Association, very well known doctor.
He suffered an unexplained and unexpected sudden cardiac death in July of 2021.
I was actually involved in the whole, in the events leading up to his death, because he'd called me.
He was suffering from chest pain, which sounded cardiac.
I was in London, he was in Manchester, so a couple hundred miles away.
And we were on the phone, and in between our phone calls, he suffered a cardiac arrest, which was witnessed by Two of his neighbors were doctors, and despite the fact that they carried out CPR immediately and an ambulance was called, there was a delay in the ambulance, etc.
And I was down the line, so it was quite a harrowing experience for me.
And of course, he was also on a personal level.
I was very, very close to him.
He was my best friend.
I knew his lifestyle habits inside out.
He was the last surviving member of my immediate family, so it had quite a profound effect on me.
But because of the fact that he was otherwise well, and I knew his cardiac history, which was non-significant, I asked for a post-mortem to be carried out.
And his post-mortem findings were quite shocking.
He had two critical or severe stenosis or narrowings in three of the major arteries, two of them were severely narrowed.
And that would suggest, certainly compared to scans I'd organized a few years earlier, just routine stuff, that he had a rapid acceleration of his blockages.
So, you know, my area of interest and research, a lot of my advocacy over the years, Brett, has been on changing the understanding of how heart disease develops, but also what can be done to even potentially halt and even reverse heart disease.
That's, you know, I've published on this stuff extensively.
You may be aware of that work.
So if anybody has expertise in understanding this, it's me.
And it didn't make sense.
And the only thing I could attribute it at the time, my only explanation, which again, didn't fully fit, but I thought, well, you know, you have to think about all the possibilities.
Was my father under very profound, severe psychological stress that caused an acceleration of his coronary artery disease?
And then a few months later, a number of different bits of data emerged, which for me started to put a picture together to suggest that the mRNA vaccines could be a major cause behind my dad's death and of course, many other unexpected cardiac arrests and heart attacks.
And that was first and foremost, there was an abstract published in Circulation by Stephen Gundry, which suggested that the mRNA vaccines were causing huge coronary inflammation through inflammatory markers that would increase cardiovascular risk very rapidly.
At the same time, a colleague From a very prestigious British institution, I won't name that institution to protect his identity, but he basically said that researchers at his institution had accidentally found, by use of coronary imaging, that the vaccinated versus unvaccinated were having huge increases in coronary inflammation as well.
But having found this, they decided they had a closed meeting that they were not going to publish these findings because they were worried about the fact that they may lose funding from the pharmaceutical industry.
And then only a few weeks earlier, I'd been contacted by a journalist for the Times newspaper and actually give an interview.
Um, where she said that there was reports from hospitals in Scotland of a, uh, unexplained rise in heart attacks, about 25% increased risk in heart attacks, which were not associated with COVID, and asked me what was the cause of that.
Now, before I'd become familiar with these potential harms from the vaccine, I had again attributed it to Maybe the knock-on effect of lockdowns, poor diet and stress, because actually the major factors normally in the development of heart disease, 80% of heart disease is lifestyle related, are issues such as poor diet, sedentary lifestyle, poor sleep and chronic psychological stress.
So, I had predicted there probably would be a signal anyway, coming in the next few years, even when the pandemic started, from those factors, and I still think they probably play a role.
But then I decided, Brett, after all of this to, first and foremost, as my duty as a doctor, and because I have a public profile, I went on GB News, which is a news channel over here, and I said that, you know, I'm concerned there may be a significant link here between the mRNA vaccines and heart attacks, and it needs investigating.
That video went viral.
I had to put up behind the scenes, many people don't know this, but after that, I had a couple of very, let's put it this way, medical organizations linked to my medical license and my affiliation, my postgraduate credentials.
Essentially contact me because of complaints that were made by anonymous doctors that I was promoting, you know, anti-vax information, etc.
So I had to deal with that in the meantime, over a few weeks, and that luckily didn't end in any specific censorship.
But I then decided what I needed to do really to open this up is to spend my time Critically appraising the data thoroughly, and then publishing it in a medical journal.
And I did this over a period of nine months.
And as you probably know, a few weeks ago, I published these two papers in the Journal of Incident and Resistance, where I had concluded unequivocally based upon the evidence that the mRNA vaccines need to be suspended pending an inquiry because the signal of harm is significant.
And it's based upon very high quality evidence now.
It's a long answer to your question.
It is a long answer, and there are quite a number of things I want to return to in there, but I think first and foremost, let me just say that's a terrible story about your father, and you have my condolences, and I'm sure my audience's.
Properly shocked by what must have been a terrible realization, not only of his passing, but of the possibility that your profession had been involved in some way in advancing a therapy that had this terrible, terrible consequence.
Thank you, Brett.
And then on that note, the irony of this is my father obviously had had two doses of the vaccine early on.
He had actually convinced me because I realised I knew I was low risk from COVID.
And I'm sure we can talk about that a bit later.
But He had really convinced me emotionally because, you know, he had lost his wife, my mother, a few years ago, just to get into the human side of it.
And I think that he, like many people who are older, had a very, I would say, exaggerated fear of COVID.
And for him, obviously I'm his, you know, only surviving son.
And he, you know, he was worried about me and he said, listen, please, you know, and actually one of the main reasons I had it was because I didn't, I didn't necessarily need to have it so quickly.
I could have waited.
It's because of him.
And also, as somebody that was the honorary vice president of the BMA, and he also was a prolific writer, he did a lot of media work, he was a very strong advocate, again, for the vaccine as well.
So that's also, you know, they're thrown into the picture, which complicates the situation.
Yeah, it sure does.
I will say, I also received pressure from people who love me and wanted me to get vaccinated.
And in fact, at the beginning of the vaccination campaign, I thought I would.
I was pretty excited about the vaccines.
In our book, Heather and I discuss the danger of hyper-novelty, which is making modern people sick, both physically and psychologically.
Two of the most common disorders are anxiety and depression.
Our first sponsor, Mindbloom, is a leader in the treatment of anxiety and depression using at-home ketamine therapy.
It is a combination of science-backed medicine with clinician guidance and support for people looking to improve mental health and increase their sense of well-being.
Mindbloom connects patients to licensed psychiatric professionals to help them achieve better outcomes with lower costs, greater convenience, and an artfully crafted experience.
To begin, take Mindbloom's online assessment and schedule a video consult with a licensed clinician to determine if Mindbloom is right for you.
If approved, you'll discuss your health history and goals for mental health treatment with your clinician to tailor your Mindbloom regimen.
Mindbloom will send you a kit in the mail complete with medicine, treatment materials, and tips for getting the most out of your experience.
After only two sessions, 87% of Mindbloom clients reported improvements in depression and 85% reported improvements in anxiety.
It's time to enter the next chapter in mental health and well-being.
Let Mindbloom guide you.
Right now, Mindbloom is offering our listeners $100 off your first six-session program when you sign up at mindbloom.com slash darkhorse and use the promo code darkhorse at checkout.
Go to mindbloom.com slash Dark Horse promo code Dark Horse for $100 off your first six-session program today.
That's mindbloom.com slash Dark Horse promo code Dark Horse.
Our second sponsor is American Hartford Gold.
Inflation is at its highest level in 40 years.
We all feel it at the grocery store and the fuel pump.
Interest rates are soaring, retirement accounts are in danger.
If you want to protect your family's financial future, you should consider that people have been putting wealth into precious metals for thousands of years.
The more uncertain access to other stores of value gets, the more precious precious metals are likely to become.
Call American Hartford Gold to see how easy it is to get started.
They can show you how to protect your savings and retirement accounts by diversifying your portfolio with physical gold and silver you can hold in your hand.
All it takes to get started is a short phone call and they'll have gold and silver delivered right to your door or inside your IRA or 401k.
They are the highest rated firm in the country with an A-plus rating from the Better Business Bureau and thousands of satisfied clients.
Call them now and they will give you a percentage of your first qualifying order back in free silver.
Call American Hartford Gold at 866-828-1117.
That's 866-828-1117.
Or text DARK HORSE to 998899.
Again, that's 866-828-1117.
Or text DARK HORSE to 998899.
Do you know what a laundry suit is?
866-828-1117 or text Dark Horse to 998899.
Again, that's 866-828-1117 or text Dark Horse to 998899.
Do you know what a laundry suit is?
It's that clothing you wear when you are finally forced to do your laundry.
Do you know what the opposite of a laundry suit is?
It's the stuff you reach for first when your clothes come out of the dryer.
It's your favorite shirt, for example.
When Miznen, Maine contacted us about sponsoring a show, I had never heard of them.
It turns out they specialize in the design and manufacture of favorite shirts.
When I got my first package from Miznen, Maine, it was instant love.
The quality is obvious at first touch.
Miznen, Maine are the inventors of the Performance Fabric Dress Shirt.
They make really comfortable clothes.
These shirts combine the comfort and flexibility of your favorite athletic wear with the fit and style of a custom dress shirt.
Lightweight, breathable, and moisture wicking, they are actually the best shirts I have worn.
They are machine washable, and that means no more expensive trips to the dry cleaner.
Plus, for cold weather, they've got amazing flannels, pants, sweaters, and jackets made from the same misnomane material they've become famous for.
They've got over 30,000 5-star reviews, so you know their stuff is high quality.
If you wear dress shirts and haven't tried mizzen and mane, you're missing out.
It really has become my favorite shirt.
So if you want the best cold weather clothing, find your next favorite shirt at Miznen, Maine.
Right now, if you go to Miznen, Maine and use the promo code DarkHorse, you'll receive $25 off any regular price order of $130 or more.
That's $25 off when you go to M-I-Z-Z-E-N-A-N-D-M-A-I-N.com and use our promo code DarkHorse.
Our final sponsor for this episode is Vivo Barefoot, shoes made for feet.
Most shoes are made for someone's idea of feet.
Not Vivos.
Vivos are feet-first, foot-forward shoes that will change your approach to walking.
Vivos are made by people.
People with feet, who know how to use them.
Here at Dark Horse, we love these shoes.
They are beyond comfortable.
The tactile feedback from the surfaces you're walking on is amazing, and they cause no pain at all, because there are no pressure points forcing your feet into odd positions.
They're simply fantastic.
Our feet are the product of millions of years of evolution.
Humans evolved to walk, move, and run barefoot.
But modern shoes that are overly cushioned and strangely shaped have negatively impacted foot function and are contributing to a health crisis, one in which people move less than they might, in part because their shoes make their feet hurt.
Vivo barefoot shoes are designed wide to provide natural stability, thin to enable you to feel more, and flexible to help you build your natural foot strength from the ground up.
Foot strength increases by 60% in a matter of months just by walking around in them.
The number of people wearing Vivo Barefoots is growing.
Once people start wearing these shoes, they don't seem to stop.
Vivo Barefoot has a great range of footwear for kids and adults for every activity from hiking to training, as well as everyday wear.
They're a certified B Corp pioneering regenerative business principles, and their footwear is produced using sustainably sourced natural and recycled materials, with the aim to protect the natural world so you can run wild on it.
Go to vivobarefoot.com slash dark horse to get an exclusive 20% off.
Additionally, all new customers get a hundred day free trial.
So you can see if you love them as much as we do.
That's V I V O B A R E F O O T.com slash dark horse.
I'll give a little history here.
Heather and I were finishing the first draft of our book deep in the Amazon.
In late 2019, early 2020.
As we emerged from our isolation from contact with the civilized world, the first hints of novel coronavirus circulating reached our phones as they came awake.
And in the book that we had just completed the first draft of, we said that vaccines are one of the three greatest triumphs of medicine, the other two being antibiotics and surgery.
So, I do consider myself very nearly a vaccine enthusiast, and that was my bent at the point that these vaccines were, or so-called vaccines I would now say, were announced.
Now, all that has transpired since these inoculations have emerged has caused me to rethink my position a bit.
I now am still very enthusiastic about the fundamental underlying intervention that a proper vaccine delivers.
It's a lot of bang for the buck and the amount of good that can be done with these things is tremendous.
But I do think that there are various technologies involved with making vaccines and some of them I now suspect may be destructive.
In other words, I think I did not give enough credence to the vaccine hesitancy that predated COVID.
And I know I heard a recent conversation you had with Bobby Kennedy Jr., and I think he raised the same point about adjuvants and possible allergies to food and other things that may be triggered by them, which is a position I share with him.
But in any case, let's say you and I both start out from a position of feeling that vaccines are a marvelous discovery and potentially critically important in protecting human health.
But that something has gone awry, at the very least in the context of COVID.
I know that my awareness, you know, I had the initial sense of relief upon hearing that we had vaccines that were being readied for delivery.
And then as a biologist and somebody with a little bit of training in immunobiology, I started to hear just how novel these particular inoculants were.
And hearing how novel they were, coupled with the claim that they were exceedingly safe, raised alarm bells for me because I knew that a vaccine that was truly functioning by a novel mechanism was.
that had only been around for a short number of months could not possibly be known to be safe, even if it would ultimately be proved harmless.
There's no way anybody could tell you that it was ultimately going to be harmless.
And so that alarm caused Heather and me to decide to delay Although we thought we would be vaccinated, we decided, let's wait.
We were not initially eligible.
And we said, actually, we're in no rush.
Let's wait.
Let's give it, you know, a couple months to see if an adverse event signal shows up that tells us anything that we would want to know before making that decision.
And of course, the longer we waited, the stranger the story became.
Yes, the adverse event signal did begin to show up and no, nobody seemed to be paying attention to it.
They seemed to be deliberately avoiding the information.
And so I think I would be remiss if I did not point out that one of the strangest features of the story that you have just told is your reaction, which is highly unusual amongst doctors.
I don't think it should be, but I have now watched doctor after doctor fail to make eye contact with this pattern, and it does raise a question that I have been very eager to pose to you, which is,
At this point, we have an absolutely alarming and unprecedented signal, not only in the VAERS system here in the US, but in the Yellow Card system in Europe, and in the American military system, which is completely isolated from any of the things that people accuse the VAERS system of.
The pattern is clear.
How is it possible?
That doctors are not rising up en masse and telling us, wait a minute, something has emerged in the context of these vaccines that ought to have us at the very least going exceedingly slow, if not, as you propose, simply ending the program until we know what's taking place.
Yeah, it's a great question.
But I think just to add in, you're absolutely right.
We've got this pharmacovigilance data in the US, UK, unprecedented reports of harms.
For example, in the UK, for the Pfizer vaccine, there were 500,000, half a million adverse events reported on the yellow card scheme.
which is unheard of.
And that, you know, people don't fill in these yellow cards or the VA or S unless there's something significant.
It doesn't usually even people have a sore arm or a fever.
They don't report on these.
So there's clearly something there.
But what I would say, before answering your question directly, for me, the icing on the cake, if you like, or the smoking gun, is the reanalysis of Pfizer and Moderna's original randomized control trials by, you know, very eminent scientist, Joseph Freeman, who I've spoken to. you know, very eminent scientist, Joseph Freeman, who I've spoken
lead author, Peter Doshi from the University of Maryland, associate editor at the BMJ, Robert Kaplan from Stanford, published in Vaccine Peer Review Journal, is they found in the original trials that the rate of serious adverse events was about one in 800.
For every 800 people vaccinated in the trial, there was one serious adverse event.
And what's most extraordinary, Brett, is you were more likely to suffer a serious adverse event in the original RCT Then one was to suffer hospitalisation from COVID.
So what that tells us, we've actually got the highest possible quality level of data.
There's, you know, there's not even observational, this is randomised control trial evidence.
For me, that should be more than enough to suspend the vaccine, because that is very, you know, very significant and very strong quality data.
So the question is, why is there this turning a blind eye?
So I think the best way to describe it is willful blindness.
So this is a condition, something that happens with human beings.
It can happen in individual relationships.
We're all capable of it.
It can be, you know, in a way that people maybe turn a blind eye to the fact that their spouse may be cheating on them.
It can happen in institutions.
We see what happened with, for example, in Hollywood and Harvey Weinstein.
It can happen in populations and countries.
You know, what happened in Nazi Germany, for example?
How did the German population not know for so long?
That Jewish people were being massacred in concentration camps, or maybe they did know, but they turned a blind eye.
So we call this willful blindness and to define it more specifically, it's when humans turn a blind eye to the truth in order to feel safe, to avoid conflict.
To reduce anxiety and to protect prestige.
And I think that's what we're seeing now in relation to many people's reaction to this issue around COVID vaccine harms.
I think one other thing to throw into the equation as well, which I was thinking about recently, Brett, is that fear is inversely correlated with people's ability to engage in critical thinking.
And many of the people, I think, certainly if you look at the reactions, certainly anecdotally, and there's definitely been, there was a greater fear, and understandably so, amongst older populations around COVID.
And I think those people are also the same people who are probably more likely to be really adherent to masking, etc.
And I think that that is still playing a role, because many people still have this very grossly exaggerated fear of COVID.
And therefore, in order to feel safe, when they were offered and said, listen, we've got this solution, it's going to end the pandemic, here's a vaccine, they embraced it wholeheartedly.
And I still and I think it's very difficult for them to suddenly, it's not easy for those people to suddenly change their minds.
And of course, you know, Jordan Peterson talks about this, changing one's mind is one of the most terrifying experiences a human being can face.
In academia, we know that, you know, there's a there's a great quote from John Kenneth Galbraith, the Canadian American economist who said, you know, faced with a choice between changing one's mind and proving there's no reason to do so.
Almost everybody gets busy on the proof.
So I think we have to try and understand the human condition to explain some of this behavior.
But Um, the way to tackle it is actually just by, by addressing those issues or those, um, uh, those, um, that denialism with cold, hard facts, but to do in a compassionate way.
So I think when people understand that we're all capable of willful blindness, I could say to some degree, I will, I was willfully blind when I was being told that the vaccine could be causing problems, certainly for a while.
Then I think that's the way to approach trying to get more and more people on board.
Well, I hear what you're saying, and I'm all for approaching this compassionately to a point, but nonetheless, you are describing a failure that we're seeing in the general public, okay, but we're talking about doctors, and what I have witnessed is
Doctors who are in no way fringe, highly decorated, fully qualified doctors in the exact area you would hope they would be in order to make such a pronouncement, attempting to raise the alarm of their colleagues and being demonized and stigmatized and marginalized in many cases systematically.
I guess I think one cannot have it both ways.
That happens.
It has caused doctors to recoil in fear, to make themselves, and I 100% agree with your diagnosis, it is a blindness that is on the user's side.
They are willfully blinding themselves to a pattern that you couldn't miss if you were just simply committed to an objective analysis.
But for doctors to be vulnerable to that, within their own areas of specialty in many cases, says something about the state of medical education.
It says something about the incentives that surround doctoring.
And I know that it has left me in a predicament where I'm literally afraid to go to the doctor, even if I broke my leg.
I know what conversation I'm going to have when I arrive at the ER, and the conversation is going to involve my vaccination status and at the point that I say I am not vaccinated for COVID,
Most doctors will look at me as if I have just confessed to an anti-scientific, highly political bent, when all I've really done is just simply looked at my own health, looked at the actual evidence of utility of the vaccines, looked at the evidence of the potential harms, and decided that no cost-benefit analysis could possibly justify my accepting these things.
So, I guess You're obviously a very decent person, and I hear you looking out for the vulnerabilities, the psychological vulnerabilities that make this happen to people, and trying to be careful about how we approach it.
But haven't you just, if we look at your argument from the other side, haven't we just effectively indicted your profession?
Yeah, Brett, we have.
And I, you know, I have, I communicate in different ways, and I'm considered quite forthright and a bit of a maverick and, and very assertive in my views throughout my career, whether it's around cholesterol, or sugar, or statins, or corruption in the drug industry.
I'm with you, completely.
And I think it's, it's very, this is, we're not just fighting for Transparency of data in relation to the vaccine and fighting for those people who have been vaccine injured and fighting for what I would say is really a pause in the vaccine and investigation.
We're also fighting for really the medical profession now and in terms of restoring trust because the trust is clearly gone to a significant degree.
We know that the certainly in the UK We are seeing the fact that even for the traditional vaccines we've talked about, which, you know, in comparison to most other drugs are extremely safe and proven very effective, that there's been a reduction in people attending or having uptake for things like MMR, measles, mumps and rubella vaccines.
And that is symptomatic of the fact that there is clearly a reduction in trust.
And that reduction in trust has happened because of these coercive policies that have been pushed by many of establishment doctors.
And I think that that is something that will take a long time to restore that trust.
But we have to do what we can to the best of our ability right now to make sure that that Shift and that acknowledgement happens sooner rather than later.
But I'm completely with you.
I get it.
And I think that some of it also, unfortunately, Brett, is based upon the fact these, you know, you've hinted at these structural drivers, these perverse incentives in the healthcare system anyway.
We know, for example, even pre-COVID, it's something I talk about as a very, you know, vocal advocate and campaigner for a sustainable national health service.
Which, you know, was founded on the principles of giving everybody the best care, free at the point of use, is that the American healthcare system, an example where you have some of the highest expenditure on healthcare in the world, and certainly within the developed countries, some of the worst health outcomes, and that's pre-COVID.
And one of the reasons for that is because of the commercial Corruption of medicine, if you like, perverse incentives, over diagnosis, ordering tests that people don't need in order to make money.
So that trust already, I think, in the United States amongst doctors certainly was lower than in the UK because of this.
And I think the COVID pandemic has only probably made that worse, Brett, unfortunately.
No, it clearly has taken anybody who had trepidations and amplified them to a spectacular degree.
I really I frankly do not know how we rescue medicine from what it has just done, especially, you know, what I'm watching in the U.S.
is not only are we failing to make eye contact with the harms, literally gaslighting people who have been vaccine injured, pretending that we don't know what's taking place with them, but we are also continuing to do the harm.
By failing to risk stratify the population, and I agree with you that the vaccine campaign should be halted on the basis of the adverse events and the relatively low danger of the disease in question, also the low efficacy of the inoculants.
The idea that we are vaccinating young people, in some cases we are requiring them to get vaccinated in order to go to college, and that we are contemplating requiring children of all people to get these things, to just simply get an education.
This is not a matter of us simply not recognizing what we've done.
We're still doing it.
And so, you know, how does any credibility, how is it left over after that?
Yeah.
I mean, am I wrong that every cardiologist must know that this is taking place?
That the willful blindness has to be extreme for them to avoid it?
Yeah, so it's interesting on the cardiologist stuff.
After my papers were published recently, then, you know, it was shared amongst many people.
It's got a lot of views, a lot of attention, even if it hasn't broken the mainstream in the UK in the way we wanted it to.
But the feedback from cardiologists has been pretty extraordinary in terms of them thinking, ah, like a light bulb moment.
Thank you, Asim.
Brilliant.
This makes sense.
I've had feedback from certainly one cardiologist in a well-known teaching hospital in London and said that after reading the paper, almost everybody, all the cardiologists in the meeting said, we're not having any boosters.
So, you know, it resonates with them because again, as I said, the evidence is clear.
I have another hypothesis to throw in to this discussion as well, Brett, which you may have seen on my Twitter, I keep mentioning something called the psychopathic determinants of health.
So if we go further upstream, because what we're trying to understand also is a culture, you know, this is, you know, if the medical profession aren't dealing with this in the way that they should, If we're still trying to mandate, coerce kids to have the vaccine, we're talking about it being suspended for everybody.
How does one explain that?
And my hypothesis, which I think is based upon evidence, is at the root of the problem, if you go upstream, is that we have very big, powerful corporations, in this case, Big Pharma, who have had increasing power Over medical decision making over probably the last couple of decades.
And everything really starts from their behavior.
So the entity that is the big corporation is there, predominantly, and I think it's really important to have this very explicit discussion with people.
I tell it to my patients, I say they are there, they have a legal or fiduciary obligation to produce profit for shareholders not to give you the best treatment.
But the real scandal is that those who have a duty to patients and scientific integrity, doctors, medical institutions, academic journals, collude with industry for financial gain.
But the way that the pharmaceutical industry operates has been described, not by me, By a leader in his field, forensic psychologist Dr. Robert Hare, he actually documents that the entity, not the individuals within them, we're not pointing fingers at CEOs of companies or anything like that, but the way that the drug industry operates is essentially akin to a psychopath.
You can compare it to psychopathic behavior.
So callous disconcern for the feelings of others, deceiving people for profit, you know, these are typical behaviors that There's a track record.
Of course, one great example, I know we mentioned it before we started the podcast, is around Vioxx and what happened there.
And actually, if you look back and you understand that Merck knew, those scientists, internal scientists knew that it was going to cause an increase in heart attacks, but It didn't bother them from the company perspective because they knew they were going to make a lot of money.
So, you know, the only way to describe this type of behavior, in my view, is psychopathic.
So actually, I think, you know, maybe we need to change the narrative in terms of explaining the culture in many in what's going on in health right now, as being a downstream effect of an entity that behaves that is anti-human, that is anti-democratic, that suppresses free speech, that suppresses freedom of information.
And we can apply all of that to what's happened during the rollout of the COVID vaccine, which I again, I elaborate on in my paper.
Yeah, I resonate with a lot of that.
And in some sense, we've landed in my area of specialty.
As an evolutionary biologist, I can tell you exactly what happened, which is our system of laws surrounding corporate behavior is basically a niche.
It describes a niche.
And what has happened is that any corporation that didn't start out psychopathic has evolved into an effectively psychopathic entity.
Because it couldn't compete otherwise and so it really shouldn't be any surprise to us at all That this is the kind of behavior the shocking indifference is our failure as human beings We extrapolate we over extrapolate our own internal experience and we project it onto these Corporations because of course when we encounter them we encounter them in a human form that's describing what they're doing But, you know, of course they're psychopaths, right?
If they weren't, they would have failed in business, so they evolved into them.
And this does explain not only, you know, Vioxx, but a basically general, systematic enlarging of loopholes.
I mean, effectively, you've got an industry that plays a particular game.
I call it the pharma game.
And you tell me if this matches your understanding.
But the pharma game involves owning various pieces of intellectual property, finding conditions to which one of these pieces of intellectual property can be plausibly linked,
Broadening the diagnosable characteristics so that the maximum number of people are thought to have the condition, applying these pieces of intellectual property, essentially pharmaceuticals, you know, compounds or treatments that are highly profitable, and then ignoring or systematically obscuring any harms that might emerge as a result.
I mean, that's the winning strategy and One of my, you know, it's very easy to imagine all sorts of conspiratorial things happening in the case of COVID.
The harms are so shocking that one, you know, struggles to imagine what the conversations inside of pharma sounded like.
But the shallow end of the pool Sounds like this.
Pharma has captured our governmental structures.
It corrupts them 365 days a year as a matter of simply doing business.
And when COVID arrived, there was no mechanism for recognizing it as anything different than a huge business opportunity.
So it's steered us in this direction because it's doing that all the time over hundreds of different compounds and conditions.
That's just simply what it does.
That's what it is.
Absolutely.
I think that's summed up very, very well.
That's exactly what they do.
Their incentive, I debated the Cambridge Union a few years ago, the CEO of AstraZeneca, and the motion that was put forward is that we need more people taking more drugs.
That was obviously the motion put forward by them and I opposed it.
And of course, that would be the ideal scenario for them to get as many people as possible on as many drugs as possible.
And exploit their legal entity that they function under to be able to do that.
And I think if we're going to combat this as well, ultimately, Brett, it needs changes in the law.
You know, these laws themselves that allow them to do this are clearly not democratic.
They're not just, they're not ethical.
And therefore, what we need is really citizens to become aware.
And of course, you know, one of the ways of disseminating such information is through mainstream media, and then it puts pressure on politicians.
But to paraphrase Noam Chomsky, you know, the doctors and patients don't know what's happening, and they don't even know that they don't know.
So the reason I mentioned that, I'll give you an example of Ignorance of this problem, these structural failures at the very highest level.
A couple of months ago, I gave a talk at one of the meetings organized during the conference of the British Medical Association.
I had very senior medical establishment figures there, the chairman of the British Medical Association, the president of the British Medical Association.
And in that talk, I talked about the corporate capture of medicine and public health.
That was essentially the talk title.
During the talk, I mentioned failure of the regulator to do its job properly.
I said that the MHRA in our country, the Medical Health and Regulatory Agency, receives most of its funding, 86%, from the pharmaceutical industry.
The chairman of the BMA didn't believe it.
He was gobsmacked.
He looked around and said, is this true?
Of course, you know, ignorance of these structural failures are even at the very highest level.
Rochelle Walensky, you remember quite, you may remember her commenting about the fact that her optimism from the vaccine came from a CNN News report.
So the media has a huge role to play.
And I know from Paul Fakker, investigative journalist, he did a blog on this, that that original CNN News report, which reported on the so called efficacy of the vaccine, was almost verbatim.
A reproduction of Pfizer's press release.
You really couldn't make it up, Brett.
You really couldn't make it up.
So, I think the understanding and acceptance of these entities and how they function is one thing.
But I think what people need to realize is that the regulators themselves, the people that are supposed to be filtering this information and, you know, protecting the public from these so-called excesses and manipulations of industry, are actually themselves captured by industry.
Universities, certainly in this country, over the last 20 to 30 years, have more and more funding from the drug industry.
Most of their funding for research comes from the drug industry now.
They are universities are supposed to be guardians of the truth and represent the moral conscience of society.
But how can they represent the moral conscience of society when they are being influenced and controlled by an immoral entity?
What's going to happen?
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that's going to have a hugely negative impact on society.
Yeah, there's, you know, trying to do anything about it without changing the law is a little bit like taking the water in your glass and trying to shove it over to one side.
And the answer is no, no, it's going to fill the glass.
That's what it does.
And we've got a niche and these entities are going to operate within that niche and become adapted to it.
The only solution involves changing the niche.
Now, of course, That is almost impossible to do because, frankly, buying political influence in the West is inexpensive when you're making the kind of money that they're making.
It's just the cost of doing business.
And so, you know, my hope is that the horror of what we've done surrounding COVID would wake people up, would embarrass them into having to change laws, even though there was a financial incentive for not doing it.
But so far, I have not seen evidence of that.
Yeah, Brett, I agree with you.
I think in some ways we have to use this crisis and turn it into an opportunity for good.
And I think, I'm with you, I think this will be the tipping point.
I think we're not far off the bubble bursting, Brett, to be honest.
I think more and more people are becoming aware.
And, and the more that they, the more that do, they become, you know, advocates for the movement to say, this is not acceptable.
And we are angry about this.
And we are going to hold people accountable for this.
And that movement is growing every day, Brett, and it will reach a tipping point, I've no doubt.
But we obviously, as advocates for the truth, We can't be complacent.
We need to keep making noise.
And of course, even this conversation, I'm sure in itself will have its own ripple effect in helping that change happen.
It will.
I will point to, I mean, obviously this is one of the messages of your terrible story, but the fact of the injuries from these therapies being so common means that many people are going to be touched quite directly.
This is not an abstract question for an increasing number of people.
I will say that even in my friend group, I know off the top of my head two other stories where people that I know well enough to have shared a meal with them have lost fathers.
Do I know for certain that this is what happened?
I don't, but the pattern is awfully clear.
And, you know, that's before we get to the many very serious but lesser adverse events of which I could list off a couple dozen.
It's shocking how many people are seeing the evidence in real time, right in front of them in their own families and friend groups.
So that will have a profound effect.
I think it makes sense in light of your raising Vioxx, my awakening to the hazard of pharma actually did not come in modern times.
It came from something that happened to me during my graduate career, which many of my longtime listeners will already know the story, but it fits so well in this context that I'm going to briefly tell it to you.
My guess is you don't know it.
Is that right?
You don't know?
I don't know.
So when I was a young graduate student, I was working as an evolutionary biologist.
In theory, I was working on tent making bats in the neotropics.
That was my thesis topic.
But I became fascinated by the question of why creatures like us grow feeble and inefficient with age, why senescence happens.
And in following that thread, I ran into a quadrant of work, actually two of them, one surrounding cancer and the fact that in almost every cancer known, the enzyme telomerase is active.
This is an enzyme that elongates a repetitive sequence at the ends of our chromosomes.
And at the same time, another group was working on the fact that the erosion of our telomeres seems to cause our cells to stop reproducing and that this was implicated in our growing decrepit with age.
I put these two things together with an evolutionary theory that already existed, a theory called antagonistic pleiotropy by the great evolutionary biologist George Williams, and I had a very elegant novel description of the mechanism of human aging and the reason that selection has tolerated it.
But it ran into a problem, and the problem was there was one glaring piece of evidence that did not fit my hypothesis.
And that glaring piece of evidence was that mice were known to have ultra-long telomeres, but obviously had very short lives.
Their telomeres were in fact ten times the length of human telomeres, which made no sense in light of my hypothesis of what the telomeres were doing, that the telomere erosion was effectively protecting us from cancers that would otherwise take us over.
Well, in pursuing that, I teamed up with Carol Greider, one of the luminaries in telomere space.
She is, in fact, the co-discoverer of the enzyme telomerase, and I called her up and I told her what I was thinking and I said, is there some Some possible way that we've got it wrong and that mouse telomeres are not ultra long.
And she said, well, I think they are ultra long, but there is something weird about the telomeres, because if you order a different mouse and you order them from Europe, then the length of the telomeres varies tremendously.
And so anyway, she was interested enough that she started Working with her graduate student and she tested my hypothesis that wild mice would not have long telomeres and that in fact it would be something about the breeding environment that we raised these mice in that had elongated their telomeres and confused us, right?
And this has profound implications.
The most significant of them is that these mice are presumably biased by their ultra-long telomeres in a couple of different directions.
One, they're terrifically prone to tumors.
In fact, one of the things that Carol Greider told me in our initial phone conversation was that effectively all laboratory mice die of tumors if you give them a chance.
So, they're very prone to tumors.
But the other thing is, the reason that they would be prone to tumors, according to my hypothesis, was that the tissues that they have have no break on their capacity for repair.
And so, these animals are also terrifically resistant, according to this hypothesis, to damage.
Any damage that doesn't outright kill them is relatively easy for them to fix.
So what that means is they make terrible models for drug safety because you can give them a toxic insult.
And in fact, we see a very odd result, which is well explained by my hypothesis, which is that if you give them a toxic drug that does not outright kill them, it may extend their lives because it functions as chemotherapy, slowing down their tumors.
So, I don't think Pharma knew.
If I didn't say it already in this discussion, let me say that Carol tested the hypothesis that wild mice have short telomeres and that, in fact, the long telomeres were an anomaly of the lab environment, and that is what she and her graduate student, Mike Heeman, established.
So, at that point, I knew that my larger hypothesis was likely right.
Now, the point though is, upon realizing that the mice that we get all come from a tiny number of sources, in the U.S.
it's largely the Jack's Lab in Bar Harbor, Maine, and that these mice have been distorted by their evolutionary environment in this way that makes them terrifically prone to cancer and terrifically resistant to damage.
If you use those mice in a drug safety test, what you will typically get is a clean bill of health.
Now, what that predicts, in fact, is exactly what we saw in the Vioxx scandal.
We saw a drug that seemed safe that, when released into humans, did damage.
Now, I do differ with the interpretation that what it does is heart damage.
My hypothesis would suggest that what it does is tissue damage, and that we notice heart damage because the failure of hearts is very conspicuous, and when young people die of heart attacks, we notice.
So, in any case, I think what may have happened is that pharma did not know that it had mice biased in favor of its drugs, making them look safe.
Upon discovering that we had this flaw in our drug safety system and that, in fact, our scientific literature was polluted by this broken model, I expected there would be a scandal.
There would be a rush to fix the problem and that we would end up having to retest many drugs that would many of them would turn out not to be safe.
But that, you know, a few years down the road we would have gotten back on track.
I tried to raise the alarm for a decade.
I published my work.
I attempted to call the attention of fellow scientists, doctors, journalists.
It's the bell that wouldn't ring.
And to this day, I do not believe we have fixed this problem.
What we have done is obscure it.
So, the funny thing about this story and the strange punchline of it is I now see these mice re-emerge in the recent test that was the basis for declaring them safe for children.
And, you know, it's odd.
I find myself whistleblower twice over in the same story, you know, decades apart.
So anyway, am I right?
You've not heard that story?
No, I haven't.
It's extraordinary, though.
And it's fascinating.
It's fascinating, and in some sense, watching my colleagues completely fail to take any action upon discovering that their model was broken in this very dangerous way alerted me to just how Corrupt our system was.
In other words, lots of careers rested on papers that would be invalidated by recognizing this hazard.
There were lots of knockout mice that had been built on the background of these distorted creatures and presumably That work would be a lot less valuable if one had to go back and re-knock out the same gene in a mouse that wasn't distorted in this way.
So what I saw, I don't know if it was a conspiracy or what, but I do know that there was exactly none of the action that you would expect in light of the discovery of such a profound hazard.
I wonder whether it's related also because of this model that has been used for so long, Brett.
There's probably a lot of financial incentive to continue down this line, as in it would cost them a lot of money to change tact?
Is there any other reason that you, is that part of the equation as well?
Well, I, you know, look, I have a principle which I have, is painfully one, which is no matter how cynical you are, you're still being naive.
And in light of that principle, I wonder if either pharma knew about the mouse bias before my work, and I just happened to speak about it in public.
Or they didn't, but it alerted them to this, and their reaction was exactly what you would expect the psychopathic corporation to be, and not what you would expect a decent human's reaction to be.
And the idea is, okay, how can we obscure this and utilize it?
Again, watching them use a tiny handful of broken mice to establish the safety of these so-called vaccines for children looks to me like a deliberate leveraging of the accidentally produced hazard that I discovered 20 years ago.
I don't know.
I guess the question is, is it even conceivable that upon discovering they had mice biased in the direction of suggesting that pharmaceutical treatments were safe, that they would work to correct the problem?
Right?
Where's the incentive for them to do that?
No.
No, there isn't.
I mean, the other thing that I found quite interesting and eye-opening for me is the the use of antibody tests to the that were generated from the vaccine, that the FDA in May 2021, explicitly on their website said that, you know, these antibodies are unreliable in terms of immunity or protection from COVID-19, especially after having had the vaccine.
So clearly, they realize that the antibodies themselves I'm not very specific in terms of protecting people from COVID-19, which is really quite interesting, because that seems to be certainly more recently, especially even with the mice studies and other studies, they seem to be relying on the antibody tests in the trials to suggest that this is an effective vaccine, when they themselves, they're contradicting themselves.
And, again, this is, you know, I think one of the things that is a A concept or something that I learned in my campaigning on sugar as an activist is the science alone isn't enough.
Opposition from vested interests needs to be overcome.
Well, I want to fill in a little bit what you're saying about the antibodies because I find it equally shocking.
The idea is they've set a standard that is easy to meet.
It is not that hard to get the immune system to respond at the level of the production of antibodies, but it is a giant and totally unjustified leap To say that the fact that you see a bunch of antibodies means that this will be an effective preventive measure.
And in fact, you know, we have a condition called antibody dependent enhancement in which the presence of antibodies actually facilitates the access of a pathogen into cells.
So it's not like there are no cases in which the presence of antibodies would be negative.
There certainly are.
It's well known.
And It's almost as if, instead of trying to impress sophisticated regulators with the safety and potential effectiveness as demonstrated in some reasonable way, that what they're really trying to do is hoodwink the public.
The public knows loosely what an antibody is, that it tends to be a positive force in immunity.
It doesn't know the difference between B and T cells.
It doesn't understand where the most useful immunities are likely to be derived.
It doesn't know that dealing with a respiratory virus by injecting something in your arm is probably not a good approach in the first place.
It doesn't understand anything about The expected locality of these vaccines where the immunity was supposed to be generated, it wasn't supposed to be circulating around your body and absorbed by tissues haphazardly.
That was never the design or if it was then that's criminal because You know, the simple fact of inducing a cell of yours to manufacture a foreign protein is essentially certain to call the attention of the T-cells and cause them to destroy the cells in question, which, if it's a small number of cells in your liver, might be a very minor matter.
If it's cells in your heart, it's a disaster, right?
As I've said on this podcast multiple times, these transfection agents are a technological marvel.
It's really an incredibly ... It's a potentially very valuable innovation, but there is no way these things were ready for injecting into human beings.
Right, this is a prototype and they tried to vaccinate everybody on earth with it and that's unconscionable, right?
We should be celebrating these things in the academic literature and we should be trying to figure out how they might be properly targeted so that they don't cause the immune system to attack cells throughout the body.
But we skipped all that.
We just decided they were safe and effective almost by decree and went around injecting people irrespective of their need for them, which, you know, that's shocking.
And what I find even more shocking, Brett, is even once this information was clearly available that there was a signal of harm, they didn't just carry on with the rollout.
They coerced and mandated it.
I mean, that is just beyond belief.
That can only be described As being rooted in psychopathy, as far as I'm concerned.
There's no other explanation.
Not only that, but the protections from such a thing are utterly specific.
Hard-won gains at the end of the Holocaust.
We went through the effort of writing the Nuremberg Code and establishing the absoluteness of one's right to informed consent.
In this case, we have proprietary ingredient lists, we have adverse event signals which are being systematically ignored.
There's no way patients are deciding to take these things on the basis of information, and what's more, once you coerce them, then it's not consent.
We're violating Nuremberg.
Out in the open, and my sense is, look, anytime you're violating Nuremberg, something important is going on, and it ought to call the attention of anybody who takes the idea of civilization seriously in the first place.
This is one of the things we don't do.
Informed consent is as close to sacred as we get.
Absolutely.
And we're not going to improve, you know, that one of the things I'm a big proponent of is, is evidence-based medicine.
And there's a very elegant analytical and teaching framework we use to practice evidence-based medicine.
And that incorporates our individual clinical expertise as a doctor, the best available evidence, and then last but not least is taking into consideration individual patient preferences and values.
And at the heart of that is shared decision-making informed consent.
And if you don't incorporate those three components, then you are not going to achieve the, you know, optimal patient outcomes, you know, treating illness, managing risks, reducing suffering, and actually everything, to be honest, for me, I think, comes back to our doctors actually practicing evidence-based medicine in order to ethical evidence-based medicine.
To improve patient outcomes.
And I think many unwittingly are not.
So I think most doctors want to do the right thing.
They go into the profession for those reasons.
But they are being deceived by this powerful corporate entity.
And then, you know, again, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out if you're making clinical decisions on biased and corrupted information, Brett, at best, you're going to get suboptimal outcomes for the patient, and at worst, you're going to do harm.
So actually, in a way, the solutions are quite simple.
You know, from an intellectual point of view, they're not complicated.
They're very simple.
But those solutions, those simple solutions, are a challenge to the profit-making businesses of these multinational corporations.
Well, I agree with that.
I will tell you, I would have told you three weeks ago that I was a strong proponent of evidence-based medicine, and then I read a piece written by a good friend of mine, Alexandros Marinos, on evidence-based medicine, which alerted me to some things I didn't know about it.
Anyway, I'd be interested.
You don't happen to have read the piece, do you?
I haven't read the piece, but I'm curious to know a little bit more about it.
Yeah, well, I'd be happy to send it to you and I'll post a link in the description of this video so other people can read it.
You know, what I hear you describing is obviously what we should be doing.
It's what I thought evidence-based medicine was and it, you know, focuses in large measure on the experience of the clinician, which is something that was bypassed in the case of COVID in a very extreme, extreme way.
But I guess, you know, I had a conversation with Pierre Corey.
I can't remember exactly when it was.
It was one of the ones that YouTube took down before demonetizing this channel.
Anyway, we talked about the shift that once upon a time, doctors were inherently scientists.
They had fewer tools at their disposal, but what they did have was the ability to see patterns in their community, in an individual patient over time.
And that extrapolating from those patterns to a proper course of treatment, you know, trying things that would seem like they should work, discovering that they do or don't and, you know, building up a protocol based on the actual impact on patients makes a tremendous amount of sense.
And what has happened and what went into overdrive during COVID seems to have been This idea that medicine is about proclamations from on high, handed down and administered by doctors.
It's effectively turned them into technicians downstream of an opaque process.
And it's almost impossible for me to imagine how that could go right.
Yes.
I think another way of describing it is that evidence-based medicine has been hijacked or it's become an illusion.
Because that other component, which I didn't discuss in detail, is this best available evidence, certainly over the years seems to have become more and more distorted and biased.
And, you know, to cite John Ioannidis, who, you know, is a professor of medicine at Stanford and probably one of the smartest guys on the planet as a medical scientist.
You know, he published a paper in PLOS One in 2001, I think, which was why most published research findings are false.
Yeah.
And, you know, if one starts from that position, understanding what all the biases are in terms of, you know, the best available evidence, then it's easier to understand why we're not getting good patient outcomes or the best patient outcomes.
But also the solutions are there, you know, and ultimately the solutions mean, Brett, that the drug industry, although they can develop drugs or devices or whatever else, They shouldn't be allowed to test them.
And they shouldn't be allowed to then hold on to the data.
Because that's really where the heart of the problem lies in clinical decision making.
They design the trials, they rig the trials, they do their own analyses, they co-opt scientists, you know, they fund institutions and all of that ultimately results in what you described earlier on is that we all get an exaggeration On the benefits and safety of medications.
You know, I would say that people the default position needs to be now this all industry sponsored studies need to be seen as marketing until proven otherwise.
I wanted to call attention to something else that I hear in your description of what's taken place, and I've also been tracking it separately in my own life and work, which is a disconnect between the short-term implications of things and the long-term.
I find that in a regulatory sense, When we are good, we are good at spotting short-term connections that are very direct.
And we often over-extrapolate to the long-term.
And we, you know, for example, you point out was the number 1 in 800 serious adverse event risk in the randomized controlled trials.
But that one in 800 is over a tiny number of months.
Two months.
And so there is no ... If one has the sense that, okay, one in 800, that's bad, but it's not catastrophic, that we have no idea what fraction of people were injured from that trial in the long run, and what's more, Our ability to discover it is obscured by another little feature of the pharma game.
Pharma loves to trigger an ethical provision in the protocols, which says that if a drug is sufficiently efficacious in a trial, it is immoral not to give it to those in the control group.
And so if it can arrange to hit that mark, then it can obliterate the control group and make it impossible to figure out what the long-term impact of these treatments is, because in fact the control group only existed for a short period of time.
So, I guess this is the thing that stuck out for Heather and me at the beginning of this, was even if these things are highly effective at preventing the transmission of COVID, which they turned out not to be, There is the danger that they will create harms 10 years down the road, which we will be completely unaware of until those patterns emerge, and that's always the case.
We always have to be cautious that what we are doing is on the basis of a comparatively short time series, and our information gets better over time, but only if we collect the data.
Yeah, Brad, no, 100%.
I'm glad you've raised this point.
So I think that 1 in 800 figure is probably a significant underestimate of the true serious adverse events, because that was really only in the first two months.
Then they, you know, they then unblinded people in the control group.
Now, one of what could also be the case historically, well, a couple of things.
One is When these trials are designed, it's in the farmer's interest to try and show that the safety is as best as it can possibly be through the trial.
And often that means that they will recruit people who are probably lower risk of having adverse events because they know.
They figured stuff out early on, whether it's through animal studies or whatever else, who is likely to be least likely to develop a significant adverse effect.
So that we have to throw into the equation as well.
Then you've got what, as you've suggested, what could be going on further down the line.
And certainly I think there is more than enough evidence now to suggest from a coronary artery disease perspective, and I've by the way managed patients as well who have had a rapid acceleration of coronary artery disease where we've done coronary angiograms routinely and suddenly a mild narrowing within the space of nine months for a year suddenly severe, which doesn't happen usually that quickly.
And the only common denominator is two doses of Pfizer or Moderna vaccine, right?
So, it's accelerating.
One of the mechanisms is it's accelerating coronary artery disease, which means, and this seems to happen, you know, quite quickly within the first few months, we will probably continue to see a rise in people having heart attacks or being diagnosed with ischemic heart disease for years because of this.
And therefore, and even cardiac arrest.
My father, for example, He wouldn't have been picked up in the trial because, and I must add that my case study or description of what happened to my dad was in the peer-reviewed paper, which was then accepted by the peer reviewers as well as a reasonable explanation for what happened to him.
My father had his cardiac arrest six months after the second dose of the Pfizer vaccine.
And I described that as a case study and I said that these are type of case studies that would often, you know, it's a way of explaining complex information that may be missed from a randomized control trial.
So, he is an example of that and other patients I've seen as well certainly can have effects, you know, a few months after the vaccine, which through the history seem to ultimately be attributed to the vaccine.
So, I think It's probably a gross underestimate.
I think the other thing that's worth mentioning, historically with pharmacovigilance data, it's thought that the serious adverse events that are reported are actually only represent about 10% of the true cases.
And Norway have been pretty good at looking at their equivalent of VAERS or the Alucard scheme and they found certainly early on what constituted where there was a doctor entry for a serious adverse event which was very clearly defined as something that was life-changing or resulted in hospitalization or disability.
That was about 1 in 926 after two doses of the Pfizer vaccine.
So that could again, probably that's still an underestimate of what's going on, because many conditions and certain things that are going on in the community that are serious, would not come out through the reporting scheme.
And therefore, I think it's much, much worse.
Yeah, much, much worse is essentially certain.
I mean, you know, as you point out, your father would not have been counted as an adverse event because he would have been long after the trial was over.
So, we have to ask ourselves how many of these things are being captured at all and to the extent that we have a completely unprecedented signal.
Yeah.
And so, I think one of the things that we've talked about informed consent and something I wanted to highlight in my paper is that if we accept the least of the risk of a serious adverse event, let's just say is 1 in 800, probably that's an underestimate.
What's the benefit and what I try to do using actual real world data looking at hospitalization and deaths in the UK during the Delta wave last year was to break down by age group.
And by the way, this is not corrected for confounding factors.
So we know, for example, unvaccinated, certainly the UK and maybe in the US, tend to come from lower socioeconomic groups and a generally higher risk of death from COVID anyway.
So this is still best case scenario.
But what we found is if you're over 80, The vaccine during a wave, during the Delta wave, the vaccine would give you a benefit of 1 in 230 in terms of preventing a COVID death.
It became 1 in 520 if you're aged between 70 and 80.
But during Omicron, you know, from the first few months this year, you're talking about having to vaccinate 7,300 people over the age of 80 to prevent one COVID death.
And, you know, that is a number, when I tell patients that, You know, I do this in my practice when I discuss other pills like statin drugs, for example.
Most of those patients would say, no, thank you, doctor.
That's not for me.
Right?
Yeah.
So when you try and introduce informed consent with the best available evidence, most people would not take, certainly any more, would not take this vaccine.
Yeah, it's a slam dunk if you're talking about needing to inoculate 7,000 people with a substance that causes a serious adverse event in one in 800 inside of two months.
With no information on how many people are ultimately impacted, you know, many months down the road where the connection may be lost, then that is, you know, obviously medically counter-indicated.
And, you know, certain things stick out about this program.
This is clearly not epidemiological or medical in nature, because if it was, you would age-stratify the recommendation.
Right?
Now, again, I don't think either you or I think anybody should be getting these mRNA inoculants.
But if you were, let's say that you calculated differently, you would still think the older you were, the more likely you were to get a benefit that could justify facing the risk.
And there's no way you'd be pointing them at children.
But the fact is, We've got some sort of cartoon policy in which inoculation good, you know, that that's basically the point.
And it's not surprising that pharma would take that perspective.
What is Maybe somewhat more surprising is that our public health officials would, but of course, as you point out, the degree to which their funding is coming from exactly the people who benefit from such a policy makes that less surprising.
The fact that The trials are run by the companies that have this perverse incentive is, of course, a jaw-dropping discovery.
But then there's even one layer deeper.
I wonder if you have thoughts on this.
What I learned in looking at the RCT data and evidence from Pharma was that, in fact, it's not even that these companies do the trials.
The companies contract the trials to these companies that run trials as their business.
And the problem with that is that that constitutes another evolutionary environment.
In other words, if the client is a pharma company trying to find out if a drug is safe enough to administer, well then there's competition between the companies that run the trials to deliver evidence of safety.
They know that.
Because the point is, a drug company doesn't want to spend the money to test a drug that isn't safe enough to bring to market, so the desired answer is clear, and all they have to do is select for companies that tend to give them an indicator of safety, and the point is, that little industry of people who run trials for a living evolves in the direction of finding safety no matter what the truth is, right?
You can see the psychopathy evolving, you know, almost in real time.
Yeah.
No, it makes sense.
I hadn't thought about it from that perspective, Brett, but it makes complete sense.
No doubt, if we were to just simply probe the system in location after location, we would find little surprises like that.
That one happens to have become clear in this case.
But how many other places are there where the system is subtly biased in the direction of giving us an indication that drugs are more effective than they actually are?
That competitors are less effective than they actually are, that the drugs are safer than they actually are, right?
The point is the whole system is looking for ways to sell that story.
And you know, I mean, you said it yourself, you know, 20 minutes ago, that effectively any of the stuff produced by the system should be taken as PR.
Yeah.
Right?
As PR, it's not science.
Science is a delicate process that requires you to actually adhere to the method and the underlying philosophy of science.
It's not robust to perverse incentives.
The fact is, science requires you to actually do it properly.
Yeah, and I think the other thing as well, there's a myth that needs to be busted amongst many people, I think that still exists out there, and pervades across, you know, many societies across the world, is that medicine is an exact science.
And it's not an exact science, like say, physics or chemistry, it's an applied science, it's science of human beings, human beings are complex, human beings are dynamic.
And, you know, one of the things we're taught in medical school is that 50% of what you learn, We'll turn out to be either outdated or dead wrong within five years of your graduation.
The trouble is nobody can tell you which half.
So you have to learn to learn on your own.
And I think one of the interesting things I noticed during this whole pandemic, which concerned me is Anthony Fauci coming out consistently saying trust the science.
That's probably one of the most unscientific statements I've ever heard in my life.
It doesn't make any sense.
It's nonsense.
There's always an uncertainty attached to this stuff.
Things change and evolve.
I think that was exploitation of people's false beliefs of what modern medicine does and what modern medicine can achieve.
There's no doubt that we've achieved many great things, certainly in acute care.
But if you look back over the last couple of decades, Brett, you know, we know, for example, from analysis by Marcia Angel, former editor of New York Journal of Medicine, between 2000 and 2008, of the 667 drugs approved by the FDA, only 11% were found to be truly innovative.
approved by the FDA, only 11% were found to be truly innovative.
75% were essentially copies of old ones.
We've had certainly in the UK, and I think that it's similar in the US, it may even be getting worse.
We've had a stalling in life expectancy for the last decade, combined with an increasing burden of chronic disease.
So people are living longer in sickness.
So that in itself should be an indication that there's clearly something wrong with the medical system and at the heart of that is this over-medicated population and lack of attention to The simple stuff, which is actually leading a healthy life through lifestyle.
You know, good health doesn't... we need to just... we need to get this message into the minds of the American public.
Good health does not come out of a medicine bottle.
Yeah, this is...
You've beautifully said and fit so perfectly with the evolutionary implications, right?
And you quite correctly diagnosed the problem, and the argument I've made is that we inferred the rules of science from the simple sciences, from the fundamental sciences, chemistry and physics, because that's where our big early gains came.
And we've misunderstood how to apply it in the context of a complex system.
It doesn't work, right?
If you take the approach as if it was a simple system, then you might well have the idea that, oh, this person has a pathology.
The obvious thing to do is to apply a compound that interfaces with the particular pathway in which that pathology emerges.
But, you know, if you do that, how many other things are you interfering with?
The chances that you're going to do that at low cost are actually surprisingly low and the right way to deal with these things is almost always to figure out what the source of the issue is and to correct what you're calling the lifestyle issue that causes it.
Now sometimes it's too late and sometimes you got to take a drug to, you know, basically it functions like a corrective lens but But the long and short of it is, pharma has a perverse incentive to get us to take more drugs and to think that that's normal.
And not only is the human being a complex system, but it's a nested series of complex systems.
In the case of COVID, you were dealing with the immune system, which is a complex system of its own, inside a human being, another complex system, inside a society in which an epidemic is taking place, a third complex.
It's a nested series of complex systems.
The chances of intervening and coming out way ahead are pretty low.
And the chances of your coming out way ahead if what you do is you intervene on the basis of some simplistic conclusion and then you don't track the impact of it, you know, the chances are essentially zero.
Right?
That was going to be a disaster just from the get-go.
And yeah.
Sorry to lay that on you and then switch gears a little bit, but I did want to ask you about this.
I saw an interview, actually Stephen Crowder, a Canadian comedian, had a mortician on.
Did you happen to see that interview?
No, I'm not familiar with that one.
Well, he had a mortician on, and the mortician was reporting that he is now seeing these huge growths.
He actually showed them.
He's captured a number of them, these huge growths from the arteries of recently deceased people.
They are apparently anomalous in his experience.
He hasn't seen these things before.
They superficially might be called clots, but they are chemically Not similar to what a normal not only is the structure much larger in fact He tells the story that he thought his the pump that profuses the corpses With formaldehyde was broken because it couldn't push past these Clots and when he went after them he got these gargantuan alien looking things out of people's arteries I was wondering
If you have heard anything like this from the medical side.
Dr. Drew actually mentioned this as well to me and I've seen a few of these images but and they look very extraordinary and nothing like I've seen before.
I haven't personally had anyone contact me or any pathologists to suggest to me that they've seen anything like this.
It doesn't mean it's not happening.
But yeah, I mean, you know, this is again a novel technology and we don't know exactly all the kind of things it's doing within the body and certainly clotting abnormalities themselves, and it may be these are unusual, you know, they have unusual appearance, are one of the most common serious adverse events from the vaccine.
So Joseph Freeman, who's a lead author on that paper, published a vaccine where they did a reanalysis and found this one in 800 figure.
He told me that actually within that 1 in 800 figure, 40% of the most common serious adverse event was related to clotting.
So including things like heart attack, strokes, pulmonary emboli.
So that's an interesting, you know, what you shared with me probably fits with that, but I don't know.
Yeah, I wouldn't be able to comment on the specific pathology.
Yeah.
You raise another issue, though.
A, I don't know anything about it professionally, but these pseudoclots, or whatever they are, or maybe they are clots, look like they must have accumulated over a very long period of time.
And I'd be very curious to know if that's true, whether they show up on scans, this kind of thing.
But the other issue is, Another little place where the pharma game alters our perception is that there are claims about, well, what is the commonality of myocarditis following a second dose of Pfizer, for example?
That is not a good question, because myocarditis is diagnosed at some threshold, right?
Presumably there's lots of subclinical myocarditis, maybe there's even undetectable myocarditis, and this is not liable to be cost-free in terms of your longevity, for example.
Right, so if you have a little myocarditis, not enough to cause you to seek medical attention, and then at some point in the future you push your system beyond some usual limit, maybe that turns into a critical failure and won't be attributed to the cause from the so-called vaccines.
And so I guess I'm wondering, to what extent do you think our crude measurement tools are missing damage that will actually be significant enough to alter longevity?
I think that they are missing them to a large degree, Brett.
So I've managed many people in the community who would not have had a formal diagnosis of myocarditis because of the vaccine, because they developed symptoms in the community that they didn't merit as being severe enough to be hospitalized.
But clinically, from the history, you could say it probably was myopericarditis, where you get involvement of the outer layer of the heart as well, and that gives people chest pain.
And they were very classic.
One of my patients, a lady in her 50s, actually developed, within two months of having the vaccine, very fit and well, no problems in the background, shortness of breath, and then an echocardiogram, an ultrasound scan of the heart revealed that her heart muscle pump function was severely impaired.
And again, from the history, the most likely cause was the vaccine.
She again wasn't admitted to hospital.
So I suspect there's probably quite a lot of people out there that are, you know, who are vaccine damaged, maybe don't know it, or certainly aren't coming under the statistics in the published literature of say one in 2700.
I think that's the highest figure reported.
In young males of prevalence of myocarditis after the vaccine, but that's specifically people who are hospitalized.
So, you're right, it's probably a lot of people in the community who are having vaccine damage as well.
And again, how this plays out in the long term, we really don't know.
But if there is any scar in the myocardium, which often happens after myocarditis, then that could be a potential substrate for rhythm disorders moving forward.
I think one of the other things that's worth mentioning as well, Brett, in terms of You know, I try, first and foremost, me as a doctor, as a physician, is I want to be the best possible doctor I can be for my patient.
And there are two crucial components to being a good doctor or getting the best patient outcomes.
One is your history taking, your clinical history taking, and the other is empathy.
And the reason why history taking is important is that 80% of your diagnoses comes from the discussion with the patient, if you are a good doctor.
A good doctor doesn't rely on tests or go to tests first.
A good doctor makes his diagnosis predominantly or likely diagnosis from the discussion.
And that's really how, you know, the and that concept, interestingly, a little anecdote for you here.
My alma mater is University of Edinburgh.
The University of Edinburgh Medical School was well known also because one of its medical students who became a doctor was Arthur Conan Doyle, who is the author of Sherlock Holmes.
Are you aware of the link between Sherlock Holmes and medicine, Brett?
Do you know about this story?
I don't think so.
So Sherlock Holmes' byline was this.
And this is how he solved his murder mysteries, his, you know, who perpetrated crimes.
And I say, this is how we make diagnosis.
When you've eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be true.
And if you apply that to medical practice, you'll never miss a diagnosis.
The problem we've got, certainly in relation to the COVID vaccine, is that doctors are not even conceiving of the possibility that many of these problems are related to the vaccine, because industry has hidden that data.
And therefore, it's not part of the differential diagnosis.
Once I became aware of these possibilities, From a WHO World Health Organization endorsed list of all these potential side effects, which again I list in my paper, then you open your mind up to the possibility that the vaccine could be a cause because you've excluded other possible causes.
So many people who are being gaslighted or being told it can't be the vaccine, but they're being told, I don't have any explanation for why you would know risk factors suddenly had a heart attack, or why you've not had a history of viral infection, you've suddenly presented with heart failure.
You know, the common denominator through the history often is the vaccine, and that's how you make the diagnosis.
A couple things in there worthy of comment.
One is the rush to vaccinate everybody complicates this.
If they had succeeded in vaccinating everybody, then it obscures part of the pattern because doctors wouldn't be able to detect some difference between their vaccinated and unvaccinated patients.
But the The other thing is that there's obviously a booby trap that has been installed in many of our minds, where because of the, what I now regard as the absurd portrayal of anti-vaxxers as a simple monolithic phenomenon, many of us have difficulty
Wrapping our minds around the possibility that something that we've been told as a vaccine could possibly be doing massive levels of harm, which is absurd because obviously many vaccines have not gotten past trials on the basis that safety signals emerged.
Others have been pulled from the market after adverse events.
Signals showed that they were unsafe, so they're not inherently safe products.
And I think it took many of us some time to get past the idea that effectively anti-vaxxers were free riders who were getting the benefit of other people's taking a small risk and being vaccinated.
They were getting the benefit of those people's immunity, which in fact is, I'm certain, a part of the phenomenon.
But others had legitimate concerns, which frankly aren't easily dismissed in one fell swoop.
Yes, completely.
I think what's interesting is people have asked me, why did you, you know, you've been a big critic and skeptic of drug industry, why did you take the vaccine at the beginning?
And of course, it was complicated reasons for me personally, both on a personal level, but also on the fact that I can, you know, I'm not a vaccine expert, and I didn't even predict or expect this would happen.
Um, but I think that, um, you know, what I would say certainly is that many people at the beginning, Brett, I would say didn't take the vaccine for irrational reasons.
And the people who are now deciding they don't want boosters or whatever else, so many of them are not taking it for rational reasons, because some of those original thoughts around the vaccine, okay, we don't know the long term effects, but then we don't know the long term effects of many things, right?
At the beginning, we didn't really have very strong data at the very beginning on the harm, certainly not high quality data.
So a lot of that was maybe intuition, it could be people were buying into Things that really are quite ridiculous, I think, such as it's part of a depopulation agenda.
There are microchips in the vaccine.
Many of the people who didn't take it were taking it, you know, not taking it for those reasons.
So, I don't think, certainly for me as a cardiologist, Although I could have been more skeptical and taken longer to make a personal decision on it, I wouldn't have been able to have the data that I was able to produce in that paper a couple of months ago.
I didn't have that data at my disposal at the very beginning to make a very clear decision that this vaccine is going to cause significant harm and doesn't have much benefit.
It took time for us to gather that information.
It did, although, you know, I came at this from a different route.
I knew full well that there was a problem with pharma.
I knew that if I opened, because of the experience with mouse telomeres, I know that when I open my medicine cabinet, I see a bunch of question marks.
And even as somebody who's well informed about the issue, I'm in no position to say which of those question marks are filled in with a hazard I can't see and which of those pills might be safe.
I was on alert, but I think the larger ... There's a question about what you call irrational.
Now, the microchip allegation is irrational.
It's counter rational, I believe.
On the other hand, I don't feel that way about somebody who decided not to take it on the basis that they are aware that our system is corrupt and therefore what they're being told about safety may well not be true.
That is, it's kind of meta-rationality.
That's rational.
No, that's rational.
Vaccine hesitancy, absolutely.
Yeah.
So, okay, good.
I'm glad we're aligned on that.
Well, actually, interestingly, when I went on Good Morning Britain, I actually addressed it.
I said there are rational and irrational concerns about the vaccine.
I said the rational concerns are exactly what you said, Brett, because let's look at the history of pharma.
You know, their business model is fraud.
Yeah, it is rational.
what they've done.
You know, they are, we've got an issue of the third most common cause of death after heart disease and cancer are prescribed medications.
And that is rooted in pharma corruption.
So I said, that's completely rational, absolutely. - Yeah, it is rational.
I will say it's an interesting pattern that I've noticed among the COVID dissidents you included is how many of the COVID dissidents are in fact, inoculated with these vaccines for COVID-19.
Um, so even people who were well positioned to see it, uh, the, the ramping up of the campaign was so rapid and the messaging was so black and white that I think even people who were primed to be able to detect it got caught off guard.
Yeah, and I think that for me was when when things turned for me is when they suddenly when I started looking obviously the potential harms, but when they turn it into mandate and it's a ramping up the campaign, then I knew that we there was a problem.
I knew there was an issue.
And certainly I knew then it was more about profit than protecting people.
Yeah, and that's when you know, I campaigned and I did help to some degree, I was a very prominent campaigner to get the vaccine mandate overturned for National Health Service staff.
I spent months, you know, both in mainstream media and behind the scenes making that happen.
So I knew that that was taking things way too far.
Absolutely.
And then and then the final point, I think, as well, Brett, is, I find it very difficult to believe that Pfizer scientists didn't know by the end of their randomized control trial, before the drug was approved, that this was going to cause significant harm to many people.
And I wonder, is that why they were so strong in getting indemnification from governments against, you know, being liable if, if there were, you know, vaccine injuries?
I find that very, very difficult, which means if that is correct, Brett, It should never have been approved in the first place.
Should never have been approved.
And, you know, one piece of evidence that is suggestive you're right about this is that the discovery after they were released about how much harm they do hasn't changed things a bit from the perspective of, you know, pharma has not become cautious over them.
So there's no reason to think.
Well, a psychopathic entity won't change, right?
their trajectory at all.
Oh, yeah.
Well, a psychopathic entity won't change, right?
They have to be forced into a position where they are made accountable.
That's quite right.
Two final things from my side.
You're welcome to enter anything in the discussion that you want to.
Are you concerned for yourself having gotten a double dose of the Pfizer vaccine?
Great question.
I think that I'm an optimist.
I think that certainly from what we've seen, most of the serious adverse events tend to happen early on.
Of course, with the exception maybe of coronary artery disease progressing, et cetera, and people already have underlying coronary artery disease.
I think there's wishful thinking.
I'm hopeful that I'm probably okay.
And I think most people should also feel that way.
But the honest answer, Brett, is we don't know.
Yeah.
But what good is that going to do?
I think psychologically, worrying about something that hasn't happened isn't of any benefit right now.
In the same way that we don't worry, we're all going to die.
So why worry about death, you know, when it's not something that's imminent?
Why worry about it?
Well, I am a fan.
It's my own invention.
So maybe I'm not a fan, but I am Personally, I advocate for what I call adaptive dwelling, which is to say you should dwell on something exactly to the point that dwelling on it further doesn't do you any good, at which point you should abandon it.
And what I would say is there's one way in which I think a little bit of dwelling is probably valuable.
And believe me, I don't want people worried about something that's in the past and can't be undone.
What I do want people to understand, which I suspect is not It's not well known in public, is that this is not the place for a, well, I'm already vaccinated, what can I do style of analysis.
The point is they're continuing to push boosters on people and new versions.
And everything I understand about this suggests that the risk through one of a couple different mechanisms, and maybe they're both in play, the risk is likely to be cumulative.
We've seen that to some extent in the data, but at the very least, maybe you got away with it.
If you got away with it.
Keep yourself as safe from this stuff as you can.
Absolutely.
Yeah, no more.
And I think also, obviously, my duty and responsibility as an advocate and a doctor is to make sure no further harm happens to anybody else.
And that's why I was so strong on this.
Because people would say to you, you know, some people would say, well, hold on, your dad died.
What can you do?
You can't bring him back.
I said, hold on.
My responsibility is to make sure that doesn't happen to anybody else.
I think the other thing as well that people can think about, Brett, is it does appear certainly that Certainly with COVID and even maybe with the vaccine, the people who are most vulnerable to side effects Are people who are already in poor metabolic health, so they have conditions related to excess body fat.
So one of the things that people can do certainly is just get themselves in better shape, because if these effects are pro-inflammatory and related to conditions like heart disease, your best counter is to institute lifestyle changes that are going to mitigate or minimize those risks.
And I think that's something that people can proactively do.
That's something I follow my own advice.
And certainly some of my patients with long COVID have got significantly better once they've lost weight, they've improved their diet and their symptoms have improved.
So I think we should all focus on making sure our baseline health is as best as possible as it can be.
And maybe one of the downstream or maybe one of the effects of all of this, certainly something I highlighted very
I was very vocal on at the beginning of the pandemic, you know, highlighting the link between obesity and adverse health outcomes, is that we, moving forward, actually, if we're going to make the population more resilient for the next pandemic, God forbid it happens anytime soon, is to make our metabolic health as best as possible.
Through, you know, dietary changes, getting good sleep, going back to the basics, keeping stress levels low, meditation.
I'm sure these are all things that you are a strong proponent of.
Of course.
And that's what I would say people can do and be proactive about.
Yeah, I would also say, you know, this was a very painful way to learn certain things.
In the book I mentioned before, Hunter-Gatherer's Guide to the 21st Century, not only did Heather and I say that we thought vaccines were one of the three great medical interventions in all of history, which I still believe, though now with a caveat, but we also took a strong position against the likely utility of supplementation
On the basis that by and large a good diet ought to provide you what you need, which is something I now do not believe.
I know better, in fact, in at least one case where most of us are chronically deficient in vitamin D because diet is not the mechanism through which you procure it and our lifestyles block us from the contact with the sun that would produce normal amounts of it, our clothing,
The windows that shield UV, the fact that we live indoors, all of these things cause us to be chronically deficient, especially if we live at high or low latitudes.
In any case, I'm coming to understand that my model was too simple also.
A good diet means you don't need to supplement and there's no benefit.
The only reason you need to supplement is if you're deficient.
That part is true, but a lot of us are deficient and maybe in more than one thing because our Highly novel lifestyles block the normal way in which we accrue these things.
Yeah, 100%.
And vitamin D has so many important roles in the body as a pro-hormone, not just in bone health, as you mentioned, in the immune system, but even in heart health.
You know, the vitamin D deficiency is associated with a six-fold increased risk of developing coronary artery disease.
So, yeah, I'm with you 100%.
And if you can ideally get it, obviously get it from getting some good sun exposure.
But if not, then certainly through winter months, or if you're in a place where you don't get much sun exposure, then yeah, supplements are definitely the way forward.
I'm 100%.
I'm an advocate of vitamin D. Yeah, well, I'm also an advocate of leveraging technology.
There's an app, there may be more than one, but I use one called D-Minder, which tells you actually during what hours of the day you are capable of making vitamin D from sun exposure.
You know, simply being in the sun doesn't do it.
And the angle of the sun, you'd be surprised.
I'm now in a phase as I would imagine you are.
You're in Britain.
In which it's impossible to make vitamin D, no matter how much sunlight you're exposed to.
And just simply having a calculation that tells you, okay, I did pretty good over the summer making vitamin D, but I should be supplementing because I can't be making it until I think sometime in late February.
That's an important piece of information to have.
All right, one last question from my side.
You mentioned Sherlock Holmes.
I was actually independently going to mention Sherlock Holmes for a very different reason.
I have been stunned.
I have been introduced to many extremely high quality people like yourself through being a COVID dissident and just simply encountering people who have faced incredible pushback in order to do the right thing and to protect patients and distribute information that some very powerful force does not want discussed.
But that said, I've also been surprised in the other direction.
Some people I would have expected to emerge strongly at our side and to help alert the world to the hazard that we're facing from pharma corruption have been silent.
And top of the list is somebody I used to hold in the highest regard, Ben Goldacre, who probably is the world's leading authority on pharma corruption.
He's the dog that didn't bark.
Do you know, have you any idea how it is that somebody who knows as much about how this process works, faced with such an obvious pattern of pharma corruption, is simply missing in action?
I really don't know.
I've followed Ben Goldacre's work.
It's inspirational.
He has been very quiet.
Only Ben really knows the answer.
I can only guess, and this is a guess, that maybe he decided it may have been too much for him to carry on that campaign.
He has decided to spend more time with his family.
Maybe he has become closer to some of the establishment figures and therefore doesn't want to call them out.
So it could be any or all of the above or none of the above.
I honestly don't know, but it's a good point, Brett.
You know, Ben has been one of my inspirations in terms of his work.
But certainly in the last few years, he's been very, very quiet on the pharmaceutical industry stuff.
Alright, well maybe he'll see this and I hope that he will realize that if he stands up and helps us understand this phenomenon, that he will be doing a tremendous amount of good for his fellow human beings, which is certainly something he's been interested in in the past.
Alright, anything else that you feel we should have in this podcast?
No, I think the only thing again is people need to really just get a bit more of a perspective to, you know, I think in a reassuring way, people need to understand that Omicron, what's circulating is no worse than the flu now, which is great.
And effectively, the pandemic is over.
And without understanding the numbers involved when it comes to risk, You know, the people and members of the public are vulnerable to exploitation of their hopes and fears by commercial and political interests.
And I noted that it was very interesting that just basically, coming back to COVID risk, one poll in Gallup Poll in America revealed that 50% of Americans thought their risk of being hospitalized with COVID, said the early on in the pandemic, was 50%.
One in two.
When the actual figure was way less than 1%.
So it's just important to go back, you know, I love numbers, Brett, I love explaining to patients numbers in simple terms about risk.
And I think that's something that we've lost in this whole narrative around the pandemic, because it's been very, very strongly fear based.
And that in itself is very damaging to mental health and physical health.
So really, that's where I want to kind of finish is that I think statistical and health literacy needs to be something that is advocated for More and more when it comes to translating medical evidence.
You know, most drugs for most people don't have any benefit.
And I think people need to get wise to that and realize that one of the things, it doesn't mean that drugs shouldn't be used, but it means that we shouldn't neglect the impact of lifestyle, which doesn't come with side effects and is likely to improve the quality of your life.
Something that drugs for management of chronic disease don't normally do.
So really to finish is a good health doesn't come out of a medicine bottle and the solution to your Ultimate longevity is through getting your diet right and reducing stress and focusing on meaningful relationships.
I think the single biggest determinant of happiness is meaningful relationships.
And because we have this society and this narrative that's being governed by a psychopathic entity, we are constantly losing more and more access to the truth.
And through division and hostility, our capacity for empathy.
And what's happening is we are being driven more and more away from what it means to be human.
And we need to just regain that.
We need to recapture that for the sake of humanity.
Well, that's a lovely way of putting it.
I am going to push back in one way.
I would say fixing your lifestyle does have side effects and they're awesome.
Yeah, absolutely.
All right.
Well, it's been a real pleasure.
Thank you for your courage and your hard work.
And I hope that we turn this around.
I hope you're right that we are near a tipping point because we've certainly done a lot of damage.
