All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 7, 2022 - RFK Jr. The Defender
42:54
Evidence Based Medicine with Cardiologist Dr Aseem Malhotra

Dr. Aseem Malhotra, known as one of the most influential cardiologists in Britain, discusses the pandemic, vaccines, and sugar consumption with RFK Jr. in this episode.

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey, everybody.
It's a huge privilege that we have today that my guest is Dr.
Asim Malhotra, who is an NHS-trained consultant cardiologist at the National Health Service in England.
He's an honorary council member to the Metabolic Psychiatry Clinic of Stanford University School of Medicine in California.
He is a cardiology MSC examiner at the University of Hertfordshire in the UK. He is one of the best known and eminent cardiologists in Great Britain, and he was one of the first to take two doses of the vaccine, of the COVID-19 vaccine, and promote it on Good Morning Britain.
Last month, he published an article, he's one of the authors of an article, published a two-part research paper published in the Eminent Journal of Insulin Resistance, And it's called Curing the Pandemic of Misinformation on COVID-19 MRMA Vaccines through Real Evidence-Based Medicine.
I want to say that Dr.
Malhotra has devoted his life and has become one of the preeminent experts on evidence-based medicine and outspoken experts.
And what he concludes in this paper Is that the real-world data reveal that in non-elderly populations, the number needed to vaccinate to prevent a single death from COVID-19 runs into the thousands, and that a reanalysis of randomized controlled trial data from the initial vaccine clinical trial suggests a greater risk of suffering serious adverse events from the vaccines.
Then to be hospitalized with COVID-19.
And your willingness, your courageous willingness to be outspoken on that subject and publish that, I mean, you must have known that was going to be like a career killer for you.
And I know you've done amazing stuff in the past.
Going up against the sugar industry and against statins.
I think you got very, very famous for talking about the need for evidence-based medicine on statins.
So you're used to controversy.
But what led you to take this kind of, you know, stepping off a cliff?
It's a controversy that you've just stepped into.
Yeah.
No, thank you, Robert.
It's a great question.
And I think first and foremost, it's trying to, first of all, for me, my primary duty is to buy patience and scientific integrity.
And I've always...
I've acted from that place when it comes to any kind of advocacy work when it comes to medicine throughout my whole career and certainly over the last decade.
And once I had had a realization of what was really going on with the vaccine, the COVID vaccine in particular, and the strength of the evidence and the fact that it was overwhelming in terms of being able to give a very good estimate of the serious adverse events, And realizing this was unprecedented, I then went down a track to really try and critically appraise the data so that we could give information through the paper in the best possible way we can right now.
And I'm sure things will evolve and be maybe more definitive with time.
But to start having a conversation about informed consent, because you mentioned evidence-based medicine.
It isn't really rocket science.
For me, evidence-based medicine follows a very simple, elegant, analytical framework for teaching and practicing medicine, and that is a doctor uses or a healthcare practitioner use their individual clinical expertise and experience, clinical intuition as well, the best available evidence, and then last but not least, Robert, which is the most important, is taking into consideration patient preferences and values.
On an individual level.
And of course, you can't take that into consideration unless you've given patients information in a way that they can understand.
Now, the problem even before the COVID vaccines, briefly, is that the best available evidence over the last two decades, unfortunately, as you know very well, Robert, has been corrupted by commercial influence.
So what happens ultimately in the consultation room, in looking at the big picture, is that doctors are making clinical decisions on biased information.
And it doesn't, again, take a rocket scientist to work out that if that's happening, you're not going to get...
Either you're not going to get the best outcomes for your patients or, at worst, do them harm.
And this is actually the root cause, in my view, of our healthcare crisis.
You look in the UK and the US, certainly in the UK, the last 10 years, life expectancy has stalled.
We've got more and more people living with chronic disease.
So people are getting sicker.
And that, for me, tells us something.
You know, what is the net effect of the medical industrial complex, if you like, on society?
And because we have not tackled the root cause of the problem, which is essentially these very big, powerful corporations, big pharma, who are there as money-making machines and therefore give us unreliable or corrupted information, unless we tackle that at the root, this problem will continue.
So I already had a background understanding that before the vaccine came into the equation, Robert.
People may ask me, so hold on, Asim, you've been one of the biggest critics, outspoken critics of the pharmaceutical industry for the last 10 years.
Certainly as a clinical doctor in the world, I've been one of the most outspoken.
I've taken my case to the European Parliament in 2018.
So how did you get deceived, if you like, with hindsight on the vaccine?
How did you get into a position where you were tackling the vaccine hesitancy in Good Morning Britain?
And the reason for that, Robert, is up until this situation arose, I couldn't even conceive that of the possibility of a vaccine doing any kind of harm whatsoever.
And I know, of course, there are many people, and there is a big movement, certainly, around concerns about other traditional vaccines, but even if there is some element of harm, and no vaccine or drug is completely safe, If you compare traditional vaccines with all the other drugs we prescribe, Robert, whether it's blood pressure pills or statin drugs or diabetes drugs, they are still far safer than those drugs.
So I couldn't conceive it of being a problem.
I was a little bit unsure about the efficacy.
And then obviously in January 2021, we didn't have the information.
Certainly in terms of the high quality evidence we have now, we didn't have that.
And therefore, when I went on Good Morning Britain to tackle vaccine hesitancy, I didn't go and point fingers at people and saying unvaccinated are...
They are crazy or whatever else.
I actually said, listen, there are rational reasons for people not taking the vaccine, and there are some irrational reasons.
And some of the irrational reasons, of course, I felt were things like people saying it was part of a depopulation agenda, there are microchips in the vaccine, all that kind of stuff.
But the rational concerns I address, and I said, listen, look at the history of what pharma have done over the last 10 to 20 years, the fraud they've committed.
These are industries that are there to make money, and we know that, for example, prescribed medications are the third most common cause of death after heart disease and cancer.
So I said, I understand the rational concerns, but even despite that, I say vaccines are still, as far as I'm concerned, one of the safest pharmacological interventions in the history of medicine.
And then over time, I think the thing for me that was probably the trigger, or certainly in hindsight the trigger, was my father, who was a very eminent doctor in the UK, considered one of the most prolific advocates for the National Health Service.
He was a retired general practitioner.
He was a prolific writer.
He was very political.
He was...
The Labour Party National Doctor of the Year, which is equivalent of what you say the Democrats in the US. He was named that for all his work as being an NHS advocate.
He suffered an unexplained sudden cardiac death in July, and he was a very fit guy and used cardiac history inside and out.
Everybody was shocked in the community about it because he was considered amongst his peers, you know, of his age, one of the fittest guys.
And I organized a post-mortem and his post-mortem was shocking.
He had two critical stenosis in his arteries, two survey blockages.
Didn't make any sense to me.
I couldn't explain it.
I thought the only thing that I thought could be a possibility is that was he as a widow, you know, he lost, we lost my mom just two years earlier.
Was the effect of that causing to have rapidly progressive heart disease?
But he was still very active.
He was still very mentally active.
He was social.
He was going on TV as a vice president of the BMA. So he didn't fit also with somebody that being a social recluse or had become severely lonely.
And of course, I was there and we were very, very close.
So it didn't really add up.
And then several bits of data a few months later emerged, Robert, which basically is suggested, and people can read my paper, I won't bore you with all the details, but they can read the paper because the references are there, suggested that the mRNA vaccines in particular, there was a mechanism that they could potentially accelerate heart disease.
Now, if that is true, and I believe it to be true now, then of course that's going to cause a surge in heart attacks, it's going to cause an increase in out-of-hospital cardiac arrests, Certainly in the UK, in 2021, we have 14,000 extra out-of-hospital cardiac arrests, which are unexplained.
Israel did some very interesting, useful analyses published in Nature Reports, and this is very disturbing.
They found in 16 to 39-year-olds, There was a 25% increase in cardiac arrests and heart attacks related, associated with the COVID mRNA vaccines, but not associated with COVID. So for me, there were so many data points that were painting a picture.
And I think then finally, Robert, the icing on the cake for me Was the re-analysis of Pfizer's original trial, looking at new information that emerged from the FDA's website and Health Canada's website, carried out by some of the most eminent respected scientists in the world, Robert Kaplan from Stanford, Peter Doshi, associate editor of the BMJ, Joseph Freeman, who's the lead author who I know and have spoken to.
And what they found from the original trial, which is the gold standard of evidence, where you correct for confounding factors, one was more likely to suffer a serious adverse event from the vaccine, Than they were to be hospitalized with COVID. And that was during the original Wuhan strain.
And that figure roughly was about 1 in 800.
I've looked at data around the world, you know, current of your VAERS in the US and yellow card system here.
Norway has probably been the most robust in terms of Being quite transparent in documenting with doctors what they felt was a serious adverse event from the vaccine.
So these are things that are life-changing, resulting in hospitalization, heart attacks, strokes, etc.
And they came up with a figure after two doses of the Pfizer vaccine, it was one in 926, which is very similar to the data from the RCT. So for me, Robert, it's a no-brainer.
The evidence of harms are clear.
We have a good estimate of what the harms are, at least to that figure of one in 800.
We have the WHO endorsing a list before even the vaccine was rolled out of potential serious adverse events that could happen from this vaccine based upon four bits of information.
One, animal studies.
Two, the technology that was being used.
Three, other harms from other vaccines.
And for COVID itself, severe COVID itself.
And they actually made a list, which I've actually put in my paper, which people can look at.
And if you look at that list, it's exactly what we are seeing in the community and clinical practice.
The problem is many doctors aren't going to diagnose it because many of them, like me, 18 months ago, It can still not conceive that a vaccine can do this level of harm.
And that's really what we need to overcome.
And what I try to do with that paper is to open people's minds up by saying, listen, I had the vaccine.
I believed it was safe.
I got it wrong.
The information I had to go on at the time was limited.
The information now is unequivocal and we need to do something about it and we need to suspend it for everybody until this data is properly investigated.
One of the problems, I think, is that it's not just kind of a circumstantial ignorance among doctors, but it's an orchestrated ignorance where doctors who do talk about it are punished, and they're ostracized, and in our country, they're de-licensed.
We just passed a law and Governor Newsom signed it into law here in California that makes it illegal.
That outlaws second opinions, essentially.
It outlaws doctors from talking, from saying bad things about vaccines or about any differing publicly or to their patients about from the, you know, departing from the CDC orthodoxies and The problem with that is that you have,
first of all, it obliterates the relationship that you talk about, the traditional relationship that has existed since Hippocrates, where a doctor's responsibility is to treat their patient.
And now the doctor's responsibility, in California at least, is to act as an agent for government policies and to treat their patients for the greater good, and not particularly that patient.
That's a very, very slippery slope, as we've seen throughout totalitarian regimes.
When doctors are treating patients for the greater good, It ends up in a bad place.
The problem is that, you know, and I think one of the reasons that people don't understand a vaccine injury is doctors are taught it doesn't exist.
If you see, for example, There were all these injuries and chronic disease that we saw amplify in this country beginning in 1989.
Food allergies suddenly appeared.
Peanut allergies, you know, never been like that.
There are no epidemic.
I had 11 brothers and sisters.
I have 77 first cousins.
Nobody had a food allergy.
And why do five of my seven kids have allergies?
Asthma exploded, rheumatoid arthritis, juvenile diabetes, all these autoimmune disease, neurodevelopmental disease, ADD, ADHD, speech delay, language delay, tics, narcolepsy.
A pediatrician was giving these vaccines to children, and then four years later, the kid comes back with food allergies, where autism is not making those connections.
And they're discouraged from making them.
They're discouraged from reporting them.
And that is the problem, is that what doctors need to be able to practice medicine and practice healing and to say things that differ from the consensual orthodoxies.
Yeah, Robert, you're absolutely right.
I think you raised the point that's really important around the only way to progress is actually through open, honest, transparent debate.
And certainly with the COVID vaccines, this is a symptom of a much bigger problem.
You talk about the government sort of dictating what doctors can do.
I would say that going even further to the root of this problem isn't so much about government, it's about failed government.
And the reason they're failing is because they've been captured by Corporate entities who are money-making machines legally, you know that more than anyone, Robert, that they are there legally designed to produce profit for shareholders, not to give you the best treatment.
And in the process, in the way that they function, they are not human.
They are anti-human.
And to quote even one of the most eminent forensic psychologists in his field on psychopathy, Robert Hare, Dr.
Robert Hare, He actually says that the way that the institution that is the big corporation functions is essentially very similar to psychopathic behavior, deliberate deception in order to make money, callous disregard for the safety of other people.
This is what a psychopath is.
And we have lots of evidence for that.
Now, the problem we've got, and this is my, and I'd love to debate this with you, we have increasing unchecked power of these corporations over time.
So conceptually, you know, if you see, for example, I would say maybe with the best intentions, this is the end result of unchecked power, which was started because of neoliberal economic policies by Margaret Thatcher in this country and Ronald Reagan, and they may well have been best intention, but the machine is now out of control and it's and they may well have been best intention, but the machine is now out Tremendous harm.
The overall effect of the drug industry on society in the last few decades has been a negative one.
If you look at Marcia Angel, the former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, the highest impact medical journal in the world, her own analysis reveals that of the 667 drugs approved by the FDA, In the first decade of this century, 2000, 2010, for example, only 11% were truly innovative, Robert.
75% were copies of old ones.
Huge waste.
So we've got essentially this corporate machine that is doing things that are anti-human, are suppressing free speech, and in my view, and I've said this before, and I say this for the food industry as well, they are enemies of democracy.
So what we're really fighting for here is real democracy.
Nobody in their right mind, I speak to patients or members of the public, and I say, Do you know that the regulator who is approving drugs get most of their funding from the drug industry?
How do you feel about that?
Nobody finds that acceptable.
So what we've got is unjust, undemocratic, unethical laws that is perpetuating this problem.
And therefore, through dissemination of information, through citizen power, we need to change those laws.
And I wanted to ask you a question, Robert, as well, if you don't mind.
I followed through documentaries and reading, I followed both President John F. Kennedy and your father's work, and I found the kind of work he did extremely admirable.
One of the things he said was that, talking about poverty in the United States or social inequalities, he says, we need laws to remedy these injustices.
I wonder, I was going to ask you, what would your father think of this situation?
What would he be doing about it?
But then I thought I'd answer it myself, maybe.
I don't even think the situation would have arisen.
Because I think if your father had become president and hadn't been tragically killed, I don't think these corporations would have had the power they have now.
I'm just curious to what you, if you don't mind me asking you, Robert, on that, what you think.
Well, you know, I never speak for my father, my uncle.
I've got a big family, and nobody wants to hear from my family what other people think.
And a lot of them, you know, my family differs from me, in my opinions, about this particular issue.
But, you know, I would say I love what you said about the corporate subversion of these democratic institutions.
And corporations are immoral organisms.
We created them as such, and that's how they function.
You know, in the United States, it's actually illegal for a company to do something that's truly philanthropic.
And here's an example.
When you see Walmart sending cases of water down to the victims of Hurricane Ian, they're not doing that to be good people.
They're doing that because they believe the public act will accrue in some financial way to shareholder value over the long run.
And if they are doing it just to be a philanthropy, any of their shareholders can sue them We're wasting corporate assets and they will win that lawsuit.
So the company legally is not allowed to do anything good.
Is that a bad thing?
You know, that's actually genuinely altruistic.
They always have to have an ulterior motive.
We created them that way and it's not a bad thing because we create these companies in order to put together large amounts of wealth and then spend the money in things that will generate and amplify our economy.
Yeah.
But we have to understand that that is an immoral organism, and we need laws in place to make sure that they behave.
We have to make sure that they cannot influence.
Listen, if one of these companies gives money to a politician, They're not doing that to be a good guy.
They're not doing it for patriotic reasons.
They're doing it because they think that they can corrupt that person to skew some federal benefit their way.
So we need to create these mechanisms.
And I would say the first thing is to prohibit them, go back to the old rules, prohibited corporations from funding our politicians because that, and as you point out, during the Reagan years, Through best intentions, people believe that these regulatory structures needed to be public-private partnerships instead of a regulatory institution that is protecting The public interest as a whole,
that the regulatory agencies should be looked at as, you know, the protector of that industry.
And what we have is this regulatory capture where the regulated industry becomes really a sock puppet and an enabler, the industry it's supposed to regulate.
And as you point out, FDA, this is astonishing, gets almost 50% of its budget and 75% of its drug regulation budget from the pharmaceutical industry.
CDC has a budget that goes to purchasing vaccines in serum and sweet heart deals with these companies and then promoting them, promoting uptake.
So if your work at CDC... You do not get promoted.
You do not get a salary increase.
You do not get good reviews for finding problems with those products.
Your path to success in life is to increase vaccine update, not to find problems that are going to make people have vaccines.
So you have this whole institution.
And I love, I don't know who Dr.
Dr. Hare is who you just quoted, but I gotta get ahold of that quote because I think it's such a really profound and eloquent description of what the endpoint is for this system of regulatory capture where the institution becomes utterly sinister and corrupt.
And that's what we have with CDC.
Unfortunately, you're one of the few doctors that recognizes that.
In our country, people, you know, doctors believe if CDC says it's true, it's got to be true.
And they don't know that CDC is systematically deceiving everybody.
It's a snake pit of aseptic corruption.
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
Robert, my vision or the way I see things going, and of course it's important for us to speak out, but it's ultimately self-destructive.
It's a false economy because if you are making money or the economy is dependent on something that is false or essentially lies, then ultimately that bubble is going to burst.
In this situation, it's the health, the health of the population.
And this is, you know, the two big drivers of poor health now, overall negative impact on society when it comes to health, are big food and big pharma.
And as the health gets worse, it's very interesting to look historically.
When people's health get worse, they actually have less trust in their government.
We don't want that situation to arise, but inevitably that's what's going to happen.
Because The truth is still the truth.
People can see what's going on.
People look around them.
Mental health is getting worse.
Physical health is getting worse.
And the pharmaceutical industry are part of the problem.
They're not part of the solution right now.
So we need to make sure, as you say, one of the functioning governments protect their citizens from external aggressors.
But also to protect their citizens from disease and to serve their communities.
And the government are not doing that.
They're not doing that at all.
And I think people need to wake up.
I think one of the challenges we have, and of course we have social media that is growing, and this movement is growing definitely from a social perspective.
A lot of people are becoming more and more aware.
But still, the biggest, the most impactful, what shapes public opinion, more than anything, is still the mainstream media.
But the problem is, you know, Robert, as well, is that certainly in America and to some degree here, the mainstream media also is captured by these big corporations.
And that's a big problem.
But everybody's affected by this.
If society fails, we all fail as individuals.
You know, I think even convincing the likes of people like Jeff Bezos or Bill Gates or Elon Musk who have profited from the system, that actually them speaking out and saying the system needs to change to protect their kids, the future generations, protect society, I think they need to get on board as well.
We need to be able to have dialogue with those people that are even benefiting individually financially from this corrupt system and actually making them realize that That they are part of what is something ultimately going to be detrimental to the world and will come back and hit them hard.
And we need to have that conversation with those people as well.
Well, you know what?
I've tried to have that conversation, by the way, with Gates for many, many years.
I've written him letters and asked him to look at...
Some of the peer-reviewed studies that have been done, you know, particularly by the Danish government, did a study of the DPT vaccine, the most popular vaccine in the world, 161 million African children given a year, and they did a very extensive study led by these deities in vaccine,
pro-vaccine researchers, Peter A. A. B., Sigrid Morgensen, And, you know, multi-million dollar studies of DPT vaccine, where they looked at 30 years of data, and what they found was that the ETP vaccine was protecting children from diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis.
But the girls who got that vaccine were more likely, were 10 times more likely to die over the next six months than children who did not.
And they were dying of things that nobody ever connected to the vaccines.
They were dying of bilharzia, malaria, anemia, dysentery, and mainly pulmonary and respiratory illnesses and ammonias.
And for 30 years, as these girls died at 10 times the rate, you know, vaccinated of unvaccinated girls, Nobody noticed.
Nobody connected us.
What the vaccine had done, the research has concluded.
Is that they had, they were protecting the girl against these target, these fairly narrow targeted diseases, clades of these particular diseases.
But they had ruined their immune systems.
And the immune systems were unable to defend themselves against common infections.
And that the children who were getting the vaccine were much less healthy, much less likely to survive than children.
And it was invisible.
And that's why you need, at the beginning, studies that actually look at all health outcomes in a vaccinated versus unvaccinated population.
And you need to have long enough, at least five years, in order to really understand, because a vaccine will fool you.
It will tell you, yeah, this kid is not dying of measles.
But if he's dying of cancer, and we know that children who get wild measles when they're young are less likely to get non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, Hodgkin's lymphoma, atopic diseases, cardiac diseases when they get older.
So there's a protective, there's something that happens, and we do not understand enough about the immune system to be able to predict what happens.
When we give a child something that is designed to permanently alter their immune system, you know, that has been developed through four billion years of evolution, what are the unanticipated outcomes?
And you need to do real vaccinated versus unvaccinated studies.
So for many years, what I pointed out is in our country, vaccines are exempt from pre-licensing safety testing.
And the reason for that is because it's a legacy of CDC's beginnings as the Public Health Service, which was a quasi-military agency, and the vaccine program was conceived.
As a national security defense against biological attacks in our country.
So they wanted to make sure that if the Russians attacked us with anthrax or some botulist or some other biological agent, we could quickly formulate a vaccine and distribute it to 200 million Americans with no regulatory impediments.
And they said, if we call it a medicine, we're going to have to do placebo-controlled testing.
And we don't have time.
So we'll call it a biologic vaccine.
And we will say that biologics adopt a policy that say biologics don't have to do pre-licensing testing.
So for many years, I've been saying about one of the 72 doses of 16 vaccines now mandated for American children has ever been placebo tested in a pre-licensing safety studies.
Tony Fauci and everybody were saying he's not telling the truth.
That's misinformation.
So I sued them with Aaron Seary.
And I said, show us one study from any vaccine.
After a year of litigation and stonewalling us on the courthouse steps, HHS came out and said, yeah, we've never tested one of our vaccines, not one of them.
And pre-licensing safety testing, placebo-controlled trials, and that's really, you know, that's a huge problem.
One thing you talk about, which...
Really put your finger on the problem is this typhoon of misinformation and about medicine and how there's no clarity in the data.
And that, I think, is one of the defining features of COVID. They were vague and hazy about, you know, infection fatality rates, and again, about everything from the beginning.
It was no way of, it was like pushing on jello.
You had no way of saying, okay, let's compare this to the flu, let's see, let's stratify the data and see, is it, are young kids getting it, getting it?
Are they, what is the susceptibility by age?
Who does it make sense to give this vaccine to?
It was all direct, and then All of the really bad stuff they did on early treatments, like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin and all these others, where they just created these phony studies.
And I'm wondering, where did you get data that made you certain enough to make this profound and really consequential statement that vaccines are causing more adverse events than COVID? Because it's very hard to get data.
I know you looked at ambulance calls for cardiac arrest.
Yeah.
Yeah, Rob, it's a great question.
I think I put a few things together.
Certainly, in terms of what you mentioned already, the infection fatality rate, there are two scientists, one in particular that I describe when I give my talks as being a Stephen Hawking of medicine, and his name is John Ioannidis, Professor John Ioannidis from Stanford.
Very, very bright guy, most cited medical researcher in the world.
And he actually did the first study with Jay Bhattacharya in Santa Clara County to try and give us, and that was very useful and helpful, an infection fatality rate at the very beginning.
And I think that put things in perspective in terms of understanding first and foremost that in the older population, certainly it appeared that the Wuhan strain was was significantly more concerning and devastating than the flu vaccine.
Of course, a lot of people died in care homes.
But the gradient of risk from from, as you mentioned already, from children up to the elderly was a thousandfold difference.
So I remember him actually speaking on CNN quite early on, saying for the elderly, this can be devastating for people in middle age.
It's equivalent to the flu.
And interestingly, for kids, it's less lethal than the flu.
Now, that was never part of the mainstream narrative on a consistent basis.
And therefore, a lot of people went around with exaggerated fear.
That was in terms of the in terms of the infection fatality of COVID.
And I think it's important to understand that because a lot of people's behavior and reactions and even how they responded in terms of the vaccine was based upon that original fear of COVID.
I have a friend who, I'll answer your question about the data on the vaccine in a second, Robert, but You know, I have a friend who's a broadcast journalist for Chinese television.
And recently I saw these images a few months ago coming out of China with the Omicron variant.
And there were Chinese policemen or whatever you want to call it, wearing hazmat suits, being very aggressive with the population.
I sent her a message and I said, what's going on here?
Why is this happening in China?
You know, and she obviously understands what's happening in terms of the authorities and what the mindset is.
And she said to me, she wrote back, you've got to understand, most Chinese people still think that COVID is like Ebola.
Touch it and you die.
And he said, the Chinese government, many people are also behaving in that way.
So you've got all this misinformation that goes to the very highest levels, and that then drives policy.
When it comes to the vaccine, COVID vaccine, Robert, I think for me, it was incremental.
So there were bits of data that started to emerge.
And then when you put it all together, first of all, you understand the mechanism of harm.
And there was a paper published in Cell that explains how the spike protein goes around different organ systems in the body and can stay there for four months, causing either direct toxicity or autoimmune reaction.
So you've got a mechanism of harm.
Then you look at the data on heart attacks and cardiac arrest in the population.
Then you look at these analyses, for example, in Israel.
But I think, again, coming back to, for me, Trial data.
Yeah.
Revealing the report serious adverse events were higher in the vaccine group than COVID hospitalizations were in the placebo group.
For me, that's the smoking gun.
That's the smoking gun.
I mean, the all-cause mortality was higher.
In the vaccine, it was higher in the vaccine group than in the...
Yeah, it was.
It was slightly higher, although you're right, it didn't reach statistical significance in the trial, but it makes you think a little bit because, hold on a minute, we've got a six-month high-quality, large, randomized controlled trial That showed reduction in infection, which ultimately was only about 119 people needed to be vaccinated to prevent one being infected, although that was presented as relative risk as 95%.
There was no reduction in COVID mortality in the trial, statistically significant.
There was no reduction in all-ports mortality.
And suddenly we've gone from that trial leading to the approval to coercion to mandates to suddenly being gospel truth that the COVID vaccine has saved millions of lives.
I don't think the evidence is there to say that.
These are speculation.
These are flawed studies.
These are not high-quality studies to suggest that.
And you're right.
The actual randomized controlled trial data showed, if anything, as I mentioned in my paper, slightly more deaths in the vaccine group compared to the placebo.
So when you put all of this together, you know, it paints a very concerning, disturbing picture of what ultimately emerged in terms of the pandemic and misinformation on this.
But as I say in the paper, the structures were already in place, Robert, to allow this situation to arise.
This isn't an anomaly.
This unchecked power of pharma.
We had obviously the COVID situation, which was an emergency type of situation.
We've never been in this before, this type of scenario.
Therefore, decisions were taken in a way that wouldn't have otherwise occurred if everything was generally pretty calm with drug development, etc.
It was felt there was an emergency.
And therefore, decisions were made in a more rash way.
But the exploitation of those decisions...
Maybe the fueling of those decisions, in my view, came from Big Pharma, who Pfizer made $37 billion in profit.
You know, one of the most lucrative pharmacological interventions in the history of medicine, but probably one of the worst in terms of efficacy and the worst in terms of harms.
So people need to think about that.
If you join those dots together, You understand that this is a system failure that has allowed this to happen and a system failure that is perpetuating the problem.
Right now, Omicron that's circulating is very mild.
It's no worse than the flu.
It's a bad cold.
This is a time to stop and pause and say, listen, we've got something with lots of doctors with serious concerns.
The data is strong.
And we need to pause this right now, investigate it, and figure out what happened.
And then we need to reconstruct the system moving forward so it never happens again.
I'm very curious about what this has done to your life.
You're a very modest man.
This must have been very destructive to your relationships and your power and credibility.
Yeah, so Robert, it's a great question.
I'll come on to the power and credibility bit.
Certainly in terms of relationships, you're right.
I've fallen out with friends.
In fact, I fell out with friends at the beginning when they were concerned about the vaccine and I told them they were talking nonsense.
So that was initial, but we made up pretty quickly.
That was fine.
But actually, some of my relationships certainly have been strained with some of my closest friends and even family members at times.
Even when I was in California last year, it took quite a lot of convincing and time for me to explain to my relatives that there was a serious issue with the vaccine.
And one of the interesting things that came out of that conversation, even with doctors in the States as well, some of my friends, which I thought was very interesting, is the first response wasn't, okay, let's try and get to the truth and understand the science.
They were, you can't say that because that means you're a Republican or you're in the far right or you're a Trump supporter.
So they were politicizing science.
And for me, that's intellectual bankruptcy.
And it still is.
We need to talk about the science and the evidence, not politicizing.
So yeah, it did cause a strain.
And for me also on a personal level, Robert, once I realized that the primary cause of my father's death, without any doubt in my mind, The most likely cause was the vaccine.
He was the last surviving member of my immediate family.
I lost my brother when I was young.
I lost my mother a few years ago.
For me, it was, and I live alone.
And for me, it was particularly, it was a traumatic experience, but then I was carrying this with me.
All this time.
And I knew, even I spoke out a year ago on GB News when there was an initial link between, suggesting a link between the vaccine and the heart attacks.
And a group of researchers at a very prestigious institution in this country, a whistleblower contacted me and said that they were covering up research that shows that the mRNA vaccine causes coronary inflammation and therefore links to heart disease.
And they compared vaccinated and unvaccinated, and they decided they weren't going to publish it.
Because they said it may interfere with our research funding from pharma, which again is an example of the corporate.
The pharmaceutical industry have captured even our institutions.
Universities are supposed to be guardians of the truth and represent the moral conscience of society.
But as we've said already, if they are being governed and influenced by a psychopathic entity, what's going to happen?
This is the kind of toxic culture it creates.
So with all of that, I spoke out on GB News.
I didn't have a peer-reviewed paper myself, but behind the scenes, I got complaints from anonymous doctors contacting the people that hold my medical license, the Royal College of Physicians, and I was able to rebut it, but of course it was stressful.
Because I was sticking to the evidence.
And I also said, listen, by the way, I'm not a so-called person that is trying to encourage vaccine hesitancy because I promoted or I tackled it at the beginning.
So that was also stressful.
But for me, Robert, I've always, and this is what my father taught me, is always act with integrity, act in a truthful manner.
It takes courage.
We have to act virtuously.
And of all the virtues, courage is the most important one.
And that's ultimately my duty to patients.
One of the other things, I've worked in health policy in different organisations over the years, one of them is called the King's Fund, which advises government health policy, and I was a trustee of the King's Fund for six years.
The maximum role you can have is for six years.
And when I signed up to the King's Fund, one of the things I was asked to sign, or to read and sign, It was to basically declare that I would act according to the seven Nolan principles.
So these are principles set up in the UK that are supposed to be adhered to by anyone who has a duty to the public, who serves the public.
So this includes doctors, the police, teachers, nurses, even politicians.
And I always recite these seven Nolan principles to people when I talk about how you should act as a doctor.
And those principles are act through selflessness, objectivity, integrity, accountability, honesty, openness, and leadership.
And leadership also means pointing out when people don't adhere to those principles.
So for me, that is what drives me.
That's my only primary motive is to do the best I can for my patients, but it means actually acting differently.
With virtue.
And I think a lot of people have forgotten that, Robert, unfortunately.
I think if we go back to the basics, the Hippocratic Oath, and if our public figures and our policymakers acted virtuously, then I think that society would be in a much better position.
The problem is the people that are influencing them and have too much control over our lives in many different ways, again, is an entity that is not human in the way that it approaches its business.
And that's big pharma, that's big food, those are big corporations.
Dr.
Asim Malhotra, thank you so much for your time and thank you for your courage.
You really are an extraordinary man.
I hope you come back.
I really want to talk to you about sugar.
Is it?
Tell me something.
I eat about a pint of ice cream a day.
Is that something?
It's sugar-free ice cream.
If it's keto ice cream, Robert, then there's no ice cream.
Just quickly, does that hurt your brain?
Does the sugar hurt your brain?
Well, so the problem is, over time, Yeah, over time, too much sugar, basically, it can create something called insulin resistance.
And I'd love to talk about it another time, of course, but insulin resistance is really the root cause of many of the chronic diseases, from heart disease to dementia to cancer, etc.
The good news, Robert, though, is very rapidly, your risk factors and insulin resistance can be reversed, even within a few weeks of, say, quitting sugar.
So it's not something that is irreversible, and that's a good answer.
So how long do you recommend that I continue to eat the ice cream before I have to quit?
LAUGHTER Listen, I was an ice cream addict.
I empathize.
I completely empathize.
I used to have it every day.
But I think, yeah, I think you need...
If you can have it once a week, Robert, if you can go cold turkey...
I can't do that.
I can't do that.
But listen, if you go cold turkey, your cravings disappear.
You just have to go cold turkey for six weeks and then you can have it once every so often and you'll still enjoy it.
That's what I do.
And you're speaking to a former sugar addict, so I completely empathize.
Yeah.
And then I think the other thing that you were asking me about sugar, how does one put sugar?
Go cold turkey, basically eat real food, don't have anything out of a packet, don't have any sweets, any chocolates, any biscuits, but just do it for three to six weeks because I'm not saying do this forever.
But your palate changes, your cravings change.
And often, many of my patients, of course, rapidly actually improve their health markers and lose weight effortlessly just by quitting sugar.
They don't go hungry.
They eat until they're full.
And I look forward to discussing this in more detail with you, hopefully, Robert, next time.
Tell our listeners how they can find you on the internet and how they can support you.
That's really kind, Robert.
So on Twitter, I'm Dr.
Seemal Hotra.
Facebook again, Dr.
Seemal Hotra.
I do have a Patreon if people want to contribute towards that because most of my work, I'm an activist, you know, most of my work doesn't earn me money.
But really, I want people just to see the message and read my articles, which are free and open access, and share them with people.
That's what I want ultimately.
For me, that's going to be the most important thing to change policy.
Thank you very much, Dr.
Azim Altra.
I hope to get me back.
Thank you for everything.
I look forward to that, Robert.
My pleasure.
▲
Export Selection