Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Feb. 14, 2023 - Viva & Barnes

01:03:29

Interview with Dr. Aseem Malhotra - Viva Frei Live!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Just look at it.
	Look at it.
	I'm leaving it there.
	I started early for tactical reasons this morning.
	Just look at that for not another two minutes without audio.
	Just for a few more seconds.
	You're going to be able to get your vaccine as soon as you turn five.
	And I know you're excited and I know you're eager.
	In some places across the country, you can even start making your appointment now for shortly after your birth.
	You're going to be able to get your vaccine as soon as you turn five.
	Hey, Trudy, don't talk to my kids.
	There's like a rule as an adult.
	You don't really talk to other people's kids, let alone directed pharmaceutical advertising.
	At children under 5. Sorry, by the way, I have a bad habit of grinding my teeth when I sleep while having nightmares about impending doom and I occasionally catch the inside of my cheek.
	And there's very few things worse than waking yourself up in the middle of the night because you bit your own cheek.
	So my lip hurts a little bit, but oh my goodness, this can make someone grind the enamel off their teeth.
	And I know you're excited and I know you're eager.
	Oh, you're excited and eager.
	You can even start making your appointment now for shortly after your birth.
	Okay, we're going to stop there because I think that's enough torture for nine o 'clock in the morning.
	This is, by the way, in response to Justin Trudeau lamenting the fact that children are used as weapons of war.
	You know, weapons of war has a literal meaning and it has a figurative meaning.
	Children should never be used as weapons of war, and it's up to all of us to make sure they never are.
	We'll keep working to put an end to the recruitment and use of children in armed conflicts.
	Oh, yeah.
	But we'll target them with experimental medical procedures that are totally unnecessary, given their age bracket, risk factors.
	And we'll use them in that war on the Rona.
	Now, I started early today.
	Because we have a limited time with Dr. Malhotra, and I don't want to waste a minute of it.
	And what we're going to do is we're going to go after Dr. Malhotra gives us his credentials.
	Because we live in a world now where the most reputable, respected experts become fringe conspiracy theorists the second they deviate from the norm.
	What is the word?
	The standard thinking of the time?
	What's the word I'm looking for?
	What's the word I'm looking for?
	You know, the unquestionable beliefs of the time.
	Dr. Malhotra, I know his academic history.
	I know his credentials.
	I know that he was praised, respected.
	Still is, by the way.
	That's not to say he isn't.
	By the community.
	The medical community.
	The scientific community.
	Orthodoxy.
	Thank you.
	The orthodoxy.
	He was respected, revered, until he went against the orthodoxy of the Jibby Jab.
	And then, it's not memory-holing so much as it is rewriting history.
	They then go back, edit Wikipedia pages, manufacture scandals, crises, you know, where he was...
	Oh my goodness.
	At one point, by the way, if you go read his Wikipedia, where they have the...
	They didn't call it controversy.
	One of the critiques leveled against Dr. Malhotra is that early in 2020, he was promoting diet, healthy diet, healthy living, as a mitigating factor to serious illness of COVID.
	And I don't know if the critique came after the fact retrospectively or retroactively.
	The critique was that it's an oversimplification.
	And it makes it sound...
	Like, risk-minimizing is in the control of the individual, as though it's not.
	The other critique is that he once supported the jibby-jab and now doesn't, and therefore has become public enemy number one because it's...
	Can't do it.
	He's run against the orthodoxy.
	Now, I see Dr. Malhotra in the backdrop.
	Give me the thumbs up when you're ready for me to bring in, doctor.
	Oh, you can't hear me?
	Hold on, let me see here.
	Can you hear me?
	No, there's...
	Oh, unmute yourself.
	You're on mute.
	So let me see how you unmute.
	Go to the mute button on the bottom left.
	Okay, hold on one second.
	I'm going to remove you.
	Doctor, if you can see me...
	Well, hold on, let me bring you back in.
	Okay, Dr. Malhotra, we can see you, so no nose picking.
	Okay, now I still see muted.
	Devices are not connected.
	Okay, well, we'll get this in a second.
	Let me go.
	Do I kick from studio?
	My dog just came into the studio.
	Give us a second.
	We'll figure this out.
	So, oh, we're going to go over doctor's credentials.
	Then we're going to go to Rumble exclusively.
	I tried to set up a locals simultaneously, but it didn't work.
	Master Malrubia says, I'm glad you mentioned it as torture.
	I was beginning to wonder.
	Trudy is that smiling, cheery monster we need to warn children to stay away from.
	Can you imagine directing a message to children?
	I know you're excited, children under five and five years old, to go get something that you have no idea what the long-term effects are because we don't know yet.
	Because Pfizer is still doing clinical trials on myocarditis and the risks that it poses to children.
	I know you're excited to go do it because if you don't, you're not going to have a normal childhood, kids.
	You're going to be an outcast when they have the discussion as to who's vaccinated in class and you don't raise your hand.
	You're going to be the selfish, far-right extremist who must have crazy parents.
	Not speaking from any particular experience.
	So, that's it.
	We're going to get Dr. Mulhotra in here when we can figure out the audio issues.
	And let me just see here.
	I'm going to go to my DMs.
	Okay, so I don't see anything yet.
	We'll see it.
	Or you know what?
	Maybe we're just not going to waste any time.
	While we're doing this, okay, let's do this.
	Everyone in YouTube, everyone in the YouTubes, go to Rumble now, and then it won't change anything on my end with Dr. Malhotra, and when we come, we'll just do it.
	We'll do it live all on Rumble.
	Remember to get your 12th booster.
	Okay, so I'm going to end on YouTube.
	This is not going to change anything from anyone's perspective, except for the viewers.
	Go to Rumble now, people.
	Removing from YouTube.
	Okay.
	Now, let me see.
	The doctor's in the backdrop.
	Okay, looks good.
	Yep.
	Oh, yes, I can hear you.
	It's working.
	How are you doing?
	Yeah, good.
	It's busy.
	It's hectic.
	I can imagine.
	It just came back from India, so that was very interesting, what was going on there.
	What were you doing in India?
	So I was invited to give a number of lectures in Delhi and Bombay.
	There's a grassroots organization over there called the Awaken India Movement.
	But I was supported by one of the most influential families in the whole of India, so the Ambani's.
	And there's a couple, Anmol and Krisha, who are very much supportive of my advocacy around the vaccine and mandates, etc.
	So I gave a number of lectures, including actually speaking to what I would say were previously fully indoctrinated doctors on the vaccine in terms of its benefits.
	People have been involved in the vaccine rollout.
	And, you know, I presented the data.
	The evidence is very clear, David.
	And I managed to open their eyes and turn them literally in 75 minutes.
	And that that didn't surprise me because the evidence is irrefutable about how.
	How poor the efficacy is on the COVID vaccines and how harmful it is.
	But in India, what's interesting is they actually use primarily something called COVID Shield, which is AstraZeneca's vaccine, which is essentially banned or suspended in most countries in Europe in 2021.
	So I went there to try and understand how that happened.
	And most people weren't aware of that link and managed to hit mainstream media.
	And some of my evidence is actually being used in a court case right now.
	So it's all heating up.
	There's lots of stuff going on, major stuff.
	You know what?
	I'll ask before I forget.
	Why was AstraZeneca banned here?
	Was it because of risk of clotting?
	And is the technology different?
	Is it an mRNA versus a...
	No.
	So it's interesting.
	It's not an mRNA vaccine.
	It's supposed to be more of a traditional type of vaccine.
	But the reason it was suspended, David, was...
	Yeah, you're right, clotting.
	So there were quite significant cardiovascular effects, issues with the heart, strokes, for example, and some high-profile figures died, certainly in the UK, because of that.
	But actually, when you look at the rate of serious adverse events up until June 2021, after the rollout of both vaccines, Pfizer and AstraZeneca, AstraZeneca was worse than Pfizer.
	And we already know how horrific.
	The Pfizer mRNA vaccine has been, how catastrophic it has been.
	But I was basically saying to the Indian population and Indian media, I said that you should never have rolled this out.
	It needs to stop.
	And it was far worse than Pfizer.
	Interestingly, before I got there, the Indian government was politically taking advantage of all the stuff that's come out recently about Pfizer, the stuff that Rebel News did when they, you know, basically cornered Albert Bull, all the stuff that went viral.
	They were capitalizing on that, the Indian government saying, look at us.
	We didn't use Pfizer in this country.
	We used AstraZeneca.
	And then I come along and say, hey, guys, AstraZeneca was worse.
	Can you imagine?
	Well, let me ask you this.
	People are going to ask, if AstraZeneca is worse, and then we're going to have to get into the question as to, you know, if it's as bad as it is, how can anyone deny it anymore?
	And, you know, I'll have to push back in good conscience just to say, look, if it's as bad, how can anyone deny it?
	Or are we confounding or conflating COVID policy deaths with vaccine deaths?
	But we'll get there in a second.
	But if it's that bad, What are the stats in terms of excess mortality, adverse reactions in India?
	Because I don't know of those.
	Yeah, David, it's a great question.
	The problem is it's very difficult.
	India doesn't collate this sort of data, unfortunately.
	So we're having to rely on what essentially is anecdotal reports.
	But we're talking about tens of thousands of anecdotes coming across all across India.
	But if you look at the pharmacovid data in the UK and many European countries, but UK has actually got quite, I'll just give you, I'll just put it in perspective for you.
	So when we, in effect, in the UK, stopped using AstraZeneca, you know, it wasn't officially announced.
	So this is the problem.
	It wasn't officially announced that we were suspending it.
	But in effect, that's what they did behind the scenes.
	Kind of slowly, let's not use it, but let's not come out and say we're suspending it.
	Let's put out a few news stories here and there saying very rare clot kills so-and-so, right, from the vaccine, which is what they did.
	But I'll give you some numbers here because the numbers are important to understand.
	You have VAERS in the US.
	We have something called the yellow card scheme in the UK, which is essentially post-marketing ways of gathering information and looking for signals of drugs that have been approved that then may have a problem in terms of adverse effects.
	After 9.7 million doses in the UK of the AstraZeneca vaccine, there were 800,000 reports from our yellow card scheme of basically symptoms or associations felt to be caused by the vaccine.
	Well, it is.
	I mean, it's undoubtedly extraordinary.
	The question is beyond mild.
	So what is the scale of it?
	Like headaches and fatigue and fever to...
	Yeah, well, no, so headaches and fatigue and fever, though, you know, I, as a practicing clinician for over 20 years, I mean, people don't fill in yellow card schemes for fever and headaches and feeling unwell for a couple of days.
	They usually fill in something that's much more significant, quality of life limiting.
	But yes, on the scale of this, on the more agreement it's going to be, You know, a situation where it requires a hospitalization or stroke, whatever else.
	I mean, to give you some perspective in terms of some comparison, there was a publication published in the Journal of Autoimmunity in June 2021, where they did an analysis comparing AstraZeneca versus Pfizer for serious adverse effects, in particular things like stroke, heart attacks, sudden cardiac death or whatever.
	And at that stage, they said that it was worse than Pfizer.
	And I know the Pfizer data inside out, so we can get there anyway.
	People can draw their own conclusions.
	The bottom line is, irrespective of my personal views on this or whatever else, on what some of the data is saying, you know, we know there's been a big campaign, a dedicated campaign across governments and the media to tell the public that all these vaccines are very safe and effective.
	But despite that, if most European countries actually officially suspended the AstraZeneca vaccine, David, that's more than you need to know because of our side effects.
	That's more than I think I recall them having done the same thing with Johnson& Johnson in Canada after a Quebec woman was confirmed to have died from a clot.
	I think she was 46. And they slowly just stopped recommending Johnson& Johnson and it's down to Pfizer and Moderna.
	But doctor, actually, before we even get into anything.
	For those who don't know your credentials, a brief, because it can go on for an entire hour.
	Just let us know your credentials so that people know who you are, despite what some in the media are saying.
	Yeah, so I'm a consultant cardiologist.
	I qualified from Edinburgh Medical School in 2001, so I've been a qualified doctor for well over 20 years.
	I'm also somebody that's been a campaigner as a public health advocate.
	I'm the president.
	I've done a lot of work at health policy level, especially academic work, in relation to getting to the root causes of our healthcare crisis over the past decade.
	A lot of my work has been through journals in high-impact, sorry, publications in high-impact medical journals, whether it's the BMJ or even JAMA Internal Medicine in the US.
	So I've done quite a lot of work really around obesity and tackling the obesity epidemic, shifting the paradigm on the understanding of heart disease and how you can manage it, but also I have been a very strong advocate in the last, say, 10 years to highlight the harms of an over-medicated population and the root cause of that being excesses and manipulations of big pharma.
	Okay, fantastic.
	And I had another question.
	So people can also contextualize this, your evolution over the last three years, because at first you were very much in support of the vaccines, but you suffered your own, what you suspect to have been...
	Catastrophic, adverse event with your father.
	I know you've explained it on other podcasts, and we won't go too far into it, but it will help everyone understand what happened in your situation.
	Very briefly as well, it's really important, David, for people to get this context because I'm probably one of the, and this isn't blowing my trumpet because the evidence historically is there, and I've been on this for a long time.
	I'm probably one of the most vocal I've been to the European Parliament where I gave a lecture in 2018 called Big Food and Big Pharma Killing for Profit, just to give you that kind of context, right?
	So I know about the system failures that drive an over-Medicaid population.
	I'm also somebody who's kind of a thought leader.
	In advocating for evidence-based medicine that's ethical and through informed consent and shared decision-making and breaking data down in terms of absolute benefits and harms and encouraging informed consent.
	So let's take that background before I went on Good Morning Britain in February 2021 to say that essentially I was not concerned.
	I didn't have any safety concerns about this vaccine because As far as traditional vaccines are concerned, and I look at it in the context of all the other drugs people take on a day-to-day basis, whether it's diabetes pills or statins or blood pressure pills, traditional vaccines, listen, nothing is completely safe, David, but by far are the safest.
	And that's still true.
	Nothing has changed to suggest that other medications are more harmful, that vaccines are more harmful than that.
	So I could not conceive of the possibility that any vaccine...
	Certainly going back to the early 2021, could do any degree of harm.
	I was a bit skeptical about benefits, but I never thought, conceived that it could cause any serious harm.
	It's certainly not harm to the heart.
	And that's important to get that context.
	And just explain to the crowd and myself, traditional vaccine, you mean what by traditional vaccine?
	Oh, like smallpox, like measles, mumps, rubella vaccine, you know, the kind of hepatitis B. I mean, my left arm, I don't know if you can see it, but I've got scars all over my left arm.
	Yep.
	From the vaccines I've had, right?
	And I actually was born in India.
	So the biggest scar I have here is actually smallpox.
	So this is in like 1977 when I was born.
	I had the smallpox vaccine.
	It left quite a big scar there, right?
	It's amazing.
	When I was growing up, I always liked when people had that.
	So I put something on my arm.
	I'll explain it one day right there.
	Because I always thought that scar looked cool and I wanted to have one on my own arm.
	I didn't get the smallpox vaccine.
	I did that to myself.
	Your understanding of the traditional vaccine is what we all understood.
	It's sort of like, I forget what they call it, not inorganic, but, you know, like the dead...
	Appenuated virus.
	Yeah, dead virus.
	And then you generate antibodies in simple terms.
	So that was my background.
	And I didn't take the vaccine early on.
	Because I thought I was high risk.
	I also wrote, to be honest, I've been campaigning from the COVID pandemic from the beginning.
	I was also the first guy, doctor clinically, to go out on the mainstream news and say, listen, this is linked to obesity.
	This is a time to change the diet.
	This is like in March 2020 on Sky News.
	And then I was all over, you know, over the next several months writing papers and publishing articles saying this is beyond age.
	This is an issue of obesity, right?
	So we need to get people.
	This is a great time.
	An opportunity saw the diets of the Americans.
	And I had loads of podcasters and big, you know, American names like Mark Hyman and all that kind of stuff interviewing me because I was like, Asim, how did you manage to break the mainstream news in the UK on talking about the lifestyle issues and COVID, whereas we can't get anything in the US, right?
	So I was all on top of this.
	So I understand the risk as well that I was not a high risk of COVID.
	But of course, as a doctor, a lot of the vaccines we take are there to prevent, you know, spreading any kind of infection.
	To patients, for example, right?
	And I thought I was going to do it to prevent transmission.
	So that's the main reason I took it.
	Not because I was protecting myself.
	I thought I would be protecting others.
	And of course, doctors are in a slightly different place, healthcare workers, where, you know, we are more...
	There's a greater responsibility on us to protect others.
	Right.
	There's a greater responsibility.
	So I took it for that reason.
	But I went to Good Morning Britain because I convinced a friend of mine who's a film director called Gurinder Chadha to take the vaccine because she was getting information, which at the time I thought was clear, you know, in quotes.
	And I don't like using this term, but I'm going to use it just in this context, anti-vax nonsense.
	I think anti-vax, that term has been weaponized now.
	And I think people should use it.
	You know, I think.
	Anti-vaxxer should be equated with racist terminology now.
	I think it should be considered an offensive term to use.
	I think vaccine skeptic is fine.
	Vaccine hesitant is fine.
	But anti-vaxxer, I don't think so.
	Anyway, I thought it was nonsense.
	I told her to take it.
	She then tweeted it out.
	And then I went to Good Morning Britain and I basically said, listen.
	The rational concerns of vaccine hesitancy, and I was specifically targeting the ethnic minority community, because traditionally they are the ones that are less trusting the vaccines and the low uptake in Black and South Asian communities in the UK.
	And I said, listen, there are rational concerns here.
	And I think the Good Morning Britain weren't expecting this.
	You go back and watch the video.
	I started talking about pharmaceutical industry fraud and corruption.
	I said, look at the history of these guys.
	I understand why people are hesitant.
	However...
	When one looks at all the drugs we do and, you know, all that kind of stuff, vaccines are still the safest.
	And I left it at that.
	And that was what it was.
	It wasn't pointing fingers or telling that unvaccinated are crazy or whatever.
	It was none of that.
	It was trying to do it in the most compassionate, rational way that I could.
	And then, obviously, the situation changed quite early on.
	I mean, I started to evolve my thinking and then being an advocate.
	First of all, against the mandates very early on, actually, David, it wasn't a three-year, you know, I've come to a certain point with my publication recently on calling suspension, but it was an evolution there.
	And the first thing is my dad suffered a certain cardiographs in July 2021.
	I didn't link it to the vaccine at the time.
	I, in fact, didn't even link it to the vaccine until several months later.
	He was a fit guy.
	His post-mortem showed severe narrowings in his coronary arteries.
	That didn't make sense.
	I knew his cardiac history.
	I knew his cardiac status.
	Something had changed in the last few years.
	I thought that would cause a rapid progression in heart disease for him, that caused a sudden cardiac death.
	And his circumstances of his death were odd as well.
	A bit of mild chest discomfort, then having a cardiac arrest, no heart attack at the postmortem.
	This is another area of my expertise as a cardiologist.
	I've published about cardiac arrest and at hospital cardiac arrest and managed people.
	I trained as an interventional cardiologist, keyhole heart surgery.
	I know this stuff inside out.
	It didn't make any sense.
	And then several months later, we then get the first...
	Publication in a high-impact journal in circulation, an abstract, which gives a plausible biological mechanism to explain that the mRNA vaccines can accelerate heart disease very rapidly within two to eight weeks of having the jab, right, through inflammatory markers.
	And for me, who understands that very, very well, who's been involved in publishing papers and shifting the understanding globally of how heart disease develops and progresses, that's also my area.
	For me, it was like, ah, okay, now we've got a problem, right?
	That's when it started for me.
	Simultaneously, David, just on that point, because I think it's been a big issue in the States, we've never mandated vaccines in this country, even traditional vaccines.
	We've never done that.
	And interestingly, we have a much higher uptake of vaccines in this country than you do in the U.S. where you mandate a lot of this stuff.
	And I think the reason for that is that we also traditionally believe our medical establishment believes in persuasion, not coercion.
	So around the time that there was suddenly some signals emerging, or certainly there'd been signals for a few months that there may be issues of harm with the vaccines, whether it's myocarditis or whatever else, our Secretary for Health comes out, and this is like talking about October, November 2021, suddenly, without any directive from the medical establishment bodies, we call them the medical royal colleges here, or the General Medical Council, they wouldn't have agreed to this.
	They were kind of silent and passive.
	But he says, We're going to now mandate the vaccine for healthcare workers.
	And I thought, hold on a minute.
	This isn't right.
	Something's not right here.
	I was getting opportunities at that time through mainstream media, the BBC, Sky News, whatever, to talk about my dad's death because I had exposed an ambulance delay had resulted in him not getting timely intervention, which could have probably saved him in terms of he would have had his cardiac arrest, but we would have defibrillated him out of it.
	And I exposed a big corruption and cover-up involving the government and the Department of Health.
	In an article, an investigation I did, which was covered with a journalist for the newspaper over here that became BBC News headlines.
	So I'm doing all that, right?
	Exposing that.
	And this is when the...
	And I said, listen, by the way, talking about the healthcare crisis, right now, this vaccine mandate is unethical.
	It's unscientific.
	It doesn't stop transmission.
	It needs to stop, right?
	And I went on Sky News and BBC and LBC and I campaigned on that.
	And behind the scenes, I was getting attacks from a very prestigious medical establishment body, which I won't name, but it'll probably come out in some point in the future or in a book or in the news, basically going for me, saying this guy's an anti-vaxxer.
	Can you believe that?
	I've gone on TV to try and tackle vaccine hesitancy.
	I'm getting anonymous doctor trolls basically going for my medical license just on that, on me opposing the mandates, David.
	This is 2021.
	So that's when I decided the only way I'm going to expose this properly and understand it is critically analyze the data and break it down in a way that's understandable for patients, which is what is your absolute benefit and what is the harm based upon the best available evidence we have?
	And is that enough to call for a suspension?
	And the evidence was very clear.
	And that's the conclusions of my paper.
	I'm talking about Pfizer here.
	Yep.
	Well, and we're going to get into the mechanism because that is...
	Look, I'm not a doctor.
	I was of the same sort of general view, like, okay, it may not help, but how bad can it be?
	You get a tetanus shot even if you don't need it.
	Oh, absolutely.
	I've had Dr. Malone explain this.
	I've had Dr. Francis Christian explain this.
	What is the mechanism or the science behind why this actually creates a certain risk of clotting of heart issues, specifically the mRNA?
	Yeah, so it's not fully understood, but the way it's understood at the moment is enough to help people understand it, you know, understand how we can be getting all these problems.
	So the lipid nanoparticles and the spike protein, which is there from the vaccine, which we felt like with other vaccines, you get an injection in the arm of, say, a dead virus, your body generates antibodies, and that's the end of story.
	With the spike protein, we felt, or it was understood.
	That it would also stay in the arm for a few hours, a couple of days, you generate antibodies, you know, your body's immune response, you know, adapts, and then we're done.
	Unfortunately, and there is good data on this, this is not speculation now, this is now in peer-reviewed high-impact journals explaining, in fact, Cell, the journal Cell actually explained this, is that what happens is the spike protein Which we know is where the harm comes from COVID as well, right?
	The spike protein from the virus is what causes all the problems from COVID in the respiratory tract.
	And even the people who have severe COVID, people in intensive care, where the spike protein goes in other parts of the body and the heart, etc.
	That appears, David, to be distributed throughout every organ system in the body after you get the vaccine for at least four months or, you know, up to four months and maybe beyond.
	What does that mean?
	You've now got spike protein in the brain, in the heart, in the liver, in the kidneys, in the ovaries, in the testes.
	And what that does is, and I wrote about it in my paper, either it causes a direct toxic effect to those cells, or it triggers an immune reaction, an autoimmune reaction, an inflammation in those tissues.
	And that's not good.
	That's not good at all.
	And that's why...
	We have such an extensive list of potential serious adverse effects from this vaccine that we have never witnessed in history.
	It is extraordinary.
	It is horrific.
	It is catastrophic.
	Let's not...
	I know that we can be...
	I don't want to exaggerate things here.
	I'm telling you how it is, David.
	It's horrific.
	Absolutely horrific.
	And anecdotally...
	I can tell you that I don't have that many friends, and I'm not talking about people on the internet who come to me.
	I know of friends and family.
	At least I can go a half dozen and maybe even up to 10 adverse events, or just an elementary school friend just dying in their sleep, just like that.
	And I know things.
	Nobody can ask the questions anymore, which is another issue.
	But I've known more severe adverse reactions than I've known of people who had...
	Adverse reactions from COVID itself.
	My parents are old.
	They both got COVID twice early on.
	But people are going to say, if it's this catastrophic, Dr. Malhotra, if it's this catastrophic, we should be seeing unequivocal categorical evidence.
	We're not seeing it.
	So we do have that.
	We have unequivocal evidence, actually.
	We have medicine.
	With every medical journal research paper, there's always an element of uncertainty.
	Medicine is not an exact science, David.
	Let's establish that.
	Let's start from there.
	Medicine is not an exact science.
	It's an applied science.
	It's not like physics or chemistry.
	It's an art.
	It's a science of human beings.
	It's constantly evolving.
	Every paper, one could say there's an uncertainty and limitations.
	But what does the strength of the evidence tell us?
	And I'm also, by the way, I had a visiting professorship in evidence-based medicine as well.
	So I'm also an expert in evidence-based medicine and understanding this.
	What we have is we have multiple bits of data.
	It from different types of data that when you put it together, it paints a picture that is unequivocal.
	Unequivocal, right?
	The reason we're not seeing it is because it's not getting publicized in the way that we have, you know, in the way that the publicity has been there around COVID and COVID deaths and the risk of COVID.
	If we had the same thing...
	With this vaccine in terms of the evidence that's there, this would have stopped a long time ago.
	It would have been suspended and there would have already been an investigation to understand why we got this wrong, how we got it wrong and what we need to do moving forward.
	And I can tell you what those solutions are when we get to it.
	So we have the highest quality level of data.
	Let's just give you one.
	One bit of data actually should be enough, David, to be honest.
	That's called the double-blinded randomized control trial.
	That's the highest quality level of evidence where you can actually deduce.
	With a high degree of certainty, cause and effect.
	These are the trials that led to normal drugs being approved about a benefit of a drug or, for example, a statin drug reducing risk of a heart attack or a blood pressure pill reducing the risk of a stroke.
	These are called double-blinded randomized controlled trials.
	Now, the original trials that led to the approval, and I'll give you an example of what's being used in the States, which is Pfizer and Moderna predominantly, right?
	mRNA-based technology, vaccines, COVID vaccines.
	That original trial that led to the approval...
	Gave us this figure of 95% effectiveness.
	Okay?
	Remember all the headlines around the world.
	95% effective, right?
	I remember Albert Bourla tweeting out on April 1st, 100% effective in South Africa studies at preventing COVID.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Complete bullshit now, right?
	Let's just call it what it is.
	Complete and total bullshit.
	Pardon my language, by the way.
	Don't worry.
	But, you know, I'm passionate about this and it's just...
	Anyway.
	So, 95% effectiveness.
	Now, that was the framing of the benefit of the vaccine.
	Which, in retrospect, what that meant was, it meant in absolute terms, you were 95% less likely to get a positive test from COVID in the trial.
	That's really what it told you, right?
	But a lot of people, and I'm going to break it down, would infer, understandably, David, that 95% effective, and certainly that's what I inferred without looking at, you know, I didn't even really go there, to be honest.
	I was like, okay, let's just get on with it, roll it out.
	I didn't scrutinize that evidence.
	And that's to some degree my limitation at that time for whatever reason, right?
	But 95% effectiveness, most people would infer with a vaccine.
	And by the way, the other reason also, I wasn't able to, with a vaccine, because you think it's stopping transmission, it kind of becomes less relevant than treating it like a traditional drug.
	But 95% would have, most people would have inferred that if you vaccinate 100 people, 95 people wouldn't get infection.
	Fair enough?
	Is that what you thought?
	Yeah, I think that's what most of the world thought.
	In fact, even Rochelle Walensky, the former chair of the CDC, thought that because she said that her optimism from the vaccine came from a CNN news report, which was ultimately a verbatim reproduction of Pfizer's own press release.
	But we'll come on to the influence of the media shortly.
	That ultimately meant, when you go back and look at the data, and you can look at it in this way as I did, because by the stage, when I started writing my paper, we'd realised at that point...
	It wasn't stopping infection or transmission, okay?
	It certainly wasn't stopping transmission.
	And therefore, you could look at this vaccine as a prophylactic drug, not like a traditional vaccine.
	So when you go back, it meant that you had to actually vaccinate 119 people to prevent one person getting infected, right?
	So that was the original trial that showed.
	But what the trial didn't show, and this is where I thought, hold on a minute, this is, you know, this, the randomized controlled trial of about 40,000 people, which is quite a large trial.
	Didn't show any statistical significant reduction.
	So these are people, half the people took the vaccine and half the people that didn't, in areas that were, you know, high exposure to COVID, right?
	Is that it didn't show any significant reduction in dying from COVID.
	That trial did not reach that end point.
	It did not conclude that we have shown evidence that if you take the vaccine, you are not going to die from COVID.
	It didn't show any evidence of that, right?
	It didn't show any reduction in all-cause mortality.
	What was a little bit disturbing and troubling is, even though it wasn't statistically significant, the absolute numbers of deaths in the vaccine group were slightly higher than the placebo group, right?
	And the trial was essentially became null and void after two months.
	So up to two months, there were more deaths in the vaccine group than...
	So think about that for a second, right?
	This is where all...
	Now, when you put it all together, at the time you may have thought, oh, it's just, you know, maybe it's random chance or whatever.
	When you put it all together now...
	It paints a very, very ugly picture.
	So that's the first thing.
	But you asked me the question about the evidence of harm, and let me answer that first.
	So, a reanalysis was done by independent scientists, right, who are high integrity, very eminent in their respective fields, statisticians, you know, Robert Kaplan from Stanford, the associate editor of the BMJ, Peter Doshi, University of Maryland.
	Joseph Freyman, who's a lead author who I've spoken to, are very good in data analyses.
	They were able to reanalyze Pfizer and Moderna's original trials that led to the approval.
	And this is the key point.
	That reanalysis showed that those original trials, you were more likely, David, so this is a double-blinded randomized controlled trial, so this is as close as we're going to get to accuracy of benefit and harm, right?
	You were more likely to suffer a serious adverse event.
	From taking the vaccine, hospitalization, disability, life-changing event, than you were to be hospitalized with COVID during the ancestral Wuhan strain, which was more severe.
	Think about that.
	What does that mean in its own right?
	Forget about everything else.
	In its own right, our first duty is doctors do no harm.
	First do no harm.
	Whatever the benefits may have been, right?
	That's a separate discussion.
	It should never have been approved, David.
	It should never have been approved for anybody in the first place.
	That's what I've concluded.
	And nobody has challenged me on that so far.
	Nobody has been able to scientifically challenge me on that claim.
	Doctor, is this, this is the study, one of the ones that I was looking at or that I had seen and I, you know, I'm a new.
	Yes, this is the one published in the journal Vaccine, absolutely.
	Yeah, and this is the one that ultimately concludes it was one in 800 because you're talking about, the numbers in there, I'll share the link because I've talked about this before, but it came to one.
	One serious adverse event per 800 doses.
	But that is, again, a likely underestimate only because that's at two months.
	And what we know now, David, is that one of the mechanisms of harm, which I've discovered and has been even concluded from autopsy studies, that several months after having the vaccine, it can cause a heart attack or sudden cardiac death.
	And I suspect a lot of these excess deaths that we're seeing around the world right now, in the US and the UK and whatever else, it's not the only factor.
	But I think at the moment, until proven otherwise, it's probably the most significant factor right now.
	We can categorically say because of the evidence that we've got from randomized controlled trials, from pharmacovigilance data, from observational studies, from autopsy data, from clinical data, it may change.
	The hierarchy may change.
	But right now, for me, and remember, most of these pretty much excess deaths are driven by cardiovascular disease traditionally.
	You know, there may be other excess deaths, suicides or whatever, but most of the bulk of these, the most common, are going to be heart disease, right?
	Heart-related or strokes or whatever else.
	For me, until proven otherwise, the primary driver of excess deaths right now is the vaccine.
	This is the argument that, you know, people say, well, you cannot definitively know it's from the vaccine.
	So it's from stress, lockdowns, drug overdoses, unhealthy lifestyle, everything else.
	Yeah, go on.
	Sorry.
	I'll just say on the one hand, that's no better because one way or the other, it's coming from incompetent or negligent government policy.
	But I mean, are we not seeing...
	When we have in Alberta, New Brunswick, they were saying deaths of unknown causes are now the leading cause of death.
	For the first time ever, it takes over dementia.
	How can anyone make sense of that?
	This is not a heart attack because if it's a heart attack from obesity, it has a cause.
	So how do you explain away without pointing at the vaccine?
	Deaths of unknown causes and the excess, you know, all-cause mortality going up.
	So it's interesting you ask that question.
	So in October 2021, before it had really clicked to me that the vaccine was a problem at all, I was contacted by a journalist from the Times newspaper in the UK who said to me, Dr. Malhotra, we're hearing reports of a 25% increase in heart attacks in hospitals in Scotland, which are unexplained.
	What's causing it?
	Now, the interesting thing, David, is before this, because I'm also, you know, my area of research is also in understanding how heart attacks develop and what causes what we call plant rupture, these, you know, blockages to suddenly clot off and cause cardiac arrest and heart attacks, and how lifestyle factors play into it.
	And I actually predicted there would be an increase in heart attacks.
	I predicted that when lockdown started.
	I said there's going to be for the next few years because we know that other data from, for example, Historical data from war zones, when they've looked at heart attacks and strokes after war has ended in places that have been subject to major war, right?
	Heart attacks and strokes continue to go up for several years.
	So that will be playing a role because of the psychological burden of stress that has been imposed on the population.
	There's no doubt.
	But it wouldn't explain the increase that we're seeing a massive uptake significantly in younger people.
	People aged between 16 and 40, that wouldn't be because of lockdown stress.
	The people that tend to die are people who have already got some predisposition and then the extra stress just causes a problem.
	But yes, these will play a role, of course.
	People's diets got worse, people got more stressed out.
	That wouldn't be good.
	But it wouldn't cause this level so quickly and in such huge numbers.
	No, it wouldn't be doing that.
	The vaccine could absolutely be doing this.
	It would be doing this.
	I have drawn my own conclusions from my limited understanding and anecdotal experience, but comparing highly vaccinated countries to lesser vaccinated countries, I mean, surely there must be sufficient data there that we can see if, I don't know, take the continents of Africa, for example, which is...
	Less vaccinated than North America.
	Both are, from what I understand, experiencing excess all-cause mortality.
	Is there a difference between highly vaccinated countries and under-vaccinated countries?
	I don't have the data to hand, David, but as far as I'm aware, there isn't any excess mortality going on in an unvaccinated country.
	Certainly ones that weren't stringently, didn't have stringent lockdowns.
	People have asked me about Sweden.
	So Sweden isn't having a, what we call, excess mortality.
	Right.
	In comparison, of course, they were, you know, 90 percent of the population were vaccinated.
	But actually, what should be happening in Sweden is after a pandemic such as this, mortality should go below the baseline.
	It should be lower.
	Because all of the weak.
	Yeah.
	And they're not there.
	So clearly, there's a smaller signal in Sweden.
	And I went and spoke at a conference in Sweden, met many doctors there.
	Vaccine injuries are real.
	I met cardiologists.
	They're seeing a lot of problems and they are diagnosing vaccine injuries.
	So it exists.
	It's a smaller country population, whatever is less.
	So you may not see the same kind of level that you'd be seeing in other places.
	But Sweden also, and this is interesting, the countries that seem to be having excess mortality are also the ones that, you know, to some degree, also suffered excess mortality from COVID.
	And one of the things that we shouldn't forget is that 90% of the deaths from COVID globally happened in countries where more than half the population are overweight or obese, right?
	Now, what's interesting is there is a likely predisposition to vaccine injuries if you have excess body fat as well to start with.
	In the same way that those people are more vulnerable to COVID, they're more vulnerable to side effects from the vaccine.
	And some of the vaccine-injured people I'm managing, one of the strategies I'm asking from a lifestyle point of view is that you can lose weight, you improve your diet, and in fact, a lot of their general symptoms that are non-specific are getting better.
	So I think it's important to probably acknowledge that as well.
	Okay, fascinating.
	And interesting, Sweden, the idea is that your excess mortality would dip below average because you've sort of culled, or the weak have died, and so there's less people to die.
	Absolutely.
	Yeah, we call it dry timber or whatever, but yeah, vulnerable.
	The vulnerable have been taken out of the equation, and therefore the excess mortality absolutely should be lower, but it's actually higher than that.
	So therefore, there's a signal in Sweden there.
	It's smaller, but there's a signal.
	Okay, very interesting.
	Now, one thing I have to know, there's no better person to ask than you.
	We've been reading the media, and we've been reading the news, and I mean, I don't trust them as far as I can throw them.
	It is undoubtable.
	It's 1 in 800 serious adverse events or adverse events of special interest, which includes myocarditis.
	We know, without a doubt, we're seeing increased cases of myocarditis, pericarditis in young men.
	Is there such thing, please explain it to the world, as mild myocarditis?
	Is there such a thing as innocuous myocarditis?
	Yeah, okay.
	So it's a question of semantics here.
	Any inflammation of the heart muscle is not a good thing.
	But if it's short-lived and doesn't cause you any serious problems, then great.
	I think that any person that suffers an effect that causes them to go to hospital and be admitted to hospital is traumatic for many people.
	It's something you don't want to avoid.
	That's not a good thing to happen.
	The question is then, If myocarditis is absent from the vaccine, is it a big deal?
	I think what I would say is that of people admitted to hospital who are diagnosed with myocarditis, where they've got chest pain or whatever else and a bit of inflammation of heart muscle, I think most of those people are fine, acutely.
	There is no significant issue with most of those guys.
	The problem is that 80% of them are left with some degree of myocardial scar, right?
	So they may get out of hospital and not suffer a sudden cardiac death or have heart failure or whatever.
	But they're now left with a permanent scar in their heart, which is almost like having a small heart attack.
	I don't think that's a good thing, David.
	I think we don't know what that's going to do in the long term, but ideally you want to avoid that scenario.
	A lot of people say that the heart muscle or the heart tissue doesn't regenerate like other parts of your body, so scarring is forever.
	Yes.
	If you can quell this concern, a lot of people say if you get myocarditis, your chances are 50% of dying within the next seven years.
	You know, some figure like that.
	Is there any...
	No, so that's not true.
	So, okay.
	So, I'm glad that you've raised that.
	And I'll say categorically.
	So, we know first and foremost that vaccine myocarditis is infinitely more common than COVID myocarditis.
	The most recent publication in JAMA suggests it's 28 times more likely in people aged between 18 and 24. Right?
	So it's much more common.
	But if on an individual level, if you're comparing COVID myocarditis with vaccine myocarditis, certainly in the short term, COVID myocarditis is worse.
	Just to make you aware of this, I know quite a lot about viral myocarditis because my own brother, I had an older brother who died when he was 13 and he died from viral myocarditis.
	He literally just got a bug.
	Within a week, he was in crashing heart failure and he died and had a cardiac arrest.
	So it can be devastating.
	We say the rule of thirds where we talk about viral myocarditis.
	A third of people who get it will die.
	A third of people will have some damage to the heart muscle permanently.
	And a third will get sick for a short time and then, you know, get out of hospital and be completely normal.
	So when we talk about this 50% figure and all that stuff...
	We can apply that figure to traditional viral myocarditis, yes, but there is no evidence to suggest it's that bad or close to being that bad with the vaccine.
	But the problem is, David, I just want to mention this very briefly.
	I know you're interested in myocarditis.
	There are multiple mechanisms of harm to the heart from the vaccine, not just myocarditis.
	There is heart attacks.
	There are rhythm disturbances that can be fatal on themselves.
	There is heart failure.
	So myocarditis is just one issue of a much bigger problem with how the vaccine can cause heart problems.
	Okay, very interesting.
	Actually, now that we're on it, just before I forget.
	So some people say it's one of the arguments.
	Your risk of getting myocarditis from COVID is greater than your risk of getting it from the vaccine.
	Complete nonsense.
	Okay.
	And then some people say...
	There are the same people who say that myocarditis from a COVID infection is worse than myocarditis from a COVID vaccine.
	The signal's a little bit.
	Let me just see on my end, is it?
	What's happening?
	Yeah, it was glitching.
	Yeah, I'll see that for a second, David.
	So the first thing is, the figure, and it depends on your age, but ultimately we're talking about vaccine myocarditis being at least 20-fold higher than...
	COVID myocarditis.
	Okay.
	When you look at COVID myocarditis versus vaccine myocarditis, it's a little bit like comparing apples and oranges, but in general, COVID myocarditis is worse.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	So it's interesting.
	It'll attenuate.
	But that doesn't mean, by the way, that the vaccine is going to prevent you getting COVID myocarditis.
	And the other thing is...
	Oh, no.
	No!
	I think he's going to come back in a second.
	That was my next question.
	In terms of compounding the risk, if, to the extent, the question has to be, chat, remind me when the doctor comes back, does getting the jab reduce the severity of any myocarditis that you might get from an infection, if and when?
	Let me see if he's going to come back here.
	I'll ask him to refresh here.
	Hold on one second, people.
	Oh, he's up.
	He's back.
	Okay.
	There we go.
	Sorry.
	Don't worry about it.
	So to answer that question, so yeah, vaccine myocarditis at least 20-fold higher than COVID myocarditis.
	COVID myocarditis versus vaccine myocarditis in its own right, it's probably worse, certainly acutely.
	But I think this is really important, which isn't being discussed.
	There is no evidence at all, right?
	There's no evidence at all that the vaccine prevents you getting COVID myocarditis.
	And if you have COVID and you have the vaccine, you're more likely to get serious side effects.
	That we need to get to in just one second, because that's what people are referring to as weakening your immune system the more you get the jab and the boost.
	The argument that people say, Dr. Mohatra, and I have no way of rebutting it, if you get the jab, it will reduce your likelihood of getting a severe infection and therefore...
	Myocarditis from the Rona.
	So the compounding of the risk factors actually reduces it.
	Is there any sense to that?
	Or is it wordsmithing for the devil here?
	Yeah, okay.
	So I'm a numbers guy.
	So let's break it down.
	So let's actually answer that in a very granular way.
	Only recently, and I think this is the only country in the world to do this, to break down the numbers.
	The UK government released figures where they looked at the risk of severe hospitalisation, as in severe COVID, let's talk about severe COVID, right, hospitalisation, that was reduced from the vaccine in different age groups, right?
	And they looked at per million vaccinated versus per million people unvaccinated.
	So it's as close and as good as we're going to get to look at the absolute benefits of the vaccine.
	Are you ready?
	If you're over 70 in the highest risk group, two doses of Pfizer, Gives you a 1 in 2,500 chance in preventing you being hospitalized with COVID.
	If you're 60 to 70, it's 1 in 5,700.
	If you're under 60, we're talking about vaccinating tens to hundreds of thousands of people to prevent you getting severe COVID.
	On that information, David, would you take this vaccine?
	Of course you would.
	You know, I've looked at research where we talk about statin drugs.
	As a cardiologist, it gives you a 1% benefit if you don't have heart disease in preventing a heart attack over five years.
	Most patients wouldn't take the pill.
	When you do proper, informed, ethical, informed consent, shared decision-making, they wouldn't take it on one in a hundred figure.
	Now, OK, it's different with COVID and the vaccine, whatever.
	Gives you some perspective there.
	And that's before we even talk about harms.
	And if we've got a consistent harm rate of at least one in 800.
	Right?
	A serious adverse event rate.
	Now, fine.
	If people want to make an informed choice and say, I'll take that risk, that's fine.
	Okay?
	The problem is this.
	We have pulled and suspended other vaccines for much, much less.
	Yeah.
	And that, you know, much, much less.
	Like one in 100,000 of Guillain-Barre syndrome, 1976, swine flu vaccine, 1999, rotavirus vaccine, one in 10,000 people getting bowel obstruction, kids, right?
	That was enough to suspend and pull those vaccines.
	We're saying at least one in 800.
	And none of the medical establishment or authorities are rebutting or arguing with this.
	They're just ignoring it.
	The FDA is ignoring it.
	The regulator in our country is ignoring it.
	And many people are just actually so willfully blind that they aren't even acknowledging it because it's a lot to take in.
	You've got to understand the indoctrination, changing one's mind, people's egos, fragile egos, all of that thrown into the equation.
	It's not that easy a barrier to overcome.
	It takes some critical thinking, and it takes courage to change one's mind.
	And that's what we need more of, really, if we're going to solve this problem.
	Someone in our locals community is asking, if the spike proteins grow on the incorrect cells, will the person develop an autoimmune response when they get wild COVID in the future?
	And I'll just couple that question with mine.
	Is there any truth to the VAIDS theory, you know, vaccine-induced autoimmune deficiency syndrome?
	Are people who are getting overly jabbed actually suffering from a weakened immune system, specifically the COVID?
	Yeah, I don't like to use this word VAIDS because it brings in the connotation that it's similar to AIDS and it's not, right?
	So let's just park that for a second.
	I think it's, again, inflammatory language, I'll be honest with you.
	And if it's not inflammatory, if it's not intended to be inflammatory language, it's certainly being inferred that way, right?
	Because, I mean, AIDS has, it's a very specific, it triggers a lot of specific emotions and an understanding of something very, very, very, very severe.
	And it's not, but yes, to answer your question, is there evidence that the more jabs you had, the more depressed your immune system, there is a lot of evidence of that.
	And we've seen re-emergence of things like shingles and, you know, I've had patients as well, where, you know, that's happened.
	So I think that there is, and also we have data in the UK that suggests that certainly within the first few weeks of the jab, you're more vulnerable to COVID.
	So a lot of people who are contracting COVID thought it was a bit odd.
	I've just had a jab like a week ago.
	Now I've got COVID.
	It's probably through some immunosuppressive effect.
	Absolutely.
	Okay.
	Fascinating.
	And now because I know we have maybe a hard hour, doctor, I got to ask you this.
	I can't make sense of it.
	I suspect you might be able to.
	Let me pull up Pfizer's response.
	If you have any way of clarifying Pfizer's response to the recent thing that, you know, they might be mutating the virus or attempting to.
	Yeah.
	I presume you've read it.
	I haven't seen any interview that you've given where you might have addressed this already, but are you able to make sense of this phrase here where it says, in a limited number of cases when a full virus does not contain any known gain-of-function mutations, such virus may be engineered to enable the assessment of antiviral activity in cells.
	In addition, in vitro resistance selection experiments are undertaken in cells incubated with SARS-CoV-2, and whatever that word is there, in our secure biosafety labs to assess whether the main protease can mutate to yield resistant strains to the virus.
	Do you understand what they're saying?
	No, not really.
	That might answer enough of the question.
	I don't really know that.
	I think the whole point of that...
	I think the reason that you're bringing that up, David, though, is because of that interview that was conducted by Project Veritas, where they secretly interviewed a Pfizer employee and started talking about the suggestion that are they deliberately involved in mutating viruses so that they can create new vaccines and make money?
	And I don't know the answer to that question.
	But what it draws out is, are these companies capable of doing something like that, right?
	In order to make money, something so egregious, so immoral, so unethical.
	And the answer to that, David, is absolutely, of course, they are.
	You know, and I have come up with this new term called the psychopathic determinants of health, is that quite often many of these corporations are literally there just to make money because our laws allow them to do this.
	People need to understand that, right?
	There's a problem with the league.
	There are unjust, unscientific, undemocratic laws.
	That are perpetuating harm on the American people.
	And they have been doing that for decades.
	And these legal entities have got more and more influence and control, more power economically over politicians, over the media, over academic institutions.
	So that ultimately their goal as an entity, which is to deceive others for profit, callous, unconcerned for the safety of others, deliberately lying, manipulating results.
	And there's a strong historical precedent of them doing that.
	It fulfills the criteria according to the forensic psychologist, Dr. Robert Hare of psychopathy.
	So if you're going to make sense of one of the problems going on in the world today, it is essentially the end result of unchecked power, visible and invisible of these big corporations.
	It's a corporate tyranny that we're fighting here.
	And the downstream effects in terms of culture and the way people behave, culture of silence, you know, people only getting one version of the truth.
	And is all, as far as I'm concerned, a downstream effect of the psychopath, right?
	So we are fighting a psychopathic entity here.
	That's what we're really fighting.
	And you mentioned that, and there was that video clip of the Australian woman who you said, you know, I know her personally.
	She was talking about, you know, treating the unvaccinated a certain way.
	And you said, I know this woman, she's a very nice woman, but this is what happens when you get stuck in the psychopathic machine.
	I had one more question before I forgot, doctor.
	Oh, yeah.
	A lot of people are asking, you know, the window of fear that people should have if they've been, if they've gotten the jab or the booster.
	And are there any things, you know, a lot of people float homeopathic remedies, you know, eat crushed pepper and nutmeg and whatever.
	What's the window of fear that people should reasonably have, if any?
	And what things can they do if they want to try to heal from what they think might be the risks?
	Yeah, it's a question I get asked all the time.
	And I'm also one of those people as well, David, and I had two jobs at Pfizer.
	So certainly I think with the data we've seen that's available at the moment and through clinical experience, I think most of the problems tend to happen in the first few weeks, the first few months.
	Most of the serious problems of the vaccine happened there.
	With one exception, unfortunately, that is clear.
	That is clear at the moment.
	And that is heart attacks and heart disease and sudden cardiac death.
	And I think that can happen several months later, six months, even one year later, maybe even longer, right, in terms of heart attacks.
	So the question is, what do you do about it?
	I still come back to, you know, first, do no harm.
	And something that irrespective is going to be good for you is, are you following, you know, are you eating a diet that's devoid of ultra-processed foods, which I can define for you in a second?
	Are you doing enough activity, like at least not, you know, 30 minutes per walk a day or whatever, some degree of physical activity?
	Are you getting good quality sleep and are you meditating?
	All these things are important for what we call metabolic health, which is linked to excess body fat and chronic inflammation, which is what is exploited by the vaccine in some ways in terms of the injury.
	So therefore, I think people need to just focus and devote their time to doing all that stuff.
	And even from a heart disease perspective, that's going to reduce the risk of a heart attack.
	I think if people are concerned, then they can get some basic tests.
	The simple things are...
	Blood pressure, looking for glucose control, HbO1c, a cholesterol profile, look at triglycerides and HDL.
	Your waist circumference should be less than half of your height.
	These are what we call the metabolic health markers, which by the way, just to give you some context here, only one in eight Americans have optimal metabolic health.
	Only one in four age between 20 and 40. So this is a big, big problem in the UK as well.
	And the driver, most of it is ultra processed foods, which is a big problem, which is 60% of the calories consumed in the American diet.
	You know, if it comes out of a packet, it has five or more ingredients, usually with sugar, unhealthy oils, additives and preservatives, then it's ultra processed and you should not eat it.
	If you can count more than five ingredients on anything you pick up in the grocery store, David, on a packet, don't eat it.
	And that includes packaged bread, right?
	This is the major issue that's driving the obesity epidemic, chronic disease.
	And again, you know, that's what I would say people should be doing first and foremost.
	And not to leave everyone in the pits of despair, Doctor, what is it going to take to change the path?
	Because, I mean, in Canada, I'm from Canada, living in the States now.
	People are still doing this.
	Doctors are still promoting it.
	Licensing bodies are being weaponized to go after the doctors who say anything contrary to the orthodoxy of the time.
	And anecdotally, I know a lot of doctors.
	I'm in a community that knows a lot of doctors.
	They all see it.
	They all know what's going on in the emergency room.
	Some of them say it out loud by accident.
	Is there a tide turning in what has to happen in order for people to say, this has been a monstrous experiment and it's time to put an end to it?
	I think the tide is turning.
	I think the way we address it is with just being honest and open, having courage.
	Those doctors that know, they need to speak out, right?
	Their silence, you know, if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem and there will be no solution.
	And being part of the solution means being courageous enough to speak out.
	And realizing that if you don't speak out, the problem is only going to get bigger and more and more people are going to be harmed.
	But I think there is a change, David, happening.
	There's certainly a grassroots movement.
	I think social media has been a big barrier to getting the information out over time.
	But I think since Elon Musk took over Twitter, certainly I think a lot more information is being shared through Twitter.
	I mean, I'm putting stuff out there and getting half a million views on videos of doctors coming out and saying, listen, the evidence is clear.
	We can stop the rollout.
	I think mainstream media has a role to play as well.
	I think in the US, it's been very politicized.
	So at the moment, you know, the biggest, the forerunners on this seem to be Fox News and some of the more, you know, left of the center, sorry, right of the center type political media, alternative media as well.
	And we just keep spreading the truth.
	And I think it ultimately will, you know, we will be able to convince the major establishment bodies that they need to come out and say, we're going to stop.
	We're going to stop this rollout.
	And then we need to build solutions to stop it happening again.
	And those solutions include the drug companies can develop drugs, but they certainly shouldn't be allowed to test them themselves.
	And they shouldn't be allowed to hold on to the raw data.
	The regulators shouldn't be getting paid by pharma.
	The government's role is, you know, has a role to protect their citizens from disease.
	That's one of their major primary purposes.
	They can't be doing that if they are being funded and influenced by the very vectors, the drivers of those diseases.
	You know, the two big enemies of democracy right now are Big Food and Big Pharma.
	And the government shouldn't be colluding with them.
	They are there to represent the people.
	So we have to have that conversation and we have to change the system so this doesn't happen again.
	Well, some people thought we did have something in place called the Nuremberg Code as far as informed consent goes and others, you know, how you can immunize pharmaceutical companies with an experimental, it was called experimental mRNA on the NIH website, how you can immunize in advance companies for an experimental drug.
	Mind-blowing.
	Doctor, I know you had an hour, so thank you very much.
	Where can people find you?
	Not that they probably don't know where to find you already, but where can they find you?
	Yeah, thanks, Dave.
	So I'm on Twitter as Dr. Simulhotra.
	I'm on Instagram as Lifestyle Medicine Doctor.
	I have just started a YouTube channel, so yeah, they can just Google me and they'll find me somewhere.
	And there is a fake account.
	Is it still up there?
	Dr. Malhorta was a fake Twitter account?
	Yeah, I think so, but I went there.
	It's interesting.
	I'm blocked.
	I'm blocked from Dr. Malhorta.
	That makes total sense because someone wants to confuse people and doesn't want you getting wise to it.
	So there's a Dr. Malhorta, which is an inverted letter on Twitter, so don't fall for it, people.
	Doctor, okay, I'm going to end the stream.
	We'll just say our proper goodbyes afterwards.
	Thank you very much.
	Everyone in the chat, thank you.
	I'll see you all tomorrow.

▲