From everything I know now, I've

reluctantly come to the conclusion that

the COVID vaccine introduction has had a

catastrophic net negative effect on

society. And this is really most

disturbing and I've not been public

about this before, so I'm going to tell

you this for the first time.

Dr. Aim Malhatra is one of the UK's

leading celebrity heart doctors whose

influential research has sparked

important conversations about nutrition

and exercise and the healthare system.

The Times journalist called me and said,

"We've got [music] reports now of a 25%

increase in heart attacks in hospitals

in Scotland which are unexplained. What

do you think about the vaccine?" I was a

bit surprised. I said, "What do you

mean?" He said, "And to have that deep

knowledge and understanding gives me

very deep pain." And medical knowledge

is under commercial control. This

[music] is the root of the problem. The

system is psychopathic when it comes to

making money. And there [music] is so

much harm that comes from drug

prescriptions. One credible estimate

suggests the third most common cause of

death globally after heart disease

[music] and cancer is prescribed

medications. This is a dirty secret

within medicine. We should shift our

approach [music] to health from a

predominantly drug-based model within

healthcare to one which is more based

upon lifestyle. So what is that? The

first thing that needs to be done is by

2030 it's estimated that about 23.3

million people will die yearly because

of heart disease globally and there are

200 million people taking statins

[music] around the world. But the

increase in life expectancy with statins

over a 5year period, 4.2 days.

How do I prevent myself ending up on

either statins or having a heart attack?

This is really important information.

So,

quick one before we get back to this

episode. Just give me 30 seconds of your

time. Two things I wanted to say. The

first thing is a huge thank you for

listening and tuning into the show week

after week. It means the world to all of

us and this really is a dream that we

absolutely never had and couldn't have

imagined getting to this place. But

secondly, it's a dream where we feel

like we're only just getting started.

And if you enjoy what we do here, please

join the 24% of people who watch this

channel regularly and have hit the

subscribe button. Means more than I can

say. And if you hit that subscribe

button, here's a promise I'm going to

make to you. I'm going to do everything

in my power to make this show as good as

I can now and into the future. We're

going to deliver the guests that you

want me to speak to and we're going to

continue to keep doing all of the things

you love about this show. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Back to the episode.

[music]

Dr. Aim,

you're working on a documentary called

First Do No Farm, which will be out

shortly. Why did you choose the name for

your documentary, First Do No Farm?

Well, first and foremost, the credit to

that name actually goes to my

co-producer, Donal O'Neal, who's made a

number of health documentaries. Um, and

he's a former international athlete. Uh,

you know, and he used to work in

marketing and PR, so he's very good with

with slogans and sound bites. Um but it

it it totally resonated with with my

work and what I've been doing probably

for well over a decade which is to try

and shift um our approach to health from

a predominantly pharmacologicalbased

drug-based model within healthcare to

one which is more based upon lifestyle.

And that's because that's where the best

evidence is in terms of improving our

health but also in terms of managing the

health care system where there is so

much waste where drugs are

overprescribed and obviously first do

noarm means in the consultation room the

ideal scenario should be with every

patient that if there is a uh

non-drug-based way non-farmacological

way of managing their illness chronic

disease which is the big problem in

society right now on healthare systems.

Uh that should be the primary primary

approach. Um as well as highlighting

through the title that there is so much

harm that comes from drug prescriptions.

Just I mean this is something that even

brings gasps from audiences when I give

talks and lectures all around the world.

And whenever even I say it, I even think

bloody hell, how have we got to this

situation? That, you know, one credible

estimate suggests the third most common

cause of death globally after heart

disease and cancer is prescribed

medications. What your doctor prescribes

for you so-called appropriately.

mainly because the information which

doctors use to make decisions for

patients when it's prescribing drugs

invariably is based upon a gross

exaggeration on the safety and the

benefits of those drugs

and the phrase first do no harm which is

the original phrase that you've spanned

for the title where does that phrase

originate from

well actually it's one of the basic

principles of medical ethics you know as

doctors that's the something that's

almost we indoctr ated or ingrained with

whenever we you know practice medicine

treat patients um that should be the

that's at the forefront of our minds. It

should be at the forefront of our minds.

What what professionally what is your

professional title?

Um I'm a consultant cardiologist.

What does that mean if I

So I uh I special so I qualified as a

doctor um medical doctor in 2001. Um and

then after um becoming a um I I decided

after two or three years of doing my

sort of initial post-graduate basic

training in medicine to subsp

specialcialize in cardiology which is

basically everything to do with the

heart and then within that subsp

specialcialization of cardiology or

specialization of cardiology I trained

in interventional cardiology. Um in

layman's term Steve that means keyhole

heart surgery. So that's what I trained

to do.

[clears throat]

Um and I did that um uh you know up

until probably 2014 2015 and then I

shifted more towards a more holistic

approach to managing heart disease

especially looking at the science and

practicing the evidence base behind how

lifestyle changes can manage heart

disease and even potentially reverse it.

You must have seen a lot of hearts in

your time.

Yes. I I I think in terms of I was

thinking about this because you know up

until 2019 I was you know an NHS doctor.

We'll come back to later why what

happened in 2019 but and that's my

passion. Um but within the NHS which I

think trains doctors brilliantly um it's

a very high intense workload. Um and uh

just to give you perspective on that um

you know we have the highest uh capita

population per doctors in Europe. So

least number of doctors per uh

population in the country um and the

most number of doctors on night shift.

So it's quite intense and because of

that I was thinking back in terms of the

patients I would see on the wards and

the throughput and the people that I

would see you know in the what we call

cardiac catheter lab where we did the

diagnostic angagrams to visualize the

heart arteries and we put stances in

etc. Over my career I've probably

managed tens of thousands of patients.

Why did you choose to specialize in the

heart versus other parts of the sort of

medical um ecosystem that you could have

pursued? What was there something?

Yeah, I don't know if there's one answer

to that. I think one trigger very early

on in my life is um you know I grew up

in a medical family. Both my parents

were GPS and I had an older brother who

had Down syndrome

and uh which also meant he had a small

hole in his heart as well. And when I

was 11 and he was 13, shortly after his

birthday um he got a tummy bug. Uh

standard tummy bug. We didn't think

anything of it. Within 6 days, Steve um

he became breathless and rapidly

deteriorated. Got admitted to hospital

and had a cardiac arrest and died. And

later on it emerged his you know the

postmortem showed his heart was

massively enlarged and essentially had

something called viral myocarditis. It

can happen actually to anybody. You get

a a cold and in one in 10,000 people up

to one in 100,000 people. The body then

has what we call an autoimmune reaction.

instead of dealing with a cold on its

own, it then attacks the heart. And and

in a third of those patients, you can

basically who get that, they will

deteriorate and they will die. And so I

think for me that had such a profound

impact on my life. Um and with both

parents being doctors, of course, there

was a bit of there was no pressure from

my parents. They wanted me to, you know,

my dad wanted to be a cricketer. But,

um, I think that was implanted in my

mind that if I was to go into medicine,

I wanted to get involved in managing and

helping people, you know, or prevent

heart disease. So, I think that's where

it started from. It's interesting cuz

when we think about our health,

a lot of people think about the amount

of weight they have on them. They think,

you know, abdominal fat. They think

about how strong they are, their muscles

and things like that. Then a lot of the

other things are very superficial the

sort of measures of our health because

we've never really seen our heart and

it's similar to our brain because we've

never seen our heart or our brain we I

think we typically devalue the role that

they play in our over overall health but

when I was reading some stats around

heart disease and how how many people

die from heart disease I was shocked so

if we start there then can you give me a

sort of macro picture on why it's

important to keep our hearts healthy

and how um how many people are are dying

because of unhealthy hearts.

Yeah. So globally

um it's estimated and it's on the

increase by uh that certainly by 2030

it's estimated that about 23.3 million

people will die um yearly because of

heart disease globally right and that's

a huge number and and just to put it in

perspective it's the one of the leading

causes of premature death in European

men it is the leading cause of premature

death and uh and that's why I think it's

so important not just about people's

lives being cut short early. But also

there is an associated morbidity which

means the quality of life deterioration

that happens with people who are

diagnosed with heart disease that may

not be able to exercise very much

because they get pain in their chest

because of a blockage or they may

develop what we call heart failure where

the pump function of the heart is

affected [snorts] because of blockages

or because of a previous heart attack

they survived and therefore they can't

actually do the activities they want to

enjoy. And that's you know way bigger in

fact that's well sorry just as important

as as of course the the premature death

rate. So, no, it's a massive issue. And

it's interesting, Steve, that you you

mentioned um the image side where people

think about excess body fat and big

muscles and that kind of thing. And that

also plays into a certain culture and

mindset that I think detracts from us

actually addressing the root cause of

many problems with society today in our

health. Um which is not related to image

actually. It's about the the basics of

of uh reducing stress, about our social

interactions, etc.

um to some degree obviously what we eat

is linked to to how we look but um yeah

I mean absolutely I think it's not

something people really think about

enough um often until it's too late. How

does it impact women? Because we

mentioned it being the single biggest

killer of men, I think, in Europe, you

said. What about women?

It's um not as bad for women. And part

of the reason for that, Steve, is and

traditionally women on average will live

live up to 10 years longer than men,

right?

And the reason for that is that women

don't tend to develop heart disease um

at the same age as men. But after the

menopause, the rates of heart disease

actually start to catch up. So even

though women will live longer, it's

still a big issue with women as well.

Um, absolutely.

Your mother passed in November 2018

after a bout of sepsis.

The

interesting I read this quote you'd

said, I think it was on um on I news.

You said G you're a GP that had

dedicated 25 years of your life to the

NHS and ultimately you failed by it.

How were you failed by it?

In my mom's circumstance, what happened

was, you know, the system was under so

much strain. I mean, she had suffered

with a a debilitating rheumatoid and

osteoarthritis for many years.

Initially, I think a lot of her health

issues were rooted in her weight. I

mean, she was addicted to all to

processed food. She consumed a lot of

sugar. I grew up in a household where

there were just cakes and biscuits

everywhere. And, you know, she was a

very loving mom. Um, but I was addicted

to sugar probably because of that as

well for some time. But it affected her

health and I and and and I love my mom

very very dearly and it was

heartbreaking to watch her suffer slowly

over a number of years. But the way she

was failed by the NHS specifically is

[snorts] that um I had already been

campaigning for many many years in terms

of seeing how the system of the NHS was

being put under more pressure. a lot of

it by diet related disease and there

were so many opportunities for us to

that were being missed to actually

improve the system so that doctors could

provide quality care to every patient to

a good degree. When my mom was admitted

to hospital and she was sick with

infection in her spine, she'd become so

frail from her arthritis that her immune

system probably wasn't functioning

properly as well. because the hospital

was under so much strain because we had

not sorted out the root causes of the

pressure on the system. They missed a

heart attack for nine days. And it's

extraordinary, Steve. I remember I was a

they knew I was a cardiologist and it

was our local hospital. My dad was a

local GP and he was considered a medical

leader. I mean, he was loved and liked

and respected massively. So, even with

all of that, [snorts] um they did

everything they could to help her. But,

um she she went she became breathless

one day. They treated her for, you know,

um, uh, you know, for infection with

lots of fluid, etc. And, um, they

carried out a heart scan. It was

decided, let's do a heart scan on her.

But nobody actually looked at the result

of the heart scan and shared it with the

team because they were so busy they just

missed it. And I get sent the results 9

days later being asked, "What do you

think?" And I immediately noticed that

it was an echo. It was a heart scan

looking at the pump muscle of the heart

that part of the heart muscle wasn't

working well. I said, "She's had it.

You've missed a it was a a relatively

minor heart attack, but enough to cause

her to go into what we call heart

failure." And within 24 hours, fluid in

the lung, intensive care, went into a

coma, and that was it. So that was a was

a failing of the NHS, but not because of

the principles of the NHS, but because

the NHS um over the years, Steve, has

lost its um basic ability to care for

patients because the principles of the

NHS have not been upheld.

For anyone that isn't aware, the NHS

means National Health Service, which is

the health service and system um within

the UK. the the I mean just a few years

later your father passes in July 21 from

a sudden unexplained heart attack at 73

years old. Um

I mean so there's three members of your

family that have ultimately

um died as a result of or closely linked

to heart attacks. Your immediate family.

Yeah. Yeah. Um yeah to some degree. Yes.

All related to the heart. All related to

the heart.

Was your father's heart attack avoidable

in your view? If you think about the

lifestyle choices and things like that

that you you talked about your mother

there, was that avoidable any in any

sense of the word?

Yeah. Interesting. Um so there are two

components to my dad's um death. Um

strictly the the postmortem findings

didn't reveal a heart attack per se, but

for all intents and purposes it can be

seen that way. So, um, the first thing

that happened was, um, my dad, by the

way, was a very fit man for his age, 73

years old. Um, played badson every week.

Um, had a bit of high blood pressure,

but had got that better controlled after

quitting sugar, partly because of all my

campaigning. Uh, and he listened to me

and he was very into eating healthy

food. In fact, you know, I consider

myself to be extremely fit. I'm obsessed

with exercise. Um, you know, I played a

lot of competitive sport when I was

younger, partly because of him. And uh

it was very unexpected when he called me

up. It's coming up to his anniversary,

July 26, 2021.

Uh and he said, "I seem I've got some

chest discomfort." And uh I asked him,

you know, to describe it. In medicine,

80% of your diagnosis, if you're a good

doctor, comes from the conversation. So

the way he described his chest

discomfort was a central heaviness going

to his shoulders. So immediately think

this is heart. And I said, "You need to

call an ambulance." He was a bit

reluctant to call an ambulance for

whatever reason. And then I said, "Okay,

I was in London. He was in Manchester.

That's where I grew up. And I decided to

go and have a shower, get ready, and get

on the train." And he was ringing up his

uh neighbors who were both doctors. And

by the time I came out of the shower, I

called him back and there was no answer.

And I remember my heart just thinking, I

really hope he's not had a cardiac

arrest. It just I thought, "No, this is

this can't be can't be what's going on."

Kept ringing ringing. And eventually

um the neighbor who was a doctor who

knew me, she answered the phone and

said, "Seeam, your dad's had a cardiac

arrest. We're doing CPR in him." I know

from national data and I've even written

about this in the BMJ. The average

response time, Steve, for for for many

many years, one of the things uh that we

do have done very well in the NHS, some

of the best in the world, is our

treatment of heart attacks and the speed

of treatment and even cardiac arrests. I

knew the average response time was 8

minutes. I said, "The ambulance will be

here in 8 minutes." because of the

timing almost certainly he will have

what we call a shockable rhythm as in um

the heart is probably in in a having a

electrical disturbance and we'll be able

to shock him out of it more than 50%

chance he will survive this is I'm

thinking already like this

10 minutes pass by hasn't shown 20

minutes nothing 30 minutes um they get

there and I FaceTime them they attach a

cardiac monitor it's a flatline he's

gone nothing to be done and of course

that was, you know, at that stage I was

obviously devastated and I I wrote in

the eye newspaper about how I I screamed

louder than ever screamed in my life.

But to come back to that situation first

and foremost so the first thing is if

the ambulance had turned up on time

almost certainly it's likely he would

have survived. That's the first thing.

But the second thing in my mind is why

has he had a cardiac arrest in the first

place? He was a really healthy guy in in

my family as in on his side there was no

family history of heart disease. He had

high blood pressure. Okay. But that was

about it, right? And he was otherwise

pretty good.

And when the postmortm came back, there

were three major arteries of the heart.

Two of them had severe blockages. And I

thought, "This is odd because I knew his

lifestyle. This is my area of interest

and expertise, heart disease

specifically, how it progresses, how you

can reverse it, all that stuff, what

medications can do, what they can't do

as well." And I thought to myself, hold

on, I knew his scan from a few years

earlier. Something has happened in the

last 2 or 3 years that has caused a

rapid acceleration in the disease of the

heart, right? In terms of the blockages

getting very rapidly, you know, um, uh,

progressing. And I thought, this doesn't

this this doesn't make sense. And I

thought to myself, was he just severely

stressed? Like stress can do it. Very

severe stress can do it. He'd lost

obviously my mom a couple of years

earlier, but he was a very resilient

guy. He was a vice president of the

British Medical Association. He was

still involved in medical politics

during COVID. He was one of the faces on

the BBC during the COVID pandemic

talking about, you know, how we should

manage this, etc. So, he was still very

mentally active. He wasn't a recluse

sitting in the corner, you know, he was

still social. So, doesn't really fit.

And then a publication appeared in the

journal circulation which is considered

a ver the premier cardiology journal and

a cardiologist called Steven Gundry who

you may have heard of. He's done a lot

of work in lifestyle and lectins and

stuff. So he he had and he actually had

a very senior role in the American Heart

Association very eminent published

cardiologist. he published um an

abstract where he had looked at several

hundred of of his patients who had taken

the COVID vaccines specifically mRNA

vaccines so either Fiser or Madna two

doses and what had happened was within 8

weeks of taking those jabs

their baseline risk went from 11% chance

of a heart attack in 5 years to 25%

chance just within 8 weeks that is a

huge jump. Like just to give you

perspective, Steve, if I today decided

that I was gonna just consume junk food,

all my meals, right? I was going to

smoke 20 cigarettes a day. I was going

to stop exercising. I wouldn't get

anywhere close to increasing my risk

within 8 weeks. And the mechanism was

through inflammation. And I thought, ah,

I know heart disease is a chronic

inflammatory condition. Think it's a

lifestyle. So if this is even partially

true, it means that the co vaccines may

be causing inflammation around the heart

and that means that many people are

going to have an acceleration in heart

disease and that may explain what

happened to my dad. But that was only

one bit of data. Of course, a good

scientist knows, okay, it gets you

thinking. It's a hypothesis potentially.

Obviously, there's some data, but it's

not enough to be make it more than

likely at this stage. And within two

weeks, call it providence or whatever

else, um I got a phone call from uh

somebody who I know, I consider him uh

you know, one of the smartest

cardiologists, very high integrity from

very prestigious institution.

And he called me up and he said, "Asim,

I've got something to tell you. I'm very

upset." He said, "A group of researchers

that I'm linked to in this institution

um had accidentally found, and this is

nothing to do with blood tests or

cardiac risk, through an a very

high-tech imaging of the heart modality

they were using, that there was

inflammation of the arteries, which

would cause obviously potentially heart

attacks. That was there in the

vaccinated, but not there in the

unvaccinated. The lead researcher sat

the team down and he said, "Guys, I just

want to make this clear. We are not

going to explore these findings any

further because it may affect our

funding from the drug industry."

[snorts] Now, obviously, people hearing

this are going to think, "Wow, that is

sounds corrupt. Um, this is something

that has been a big problem within

medicine for a very, very long time,

which isn't getting an airing." But it

didn't surprise me of that. But it was

still quite shocking. But for me at that

stage, Steve, it was okay, at the very

least, I should ask the question. And I

was nervous about it. I had been someone

took the jab myself. I went to Good

Morning Britain and very early on when

they were just offering it to

high-risisk people to say that um I

think that this is probably safe and

people shouldn't be worried. And this

was again specifically to address people

from black and ethnic minority

communities because there was a lower

uptake amongst those communities. Partly

also because they often amongst some of

the most marginal is marginalized

members of society and they have less

trust in authority in government. So you

can see how the psychology plays in

there and I convinced a friend of mine

who's a film director Ginda Chada who

directed um Bendit like Beckham. You

might know some of her movies and we

went on together in Good Morning Britain

to say listen I think this and you know

this is fine. So I had all of that and

so I was in many ways I was

indoctrinated and and there is you know

and people don't like to admit they're

wrong or think they've got it wrong. So

for me to start turning or changing my

mind or asking the question um is not

necessarily an easy thing to do but I've

done that throughout my career. So you

know if anyone has the um character you

I know myself to be able to say listen

okay there's new evidence here or

whatever else I felt I could do that but

I was still nervous and I thought you

know this is not something that I think

the BBC are going to pick up on. I had a

good rapport um with GB News at that

point um and I still do and one of the

presenters Alexander Phillips was a

friend of mine and I called her up and

said listen um you know we were doing

she wanted me on anyway I was doing

regular health slots every few weeks I

said what I see what do you want to talk

about next week and I said I think let's

talk about this said okay go on GB news

I say you know the vaccine committee of

the country should look into this this

is what I know this is what I found

whistleblower all this stuff I my dad

died as well and this may be the reason

for his death. And I just asked that

question and of course I didn't expect

it to go viral. You know, it got

millions of views and it was getting

reach all over America and that kind of

thing. Strangely, by this point, Steve,

I don't know if you remember, but

Omicron wave had started and um we were

getting reports from South Africa, which

was really reassuring that from the

doctor that discovered it that this

doesn't seem to be more harmful than the

flu. Now, great. Okay, it's mutated.

It's a different strain. This is really

great news. And then Saja Javad around

the same time the secretary for health

had come out in parliament and said we

are now going to pass through

legislation that the COVID vaccine needs

to be mandated for healthcare workers

despite the fact that the British

Medical Association Medical Colleges

we've never in our country one thing

that's really good especially within the

medical establishment we don't believe

in mandating any drug. They do this in

America. They've never done this here.

And although they weren't very vocal

about it, they kind of were a bit

relatively quiet. They weren't

supporting it openly saying that we

should mandate. This was coming from

this political decision. I thought this

is very odd. At a stage now where we're

thinking there's serious harm, we know

it's not. And by that stage, 2021,

November, most people were understanding

now it wasn't stopping infection, right,

for most people, right? So I said, this

doesn't make any sense. So I then

started campaigning on this issue. And I

started campaigning on this issue. was

able to get into the mainstream news on

this particular issue because around

that time um the I newspaper had

published an investigation into the

delay that led to my dad's death of the

ambulance service right and I had also

got privy to knowledge in that you know

in that story that the deputy chief

nurse of NHS singing had called me up

and said there had been basically a

cover up by the government and the

department of health to stop people

knowing for months there were ambulance

delays doctors and members of public I

thought this is unacceptable. So I

exposed this. It became a massive story

BBC news and when the BBC presenter

saying Dr. Mahhatra what's going on

wrong with the NHS why is it failing why

is this happening? I said it's

multiffactorial but I said one of the

most important reasons is you failed we

failed for years to address the root

cause of what's driving stress on the

system taking on the excesses of big

food and big farmer. But I said, "Right

now, we've got um 80 to, you know,

100,000 NHS staff who are refusing to

have the COVID vaccine. This would be a

crisis. They're going to lose their

jobs. This is this mandate needs to be

overturned. It's not scientific. It's

not ethical." So, I got I got that into

the mainstream and ultimately we end up

overturning, right? The the the um the

mandate. Um but there was a backlash,

Steve, behind the scenes. And I've not

been public about this before, so I'm

going to tell you this for the first

time because I think it's time I I tell

this story. Shortly after me going on GB

News as a doctor who'd had the vaccine,

had been on Good Morning Britain to say

it was likely safe and effective to then

talking about we should maybe look into

this and maybe pause the situation

because of um these heart issues that

need to be investigated. I received an

email from the Royal College of

Physicians, this is the oldest medical

institution in the world, saying, "Dr.

Dr. Mahhatra um we have received a

number of anonymous complaints from

other fellows

that you uh in reference to my GB news

interview that you are spreading antiax

misinformation

and you've got four weeks to respond to

this and they were saying all the

different sanctions that could happen

because of me doing this right Steve at

that point I thought if we are going to

get a pause on this vaccine and really

investigate it it's because of such an

IND indoctrination because so many

people, billions of people around the

world have taken this and therefore the

the the battle to expose it is going to

be harder than anything I've ever done.

The only way in my only chance is to get

it published in a peer-reviewed journal

and then to get it into the news. I

spent 9 months at that stage literally

eating, breathing, sleeping, speaking to

two FISA whistleblowers, speaking to

eminent scientists in expertise I didn't

have around immunology and vaccine

development. Of course, I had the

understanding of cardiology, you know,

better than anybody in in this

particular field, in this particular

area. And when I did that research and

looked at it, I first of all concluded

that there absolutely needs to be a

suspension of the vaccine because um

what happened by the summer of 2022 and

this is actually the the most crucial

and important piece of data on its own

which should have been enough to suspend

it and actually suggest that it probably

shouldn't have been rolled out in the

first place is that those trials that

were done by Fiser and Madna which led

to the all the media reports 95 100%

effective um you know the approval by

the regulator the roll out the coercion

the mandates they were reanalyzed by

some very eminent scientists including

the associate editor the BMJ the one of

the world's top epidemiologists and they

published in the journal vaccine which

is the premier journal for vaccines and

they were able to get new data that was

made available on health Canada's

website and the FDA in America's website

and what they did in their reanalysis of

the original highquality clinical trials

is they found Steve you were more likely

to suffer serious harm from taking the

vaccine at a rate of 1 in 800 that meant

hospitalization disability or a

life-changing event than you were to be

hospitalized with COVID and this is

during the early phase right this is

during the most most lethal strain

for all age groups

yes well absolutely well they put all

age groups together so on average in all

age groups that's a very good question

um but what's missing is that actually

okay is there a benefit that's greater

than harm in certain age groups but we

can indirectly answer that in a second

so that was the original trial so on

average it was more harmful than

beneficial okay but even before talking

about all age groups Steve a 1 in 800

harm rate for a vaccine is completely

unacceptable in the sense that we have

pulled other vaccines in the past for

much less harm the swine flu vaccine was

suspended globally because it was found

to cause Gillian Barry syndrome a

debilitating neurological condition in

one in a 100,000 people. Rotovirus

vaccine was pulled in 1999 because it

was found to cause a form of bowel

obstruction in children at 1 in 10,000.

So you've already got a harm rate of

1800 irrespective of right. So that

first and foremost should be a red flag

to say hold on this is this is too much.

When they say harm rate how do they

what's the the range of definitions of

harm? Well, in this one they categorize

serious harm as it caused you to be

hospitalized.

Yeah.

It caused a disability.

Okay.

Or something that was life-changing.

Now, of course, that can incorporate

lots of different things, but of those,

and I spoke to the lead researcher I

know work with him on other things, um

40% of those serious harms were actually

related to clotting disorders like lung

clots, heart attacks, etc.

I want to make sure I'm super clear here

because I don't understand um the the

data you're citing. So you're saying

that they found that one in 800 people

would have serious harm or harm.

Uh serious harm.

Serious harm. Serious.

One in 800 people had

in the trials. One in 800. Yeah. One in

800. Serious harm. Right now just to

give you perspective so you can balance

it out just because this is important.

It's a question you've asked is really

important. um we didn't have any good

real world data at that point on

can we separate vaccinated from

unvaccinated to look at what the

hospitalization rate would be for COVID

for example in people who took the

vaccine versus the people that didn't

according to age group that data in the

whole world the only country to get make

that data available was the UK and they

did that in the beginning of uh 2023 so

January last year and What did that

show? After two doses of the FISA

vaccine, Steve, if you were over 70, so

this is the highest risk group, you had

to vaccinate 2,500 people to prevent one

person being hospitalized with COVID.

And this was with the different strain,

the omnicom strain, because the original

strain was

Yeah, it was they didn't Yeah, it was.

You're right. It was with the Omicron

strain. So that was still, but it gave

us a ballpark figure that even that. So

it's like it's like so say a patient

comes to me and says doc what are the

benefits of this drug as a prevention

whatever else and I say to them well if

you take this there's a one in 2,500

chance it will help you prevent you

being hospitalized I'll be honest with

you Steve I mean in medicine in all the

drugs I've used and all the data I know

about different medications and heart

disease etc that figure I mean it's a

very serious issue but that figure is a

joke I mean there's nothing of that of

such poor and then when you get under

the a when you get to people under the

age of say uh 50 you're talking about

having to vaccinate maybe several

hundred thousand to prevent one one

is that relevant for that the first

strain of co as well because or do we

not have the data on that because

we don't have that data on that we do in

my paper which I published actually we

did have some data on delta and if I

remember correctly the data on the over

70s the there's also problems with this

a little bit because it's not corrected

for other factors such as social

economics etc risk factors of you that

[snorts] might make people more

vulnerable So, if I remember correctly

from that paper, if you're over 70, that

was about 1 in 250. Delta was the worst

strain, actually. So, about 1 in 250.

Okay.

On the British Heart Foundation website,

I'm sure you've read this. Um,

just to read out what they say on there,

it says that up to one in 10,000 people

with the FISA vaccine might experience

are at risk of mo myocarditis or

pericarditis.

Have I pronounced that correctly? Yeah.

Up to one in 10,000 people for the Madna

vaccine. And uh it's not possible to

estimate other vaccines because they're

not frequently used in the UK. All three

of these COVID 19 vaccines are mRNA

vaccines designed to target the omnicon

omnicom strain. And at the top of this

it says the risk of myocarditis or

pericarditis after covid-19 vaccine is

very low. How do you respond to that? Do

you think you agree with that?

No, I don't agree with it at all. I

think there are a number of layers to

respond to this. I think the first thing

to say Steve is the British Art

Foundation with the greatest respect to

them and they do a lot of good work

overall is still part of the so-called

establishment which has been blinded for

years to actually even address so many

issues on health when it doesn't uh suit

the interests of big farmer and and and

I can say that categorically because I

know one of the the the chief advisor uh

uh to heart disease um for the British

Heart Foundation with the greatest

respect to him is a guy called professor

Rory Collins um University of Oxford and

they have said similar things when it

comes to statin drugs which we'll talk

about later um but that person the

people who advise them are people who

are heavily funded and linked to pharma

taking their institutions taking

hundreds of millions for example so

there's a huge bias there to start with

that's the first thing but it for me

what the British Heart Foundation are

not doing is actually countering and I

would love them to counter that cuz I'm

very open for the debate here is that

you've got a reanalysis of and they know

this the best way of determining serious

harm from any drug is actually looking

one of the best ways is the highest

quality level of evidence which is the

randomized control trials which is what

led to the approval when you've got an

independent reanalysis in a

peer-reviewed journal saying more harm

than good from the beginning that in

itself and and then we look at real

world data Steve there's so many other

bits of data that they are ignoring

basically to answer your question

they're ignoring ing lots of other data

which is very clear whether it's autopsy

data whether it's other studies that

came out of Israel that showed for

example this was published in a journal

called nature scientific reports and

again they ignore this they don't talk

about it so it's it's like hold on guys

this is you're ignoring you're not even

mentioning this data they showed and

this is really most disturbing in 2021

there was a 25% increase in heart

attacks and or cardiac arrests in people

aged between 16 and 39 which was

associated with the COVID vaccine but

not associated with COVID.

How do they how do they tease out I was

thinking about um you know the increase

in heart related conditions around the

pandemic and following the pandemic and

in in much of your work and I think in

this book I can't actually pronounce the

word pop diet. Pop diet,

the Popey diet. You talk about how these

other sort of lifestyle factors like

community, friendships, relationships,

stress, mental health, being sedentary,

sedentary, all of these things can

contribute to heart problems. So when I

think about the pandemic, I go, people

weren't seeing their friends. We were

stressed more than ever. People were

losing their jobs. They were furoughed.

Um they had mental health, you know, we

saw the mental health uh stats explode.

Yeah.

Um

all the factors there that are linked to

heart disease. So, how do we know that

it it wasn't th those factors of the

pandemic that caused an increase in

heart related issues and how do how can

we tease that out from the the vaccine?

Really good question. Um because

remember I also said that early on

before I realized the vaccine might be

playing a role. I actually thought that

was that was the most likely explanation

of the increased heart attacks, lockdown

stress, poor diet, etc.

You'd expect to see an increase in

you would you would and I think it has

played a role, Steve, for sure it has

played a role. But then when you look at

the quality of data to say how much of a

role that's played that it it's on a

different level when you look at the

vaccine when you look at the plausible

mechanism you look at the types of

people that are dying young people and

stuff like that it doesn't fit. Um I'll

be honest my personal view it is a

primary driver without any shadow of a

doubt in my mind and a personal view of

the excess deaths. As a scientist, I'll

say it's a likely significant

contributing factor, but probably the

most likely because another aspect to

all of this is what we call

pharmarmaccovigilance reports. So these

are reports that are done by members of

the public when they they have an

adverse reaction to any drug and it's

not easy to fill in. You fill in these

what we call yellow card scheme. You can

get it online and you send it off to

your doctor or to you know the

regulator. those reports and I've

throughout my career I've never seen the

extent like for example I'll give you an

example um after 9.7 million doses of

the Astrogenica vaccine which was

ultimately pulled right astrogenica of

course was also one of the co vaccines

there were 800,000 in this country

800,000 yellow card reports now some of

them um are not going to be serious

serious but people don't fill in a

yellow card report if you've had a bit

of a fever after having a vaccine

they've felt quite ill ill enough to

that's already and then within at it's

estimated maybe one in five of those

from other data would suggest serious

harm. So other data from reporting and

with the so with about I think 30

million doses if it was probably about

30 million doses of FISA we had about

500,000 yellow card reports in this

country right which is still a lot you

know that's one in 60 yellow card

reports now they're all not going to be

super serious hospitalization death

whatever else um but when you put all of

the data together Steve that it paints a

picture that makes it look as clear as a

day that anybody doubting you know it

should the the evidence should be this

is the primary cause of the excess

deaths until proven otherwise. That's

the level of evidence, Steve, but it's

just being ignored. It's being ignored

and I can talk about why it's being

ignored.

One of the things I've been sort of gaps

in my head that I've been keen to fill

is do you believe that if we hadn't have

introduced the vaccine, more or less

people would have survived CO? Because

I've got close friends of mine that got

COVID and I watched them go from very

healthy looking people to basically

skeletons. Good friend actually good

friend one of the CEOs of my company his

dad went from being a very healthy man

to being basically looking like a

skeleton and almost died. And then I've

got I know of other people that did die.

So I think in the grand scheme of things

when we think about um vaccines was it a

net positive that we had a vaccine?

There is from everything I know now I've

slowly and reluctantly come to the

conclusion that the COVID vaccine

introduction has had a catastrophic

overall net negative effect on the

population and society. And one of the

re and and let me just caveat this

because you've mentioned the fact that

people suffered from COVID and I'm not

denying that. I've got patients, Steve,

that I see that have had long CO that

weren't vaccinated, okay? And have

suffered quite badly.

Most of the most serious aspects of

COVID happened early on in 2020 and

predominantly affected the elderly.

We've got all of that data now that's

been reanalyzed by one of the world's

top scientists. And even looking back

now, essentially if you were under 70,

even from the beginning, your risk of

serious harm from COVID is in the

ballpark figure of the flu, right? And

even I actually was wrong. I wrote an

article in European scientist in Mar in

April 2020 because I actually initially

started making a lot of noise about why

we not talking about lifestyle with

COVID to help people mitigate, you know,

the immune improve their immune system.

And I said, you know, talking to um a

friend of mine who works in the busiest

DR in America in in New York who I've

done work with and he said, it seemed

this is I've never seen anything like

this is devastating. Some of my

colleagues are dying. So I have no doubt

that at the very beginning in the early

strain of the virus, it was really bad

especially for vulnerable people, people

with obesity, etc.

Cuz you know I I I remember getting CO I

was actually used to live on the top

floor of this building and I remember

I've never experienced anything quite as

bizarre as the symptom set that I had

when I got CO. The fact that at 3:00

a.m. in the morning, I don't take

medicine. So, fact [snorts] at 3:00 a.m.

in the morning, I'm lying flat on my

floor ordering ibuprofen on Uber Eats

because my back I just had the most

bizarre like back pain. And so, I was

having to like lie flat on the floor cuz

I couldn't even lie in bed. It was so

bad.

Just this weird set of symptoms that I'd

never had before. My my partner, she

lost her smell and taste. And

it was so unusual. It was so unusual. Um

there's not been a time in my lifetime

that people have lost their smell and

taste on mass. So when I when it when

you hear it compared to the flu, you go,

"This was not the flu. This is something

different."

Yes. No, the symptoms are very

different. And I think now it's accepted

um that um and we won't go into a lot of

detail, but I think one of the reasons

as well, it was human engineered. You

know, almost certainly the evidence

points to it being a lab leak, right? So

it had a very You're right. It was very

different to any other virus

that used to be a conspiracy theory.

I know, right?

Now it's not a conspiracy theory.

[laughter]

I know. I know. Exactly.

It's funny. Yeah. when you heard about

that that that lab in Wuhan that were

messing around with viruses [laughter]

and then we we decided to put the blame

on like a market store but I think now

the general consensus is that it

probably came from that lab in Wuhan.

Yeah. Absolutely. Yeah. Absolutely. And

I've spoken to in fact I I spent time

with actually the scientists that first

went public with it who identified it um

guy in America sorry in Australia. Um so

yeah that came from lab but so I think

it had these different strange things

loss of smell etc. But in terms of

serious illness, um it was there at the

beginning. Now when you when you look

back, I think essentially there were

vulnerable elderly but uh you know who

who suffered um especially people in

nursing homes with a lot of deaths

there. But there's so many other

components to this. So one is did we

institute the correct treatments? A lot

of people were killed because they

weren't managed properly in ITU, you

know, in terms of putting people

incubating them, putting on respirators

when they didn't need it. And that in

itself has a risk. um some of the wrong

treatments were given. There were other

treatments now that we look back that

probably would have been helpful things

like ivormectin which I know has been a

bit controversial but um was very it's a

very safer than paracetamol right so

first do no harm okay um but it may have

done some good and a lot of people and

doctors around the world that used it in

several thousand there's a doctor in

South Africa that used it in 14,000

patients including many elderly not a

single one died from co and this is

early on so all these things that we

missed we miss a lifestyle intervention

so all those things are there but by the

time you get to the end of 2020 the

beginning of 2021 on there are so many

things that happened Steve that you have

to think about before you introduce a

vaccine. One is what is the state of the

virus right now um and it had already

mutated to some degree and become less

lethal. There is natural immunity which

we know is very powerful right um and

but the issue with the vaccine is and

certainly it was probably there from the

beginning. We know that when one looks

at the original trials there was a and

this is what the drug companies have

doing for a long long period of time.

They will mislead people using

statistics about the benefits. So use

something called relative risk

reduction. Let me just explain this

because you can apply this to statins as

well. Is they presented the benefit as a

95% protection against infection.

Remember that figure 95% right? And it

was what we call relative risk

reduction. So

if you've got for example two groups in

a trial, say 100 in one trial in in in

in one group and 100 in another and

let's just say let's give you an example

of statins and you're you're following

them up over 5 years to look at a drug

to see if it benefits them in preventing

having a heart attack.

In one group they get the dummy pill

um and you follow them up over five

years. And in the people that got the

dummy pill, in fact you didn't do

anything different, two of them suffered

a heart attack.

In the other group, the other hundred

people that were followed up over five

years who got the pill, the the drug,

right, only one suffered a heart attack.

So you've reduced the heart attack risk

by 50%. Right? Two to one, right? 50%.

But you've only prevented one heart

attack. You've treated 100 people, but

you've prevented one heart attack out of

treating 100. Yeah. Does that make

sense? So that's a 1% absolute benefit.

In other words, when you explain that to

a patient, when I ask when I have engage

in sort of what we call informed

consent, shared decision-making, when

they ask me about drug, I'll say, "This

gives you a 1% chance if you take this

drug religiously of preventing a heart

attack." Now, you you apply that to the

original COVID vaccine trials, which by

the way have so many other problems with

them because even those trials were

conducted and analyzed and designed by

the drug industry. I mean this is one of

the biggest myths that needs to be

busted Steve out there for most doctors

um as well as members of the public

medical knowledge is under commercial

control but most people don't know that.

So what happens is they did the trial

but let's just talk about what the

results their their results showed us a

95% relative risk reduction against

infection. They didn't show any

reduction in uh co death by the way in

that trial right they just said prevent

from infection but we then presume it

may then prevent right uh reduce death

rates absolute risk reduction from

infection at the beginning was one was

0.84%.

One in 119

so that's how many people you need to

vaccinate to prevent one infection which

actually people were not told that. So

imagine you're thinking, should I take

this vaccine? Say, well Steve, there's a

one less than 1% chance that it's going

to prevent you getting infected. People

weren't told that.

But but that it then reduce my chance of

getting seriously ill. Right.

No, but we've then talked about that,

haven't we? Like as in when you look at

the data certainly beginning of 2023

that was looking over the previous year,

2022, you have to vaccinate 2,500 people

to prevent one person getting seriously

ill with COVID, right? If you're over 70

with the second with the other strain,

but

with the other strain and it may have

been better, Steve, you're right. It may

it probably was better but it still

numbers are still much smaller than what

people were led to believe. And and by

the way Steve the narrative at the

beginning they kept changing the

goalpost. Remember it wasn't about

preventing serious illness and death. It

was all about preventing infection. You

are not in America you've seen it all

over CNN Rachel Madau and she's saying

it so passionately. If you take this

vaccine you are not going to get COVID

and calling anyone who who questions it

being a science deny. I mean Jesus

Christ. So my last question on that

before I I say I was going to say is um

do you think there would have been less

deaths overall

if we hadn't have had a vaccine?

Yes.

You think there would have been less

deaths

by now when you look at it. So I think

over time so so where we are now

start

um

so if we hadn't have introduced the

vaccine for that first strain of co you

think there'd be less deaths.

Okay. If I was to I still think that

if okay this is very nuanced but

important.

If the vaccine had only been offered to

the high-risisk people at the beginning,

say the over 70s or people with multiple

risk factors, [snorts]

I think there is a case to be made,

right? I'm going to counter that in a

minute though. But there is a case to be

made that there was overall benefit

versus harm. But there's a problem. One,

there wasn't true informed consent,

right? Because those figures, those

numbers weren't given to pay people

about the prevention of infection, etc.,

Right. Um and two, if you have an

average serious harm rate of 1 in 800,

any scientist, even regulators would

have said, "Hold on a minute. This is

way too high. This is too risky." And

this is, by the way, Steve, only the

short-term. Because remember, this

vaccine didn't go through what other

vaccines have gone through, which is 5

to 10 years of safety testing.

[snorts]

So if you throw all those caveats in and

use informed consent, I can guarantee

you with all of my knowledge, expertise,

experience with patients when you engage

in these conversations, most of those

elderly people will probably still

refused it. But but but yes, I think

there is a case to be made that the the

benefits may have outweighed the harms

in those high-risisk people at the very

beginning in the short term. Absolutely.

You know, when I think about Rachel

Maddau and what she said on TV about,

you know, that it's going to stop the

spread of infection, etc., I can have a

degree of empathy

because if that's the information you're

being fed and you are a public-f facing

broadcaster

and it's being fed to you by scientists

and it's been fed to you by the NHS and

whoever else and you know, very credible

people that you've been raised to

believe and to trust. If you're a public

facing broadcaster, what else are you

going to say? You're not going to say

the opposite. You're not you can't sit

on the fence. Your job is to broadcast.

It's the news, right? So I I have and I

think you did the same. You said earlier

you went on Good Morning Britain or

something and

and I'm not blaming Rachel Mad here. I'm

just saying that the indoctrination that

came through the mainstream media was so

strong through people like Rachel Maddo.

And why is that important, Steve? I had

a conversation with the chairman of the

British Medical Association in December

2021 when I was campaigning to overturn

vaccine mandates for healthcare workers.

He had access to Saji Javid. I had a

previous uh rapport with Matt Hanok but

he had obviously left by then. Um and I

spoke to his name Shan Nagpaul and I

explained him everything I knew about

the vaccine after looking at data at

that point. I hadn't published at this

point but I went through it in in in in

a logical way. chairman of the BMA, by

the way, not just some random person.

And he said, "Asim,

no one appears to have critically

appraised the evidence on the vaccine as

well as you have from our two-hour chat.

Most of my colleagues

who are in senior policy, you know,

medical positions, establishment

positions are getting their information

on the benefits and harms of the vaccine

from the BBC."

It's it's super difficult.

Isn't that extraordinary, though? I

think it's really difficult because if I

if you're dealing with lots of people

dying on mass and it's happened very

very quickly and people are just

dropping dead and you're seeing you know

hospitals being overrun,

you've got to

you got to tread carefully with the

information you're putting out there.

So, if the scientific information comes

in early and maybe a little bit too too

soon before it's really been vetted and

triple checked, saying one thing

and you're desperate for answers, I can

I can see why a group of people would

say, "Okay, this is the best

information." And then to go against

that information could potentially cause

tons of harm. So, I can also imagine why

a group of people would be really slow

to then change their mind away from that

because you're dealing with like

Steve, I was that person, too. So, I'm

with you on that 100%. I think where I'm

taking this is the system if it had been

more transparent early on and this is

where I've been, you know, banging my,

you know, head against a brick wall to

some degree for about a decade. If there

was more transparency in the system, we

would have had better information even

from the beginning. But that information

was kept commercially confidential

because of the system that really is

geared towards uh supporting the

interests of big farmer not in the

interest of people's health and that and

and if that and that's the key point

here right this is we're looking back

over time think how did this happen how

do we allow this to happen we need to go

deeper say how do we stop this happening

again in the future so we have better

information that's all I'm saying

do you think it is malicious at like a

government level do you think

no

you don't think it is

not at all I um know many politicians uh

very senior people um cross party uh

some of them I call my friends uh many

of them come to me for medical advice

right um in fact one of them uh you know

he lost 100 pounds on my POPY diet with

Tom Watson the deputy leader of the

Labour party right

so um and and and these genuinely by and

large are decent people that want to do

the right thing but they are also fed

you know misinformation by lobbyists

they take as expert opinion or

information stuff that has been created

for the purposes of the interest of big

food or big farmer. you know, when I um

campaigned on you getting the sugar tax

introduced, you know, I wrote articles

in the BMJ and I started ranging every

newspaper and I remember I thought we're

going to win this because the front page

of the Daily Mail was sugar is a new

tobacco and that put pressure on the

then secretary Jeremy Hunt because the

male then decided they were going to go

right and of course you know that

government conservative government are

particularly you know influenced by what

the Daily Mail writes because they

traditionally one of their supporters

but there was a story around that time

where they exposed and it was on the

front page that government ministers in

terms of obesity strategy, how do we

solve the obesity epidemic had had 99

meetings with representatives of the

food industry and not a single meeting

with a public health doctor for example.

So I know how that hap that obviously

that the system should be more

transparent to make sure that they

understand that those those politicians

but many of them um were shocked you

know when I when I told them this

information they trust me um one of them

you know was a very a former government

minister who who said it seem you know

this is she's shocked by it but like now

understands it they they were captured

as well but we were all we were in a

state of fear Steve as well we let's not

underestimate that at the very beginning

we were all scared we didn't know what

we were dealing with and of course we

have to have empathy for ourselves when

you're in a state of fear right for all

be you know I think it was a big error

to some degree and everybody was scared

and I don't think it was malicious to

create that fear initially

um it stops us you know being being able

psychologically it inhibits your ability

to engage in critical thinking and all

of us were in that position is there a

risk now that if there was a deadly vac

deadly virus that broke out across the

world people are so scared of vaccines

now that they would not go and get it

because there something I was saying to

my friend the other day I was like we've

gotten to a point now where I think so

many people are skeptical about vaccines

that if if something does come from

another lab somewhere and it is really

fatal and the government stand on that

podium again and say hands face or

whatever it was that slogan and they say

um we need you to all go get this

vaccine

who's going to go get it

yeah no I I agree I don't like that

situation I don't want us to be in this

situ situation. But you're right, there

is

and there will be another pandemic.

There there is a big risk and um the way

around that is and this is what we're

taught as doctors,

right? It's one of the things that is

ingrained into us as a medical school um

is that when you make a mistake, you

tell the patient.

Patients are very forgiving if they

think and know that you acted from a

place of good intent cuz mistakes

happen, things go wrong. this is what we

need as a MIA culpa right I was willing

to do that I mean in some way I was

partly responsible certainly at the very

early stage to support a vaccine roll

out but I know that the most important

thing for me to do when new information

comes available and medicine again is

not an exact science it evolves

but let's play that out let's play that

out so if we do if we had a situation

where the I don't know the scientist

that said really positive things about

the vaccine that it was side effect free

or whatever They come out now and they

say, "We were totally wrong." And they

say, "We got it." So, so let's let's

play out that scenario. What would

happen the next day on social media is

everybody who was criticized or

critiqued or lost their job or was, I

don't know, in some way penalized for

their views that there might be side

effects that we're not talking about,

would immediately go to their their base

of their audience and say, "I told you

so." the conspiracy theorists on the

internet who are really extreme that

believe that there's a group of people

wearing like tin hats that have come up

with this idea, they would be empowered

and what you'd then have is a situation

where another vac another pandemic rolls

in from a far away land. those people

said, "Listen, you know, those people

that you see what I'm to say it it would

in my mind it would fuel the um the

narrative that vaccines are bad and less

like people would be less likely to take

them because we're not driven by facts,

stats, graphs, and figures. We're driven

by emotion."

Y

it's much more powerful

than just if a scientist standing there

and showing me a graph. It's how I feel

which matters the most. And if I felt

like I was betrayed and lied to, there's

no chance that I'd run down and get

another jab or something in my arm.

It's an uncomfortable truth that needs

facing though, Steve, because if we

don't face it, these problems are going

to carry on. We're not going to improve

the situation by ignoring it and

sweeping under the carpet. So, there

will be that, you're right, there will

be that backlash. I myself have had

that, right? I've had people, you know,

I I got heckled, you know, um a talk I

gave on this for the first time when I

spoke at it in London, um saying, "I was

part of it all. You're a liar." All this

stuff. Yeah, absolutely. I I got, you

know, exploiters were thrown at me. And

I I understand where that emotion comes

from. But at the end of the day, the

only way we can progress and evolve is

it just accepting. But that, you know,

because we want to then it's not just

about saying we got this wrong. It's

actually explaining to people and

saying, "Okay, we thought we were doing

the right thing. These are problems in

the system we weren't aware of. Most

people are not aware of this. We need to

resolve this and move forward with

greater transparency. And over time now,

okay, within the immediate aftermath, of

course, there's going to be that

emotional reaction. There's going to be

a backlash if there happen to be a

pandemic within a short space of time

after that admission. Yes, it may well

be that people aren't going to go and

take vaccines. But why should they,

Steve?

Vaccines are can save your life.

No, no, no. I'm talking about a new

anything new. I'm not talking about So,

yes, absolutely. Traditional vaccines. I

mean, I'm still a big subscriber and

supporter, let me just make this clear,

of traditional vaccines. In my paper

that I wrote, I said, you know,

estimates suggest vaccines have saved 4

to 5 million lives a year. And the

serious harm rate of vaccines, I think

there's, of course, there's going to be

nothing's completely safe. No drug is

pharmacist completely safe. But just in

terms of published data, right, probably

still an exaggeration, but still it

gives you it gives you a comparison.

Serious harm rate for traditional

vaccines, 1 to two per million.

All right. [snorts]

People aren't very people aren't very

smart, though. including me when it

comes to when I hear the word vaccine I

think all vaccines you think we don't

know what a vaccine is so it's just a

word it's like if you said to me dogs

are savaging one in 800 people you know

the average person isn't might not

[laughter] the average person might not

think if that's a chihuahua or like a

German shepherd we just heard dogs and

then there's going to be a fear of dogs

and I think the same with the vaccines

we don't know the difference between

different vaccines we just think they're

all the same so if you tell me that

vaccines are causing x y and zed I'm

going to go I don't Yeah. If someone

offers me a flu shot or whatever thing

or whatever, it's the trust that's been

eroded in the system and it's my trust

in the word vaccine that's been eroded.

Yeah. No. And it's it's unfortunate.

It's unfortunate that that that has

definitely showed. There has been a dent

and a change I think an uptake of things

like MMR

because of this.

It saved my life when I was a kid. I got

my all my family got malaria. We were in

Africa so

they all got pretty bad malaria and uh

so we yeah my pretty pretty serious as

well. I think I almost died of uh

malaria I hear from my mother.

Steve the thing is with doial vaccines

they went through many many years of

safety checks right and this is an

important thing people I think we

shouldn't underestimate people's

intelligence and their ability to

understand and forgive as long as we

communicate it in the right way. I have

these conversations all the time with my

patients. You know I give them numbers.

I talk through it. When I talk about

statin drugs for example I say I'm going

to give you these numbers but there are

lots of caveats here. one the data has

never been independently verified right

and I give them all this and I give them

alternatives etc I do this all the time

and patients want that they want more

information in a way that they can

understand and of course yes they want

to trust their doctor but again it's all

it comes down to ethics values intent

and doctors not admitting their mistakes

is a very very bad place to be

the chair of the clinical cardiology at

the University of Edinburgh professor

Mark Dwek commented that um on your

opinion saying the co vaccines the co

vaccine opinions you are misguided and

in fact dangerous. The vast majority of

cardiologists do not agree with your

views and they are not based on robust

science. Now, if you're someone

listening to this now, I've got your

opinion and I've got this guy's opinion,

the chair of the clinical cardiology at

the University of Edinburgh. I've got

the NHS saying that vaccines are safe

and extensively reviewed in both adults

and children and that the independent

medicines and health care products

regulatory agency is continually

monitoring the safety of COVID vaccines

and reports of side effects are very

rare. And then I've got your view. How

do I as someone that's hearing this in

this year and this in this year figure

out what to believe

because everyone's so compelling.

Everyone's got data.

Well, you just ultimately got to go with

your own intuition. Steve, who

my intuition is always going to side

with fear

because I'm a human being.

May maybe and and this stuff works. Um

I'll come on to this and this was a bit

of a hatchet job by the Guardian.

Interestingly, I've written 19 opeds for

the Guardian Observer newspaper over the

years, but you know how these how this

journalism works. They'll they'll move

on. Um a couple of things just couple of

facts to throw back at you first and

then what you've raised is really

interesting historically and something

that I've learned from this sort of

backlash. um Mark Dwek with the greatest

respect to him uh what wasn't disclosed

in the article is that he has taken

money from FISA he's he's he's you know

been funded by FISA and that's factual

you can look that up right that's one

thing so that's a bias um the more

important than that the MH which was

described as independent right yes is

not the British medical journal BMJ did

an investigation

published um in the summer of 2022 and I

presented this data uh on the on the on

the MH at the British Medical

Association annual conference where the

president of the BMA was there, the

chair of the BMA was there, right? And

they were gobsmacked and they didn't

they couldn't believe and this is why

this information is so important, these

facts so important. The MA even I was

shocked when I read this our medical

regulator in this country MH gets 86% of

its funding from big farmer which is a

huge bias. So they're not independent.

So those are those are the two facts

that should at least if I threw that

back you say hold on a minute then

should I believe all this now what was

the purpose of that article of course it

was to undermine my credibility I'm

exposing essentially something you know

it for all intents and purposes pretty

horrific you know reluctantly on the BBC

with 25 million views or whatever else

right um but people that inspire me have

been through far worse right and and I'm

an activist that want to expose

injustices right the likes of Mandela

Gandhi Martin Luther

One of the lessons from them and even in

public health advocacy as soon as your

work threatens an industry or an

ideological cabal you will be attacked

sometimes unrelentingly and viciously

and that was really a hatchet job.

Can I what about the the second part of

the quote that where he says that the

vast majority of cardiologists do not

agree with your views?

Um

is that true in your opinion? He's

giving his opinion, but actually um from

every okay every cardiologist I spoke to

has basically said you're going to do

doing great work but they won't speak

out and this is part of the problem

right is that people are turning a blind

eye. I had uh one cardiologist um who

met me in the street right these are I

have this happens all the time and he

said I read your paper he said I can

tell you now although they won't admit

it publicly all the cardiologists in our

department and they know you and they

and they they trust where you come from

and your integrity none of them are

having any more COVID vaccines because

of you they're on to it but Steve this

is a problem only a small minority of

people are willing to speak out I have a

platform where I'm able to articulate it

and and do so. But that is my duty and

responsibility. This is just a

reflection of uh what is ultimately a

big farmer tyranny. You know, I know

you've interviewed Jordan Peterson, who

I um admire greatly. Uh and and Jordan

Peterson says when you have something to

say, silence is a lie. [snorts] And you

know, tyranny tyranny emerges when

people are afraid to say what they

think. And when everybody essentially

lies all the time by being silent,

that's when the tyranny is complete.

This is exactly where we are. But I do

want to mention something if you don't

if you don't mind like I have to go

through this right myself and it's not

easy right you get all this stuff and

people checking credibility and I

remember when that that that Guardian

hit piece which was like the you know

the top story that day I actually felt

in many way feelings but I felt ah over

the target here right because Gandhi

said first they ignore you then they

laugh at you then they fight you then

you win. So the point is these things

work Steve but you know the truth is the

truth. So

what is the reality then of your of your

life going through that? Because you

know if you get attacked from all

angles, you've not got immediate family

there, you're you're reading stuff about

yourself online all the time, your

colleagues, etc. are turning on you.

What what's life like in if I'm a fly on

the wall in those hard moments? Um

very deep pain

on

to to to have the knowledge and deep an

understanding that in my view we are

dealing with one of the greatest likely

corporate crimes, medical mistakes,

damage to people's health. People are

suffering, people are dying, people have

got all sorts of problems because of

this vaccine. to have that deep

knowledge and understanding and to not

be able to see any great progress or

enough progress for this to be resolved

or to be improved. That suffering around

me gives me very deep pain more than

anything else.

Why?

I think inherently I'm just very

sensitive to that around me. That's just