00:00:18.000	00:00:19.699	Welcome to America!
00:00:19.699	00:00:23.000	It's like the twenty-fifth time!
00:00:23.000	00:00:25.199	Twenty-fifth time… Recently?
00:00:24.899	00:00:29.300	No, I mean, I was last here in November, actually…
00:00:28.500	00:00:34.799	I was here in November, but I have, you know, my closest family outside my immediate family.
00:00:34.600	00:00:37.200	Unfortunately they've all passed away now…
00:00:36.500	00:00:38.399	I am in California.
00:00:37.600	00:00:44.700	Since I was a kid, I ??? to come over and meet them and come up to San Jose like every other year…
00:00:45.200	00:00:54.100	So, for people who don't know who you are, and what you do, could you please just tell us your credentials and what your occupation is?
00:00:53.200	00:00:56.299	Yes. So, I'm a consultant cardiologist
00:00:56.000	00:01:20.400	I qualified from [i]Edinburgh medical school[/i] in Scotland in 2001, so I've been a practising physician now for whatever twenty years. In my initial early career, Joe, I specialized in interventional cardiology, so in layman's terms keyhole heart surgery, stents, and then, over the past few years, for different reasons which we'll probably get into, I focused more on my work on prevention.
00:01:20.900	00:01:26.599	And how did you become this controversial CoVID character?
00:01:26.299	00:01:28.299	Well it's interesting…
00:01:27.400	00:01:32.799	I think the controversy with me probably started… many years ago…
00:01:33.500	00:01:37.599	Probably I became… sort of, I broke into the mainstream…
00:01:37.900	00:01:53.700	around 2011 initially, because I wrote an article which was a front-page commentary in [i]The Observer[/i] newspaper which was part of the [i]Guardian[/i] group in the UK, basically, as a cardiologist who was saying: “Why are we serving junk food to my patients in hospitals?”
00:01:53.200	00:02:06.599	And that was after I had met with Jamie Oliver… so… I started campaigning on the issues around obesity at that point, and… not long after that, Joe, I then
00:02:07.900	00:03:10.199	went into a deep dive to try and understand why we had an obesity epidemic, what was driving that, what was the role of cholesterol and heart disease, overprescription of statins, and saturated fat… And essentially that culminated with me publishing a piece in the [i]British Medical Journal[/i] in 2013 October, basically which was titled [i]Saturated fat is not a major issue[/i] and suggesting we should be focusing on sugar, we got it wrong with saturated fat, we're overmedicating millions of people on statins, cholesterol is not that bad as a risk factor of heart disease… And that's really where I sort of broke into the mainstream, and that was, you know, BMJ ([i]British Medical Journal[/i]) press released it, it was the front page of three British newspapers, it was on [i]Fox News Chicago[/i], [i]CNN International[/i], and that's really when I started my kind of activism, to try and fight back against medical misinformation and a kind of deep understanding that what was driving poor health for many many people, was biased and corrupted information coming from two big industries: [i]Big Food[/i] and [i]Big Pharma[/i].
00:03:09.900	00:03:16.900	— And that's fairly controversial still today, but backed up by data now, like the…
00:03:17.500	00:03:33.599	the talk about saturated fat, and the fact that sugar's terrible for you. Now we know, because the [i]New York Times[/i] published that expose of those initial scientists who were bribed… I believe it was in the fifties or sixties.
00:03:32.699	00:03:34.900	Do you know those stories?
00:03:34.000	00:03:51.099	— Yeah.[br]— Of course, where they were basically given about fifty thousand dollars, which is not that much money, to ruin everyone's idea of what's good and bad for you, because they demonized saturated fat in order to preserve sugar.
00:03:51.400	00:03:58.099	They were paid off by the sugar industry to do this…[br]— Yeah, absolutely, Joe, that's really the heart of the problem!
00:03:57.500	00:04:10.099	I would describe it as the corporate capture of medicine and public health, and it's been going on for decades. Yet, I think only now — and certainly, we'll get into around the CoVID vaccine stuff —
00:04:09.099	00:04:13.099	I think only now more people are becoming aware
00:04:12.199	00:05:16.899	of it and I think, one of the things I discovered when I looked into the whole issue about saturated fat and sugar et caetera is, you know… In the fifties, sixties and seventies, two scientists were really at war around what was driving heart disease, because heart disease really started to increase in the United States from 1920 and peaked around 1960 to 1970 in terms of death rates from coronary artery disease. And Ansel Keys was an American physiologist, from Minnesota, who said that saturated fat was the culprit. And then there was John Yudkin, a British endocrinologist and nutrition scientist, who basically said that it's sugar. But because the sugar industry was so powerful, they were able to put all of their resources and energy into supporting Ansel Keys who did take money from the sugar industry and later emarged and silenced John Yudkin. And, for decades we were under the false belief that it was saturated fact that was the big culprit of heart disease. And you think, adding to this, which wasn't fully accepted or known at the time, was the… no acknowledgement of the impact of smoking.
00:05:16.399	00:05:17.500	So…
00:05:18.300	00:05:29.100	You know, it took about fifty years between the first and [last] smoking along cancer [papers] that were published in the [i]British Medical Journal[/i] before we had any effective regulation
00:05:29.399	00:05:34.600	on tobacco control, interventions, government interventions
00:05:36.100	00:05:38.899	and now we know that when you look
00:05:39.199	00:06:02.600	at the decline in death rates, specifically death rates and heart disease in the last four or five decades, almost half of that can, Joe, be attributed to the reduction of smoking… So, these are things that weren't fully accepted or understood at the time, and the reason for that, and this is really interesting, is the tobacco industry adopted a corporate playbook.
00:06:02.100	00:06:45.600	You know, I call it a dirty tricks corporate playbook, of planting doubt that cigarettes were harmful, confusing the public, denying, and even buying the loyalty of bent scientists. So, when there were people, doctors and public health advocates saying “Smoking is a problem with the heart,” scientists were paid to write articles in medical journals, saying “It's not smoking, it's stress. People who smoke are more stressed, and it's not due to the cigarettes.” So, you know, this is history repeating itself in a way, and denialism, and this is another thing I find quite fascinating — I mentioned this in some of my lectures as well — as late on as 1994, the CEOs of every major tobacco firm went in front of
00:06:44.699	00:06:51.000	US Congress and swore under oath they did not believe nicotine was addictive or smoking caused cancer.
00:06:52.199	00:06:56.300	Right? So, all of that was thrown in…
00:06:55.399	00:07:20.699	So, once I, as a praxen cardiologist who is a regular frontline jobbing doctor, was seeing, since I qualified, more and more people getting sick, more chronic disease, I started to think is there something we're doing wrong as a medical profession? Are we giving the wrong advice? What's actually going on here? And when I did that deep dive and went into the cause of it, I then realized that the system unfortunately had become increasingly corrupted
00:07:21.199	00:07:39.000	over many many years by these powerful commercial entities, whose only interest, for legal reasons, is to be profit for shareholders, not to look after your health.[br]— Yeah, that's all they're really responsible for… When
00:07:39.500	00:07:49.600	you did this and you started to talk about diet and health and the misconceptions or misinformation about diet and health, what was the pushback like?
00:07:50.000	00:07:51.699	It was huge…
00:07:52.000	00:07:54.500	I think, for me…
00:07:56.199	00:08:03.500	When I published a piece in the [i]British Medical Journal[/i]… It was October 23d, I'll never forget this, 2013
00:08:03.899	00:08:06.000	got a lot of attention.
00:08:05.100	00:08:25.300	At this stage, I'm what we call a specialist registrar in cardiology, so I'm not a consultant, I'm not top of my gradient, and still, I'm finishing my training, I'm almost a fully-fledged cardiologist, I'm doing intervention keyhole heart surgery, and the first thing that happened to me, Joe, which I haven't spoken about publicly before, is…
00:08:26.199	00:08:38.100	Imagine the front page of three British newspapers… A lot of attention and a lot of people are happy because suddenly you know the front page headline was [i]Butter is back: cardiologist says eating butter does not cause heart disease[/i]… Right?
00:08:37.200	00:09:10.700	I know that brings a smile to your face, and I know why, I mean, who doesn't like eating butter? But it was true! It was what the facts told us at the time, so I published this stuff but I also, what I did at the time is, in that eight-hundred-word editorial, I also went for one of the most prescribed drugs in the history of medicine, which are statin drugs, because I had to link everything. So, if saturated fat doesn't cause heart disease, but we know saturated fat can raise cholesterol, that means cholesterol isn't that important, and if cholesterol isn't that important, why are we giving all these people statins?
00:09:09.799	00:09:15.399	So I was able to scientifically and rationally put all that jigsaw together.
00:09:15.100	00:09:30.899	But in that piece, one of the things I wrote is, I said that the side effects of statins are underrepresented in clinical trials, and the side effects usually are things like muscle aches and fatigue, and this is also part of my clinical experience as a cardiologist.
00:09:29.899	00:09:37.200	I was seeing way more people anecdotally, although, you know, I've managed tens of thousands of people in my career in terms of patients,
00:09:36.899	00:09:56.600	I was seeing way more people with side effects and statins I diagnosed than what was actually in the published literature, what was coming through in the medical journals where doctors are being told side effects are rare, less than one per cent chance of getting fatigued on muscle symptoms… I was seeing about twenty per cent, and there was a reference I used in my article which suggested…
00:09:57.100	00:10:16.700	A recent study in the community, in the United States, suggested that one in five patients probably get side effects from statins. Now, you know, that is, is… So, we put on ??? in the past…[br]— Is it because those side effects, fatigue, muscle soreness, things are fairly mild that why they were underreported?
00:10:16.500	00:10:18.100	Great question!
00:10:17.299	00:10:19.500	So, now we know the reason.
00:10:18.600	00:10:26.899	So, first and foremost, when I ask a patient, a patient complains about side effects, I ask them: is this interfering with your quality of life?
00:10:27.000	00:10:42.500	So, if they say yes, by definition from their perspective it's not mild, it's something that's just making them feel pretty… shitty. But the reason, Joe, was that they were not reported, and that came up later on.
00:10:41.600	00:11:24.000	This is something I didn't know as a medical student, as a qualified doctor, and as a specialist, is, until then, in a lot of the clinical trials that are conducted, the drive guidelines these randomised trials, where you give patients, one group gets the statin and one group gets a dummy pill, and they don't know whether they're getting the dummy pill of the statin, and then they're followed up, and you see whether they have fewer heart attacks and what side effects they get… There's something called the pre-randomisation running period. So, before the trial starts, people are enrolled, and then if you get side effects you are taken out of the trial before it starts… So, what happens is…
00:11:24.600	00:11:33.000	So, what happens is the end result of those trials is therefore biased towards people who didn't get side effects, and then…
00:11:33.200	00:11:40.899	So, there's a big under-reporting issue…[br]— And they have no responsibility to report the people that were removed that also got side effects?
00:11:40.000	00:11:42.799	Well, so, what they do is very interesting.
00:11:41.899	00:11:57.299	They get around it slightly sneaky… In one of these trials called the [i]Heart Protection Study[/i] [2003], thirty-six thousand people were removed from the trial before it came among the largest bank trials, and what they did was they mentioned this, but they used the word “non-compliance”…
00:11:57.600	00:12:52.200	suggesting that the patients didn't take the pills… But that doesn't make sense, because if you're going to enrol on a trial, Joe, you're probably going to be someone who's enthusiastic to be part of this trial. So, they used this broad and relative “non-compliance”. But some of them may well have been on compliance, you know, people that are, you know, I'm gonna start I don't really want to take a pill, taking this a week now, whatever… But actually later on when you look at real-world data, certainly in the United States, a larger study called [i]Statin Evidence in the United States[/i] reveals that within about a year of people being prescribed statins, 75% of them will stop taking it. And when you ask them why 62% of those 75% stopped taking it, they say they got side effects. So, there's a huge discrepancy there. I was using my clinical experience understanding how the trials are run, we wrote, I wrote this piece, and this is really fascinating, Joe, so I'll get onto the second part of this in a second…
00:12:53.000	00:12:54.899	Hum, at the same time
00:12:55.700	00:13:27.899	John Abramson, who I know you've introduced, wrote a piece in the BMJ ([i]British Medical Journal[/i]) at the same time as me, which was specifically about whether should we be giving more people statins, so people what we call low risk of heart disease, which would essentially mean because there were mutterings of some guideline bodies saying, you know, maybe we should give more people statins to prevent heart attacks… And what that would have meant in reality, just if it was taken up, that would mean practically everybody over the age of fifty would suddenly be at a risk that they would be required these statin drugs.
00:13:27.100	00:13:32.299	So, John and his father…[br]— Is it a prophylactic measure?[br]— Yes, to prevent heart attacks, absolutely!
00:13:31.799	00:13:53.299	So, John wrote this piece with two of his colleagues from Harvard, and it was an analysis of the data, properly rigorously, so you know… And both our pieces, my piece was peer-reviewed, so was his… And, in his article he said, listen, if you're low risk of heart disease, then your risk of… the benefit of statins is really really negligible
00:13:53.600	00:14:17.299	About one in 140 chances of it preventing your having a heart attack or a non-fatal heart attack, or non-disabling stroke over five years, based upon industry-sponsored data, still, so, there's still a bias… Even, when you look at that, it's still very marginal, it will not prolong your life. But he also referenced the same reference I put in, saying from a community study one in five people get disabling side effects.
00:14:16.600	00:14:20.700	I'm gonna come onto that story later because it's really…[br]— Disabling?
00:14:21.299	00:14:40.600	Disabling or debilitating, maybe debilitating, or serious enough for them to feel not well, let's put it that way, but yeah, it's semantics. But yeah, it depends on how you define it, but I would say the quality of life-limiting, I think is probably more accurate.[br]— Is that how they defined it as non-compliant because these people experienced these side effects and they're like “I want to get out of trial?”
00:14:39.799	00:14:41.899	Well that was non-compliant.
00:14:41.000	00:14:58.500	Yeah, I mean they didn't… Yes, they didn't specifically say that, but that's clearly what probably happened, and most likely. So, he writes this piece, and we both reference the same side effect profile, which is massively more than all of what doctors have accepted or been told as Gospel truth from all these big impact medical journals.
00:14:58.799	00:15:26.299	But lots of things happened to push back. So, the first thing that happened to me is, the very next day after I'm in the news, I get, hum… Well, I'll tell you something more interesting… So, I go in [i]CNN international[/i], so I'm a junior doctor at this point in the [i]British National Health Service[/i], and I'm in the green room about to go live on air for CNN, to debate with a professor whom I won't name, in Imperial College, who is a very big proponent of statins…
00:15:26.700	00:15:43.399	And I'm about to go in there, and he basically meets me there, and he's like… he's almost frothing in the mouth, he's really angry: “I'm angry with what you did!” I never met this guy before. And he started repeating this mantra basically.
00:15:42.899	00:16:13.000	He basically said: for every 1 mmol/l lowering of LDL cholesterol, which is what statins do, you have a 20% reduction in heart attacks, and he comes and almost like a religious mantra, he kept saying the same thing again and again, and I just stayed calm and said “listen, you know, I think this is ???, and I think this is a big problem of prescription of statins, I don't think everybody should take a statin, I think it has a role in some people…” And he kind of calmed down, we went on air, and the discussion really focused on the fact that, you know, this cardiologist here is saying okay to have steak, do you agree with him?
00:16:12.500	00:16:51.899	And the discussion ended up being quite reasonable. But I got a little bit of a kind of… like, you know, I felt almost as a veiled threat, you know. This guy is very powerful in the cardiology community and the scientific community in London, everybody kind of knows each other, and with this kind of person, things could happen where people like that could potentially have conversations and wreck your career… But I was, you know, for me I'm just committed to the truth, so I kind of… you know, but I didn't know what was coming. The very next day in my hospital, I got a phone call and… I had just started working there a couple of weeks earlier, as what we call an interventional fellow, so I was the main guy who was being trained to be the next
00:16:52.200	00:17:14.400	what we call “interventional cardiologist”. So they choose people, I was selected in this university hospital to be the guy that essentially does the procedures and operations with supervision to become completely independent. And I was doing, you know, I started doing stents and doing stuff independently, and I was good at it… So, I get a phone call from the secretary of the medical director and she says:
00:17:16.700	00:17:37.400	“Doctor so and so (I would not name him…) would like to meet you…” And I just got a feeling that it wouldn't be good. ??? when I publish this piece, because this hot spot in the university hospital went in the news, a lot of the staff are really proud, like I had, you know, the nurses and secretaries coming up to me and “Thank you, well done.”
00:17:36.500	00:17:43.000	“It's so great to see this in the news, and we're really proud of you and you represent our hospital” and this kind of stuff.
00:17:42.200	00:17:47.799	And I said, well, the medical director wants to see me. They said: “Oh, and I'm sure he wants to congratulate you!”
00:17:48.099	00:18:03.000	That wasn't quite sure, so I got to his office. I had never met this guy before. He opens the door but doesn't shake my hand. He's literally red in the face, and he says: “Come in, sit down!”
00:18:03.700	00:18:26.400	I sit down and he looks at me and he says: “Do you know your duties as a doctor? I've been speaking to the general medical council about you…” Just for the audience, the general medical councils are the regulatory body that controls doctors' licenses to practice. They can remove your license to practice. Right? And I'm sitting there going, okay… He says:
00:18:26.900	00:18:29.400	“Tell me, what have you done?”
00:18:28.500	00:18:44.400	“You know, I read this article, and this is a tweak there, you know, saying that statin is overprescribed, blah blah blah…” And I talk to him, and he goes: “Are you telling me that our nurses can tell our cardiac patients that they can eat butter?”
00:18:43.900	00:19:04.400	Now, it sounds ridiculous, Joe, now… Right? But he was really serious about this. So, I calmly responded: “Listen,… I've written this in the [i]British Medical Journal[/i], one of the highest impact medical journals in the World, this is peer-reviewed, and I think there is a scientific case here…” And I just talked to him, you know,
00:19:04.799	00:19:23.700	without getting emotional, and it was really interesting. By the end of the conversation, he said to me, he said: “I very much hope that in ten years from now, I can tell my grandkids that I sat opposite the man, the cardiologist that busted the myth of saturated fat causing heart disease.”
00:19:22.900	00:19:37.799	Wow! So, you turned him![br]— I did, but I thought so, I felt I did turn him, I thought okay, you know, this is a power of the truth, and you stand your ground, and you talk respectfully to people and you can potentially turn them…
00:19:38.299	00:19:48.299	What happened over the next few months, though, was something I never could have predicted, but really shaped me in many ways to be the person I am today.
00:19:50.000	00:20:27.099	This story had legs, so it kept dragging on in terms of, you know… There were a lot more stories now, and interest about butter and saturated fat… In fact, there was a front page I don't remember this… [i]Time[/i] magazine… There was a 2014 front-page story [i]“Is butter back?”[/i] and it was triggered by my article because a journalist called me and spoke to me. I wasn't quoted in the article in the end, basically “Listen, we're going to look into this” and they got all of a different nutrition scientist and made the case, but it was fine, probably okay in terms of heart disease… But what happened after that was because I had also attacked statins, and of course a huge industry… I think, well, let's just try and give some context here, Joe,…
00:20:28.299	00:20:46.900	The statin industry or the cholesterol-lowering industry, I mean, it's a trillion dollar industry, there's a lot of money, a lot of people make money from the fear of cholesterol and the prescription of statins… In fact, there is an estimate now that globally, in terms of prescriptions, up to one billion people are prescribed statin drugs.
00:20:46.000	00:20:50.400	In the United States, it's at least thirty million people taking them, probably more.
00:20:49.900	00:20:56.299	So, I had said essentially that most of those people don't need to take the statin,
00:20:56.299	00:21:35.700	and more than that, I said we should tell patients, honestly and break down the information the way they can understand, and say: “Listen, if you are at low risk of heart disease, you haven't had a heart attack, your benefit of statin is 1%.” Right? And when you tell people that, most people, Joe, don't want to take the pill anyway. So I said this is about ethics and evidence-based medicine. So, I kept that discussion going, and then, one of the cardiologists, the lead cardiologist in the department, he came up to me one day, a couple of months later, and said: “Listen,” — I think ??? [i]Channel 4 News[/i] talking about it, or something — and he said: “Listen, you know I respect your opinion, blah blah, however, you can't keep saying this publicly… and if you do, then there may be an issue about your job here…”
00:21:35.900	00:21:47.299	So, I kind of thought, okay, well, you know I'm not saying anything wrong… Something else came up, I was quoted in another article, and then I had a job in this place, Joe, for one year.
00:21:46.299	00:21:54.000	This is my interventional fellowship, you know, being doing the specialist training final stages to being an intellectual cardiologist, and…
00:21:54.400	00:21:57.900	I then got a letter out of the blue
00:21:58.400	00:22:03.099	four months into the job, saying that we have decided to discontinue
00:22:03.299	00:22:09.200	your fellowship, and you got too much notice.[br]— Was there any reason?
00:22:08.599	00:22:22.099	No, but it was clearly because of…[br]— They don't have to give you a specific thing that you violated or…?[br]— No, there was no reason. Because the thing is… and I don't say this to blow me on trumpet,
00:22:21.099	00:22:27.299	I've always prided myself in my clinical care for over twenty years, which is unusual, and I'm sure some of it is luck
00:22:26.400	00:22:42.099	I've never received a single complaint from a patient, and I got on with my colleagues and the staff, and everything. So, there was no reason, but he basically said to me you're off the record, it was because of this, and clearly someone higher up had had a conversation, I suspect. Right?
00:22:41.799	00:22:52.200	A journalist who's a [i]Guardian[/i] journalist, whom I knew also… When I told him about this at the beginning, he said this thing: “Just be careful, because, you know, I've seen this happen before.”
00:22:51.500	00:23:17.400	“You know, the pharma company is very powerful, and someone will just need one phone call to the CEO ([i]Chief Executive Officer[/i]), and they'll say shut this guy up.” Right. And we'll get onto other stuff later quite similar…[br]— But, yeah, sorry again, but can you please tell us what is the mechanism, how the statin work, and what does it do to lower cholesterol?[br]— Yeah, so, for many years there's been this misconception that high cholesterol is one of the most
00:23:18.700	00:23:27.700	one of the most important risk factors in ??? heart disease. So, I broke down the data, and I published a lot on this stuff to look at it properly. And, Joe, this…
00:23:28.000	00:23:50.299	The association of cholesterol and heart disease came from something called the [i]Framingham Heart Study[/i] which was in Massachusetts, started in 1948, carried on for several decades, where they followed five thousand people, and many risk factors for heart disease came from their correlations, which were then validated like type-2 diabetes and high blood pressure, even smoking and high cholesterol.
00:23:50.599	00:24:25.700	Now, what's interesting about [i]Framingham[/i], when you look at the associations of total cholesterol and heart disease, it was only there when your total cholesterol, a significant association was only there if it was over 300 milligrams per deciliter. Very few people have total cholesterol that high, and we have to also understand that most of your cholesterol is genetic. Eighty per cent of your cholesterol is genetic![br]— Eighty per cent?[br]— Because cholesterol is a really important molecule in the body, it's not just… It's, you know, important for maintaining cell membranes, its important role in the immune system, and…
00:24:26.400	00:24:30.200	— Hormones… [br]— Hormones, vitamin D synthesis, all of that stuff, right?
00:24:29.400	00:24:37.099	So, it's genetic. You can ??? your diet, the components of it, something called triglycerides and HDL — so-called good cholesterol. Right?
00:24:36.299	00:24:39.900	But, so the total cholesterol was not a very good indicator.
00:24:39.099	00:24:48.500	If it was very very high, there was an association, but what's interesting about that is that almost all those people had a genetic condition which gave them very very high levels of cholesterol.
00:24:47.500	00:24:53.200	It was called familial hypolipidemia. Affects one in two hundred and fifty people, right?
00:24:52.599	00:25:06.099	And then, at the very another end, from [i]Framingham[/i], the very low levels of cholesterol, less than one 150 milligrams per deciliter or 4 millimoles per litre in European terminology, there was almost no heart disease. So, again, there are genetic factors there.
00:25:05.500	00:25:11.200	So, basically people with genetically low cholesterol tend to not develop premature heart disease.
00:25:11.099	00:25:33.500	Another interesting caveat: Most of that data on the development of heart disease was only up to people who were fifty or sixty, and what wasn't publicized is that, once you hit fifty, as your cholesterol dropped, in the [i]Framingham[/i], your mortality rate increased… Never really discussed. So, I looked at all of this, and that's interesting, but I think the thing
00:25:33.799	00:26:05.799	that really, sort of, was a nail in the coffin for me in understanding the association of cholesterol with heart disease was very weak, was William Castelli. He was one of the co-directors of [i]Framingham Cardiologists[/i]. In 1996, he did a full summary of [i]Framingham[/i], and he said this, he said unless you're — because, you know, you're going to talk about, you may be thinking, okay, hold on, there's good cholesterol and bad cholesterol — so he specifically focused on what we call LDL “bad cholesterol.” And he said unless your LDL cholesterol is above 7.8 millimoles per litre, which is something like…
00:26:06.200	00:26:26.400	Joe, it's probably at least 300, pretty much 300 milligrams per deciliter, it has no value in isolation for predicting heart disease. So, what they determined from [i]Framingham[/i] was your risk of heart disease, one of the risk factors was your total cholesterol divided by your HDL, the good cholesterol of the ratio.
00:26:26.700	00:26:29.599	So, that's the first thing.
00:26:28.700	00:26:33.099	The association of cholesterol with heart disease is quite weak first and foremost.
00:26:32.200	00:27:04.500	The second question is, when you try and prove that there is a biomarker that is causal in heart disease, you want to show that if you lower it, then there is a difference in heart attacks and strokes for example. And only in 2019, more recently, I co-authored a paper in BMJ ([i]British Medical Journal[/i]) evidence-based Medicine with two other cardiologists, and what we did was we looked at all the drug trials of lowering cholesterol to find out if is this true when you look in totality, not cherry-picked evidence.
00:27:03.700	00:27:10.400	Is there a correlation between lowering LDL cholesterol and total cholesterol, and preventing heart attacks and strokes?
00:27:09.400	00:27:12.599	And this is based upon randomised controlled trial data.
00:27:11.700	00:27:14.700	So this is the most robust evidence you can get.
00:27:13.900	00:27:26.299	Joe, no clear correlation. It was BS [bullshit]. The whole thing was BS, in that sense like it's very weak if anything… So, that means… Then the next question is, well, hold on, how do statins work?
00:27:25.400	00:28:03.900	And that's a question you asked me earlier, it's a great question, it's a really important one. Statins do have a small benefit, but one of the properties of statins which isn't talked about is they have anti-inflammatory and anti-clotting benefits. So, even though they lower the LDL cholesterol, the real benefit in preventing heart attacks and strokes is through that mechanism. But when you break it down, as I said before, your risk is, you know, the benefits are about 1% if you are at low risk of heart disease. But if you've had a heart attack, and many patients I see have had heart attacks and they get automatically [prescribed] statins, and the cardiologist didn't even check their cholesterol, because, in the cardiology community, we kind of knew that was like it doesn't matter what cholesterol is.
00:28:03.000	00:28:09.799	Let's put them on the statin because the trials show there are benefits, but what are those benefits when you break them down in absolute terms?
00:28:08.799	00:28:11.900	This is crucial and important
00:28:10.799	00:28:13.299	and this isn't cherry-picked stuff.
00:28:12.299	00:28:16.799	This is what all the evidence shows when it's being peer-reviewed etc.
00:28:16.200	00:28:34.299	If you've had a heart attack… A patient comes to me: “Doc, shall I carry on this statin? I've been put on this statin, and I'm getting side effects…” I say: “Let me explain to you the benefits first so that you're not… you don't have an exaggerated fear stopping a statin, and you also don't go around with the illusion of protection, thinking that's the only thing I need to do now.”
00:28:35.900	00:28:51.900	“Over five years, if you take your statin religiously and don't get side effects… Right? Because, remember, the trials took out people with side effects, so best case scenario, your benefit of a statin is one in 83 for saving your life…”
00:28:52.200	00:28:57.200	“Right? And one in 39 in preventing a further heart attack.”
00:28:56.900	00:29:00.000	A lot of people find that quite underwhelming.
00:29:00.000	00:29:22.400	Another way of looking at the statistics, Joe, and this is important for populations… Looking at those trials, and… I'm about to tell you when I talk at conferences to doctors and general practitioners, there's like a gasp from the audience, right? When I tell them this, and this is published in the BMJ ([i]British Medical Journal[/i])… So, in the randomised trials, you look at an average of how much… You foresee that question, right?
00:29:21.500	00:30:05.799	You've had a heart attack, they say for example, and statin is one of those prescribed drugs of the miracle cure, whatever. One of the most potent beneficial drugs in the history of medicine… If you take those, if you take a statin for five years, having had a heart attack… In those five years, how much would you think or hope it would add to your life expectancy? You've survived a heart attack, right? And now you've been given this pill which your doctor is telling you, this you must never stop, this is going to save your life. How much would you hope it would add to your life expectancy over five year period? Over that period, we can increment to… [br]— 15 per cent, 30 per cent?[br]— Yeah, okay, so, a few years, about a few years actually…[br]— You want the answer? [br]— Yeah[br]— Just over 4 days!
00:30:07.299	00:30:09.500	4 days?[br]— 4 days!
00:30:10.200	00:30:12.400	Those are great days, though!
00:30:12.599	00:30:41.799	No, fair enough! Absolutely! And, you know, this is so, and the reason I am mentioning that is, when you look back over the last few decades, and people talk about what has driven down death rates and heart disease, there's this assumption it's been the mass prescription of statins. Many people take statins. But the evidence suggests, there's a separate analysis done… They looked in European countries, high-risk and low-risk people with heart disease over twelve years… Was there a difference, was there a reduction in heart disease death rates because of statins?
00:30:40.900	00:31:09.000	And the answer was no. And that doesn't mean that the data is fraudulent. It's been misrepresented. But if you accept safely a four-day increase, right? But these are in people who didn't get side effects, who were adherent to statins… And real-world data tells us, even people who've had heart attacks, maybe fifty per cent of them will stop taking it just within a few years, mainly because of side effects… You can understand why that hasn't had an impact on the population. But think about that.
00:31:08.099	00:31:10.799	This is one of the most powerful
00:31:11.099	00:31:16.299	lucrative drugs in the history of medicine, and this is how…
00:31:17.200	00:31:22.500	marginal — let's be polite here — how marginal the benefits are.
00:31:21.799	00:31:36.200	— Now, once this information has been out there, and it's been published, and you've had these talks, and people are aware of this, what has been the reaction, and has there been any change in how it's prescribed?
00:31:36.299	00:32:04.700	So… After this publication in the BMJ ([i]British Medical Journal[/i]) initially, and then, I had to get another job, right? I lost that job in that hospital, and I then ended up working for free briefly in another NHS ([i]National Health Service[/i]) hospital cardiology department. I worked for free, doing one day a week, because I had another role with health policy, which I'll come onto… They were paying me some money, and I didn't want to stop seeing patients, so I was working for free in one hospital for a year in a cardiology department.
00:32:06.799	00:32:09.799	In March 2014
00:32:10.599	00:32:16.700	I got a phone call, an email initially, from the editor of the [i]British Medical Journal[/i].
00:32:16.500	00:32:18.599	And she said, Aseem…
00:32:19.200	00:32:48.400	Let's have a meeting. I think I went to meet and she said there is a man called Professor Rory Collins. Professor Rory Collins is probably considered in the World the lead statin researcher at Oxford University. He got his knighthood from the Queen because of his work on statins. He has said that you need to retract Abramson and Malhotra's papers, because there is a significant error on the side effect issue, and this is going to cause harm, people can stop their statins.
00:32:47.900	00:33:45.000	And she said straightway, no, I'm not going to retract it, but we're very happy if you would like to publish it, send a critique and then we'll publish it. But for some reason, he decided he did not want to do that. So, this back and forth was going on, and then, out of the blue, he decides whether it was him or somebody else to go to [i]The Guardian[/i] newspaper. And I get a phone call from [i]The Guardian[/i] and the BBC, which again was headline news, that what Abramson and Malhotra had done — it's become a news story frontpage at [i]The Guardian[/i] — was so damaging in terms of their error on the statin side effects issue, that people will die essentially… This is almost as bad as… they were trying to make parallels with Andrew Wakefield and the whole measle mumps and rubella (MMR) issue that happened many many years ago — that was the scientist who lost his license because he linked the MMR vaccine to autism, right? So, they were trying to create that kind of frenzy and I'm like… Wow, this is okay. So I went on BBC and I stood my ground and…
00:33:45.500	00:34:09.599	That, I think, put the BMJ ([i]British Medical Journal[/i]) under pressure… And then the next thing that happens is — I remember I was with my cousin in New York and I will never forget this — I get an email, a press release from the BMJ ([i]British Medical Journal[/i]), which I knew was going to… You know, this is, to be honest, it's an attack on one's credibility… But the BMJ ([i]British Medical Journal[/i]) then decided they were going to send our articles for an independent review of whether or not they should be retracted.
00:34:09.099	00:34:44.900	Now, Joe, just to put things in context, that's potentially career-destroying. In a sense, if my article got retracted, it got so much publicity — and I genuinely believe what I said was correct — but, if it gets retracted, then your credibility is undermined pretty much forever. And you're ???, you know, it would be ??? for me at the beginning of my career… So, I was on trial, essentially for two months, if you like, and… You know, that was tough, it was very very tough! There was a panel. They convened, they asked me to send in responses, and then whatever else. I didn't know what was going to happen, then I think it was August 2014…
00:34:43.900	00:34:53.400	I remember it broke in the news and it was, you know, I got an email and the panel had come back 6-0 unanimous in our favour.
00:34:52.699	00:35:21.800	Wow![br]— There was no call for retraction. Because John Abramson went through a lot during that period as well. I know you interviewed him.[br]— Yes[br]— And we talked and whatever else… When that happened, Joe, there were two things I could have done. One was: wow, this is like too much, I don't think I can handle this, I'm just gonna, you know, I'm going to hide away and just keep a low profile… But you know well, this is about ethical evidence-based medical practice… There was some correction that needed to be done, and some caveat that they added, into the papers around the side effect issue.
00:35:21.099	00:35:23.599	So, I carried on with this campaign.
00:35:22.699	00:35:30.099	I carried on publishing other journals, kept on that transparent communication, ethical evidence-based medicine, statin over-prescription.
00:35:29.199	00:35:46.099	There are other things we can be doing from the lifestyle, right, which are going to be more powerful, whether it's a low-carb Mediterranean diet, exercise… Why are we not focusing our attention there, rather than just giving people all these pills that they think are going to protect them from heart attacks… In most cases, it doesn't.
00:35:45.800	00:35:49.599	And, in that journey — and this went on for a few years —
00:35:49.900	00:35:53.300	This is where things got really interesting.
00:35:53.599	00:35:59.500	So, to answer your question: yes. There was a lot of backlash, it was tough, and there was a big smearing going on…
00:35:59.699	00:36:04.800	But I realized then, as a public health advocate, that
00:36:06.000	00:36:10.500	You've got to have thick skin and grow a rhinoceros hide.
00:36:09.599	00:36:17.800	And those are the words from a man called Simon Chapman. Simon Chapman is a professor of psychology in Australia.
00:36:17.199	00:36:28.400	He was considered the lead campaigner in making sure there was tobacco control in Australia, and he wrote a paper talking about his thirty-eight-year career in public health advocacy and gave ten lessons.
00:36:27.900	00:36:44.800	And one of those lessons is this: As soon as your work threatens an industry or an ideological cabal, you will be attacked, sometimes unrelentingly and viciously. So, grow a rhinoceros hide! And I thought…
00:36:43.800	00:36:45.400	I'm up for it.
00:36:44.500	00:36:46.300	I'm up for it.
00:36:45.400	00:36:50.400	So many more people came out of the woodwork to support me… Other doctors said “You're right”, you know…
00:36:49.500	00:36:58.500	And I thought, this is about truth and transparency, and ethical medicine, and highlighting all the corruption in the conflicts of interest.
00:36:57.699	00:37:29.500	One of the things that Professor Collins hadn't made apparent is, his department had taken over 200 million pounds at Oxford for doing research into statins, from the drug industry… And they also kept the data commercially confidential. So, most of the publications and guidelines that are coming on statins, emanate from that department, when no one had been able to independently verify the data. And he is quoted in [i]The Guardian[/i] saying, only problematic side effects in statins affect one in 10,000 people…
00:37:30.199	00:37:43.599	So, I thought this was something, but this doesn't add up, I think, these are biases and conflicts of interest. I'm not saying that he was deliberately malicious, but I think there's a huge conflict of interest there that is clouding his judgment.
00:37:42.699	00:37:49.699	Plus he's not a clinician, he doesn't see patients. So, there are all of those things that, I think, limit his ability to really look at the evidence properly.
00:37:49.300	00:37:59.599	And, 2016… You really couldn't make this up, 2016… So, he's campaigning statin side effects almost non-existent. I get a phone call from a [i]Sunday Times[/i] journalist.
00:37:58.699	00:38:01.400	A guy called John Agotam, a great guy.
00:38:01.199	00:38:15.000	And he said, Aseem, you never believe, you know, you won't believe what I found out… The reason this came out, in 2016, they decided to republish. So, what Collins said, he said there's a lot of discussion about statin side effects.
00:38:14.000	00:38:18.000	We're going to re-analyze our own data again and look into this.
00:38:17.199	00:39:21.199	So they published this piece in [i]The Lancet[/i] in 2016. And the basis was the same thing again: side effects of statins are rare, less than one per cent… Maybe get, you know, some mild muscle aches, that kind of thing. A week later, this journalist calls me and he says, I found something really interesting… In the United States, there is a genetic test called StatinSmart™, which is… [i]Boston Heart Diagnostics[/i], the company that is marketing this, has a license to market this product, and on their website they… Oh, the genetic test, the co-inventor of this genetic test is Professor Rory Collins… And on their website, they're selling this test to basically try and figure out who's likely to get side effects. So, you do this test and it tells you whether or not you're likely to get side effects from specific statins or not, and it says 29% of all statin users are likely to get significant muscle symptoms or side effects on statins[br]— Wow![br]— And he did a freedom of information request to Oxford University.
00:39:20.500	00:39:26.000	I published this with John Abramson. Actually, we did this in one of the papers we wrote later on…
00:39:26.300	00:39:43.300	And Oxford University came back and said that… Yes, and how much money have you taken from selling this device? And it was something in the order of… the University had received 300,000 pounds, and Professor Connor's department had received about 100,000 pounds.
00:39:43.400	00:39:55.699	This doesn't make any sense! So, in one sense he's saying side effects are non-existent. Yeah, he's co-invented a test to try and detect who is likely to get side effects, and on the website… It got taken down after that, interestingly.
00:39:54.699	00:40:06.099	You know, we published it and we highlighted this… But it's like, hold on, they're kind of making money from both sides here, and for me, it does highlight it, you know…
00:40:06.400	00:40:32.099	This was all, for me, like a symptom of a system failure, where there are all these concealed conflicts of interest. People are being selective with the information they put out, and ultimately, at the root of the problem, Joe, is that these big powerful pharmaceutical companies, these corporations, have more and more control and unchecked power over these institutions, or conflicts of interest… But people don't know about it, right?
00:40:31.199	00:40:43.699	And when you tell people that story… When I ??? some lectures and bring that up, it's pin-drop silence… People are just shocked. Some of them are angry, they feel they've been deceived, like “How is this, how is this acceptable?”
00:40:43.400	00:40:45.800	Yeah. How is it acceptable?
00:40:46.000	00:40:49.099	What has been the response after that?
00:40:50.199	00:40:53.599	So, I think there's been a big shift.
00:40:52.599	00:42:27.199	I think more doctors are aware, now. Something unprecedented happened around that time. Our health watchdog [i]National Institute for Health and Care Excellence[/i] (NICE) had recommended that, after all this publicity, we should, general practitioners should be financially incentivised to prescribe statins for people at low risk of heart disease… Even though this data was very clear, and I had been on the TV, and carried on the campaign, and talking about this stuff… And the Union of general practitioners, the British Medical Association's general practitioners committee, actually revolted. This had never happened before, and they said no, we're not going to accept this, and they had to make a U-turn… So, that for me was a victory based upon this sort of campaigning that I had been part of. But now, more recently, with all these excess deaths happening, our chief medical officer, a few months ago, came out suggesting that one of the reasons there's been this excess cardiac debt is because people aren't taking their statins… This was then refuted, because Carl Heneghan, who is the director of the [i]Centre of evidence basement[/i] in Oxford — he's non-conflicted, they don't take any money from the ministry, a very rigorous guy in terms of the way he does his analysis and his department — showed that that wasn't the case. And, you know, I think that maybe was part of a distraction, but there is still now a push again to get more people on statins, and I suspect a lot of it is because, you know, if you think of the business model of the drug industry, it is to get as many people taking as many drugs as possible for as long as possible.
00:42:29.300	00:42:53.000	In 2018, I am asked to go to the Cambridge University Union by the BMJ ([i]British Medical Journal[/i]) to be part of a team to debate with [i]AstraZeneca[/i], and I end up debating with the CEO ([i]Chief Executive Officer[/i]) of [i]AstraZeneca[/i], and the motion put forward which was debated in Cambridge University was, for them we need [i]more people[/i] taking [i]more drugs[/i]. That was their motion!
00:42:53.199	00:42:56.800	And… it was just, yeah…
00:42:57.000	00:43:03.400	So, that's their business model, Joe. People need to understand what we're up against here, but that isn't the solution to good health.
00:43:02.599	00:44:00.699	In fact, the overmedicated population now is a public health crisis, even pre-pandemic. One estimate from Peter Gøtzsche, who is a co-founder of the very prestigious independent Cochrane collaboration, in the BMJ ([i]British Medical Journal[/i]), suggests that the third most common cause of death now, globally, after heart disease and cancer, is prescribed medications… What your doctor prescribes for you. Mainly because of avoidable side effects. And these are avoidable because the decision-making in the prescription often doesn't involve informed consent. And when you tell people the full benefits and harms, in absolute terms, of drugs, mostly they're more conservative, they're less likely to take the pills. But also the information that doctors are using to make clinical decisions are based upon these industry-sponsored trials where they keep their data commercially confidential, which ultimately means that the safety and the benefits are grossly exaggerated.
00:44:01.300	00:44:17.699	John Abramson explained to me how peer review is done on trials that are coming straight from pharmaceutical drug companies. That you don't get access to the data itself, you get access to the pharmaceutical company's analyses of that data…
00:44:18.099	00:44:22.199	Yes. That's absolutely true.[br]— That sounds insane!
00:44:21.400	00:44:29.199	It is completely insane, completely insane![br]— That sounds so obviously compromised.[br]— It's not scientific, really?
00:44:28.300	00:44:33.500	It's not ethical?[br]— Right![br]— Right? And I'm a believer in true democracy.
00:44:32.500	00:44:34.199	It's not democratic, you know.
00:44:33.300	00:44:40.099	If I… When I tell my patients, I have conversations with my patients about this stuff all the time, and just ask them what they think, and they… they're shocked!
00:44:39.699	00:45:41.599	Most doctors, even I was not aware of this, Joe, until they really looked into it properly… I was the conventional doctor doing his job who took the publications in [i]The Lancet[/i], in the [i]New England Journal of Medicine[/i], you know, as gospel truth, biblical gospel truth… Never questioned it. And now, you know, I look to people like John Ioannidis, who you may be familiar with… He's a professor of medicine at Stanford, he's the most cited medical researcher in the World, you know, he's considered a medical genius, very high in scientific integrity… And he wrote a paper in 2006, it was in [i]Plos One[/i], which was titled “Why most public research findings are false”… One of the things he writes in there, with his mathematical modelling of the reliability of research — and this is fascinating — he says the greater the financial interests in a given field, the less likely the research findings are to be true.[br]— Wow!
00:45:42.800	00:46:32.000	So, in your estimation, is this just a fundamental aspect of unchecked power and influence, where the industry exists primarily to make money? They provide these drugs, and many of them are beneficial, but their overall goal is not public health. Their overall goal is to make exorbitant amounts of money. They have a responsibility to their shareholders, their responsibility to the corporation, and that responsibility is to make more money… And they will do what it takes to do that, including compromising physicians, compromising researchers, compromising journals, and that this is just…
00:46:32.500	00:46:50.800	There's not a lot of recourse for a person like yourself that steps out. You stick your neck out there and you get attacked, and fortunately for you, you had all your bases covered and the data was so obvious that you were able to survive this.
00:46:51.000	00:47:00.400	But for the most part, most physicians, most doctors, most clinicians, don't want to get involved in that, and so they toe the line.
00:47:00.099	00:47:06.300	Yep. I think, even if they had a nail in the head. So, let's give it some context here as well.
00:47:06.099	00:47:23.599	So, yes. Legal responsibility for profit for shareholders is not to give you the best treatment, but the real scandals are, those with responsibility, Joe, to scientific integrity, academic institutions, doctors, and medical journals, colluding with industry for financial gain.
00:47:24.500	00:47:41.599	And the… Quite often — and I know you discussed, you know, in detail around the whole [i]Vioxx[/i] scandal with John — but quite often the way that these big corporations operate as legal entities… I'm not pointing fingers at people within them,
00:47:40.900	00:47:46.699	you know, I met Pascal Soriot, I had dinner with him, who's a CEO ([i]Chief Executive Officer[/i]) of [i]AstraZeneca[/i], you know,
00:47:47.599	00:48:06.000	He even sent me a book, afterwards, to my home address — he knows where I live, so I better be careful! But he seemed like a nice guy, right? But, in their roles, they are only responsible to their shareholders. But the problem is, and we see this historically, it's quite often…
00:48:05.199	00:48:13.699	And Dr Robert Hare is a forensic psychologist who was behind the original international we call “DSM Criteria for Psychopathy”
00:48:13.300	00:48:49.199	and he says that, as these legal entities, quite often in the way they conduct their business, actually fulfil the criteria for psychopaths, so callous in concern for the feelings of others in capacity to experience guilt, deceitfulness, conning others for profit. And we have precedent, we have a history of that, you know, between 2003 and 2016 most of the top ten drug companies paid fines totalling about 33 billion dollars, for illegal marketing of drugs, hiding data on harms, and manipulation of results…
00:48:50.099	00:48:57.500	And, you know, when those crimes were committed, in most cases, they ended up making more profit from sales of the drugs than they do from the fines!
00:48:56.599	00:49:08.400	So, there's no incentive to stop doing what they're doing, and ultimately, you know, the patients suffer, but I don't want to throw the baby out with a bathwater here, because someone might say, well, hold on,
00:49:07.500	00:49:15.599	Dr Malhotra, but aren't the drug industry responsible for these life-saving treatments and blah blah? And yes, they are, but the question is what is the net effect of them?
00:49:15.199	00:49:40.800	So, if you look at, the last twenty years, I'll just give you some examples here. Between 2000 and 2008, of the 667 drugs approved by the FDA ([i]Food and Drug Administration[/i]), 75% of them were found to be copies of old ones. So the drug companies will change a few molecules here and there on an old drug, rebrand it, rename it, patent it, make lots of money, and then they move on, they move on to the next one, right?
00:49:39.800	00:49:47.800	So, there's a huge waste. Only 11% of them are found to be truly innovative, as in a therapeutic clinical benefit over the previous drugs.
00:49:46.900	00:49:56.800	So there's all this waste… In France, something similar, between 2000 and 2011, almost 1000 drugs were approved by their regulator
00:49:57.099	00:50:09.400	again most of them were copies of old ones… But about double the amount of drugs, Joe, 15% of those drugs that were approved were found to be more harmful than beneficial, compared to about 8% per cent with therapeutic benefits.
00:50:08.500	00:50:12.800	So what does that mean, when you look at it in the totality, with the waste and harm?
00:50:12.099	00:50:20.900	The overall net effect of the drug industry, in my view on society in the last two decades, has been a negative one.
00:50:22.300	00:50:23.400	Wow!
00:50:24.099	00:50:54.699	That's hard to swallow…[br]— And, you know, one of the reasons it's hard to swallow, there's something sociocultural which we don't talk enough about. So, a lot of people believe in medicine and think it's an exact science, but it's not an exact science. It's an applied science, it's a science of human beings, and it's a social science. It's a constantly evolving science. We're taught in medical school, fifty per cent of what you learn, it's gonna turn out to be either outdated or dead wrong within five years of your graduation!
00:50:54.099	00:51:05.800	The trouble is nobody can tell you which half, so you have to learn on your own.[br]— And you have to stick your neck out because you're going against whatever the narratives…[br]— You do…[br]— But that's hum…
00:51:06.199	00:51:12.699	Ultimately, for me, everything I do is motivated by that patient in front of me in the consultation room.
00:51:11.800	00:51:31.199	You know that persons suffered unnecessarily who didn't need to be there. All of these external factors, infants' health, whether it's an ultra-processed food environment, whether it's a pill, taking a pill they don't need… And we see that, you know, we now see that in the World… United States, you lost two years of your life expectancy in the last few years!
00:51:31.699	00:51:46.000	In the UK, since 2010, Joe, we've had a levelling off, a stalling of life expectancy, and an increase in people living with chronic disease. So, for me, as a doctor, I think to myself, hold on a minute…
00:51:45.599	00:52:00.599	You know, fine, this is multifactorial… But if we, as a profession, collectively, we're doing everything right according to the best available evidence, why are our patients getting sicker? Don't we have a responsibility to understand why, and then do something about it?
00:52:01.400	00:52:17.000	Yeah, I imagine you do…[br]— So, that's for me, that's what drives me, and, you know, one of the things I was thinking about as well… I've come up with this new term, and it's a derivation of something called commercial determinants of health. Right?
00:52:16.000	00:52:28.000	I like this definition, “commercial determinants of health:” strategies and approaches adopted by the private sector to promote products and choices that are detrimental to health.
00:52:27.900	00:52:29.099	Right?
00:52:28.000	00:52:30.699	And that can apply to medication
00:52:29.800	00:52:34.300	It can apply to ultra-processed food, which is addictive for a lot of people, right?
00:52:35.199	00:52:39.300	But what I've come up with when you think about the drug industry, and what
00:52:38.400	00:52:44.500	Dr Robert Hare talks about psychopathic, which is something called the psychopathic determinants of health, and
00:52:44.800	00:53:10.199	Richard Horton, who's the editor of [i]The Lancet[/i], actually came to one of my lectures in London recently, and then he referenced me talking about this in one of his pieces. It wasn't a completely positive piece on me, I'll be honest, with a little bit of a subtle hatcher job, but he talks about, you know, “Malhotra talks about the psychopathic determinants of health.” If you think conceptually, Joe, we talk about these very powerful entities that have a big influence on our lives, and if they are psychopathic, you know…
00:53:10.500	00:53:19.400	It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that it's going to have a downstream effect on society, that's going to be negative. Culturally.
00:53:18.800	00:53:22.599	People staying silent when they should be speaking up.
00:53:23.199	00:53:29.099	You know, I've been contacted by doctors who agree with me privately but say I wouldn't say that or…
00:53:29.300	00:53:38.800	and this is what we're having to do with now, and this is… They've got more power than they've ever had, I think, Joe, over all lives and influence.
00:53:37.900	00:53:52.300	And if a psychopathic entity has so much power and control over our lives, of course, it's going to be negative. And we need to basically fight back…[br]— So, this sort of established
00:53:53.199	00:54:00.400	your hesitancy to just believe whatever the narrative that's being described
00:54:00.699	00:54:15.199	by the industry, by the medical industry, so you had questions… Now, coming into CoVID… Did you have those initial fears or questions about the vaccine?
00:54:18.400	00:55:21.199	[sigh] At the very beginning, I had a little bit of scepticism about the efficacy of the vaccine. Because we know, traditionally, vaccines for respiratory viruses like influenza are not that great. But I didn't… So, with all of this knowledge and background knowledge, I honestly treated vaccines, or the word vaccine, like holy grail… Despite all of this stuff around overmedicated population, all these pills people are taking, these blood pressure pills they don't need, or statins, or even diabetes drugs they don't have much benefit from them, and common side effects… For me, still, within all of that, vaccines are amongst the safest. So, I never conceived of the possibility at all, actually, of a vaccine doing any harm…[br]— Even knowing that this is a completely different vaccine that does… Nothing's ever been distributed like this…[br]— Yeah. So, I know that now, but at the time, you know, I hadn't focused my attention specifically on the vaccines at all. So, what you're saying makes sense, but at the very beginning, you know,
00:55:21.599	00:55:34.599	I was… I deferred to vaccine specialists and immunologists, and people I thought that you know, didn't probably have conflicts, who were all saying this is fine. So, I hadn't looked at it in that much detail, and I just made the presumption that this was gonna be safe.
00:55:33.900	00:55:37.400	I don't know how effective it was going to be, but it was going to be safe.
00:55:36.800	00:56:18.199	And as a result, and some of it was also, you know… So, during the CoVID pandemic, I was very outspoken linking obesity and poor CoVID outcomes. In fact at the point where, you know, I was getting pretty mad there wasn't enough coverage on this… Like, we've got this pandemic that affects, disproportionally affects the elderly, there's no doubt about that at the very beginning, it was particularly devastating for old people, but there was like a thousand for one gradient difference in risk if you were young versus all like… Even now, even early on, John Ioannidis and Jay Bhattacharya, did these analyses essentially suggesting that for younger people it was actually less lethal than the flu, but for older people, very old people, it was quite bad at the beginning.
00:56:17.599	00:56:37.000	So, I noticed this link with obesity, and I said, listen, you know this is my work over many years, one of the things that I also advocate for is that, for people to understand, if you change your diet, just within a few weeks, depending where you started from, you can potentially even send your type-2 diabetes into remission, you can reverse the most important risk factors for heart disease.
00:56:36.699	00:57:00.400	So, I knew that if people were told that, when this virus was, you know, when the pandemic started, this is an opportunity… Actually, we already had this slow pandemic of chronic disease which we hadn't effectively coped with, anyway, this is a great opportunity for going to say, listen, guys, now this is a time to sort your diet out, take vitamin D, you know, really just optimise your immune system, and it wasn't happening.
00:56:59.900	00:57:04.500	So, in all of that, I looked at all of the risks as well
00:57:05.400	00:57:14.599	and it was clear that this was, you know, not very risky for people who were my age… I am 45 now, so what I was 43…
00:57:15.699	00:57:21.099	You know, 42, 43 when the whole vaccine rollout started… My father,
00:57:21.400	00:57:27.699	who was a retired general practitioner, but vice president of the British Medical Association, a very prominent doctor in the UK…
00:57:27.699	00:57:43.000	And this gets into the emotional side a little bit, because, you know, I think this is relevant. He was very keen, I think, of the vaccine, and I think it was because he had an exaggerated fear for me, right like many people had.
00:57:43.300	00:57:46.400	We lost our mother just a few years earlier.
00:57:45.500	00:57:52.500	I lost my brother when I was young. So, I was his only surviving immediate meme, and he had this…
00:57:51.500	00:57:57.300	He needs a vaccine… No, please please, please! I said Dad, you know, I don't really need it, you know! — No, no, no, take it!
00:57:56.500	00:58:30.099	This went back and forth. I said okay, fine, I'll have it, but I thought, anyway, as a doctor I'm going to take it, I'm going to protect my patients, let's see what happens… So, I took the vaccine, and then about a month later a film director, a friend of mine, Gurinder Chadha, you might be familiar with some of her work, [i]Bend It Like Beckham[/i] movie she did, [i]Blinded by the Light[/i] about Bruce Springsteen breed ???… So she was sending me all this stuff, saying I've seen a lot about the vaccine, and it was kind of blogs, and it was stuff saying like, you know, microchips, depopulation agenda, fertility problems… I said Gurinder, to be honest, I said I don't think there's any real good evidence here,
00:58:29.099	00:58:35.699	this is scaremongering… And I said, you know, I think you're high risk, you're type-2 diabetic, you're overweight et cetera…
00:58:34.800	00:58:36.699	I think you should have it.
00:58:36.199	00:58:39.000	So, she said, great, because, you know, she trusts me.
00:58:38.000	00:58:41.500	So, she took the vaccine, and then she tweeted it out.
00:58:40.599	00:59:07.800	And the next thing… I'm on [i]Good Morning Britain[/i] in February 2021, asked to tackle vaccine hesitancy, which was higher amongst people from ethnic minority backgrounds. I think it's probably similar in the States as well. One of the reasons for that, as well, by the way, Joe, is that a lot of people from those backgrounds are from poorer backgrounds, and understandably they have less trust in the government. They're the neglected people in society in many ways. So you can see why they felt that way.
00:59:07.099	00:59:33.900	And I went on [i]Good morning Britain[/i]. I didn't point fingers and said, my god, these people are crazy, whatever else. I said, listen, let's understand that there are rational reasons why people don't want to take the vaccine. Look at the history of the drug industry for us. Several decades or more fraud… I think they won't expect me to say this right, I said think about all the fraud they've committed, I understand that, but having said that, when you look at traditional vaccines, they're some of the safest. And that's kind of pretty much where I left it. At that time, Joe, when we were only in the UK…
00:59:34.300	00:59:56.099	At that point, there was only the recommendation for the vaccine to be given to people at high risk. I never expected… Even then, like, friends were calling me… You're a young person, no, you don't need to take care. Beyond the fiftieth and healthy, no, not even at that time, this is just for high-risk people. So I took it. I swallowed the pill, and then, yeah, I mean, things changed very dramatically within a few months…
00:59:56.199	00:59:59.099	Did you have any adverse effects?
00:59:58.500	01:00:00.000	I did!
01:00:00.400	01:00:01.799	I did…
01:00:03.000	01:00:21.900	and, again, I didn't fully appreciate it at the time, but now I know the mechanism of harm, and it makes sense. I'm actually within time very much into my fitness, Joe. I've been like, you know, captain of sports teams at school, university, I'm an obsessive exerciser, like every day, you know, I don't feel good if I haven't gone to the gym and done something almost every day.
01:00:21.400	01:00:31.699	I started noticing within a few weeks that my energy levels started to get depleted quite significantly. My sleep was disturbed, and then I went into clinical depression.
01:00:31.900	01:00:34.699	I was diagnosed with clinical depression,
01:00:34.900	01:00:45.799	I didn't take any pills. It was probably much more moderate over a few months.[br]— So, when you say diagnosed with clinical depression, what's the parameters, like how is that defined?
01:00:45.500	01:00:57.699	Yeah, so in clinical depression you usually have to have a number of symptoms persistent for at least two weeks, so these are things like something called early morning awakening, low mood,
01:00:58.000	01:00:59.799	lack of energy,
01:01:00.799	01:01:03.000	negative thoughts for the future.
01:01:02.099	01:01:07.799	There's lots of different criteria, and one of my family friends, actually a psychiatrist,
01:01:08.000	01:01:25.699	and I spoke to him about it, and, you know, he said yeah, yeah, this is depression, so, yeah… So, but the one thing I noticed more than anything else is my energy levels were… I couldn't like… I'm a very active energetic guy, and I just couldn't leave the house, I didn't leave the couch, I was completely depleted
01:01:26.199	01:01:33.500	And what do you think? You believe it is a side effect of the vaccine, but what's the mechanism?
01:01:32.799	01:01:47.900	Well, we know now, one of the problems with the vaccine is that the spike protein — and there are different theories around this — from the vaccine that's injected into the arm gets distributed throughout the body and can be there for up to four months.
01:01:48.400	01:01:58.000	And what happens is, it causes either direct — and there's published data on this — direct toxic effect on the tissues, or an autoimmune reaction…
01:01:57.099	01:02:05.900	??? the brain, the heart, the kidneys, the liver, the ovaries and the testes. And that's probably the mechanism of action.
01:02:04.900	01:02:22.699	And this is not, you know, interestingly, one of their side effects from a [i]World Health Organization[/i] endorsed list which I reference in my peer-reviewed paper, which we'll talk about later… actually puts in psychosis as one of the side effects of the vaccine.
01:02:21.799	01:02:26.400	And there are case reports, and people who went psychotic actually because of it.
01:02:25.799	01:02:28.400	A significant number?
01:02:28.500	01:02:52.599	Well, we don't know. We don't know the exact numbers, but one of the real analyses of Pfizer's own trial by independent researchers, published in [i]General Vaccine[/i]… One of these in the clinical trial itself… One of the severe adverse effects in the clinical trial was psychosis, at least in one patient.[br]— So, for you with your case, how long did you suffer from these symptoms?
01:02:52.900	01:02:54.599	About three months
01:02:53.699	01:03:08.500	I mean, I went to a psychologist I had called. I didn't want to take pills, so I went to a psychologist. I had cognitive behavioural therapy. I started to just focus on going back to the basics: getting good sleep, resting etc.
01:03:08.000	01:03:10.199	and I came out of it.
01:03:09.199	01:03:19.799	You know, I came out of it slowly. I saw my energy levels back, that took about three months, three to four months.[br]— Did you experience any cardiology issues?
01:03:19.400	01:03:22.799	Was there anything with your heart rate?
01:03:22.000	01:03:25.500	Was there anything with your immune system?
01:03:25.199	01:03:28.199	No, no I didn't. I had two doses.
01:03:27.199	01:03:29.400	I didn't get any of that stuff.
01:03:28.500	01:03:30.199	No, I didn't.
01:03:31.099	01:03:33.500	But then, what happened was…
01:03:34.199	01:03:44.099	Just when I'm coming out of the clinical depression, starting to feel better, and I told my Dad about it… — You know, my Dad was, you know, we were very very close, so he knew everything that was happening —
01:03:44.000	01:04:09.500	One of the things, by the way… When people go into clinical depression, one of the symptoms is suicidal ideation. As in thoughts about committing suicide, that's actually one of the symptoms. And I remember going for a walk with him, I was feeling so low… And, you know, I went up to visit him in Manchester and I just said to him, I said, yeah
01:04:09.799	01:04:12.099	I'm having thought of… just
01:04:12.400	01:04:16.000	going and jumping in front of a car…
01:04:16.199	01:04:40.099	It was just fleeting. I wasn't going to do it, but I knew that I was that depressed that, I was even having that thought entering my mind… But anyway, I mean, I'm a resilient guy… I just wrote, and I was going to get better, I just had hope, and I got better slowly with time, and when I came out of it, that's when, you know… A real sort of tragedy hit me again
01:04:41.500	01:04:44.900	because I and my Dad were still also mourning the loss of my Mom.
01:04:44.000	01:04:48.599	It had only been about two and a half years since my Mom died, and
01:04:49.000	01:05:00.099	I'll never forget this, July the 26th, five p.m. 2021, my Dad called me and he said I feel my ???…
01:05:00.099	01:05:28.599	And, in medicine, eighty per cent of your… If you're a good doctor, eighty per cent of your diagnosis comes from the history. If you listen to your patient, then you will get the diagnosis just from that discussion. If you know from symptoms, you know, you can usually… And he said, and what he described sounded cardiac, which is typically… He's a doctor, but he was obviously a little bit concerned. I said tell me, buddy, I said how bad is it out of ten, he said like six out of ten, feeling a bit sweaty, I've got an ache in the centre of my chest… I said is it going anywhere?
01:05:27.699	01:05:35.500	He said it went to both shoulders, and for me I was like, okay, didn't sound like an over-massive heart attack, but it was concerning. I said how long have you had it for?
01:05:34.699	01:05:46.500	He said, I've had it for probably at least twenty to thirty minutes. I said okay, I said, Dad, you need to call an ambulance now. I didn't want to scare him. I said you need an ECG ([i]electrocardiogram[/i]) straight away right?
01:05:45.599	01:06:05.299	You need an EKG ([i]electrocardiogram[/i]) to see whether this is an acute heart attack. But you need to call an ambulance. And he was reluctant, you know. I don't know why. NHS ([i]National Health Service[/i]) was under pressure, he didn't want to see, he thought that maybe he was, you know, it was nothing major, and I said no, listen, hopefully, there's nothing major, but you need to see, you need to call the 9 9 9.
01:06:04.500	01:06:06.599	And he didn't want to do it.
01:06:05.699	01:06:08.000	So, it was a back-and-forth conversation.
01:06:07.000	01:06:12.199	Of course, one of his best friends listened to him, he is a doctor, so, I said listen, you needed to go and see Dad.
01:06:11.500	01:06:21.099	And he was busy with something. He said, listen, I'll call him, and in the end what he did was, he called two of his neighbours who are both doctors, who happened to be home.
01:06:20.199	01:06:23.299	I think they'd finished work…
01:06:23.299	01:06:40.000	And, so, I get in the shower. I say, listen, I'm going to get a train to come up. I get in the shower, come out of the shower… I call him back, you know because I was about. I was just changing, getting ready for the train… And there's no answer… I keep calling, no answer…
01:06:40.699	01:06:52.000	Then one of his neighbours, a doctor, answers the phone, and she's hysterical, and she says, Aseem, your father's had a cardiac arrest and we're doing CPR ([i]cardiopulmonary resuscitation[/i])
01:06:52.199	01:06:59.799	Now I went into kind of cardiology, trying to take control of the situation, to be as calm as possible and I said, tell me what happened?
01:06:58.799	01:07:02.000	She said, well, we walked in and we saw him
01:07:01.400	01:07:03.599	He was a little bit sweaty.
01:07:03.099	01:07:21.799	My husband, he was there, he'd already called an ambulance, called 9 9 9, and was on the phone, and while he's on the phone to the ambulance my Dad just kills over… Now, Joe, I've done a lot of work, and even published on out-of-hospital cardiac arrests, and what determines survival…
01:07:21.599	01:07:35.099	And if you are going to have a cardiac arrest, if you are lucky enough to have it, you are super lucky if it's witnessed by two doctors who are gonna do CPR ([i]cardiopulmonary resuscitation[/i]) and an ambulance has already been called.
01:07:34.400	01:07:47.900	And we know the ambulance response times in the UK — and I've published on this stuff — is almost within eight to ten minutes. In these sorts, of course, they will be there and your chances of survival are high in that situation, right?
01:07:47.000	01:07:54.799	You've got CPR ([i]cardiopulmonary resuscitation[/i]), it's witnessed, and they usually get a defibrillator on you within ten minutes. You've got probably more than a fifty per cent chance of surviving.
01:07:55.299	01:08:10.500	Ambulance didn't show for thirty minutes… And I remember just face timing them, and they put the cardiac monitor on, there was a flat line, and I said there's nothing to do here… Don't show, you know… They carried on, I said no, to stop, you know, I've led cardiac arrest teams.
01:08:09.699	01:08:40.600	I know there's no point just jumping, just now there's nothing that we can do here. And it was shocking beyond belief, I couldn't understand it. My Dad was a very fit 73-year-old, you know, he would outwalk… I mean, I consider myself quite athletic, you know, and he would outwalk me when we were going for walks during lockdown. He was very active mentally, he was on TV talking about lockdowns and whatever else… And it didn't make any sense. So I… Two things happened. First and foremost they organised a postmortem, but they then also investigated, how this happened.
01:08:39.699	01:08:43.199	Why did the ambulance take thirty minutes to get there?
01:08:42.800	01:08:58.399	And this links back to some of my earlier work in terms of speaking out, and if you like being a whistleblower. So, I get contacted about two weeks later, because I tweeted it out, you know. My Dad was a well-known doctor, it was a big news story in [i]The Guardian[/i], you know, the mayor of Manchester was friends with him.
01:08:57.500	01:09:04.000	I mean my Dad was a wonderful human, you know, we've lost one of the kindest of souls over the earth, and he was that kind of human.
01:09:03.000	01:09:07.100	He was that well loved and liked by people and…
01:09:07.899	01:09:24.000	I got a phone call from somebody senior in the health department linked to the government called NHS ([i]National Health Service[/i]) England… And she was crying. She was a nurse, senior nurse, and she knew my Dad, and she was saying there's something I've got to tell you. I said what is it?
01:09:23.100	01:09:32.300	She said, the Department of Health, the government, had known for at least several weeks throughout the whole country, that
01:09:33.000	01:09:43.699	ambulances were not getting anywhere close to their targets for treating people for heart attacks or cardiac arrest, but they had made a decision to deliberately withhold that information.
01:09:44.600	01:09:49.399	And for me that, you know, that was…
01:09:49.800	01:09:56.699	That was quite upsetting, because if I had known that I wouldn't have asked him to call an ambulance.
01:09:56.300	01:10:00.899	You know, the neighbours could… The nearest hospital was like a five-minute drive, Joe.
01:10:00.300	01:10:26.500	They would've… Somebody would have taken him there, even if he had a cardiac arrest en route they would've been able to get a ???, but I don't… he probably would have survived. So I thought, this is, you know, I need to do something about these people. I need to know because it was still kept hidden. So, I, with a journalist in the UK called Paul Gallagher, with [i]The Eye[/i], well with a great journalist… He then started doing Freedom Of Information requests, getting information from the ambulance service, trying to find out what happened et cetera et cetera.
01:10:25.500	01:10:32.399	And we determined that this was the case, that there were all these delays, and it had been going on for a long time. And then I wrote an article in [i]The Eye[/i] newspaper.
01:10:31.899	01:11:28.899	It became a [i]BBC News[/i] story. But, just before I published it, I contacted a cardiologist who I considered to be one of the good guys, Joe, and again I won't name him, it's, I think it's unfair to name him, and I said Prof — I call him Prof — I said I just want you to know this is what's happened, happening, you should be aware of this, and I'm gonna get it out to the public, people need to know, this is a big problem… Because it might change things a little bit. If not, at least we highlight the problem and try and find solutions, and people then in these similar situations… One of the interesting things is a nurse that called me and said to me that two weeks earlier, her husband was playing soccer and came back from soccer with chest pain. She didn't even bother calling the ambulance. Said before my Dad had his kind of arrest because she knew it wasn't going to get there, she got him in the car, drove down there the highway, the freeway to the nearest hospital into the emergency department and they diagnosed an acute heart attack and took him for emergency keyhole heart surgery.
01:11:28.800	01:11:56.100	You know, so, she knew this stuff, and didn't obviously call an ambulance… So, I told this to this professor of cardiology in a text message and, you know, he replied to me, see, I wouldn't publicize this if I were you… You're only going to make yourself enemies and I want to do whatever I can to help you get a job back in the NHS ([i]National Health Service[/i]), right? Because by this date I wasn't working in NHS ([i]National Health Service[/i]), I was leading private care. And I said, Prof , what about our duty to the public and patients?
01:11:55.800	01:11:58.899	No answer! Why am I telling you this, Joe,?
01:11:58.000	01:12:05.000	Remember, earlier on I talked about these so-called “psychopathic determents of health”[br]— Yes[br]— There is a cultural problem in our profession.
01:12:05.300	01:12:12.399	Where people are afraid to speak out for their patients even if it's important and true.
01:12:11.699	01:12:15.699	So, what does medicine become when doctors can't even speak the truth?
01:12:15.199	01:12:28.500	But I didn't care. For me, this is more important than anything. So, I got this out, and it became a news story, and I was interviewed by the BBC and it was big, you know… And then, after that, all these stories start coming out, you know, I made the so-called injustice visible through the mainstream…
01:12:29.100	01:12:34.399	But it still bugged me, you know, how did my Dad have a cardiac arrest?
01:12:33.399	01:12:50.500	So his postmortem findings came back. And two of his three major arteries were severely narrowed, right? Critically narrowed, ninety per cent in what is called the left anterior descending artery, the most important artery to the heart, and the right ??? artery and I thought this is weird…
01:12:50.699	01:13:17.699	I knew my Dad's lifestyle ??? out, I knew his cardiac history inside out, there was no cardiac history, he had something called a calcium score done a few years earlier, and he had blood flow to his arteries all normal… This is a guy that, only two years earlier on badminton… I was the Manch champion, the school champion in badminton, right? Single's badminton, no ??? played it, but it's a very… If I played basketball for a ??? systemic, it's really heavy. And for the first time in, god knows…
01:13:18.100	01:13:24.899	probably about thirty years, he beat me in the first game fifty-one, and I was like, my god, how's my Dad beating me here?
01:13:24.000	01:13:26.500	And, you know, we were very competitive with each other.
01:13:25.600	01:13:44.000	I mean we paid for an hour, and almost at the end of the ??? I got back, and it was like ???, I ruptured my Achilles, right? It was that bad, and I was about to tweet and just say I'm really proud of my 73 old Dad, he literally almost beat me in badminton, right? He was that fit. So, it didn't make any sense…
01:13:44.600	01:13:48.399	So, it's ??? and I'm just… Okay, what was it?
01:13:47.500	01:13:49.399	Was he really stressed?
01:13:48.500	01:13:49.699	You know?
01:13:49.300	01:13:56.300	Stressed, by the way, so, this psychological stress can cause these sorts of issues to the heart, but again I didn't buy it…
01:13:57.699	01:13:59.100	And then…
01:13:59.500	01:15:04.100	October November 2021, I get alerted from a cardiologist friend of mine who's one of the smartest cardiologists in the country, I think. I mean he's a brilliant mind, and he sends me an abstract from [i]Circulation Cardiology Journal[/i] done by Stephen Gundry who's a cardiopathic surgeon, I think, based in New York. And I read this abstract, and I'm like “Wow!” And what he found was in — he'd been following up several hundred people in their fifties with a test that he does, called a PULS score, which correlates the blood test and it measures markers of inflammation in blood ???, which had been validated and correlated with heart disease risk and heart attack risk. And what he found was that within eight to ten weeks of these patients taking the [i]Moderna[/i] or [i]Pfizer[/i] vaccine, mRNA vaccines, those markers of inflammation in the blood had increased to a level where their risk of a heart attack went from 11 per cent at five years, just within two months, to 25 per cent…
01:15:04.600	01:15:13.500	which is a huge jump, like, to give it context… If I, today, decided I was going to smoke forty cigarettes a day, eat junk food,
01:15:14.100	01:15:17.000	you know, hammer it all night, not sleep,
01:15:17.500	01:15:19.399	stop exercising…
01:15:18.500	01:15:23.000	I couldn't even get it close to increasing my risk that much in two months!
01:15:22.800	01:15:30.100	Now, it's one bit of data, and of course, in medicine — which we've talked about, is not an exact science —
01:15:29.199	01:15:36.600	never rely on just one bit of data… You look at other bits of data as well, and what kind of picture does all the information start painting?
01:15:36.899	01:16:14.300	So, at that point I was like, okay, now I can understand this something that fits with what happened to my Dad but, if this is real, this is going to be a problem, because I know you're essentially… for populations of people who may not know they've got a little bit of ??? that isn't going to ??? and ??? it for twenty years, suddenly you're going to get an increase in heart attacks much more quickly… Then, what happened was, I got contacted, and all happened within a few weeks. A journalist, I think it was from [i]The Telegraph[/i] or the Times, I can't remember, asked me to comment on the fact they'd been an unexplained increase by 25 per cent, an increase in heart attacks in Scotland and hospitals, that people can't explain. So, doctors watched things going on…
01:16:13.500	01:17:00.199	And then the third thing that happened was… I was… A whistleblower from a prestigious university in the UK contacted me, a cardiologist, and he said to me — he was very upset — he said, it seems somehow I've got to tell you, I don't know what to do, but I need to tell you this, and said what is, he said… This research group had accidentally found, with the use of coronary imaging techniques — so, these specialised high-tech scans of the arteries of the heart — in the vaccinated, there was increased inflammation of the arteries of the heart, and it wasn't there in the unvaccinated… which again would increase heart attack risk. But they had a closed meeting and they said we're not going to publish these findings or talk about it further, because it may affect our funding from the drug industry…
01:17:04.000	01:17:10.800	And I, at this stage, Joe, I was like, okay, now I've got three bits of data, there's enough here to, at least, ask the question.
01:17:10.500	01:17:33.100	So, I got one of the more semi-mainstream news channels in the UK, it's called [i]GB News[/i]. And I went to them, I said listen, something I want to talk about, they said, you know, I've done stuff with them before, and basically, and they said, come on, let's talk about it, so I talked about this on [i]GB News[/i], and it went viral, you know… And I didn't say stop the vaccine or whatever else, I said, listen, there's a signal here that needs to be looked into.
01:17:32.500	01:17:41.000	We've got these unexplained heart attacks happening, we've got this evidence from [i]Circulation[/i], I've been told by a whistleblower…
01:17:40.800	01:17:43.300	Let's look at this a bit further…
01:17:43.199	01:17:44.399	And…
01:17:44.699	01:17:47.699	What happened then was just so bizarre.
01:17:47.899	01:17:54.500	It was almost around the same time… I don't know if it was after, maybe, it may have been just after that show…
01:17:54.100	01:18:23.199	Our secretary for health, Sajid Javid, gets up in parliament and says I've decided to pass, we need to pass legislation to ensure that all healthcare workers get vaccinated. And if they don't, they lose their job… Now, we've never done that in this country, I know you've had maybe mandates for other things, we never mandate any medical intervention in the UK, we've never done that before. I thought, this is all I said, right? Now, first and foremost by this stage, Joe, we knew it wasn't stopping transmission, right?
01:18:22.500	01:18:25.399	It probably wasn't going to stop infection either.
01:18:24.500	01:18:26.800	You know, the narrative kept changing.
01:18:25.899	01:18:31.300	We were told it's going to stop infection, now it's going to prevent you from having severe disease… You know, it kept changing.
01:18:30.800	01:18:34.399	I said, this should be an individual choice…
01:18:34.600	01:18:58.899	Health care workers are not protecting their patients by being vaccinated. They may be protecting themselves, we'll get answered, we'll get answered that data shortly, but they're not protecting their patients. Therefore, there's no reason, you know, we shouldn't mandate this. So, then I literally launched into this… I was still interested in, at that point, getting mainstream media interviews, because people wanted to talk about what happened to my Dad and the ambulance delays… So, I went on BBC News and I got it in there.
01:18:58.000	01:19:02.699	I said, by the way, guys, you know, because it's ??? watch
01:19:01.699	01:19:07.699	what's behind our healthcare crisis? And well, you know, we've been talking about this for years.
01:19:06.800	01:19:11.000	We've not tackled prevention, we've gotten this obesity epidemic, right?
01:19:10.399	01:19:15.500	And that's putting more and more stress on the system and has been for a long time without any more resources.
01:19:14.699	01:19:23.800	We've got an overmedicated population, we've not dealt with that. Up to one in five people over the age of 65 are hospitalised, Joe, because of side effects, right?
01:19:23.199	01:19:39.699	I said, but there's something else we should talk about as well. We could lose eighty thousand jobs in the NHS ([i]National Health Service[/i]) if we mandate this vaccine and people decide not to take it, and that will be a disaster… But it's not scientific and it's not ethical… And then they would kind of cut me off at the end… And then I was on [i]Sky News[/i]… So, I kept doing this.
01:19:39.100	01:19:41.199	And then I thought, you know what?
01:19:40.399	01:19:45.800	I don't want to just believe in public health advocacy. I'm somebody also that does things behind the scenes.
01:19:44.800	01:19:46.600	I meet politicians,
01:19:45.800	01:19:51.300	I've worked with people in very senior positions in the health service in health policy,
01:19:50.399	01:19:59.199	I've had rows with those people, I believe in dialogue and conversations, giving people the benefit of the doubt, and understanding they may be ignorant or have the illusion of knowledge.
01:19:58.300	01:20:26.699	Let's have a conversation with them, so I call the chair of the British Medical Association. I was in America at the time, I had come… because I live alone now, right? So, I lost all my family, and my closest family are in California. And they said Aseem, just come and spend a couple of months with us… So, I get to the States around the end of November 2021, and the first thing that happens is, I get an email from a very prestigious medical body I'm associated with, I won't name them… And they say
01:20:25.800	01:20:52.399	Dr Malhotra we've received a number of anonymous complaints from doctors that you are spreading antivax disinformation… Purely upon that interview and [i]GB News[/i], where I said there's a signal, we need to look into it, and that's all I did… So, it's like, Jesus, you know, really? And it was obviously stressed I had to respond, and it took a month, and they left me with a warning at that point. But I realised something else was going on here. So, I called up the chair of the BMA ([i]British Medical Association[/i]), the same Chaand Nagpaul.
01:20:52.199	01:21:04.399	Well, I said, Chaand, I need to talk to you. And he listened for two hours. I talked him through every bit of data that I'd come across, and things about the vaccine… He said the same, he said I'll be honest with you, he said:
01:21:04.699	01:21:12.800	“Nobody I've spoken to in health policy, my colleagues, appears to have critically upraised the evidence as well as you have…”
01:21:13.000	01:21:19.100	“Most of them are getting their information on the benefits and harms of the vaccine from the BBC…”
01:21:20.800	01:21:25.899	Wow![br]— Now that is replicated!
01:21:26.100	01:21:37.399	If you remember Joe Rochelle Wolensky, a former chair of the CDC ([i]Centers of Disease Control and Prevention[/i])? She said in an interview with the director of the CDC ([i]Centers of Disease Control and Prevention[/i]) that her optimism about the vaccine came from CNN ([i]Cable News Network[/i]).
01:21:38.100	01:21:41.399	Right? And that [i]CNN News[/i] report, right?
01:21:40.600	01:21:49.800	that she was referring to, Joe, was almost verbatim a reproduction of Pfizer's own press release
01:21:51.000	01:21:54.199	Well… It's like great journalism!
01:21:53.399	01:21:56.000	Well, it tells you something else.
01:21:55.100	01:22:06.500	I think that we shouldn't underestimate the impact of the mainstream media in influencing people's decision-making. Even people who you think should have better information or know better.[br]— Right…
01:22:06.300	01:22:37.300	Right? And that's what it showed. So, he said, listen, okay Aseem, I'm with you, the medical colleges in the BMA ([i]British Medical Association[/i]) anyway didn't support the mandate. So ??? about it, they weren't proactive, I was probably one of the… There were a few campaigning doctors in the UK, and an organisation called [i]The Together Declaration[/i] got involved in it. And I went on the full offensive, you know, through social media, through mainstream media, and said we need to get ??? I had people, nurses and doctors, almost in tears contacted me, who were unvaccinated, and I said, listen, hold firm! You know, they passed this in parliament, and most of the MPs ([i]Members of Parliament[/i]) voted for it!
01:22:36.600	01:22:39.300	It was gonna be in the legislation.
01:22:38.699	01:22:52.000	And I said ???, this is not gonna happen. Do not get vaccinated if you don't want to get vaccinated. And literally, last minute, like a week before, this is going to be coming into effect, where people would lose their jobs.
01:22:51.800	01:23:24.500	The chair of Obama was speaking to Sajid Javid after speaking to me out, and all these people campaigning, and we got it overturned…[br]— Wow![br]— And, you know, for me one of the most satisfying things I've been involved with, is helping to save in effect these tens of thousands of jobs in the NHS ([i]National Health Service[/i]). Especially because it wasn't scientific, it wasn't ethical to do so…[br]— And because it wasn't scientific, and because there was, now, evidence that it didn't stop transmission and it probably wasn't going to stop infection.
01:23:24.699	01:23:30.899	What was the narrative that you were given as to why they should still be promoted?
01:23:30.300	01:23:31.399	Well…
01:23:32.800	01:23:37.500	There wasn't really anything. So, they didn't make any sense to me.
01:23:37.699	01:23:48.300	The chief medical officer was still saying the same thing though, so he was still tweeting out, even before they decided they were going to… Even after they overturned
01:23:48.800	01:24:15.199	this mandate decision for health care workers. He was tweeting out, the best thing you can do as a doctor to protect your patients is get vaccinated with a cover vaccine…[br]— Yeah[br]— It didn't make any sense, it was almost like, to be honest, this was the kind of… The narrative that was coming out was essentially the narrative of the drug companies, but coming through so-called credible voices. It wasn't in keeping with the evidence… It didn't make any sense…
01:24:15.600	01:24:30.699	So, yes, then I decided at that point I'd started to really critically appraise the data properly. I thought there's a big mountain to move here, it's not an easy one, you know, I've just gone on TV and questioned about heart side effects, and suddenly one of these medical bodies I'm affiliated with is, you know…
01:24:31.100	01:25:04.000	coming after me. So, I thought, you know what, I'm gonna do my best to what can I do here… Historically, Joe. over the last ten years I've published a lot in different medical journals, and I only write stuff which I think is important in disseminating the truth. Something I believe is important for the public and for patients, and even doctors. And almost all that every time I publish something — and I kind of became good at this as I've got into the mainstream news — whether it's about the harms of excess sugar or the statin thing or cholesterol or low carb diets, so whatever, or the harms potentially of vegan diets, right?
01:25:02.899	01:25:24.800	I've done lots of these things, and I thought, let me try and publish this in the medicals, and I thought carefully like it wouldn't be easy to publish something like this, even if what I'm saying is factually correct. So, I went to a journal called the [i]Journal of Insulin Resistance[/i]. It's not well known, but it's a credible journal, and I spoke to the editor. Often you just say, listen, is this something you're interested in, and what do you think?
01:25:23.899	01:25:26.199	Well they no, Aseem, just forget it.
01:25:25.300	01:25:27.600	And she was very open. Right?
01:25:26.699	01:25:35.300	And she was very pro-vax, actually, at the time. She was a bit shocked by what I was telling her… But she respects me, she knows my work over a number of years.
01:25:34.500	01:25:53.899	So, listen, you know, Aseem, let me look at it, and I can at least say that I'll send it for a peer review. Right? There are no guarantees of anything, but I can send it for a peer review. So, send me what you've got. So, I spent several months, I wrote this piece, Joe. It was ten thousand words… That was the other thing, most journals won't accept that many words, and I'd written that, and it was in two parts because I thought…
01:25:54.899	01:26:29.000	people have been so indoctrinated with this narrative. I need to walk them through it, as someone who was vaccinated, who went on [i]Good Morning Britain[/i], right? I'm one of you. I'm not, you know, it'd be less easy to attack me. And to walk them through my journey in understanding how the data, new data had emerged that made us think differently about what we were taught in the beginning… And, to break it down in absolute terms, one of the benefits or one of the harms, my Dad's story was included in that. And then the part two was about how we got it wrong,
01:26:30.000	01:26:34.300	why we got it wrong, and what are the solutions moving forward?
01:26:34.300	01:26:39.500	And this journal also doesn't take money from industry. So, that's why it is non-conflicted.
01:26:38.500	01:26:40.300	It was open access.
01:26:39.399	01:26:41.300	I wanted this to be free.
01:26:40.399	01:26:44.600	A lot of these journal articles are paywalled, you have to subscribe etc.
01:26:43.600	01:26:52.199	So, I wanted it to be free to everybody, that's the reason I went to this journal… Yeah, I have a role. People have somehow attacked me, saying he's on the editorial board and stuff.
01:26:51.500	01:26:59.500	Yeah, I have a role as a kind of advisor this non-paid role, whatever it's, kind of because I've done work on this area, like what kind of articles should we be looking at?
01:26:58.800	01:27:09.699	So, you know, they don't normally accept articles from people who are on the editorial board, but they said, listen, you know, we'll let you do one as a one-off… But the peer review process was very rigorous.
01:27:08.699	01:27:14.399	I've never been through a rigorous peer review back and forth, lots of changes et cetera
01:27:13.399	01:27:14.800	et cetera…
01:27:14.399	01:27:18.399	So, they published this article on September 2022
01:27:20.600	01:27:25.500	And… You know what was… Let me just summarize it, Joe.
01:27:26.500	01:27:28.600	The reality is this:
01:27:29.600	01:27:31.699	In my whole career,
01:27:32.199	01:27:49.500	looking at all of the drugs and knowing about many different drugs that are prescribed, I've never seen something, when you look at the data, which has such poor effectiveness and such unprecedented harms… In my career… It's like nothing I've ever seen before…
01:27:50.899	01:28:04.899	Which was simultaneously promoted heavily[br]— Not just promoted, it is coerced! Mandates! So, the key bit of data — people say, oh, lots of data, cherry picking blah blah…
01:28:05.199	01:28:11.800	Just one bit of data alone should be enough for people to stop and think, oh my god, this is just unbelievable! So,
01:28:12.000	01:28:31.000	in the summer towards the end of last year, the second half of last year, the journal [i]Vaccine[/i] peer-reviewed it. This is like the highest-impact medical journal for vaccines, right? They published a reanalysis of Pfizer and Moderna's original double-blinded randomised controlled trials.
01:28:30.000	01:28:40.699	So, This is the level, the highest quality level of evidence. Okay, with all the caveats, the drug industry sponsored all that stuff, right? But still what we call the highest quality level of evidence… Done by independent researchers…
01:28:41.100	01:28:52.000	Joseph Fraiman, from Louisiana, is ??? doctor, clinical data scientist, associate editor of BMJ ([i]British Medical Journal[/i]); Peter Doshi, Robert Kaplan from Stanford, right?
01:28:51.100	01:29:21.800	Some very eminent, in terms of “eminence of integrity”, right? I'm not for eminence-based medicine, but… And for people who have the eminence of integrity, right? They published a re-analysis, and what they found was this: in the trials that led to the approval by the regulators — we're going to regulators in a minute — around the World, you were more likely to suffer a serious adverse event from taking the vaccine, hospitalisation, disability, life-changing event than you were to be hospitalised with CoVID…
01:29:22.100	01:29:24.199	so What that means is…
01:29:24.500	01:29:39.899	It's highly likely this vaccine, mRNA vaccine, should never have been approved for a single human in the first place, and that the rate of serious adverse events, Joe, is 1 in 800, and it's at least 1 in 800 because that just covers the first two months of the trial…
01:29:40.899	01:29:50.199	In general, what happens is, drug companies design trials where they choose people who are less likely to get side effects, so they're generally healthier, right?
01:29:49.100	01:30:02.500	And then, because it's the first two months, and I found a mechanism of harm of accelerated heart disease, like my Dad, died six months after two doses of vaccine, and we have autopsy studies now, showing that that's what can happen several months after…
01:30:04.800	01:30:08.100	It's just… It's beggar's belief, and…
01:30:08.500	01:30:13.300	And that, you know, I published this information, and then it's been an evolution to the question now.
01:30:12.399	01:30:18.300	I think people, what we want to do, as we talk about statins, right? Same sort of thing, same sort of concept.
01:30:17.899	01:30:21.500	What is your individual benefit in absolute terms?
01:30:21.399	01:30:28.899	So, there's a table actually — I shared it with Jamie earlier, I don't know if we can bring it up, because I think it'd be ???
01:30:28.300	01:30:31.199	So, the UK government only…
01:30:31.699	01:31:05.800	earlier this year, about two or three months ago, I think this is the first country in the World to publish its substantial data… They released information looking at per million people vaccinated versus per million people unvaccinated by age group, okay, during the omicron strain, right? So, this is UK government data… So, table 4 says numbers needed to vaccinate for prevention of severe hospitalisation, ok, from two versions of Pfizer. So, if you look at their first column, Joe, if you're 70 you have to vaccinate 2,500 people to prevent one person from being hospitalised with severe CoVID.
01:31:06.000	01:31:16.899	If you're 60, 5700. You start getting at lower age groups, thirty 87,600 for example, if you're 20 to 29, well over 100,000 people.
01:31:16.000	01:31:21.899	I mean, this efficacy level, effectiveness level, is just…
01:31:22.699	01:31:33.300	If it wasn't so serious, it would be laughable.[br]— And this is just to prevent severe hospitalisation…[br]— Yes[br]— Again, it does not stop infection. It does not stop transmission[br]— Absolutely no!
01:31:32.399	01:31:42.500	And so, there is some benefit of preventing severe hospitalisation?[br]— Well, yes, but the thing is this is what is called non-randomised data.
01:31:41.600	01:32:06.100	And remember, earlier on I said to you that if you were unvaccinated, in general, you were at higher risk than people who have the vaccine, some called healthy user bias. Right? So, Carl Heneghan, who's a director of the [i]Centre of Evidence-Based Medicine[/i] in Oxford, and also a general practitioner, talked about the fact that he had a couple of patients who had terminal cancer, for example, and didn't get vaccinated, and then they ended up dying of CoVID because they were already sicker.
01:32:05.500	01:32:10.399	Well, what I'm saying to you, Joe, this is likely an exaggerated benefit.
01:32:10.600	01:32:31.600	Right, but when you balance that against the harms which are consistent of at least one in 800 after two doses, and there is some evidence that the more doses you have, the higher those harms become, it becomes a no brainer… I mean, if you ask it… Now, if I were to ask a patient, even all the patients, if I give them that information in that way, so, most people would not take it.
01:32:30.899	01:32:42.899	So, there's the informed consent issue, but then there is the fact that we consider vaccines to be completely safe, traditionally. One in 800 is a very very high figure.
01:32:42.800	01:32:45.500	We've pulled other vaccines for much less.
01:32:44.899	01:32:54.300	In 1976, the swine flu vaccine was pulled because it was found to cause a debilitating neurological condition, called Guillain–Barré syndrome, in about one in 100,000 people.
01:32:54.699	01:33:10.300	Rotavirus vaccine was pulled in 1999 to spend it because it was found it caused a form of bowel obstruction in kids in one in 10,000. This is, at least, one in 800, I mean it's a no-brainer… So, the question, then, is… But I will not ??? what's going on there?
01:33:10.000	01:33:19.899	And I think the barrier that we've got, Joe, to deal with, with a lot of people who are not enlightened ??? awake, or familiar understanding this information…
01:33:19.600	01:33:23.800	It's a psychological barrier, it's not an intellectual one…[br]— Mmmh…
01:33:24.600	01:33:28.000	Right? This is willful blindness.
01:33:28.100	01:33:40.100	You know, a concept, a psychological phenomenon which we're all capable of in different circumstances, where human beings turn a blind eye to the truth to feel safe, avoid conflict,
01:33:40.399	01:33:47.000	reduce anxiety, and protect prestige and fragile egos… So, we've got to deal with that, right?
01:33:46.000	01:33:48.600	And we can see this happening, you know…
01:33:49.500	01:33:54.199	Historically, you know, this has happened in many different circumstances.
01:33:54.100	01:33:57.899	Look at Hollywood and Harvey Weinstein for example, right?
01:33:57.399	01:34:05.699	People kind of knew, but they didn't want to really talk about it, or they didn't want, you know… But eventually, the truth comes out, and then we have to deal with the fallout of it.
01:34:05.600	01:34:10.000	And, you know, the catholic church and child abuse paedophilia, right?
01:34:09.799	01:34:14.000	For many many people knew, but they buried their heads in the sand.
01:34:13.399	01:34:40.899	We're dealing with a very similar psychological phenomenon, but the other phenomenon we've got, and I think we shouldn't underestimate, is the one of fear, right? Just a few weeks ago, Isabel Oaks, who is a journalist in the UK, had access to WhatsApp messages between the secretary for health and other people in the cabinet. And it was the front page of [i]The Telegraph[/i] newspaper, at the beginning of the pandemic, and one of those messages revealed:
01:34:42.899	01:34:51.199	“We have to frighten the pants of the public” — something along those lines, right?
01:34:50.500	01:35:03.600	So, they wanted to create this fear, and when you're under…[br]— It's enforced compliance…[br]— to force compliance. And when you're in a state of fear, psychologically, Joe, two things happen. One is you will more like to be controlled, right?
01:35:02.600	01:35:16.600	And that's what they wanted. But, also, it inhibits your ability to engage in critical thinking. And many people are still under fear, and if you… I'm a numbers guy, I think numbers are important.
01:35:15.600	01:35:20.699	I think, when I have conversations with patients I want to break numbers down in a way that they can understand.
01:35:19.899	01:35:27.699	so We all had a very grossly exaggerated fear — many people did, maybe not you, Joe, but many people did — of the virus at the very beginning.
01:35:26.799	01:35:29.100	So, I did in the beginning, yeah.
01:35:28.600	01:35:30.399	One survey in the U.S.
01:35:29.500	01:35:30.600	
01:35:29.699	01:36:26.100	suggested that fifty per cent of American adults thought that their risk of being hospitalised with CoVID was 50%, one in two… When the real figure at that time was about one in 100… In fact, I did a subsequent analysis in my paper, because a lot of my paper also focused on the fact of lifestyle and obesity, and all those things we can do to improve our immune system. And at the very early stages — you know, the Wuhan strain — in the UK, looking at middle-aged people, the risk of hospitalisation if you were an obese sedentary smoker from a poor background, social economic background class, was about one in 350, something like that. If you were active, not overweight, non-smoking, you know, healthy diet, all that kind of stuff, your risk of hospitalisation was almost four to five-fold less, five-fold less, or one in 1500…
01:36:27.399	01:36:37.899	Wow…[br]— Yeah, massive difference. So, again that reinforces…[br]— It is not the way it was described…[br]— No, not at all! But those figures are important, because without understanding the numbers involved,
01:36:38.199	01:36:49.500	the public and doctors are vulnerable to exploitation of their hopes and fears by political and commercial interests…
01:36:50.299	01:36:52.299	And that's what happened.
01:36:53.199	01:36:54.199	Wow! Tss!
01:36:59.100	01:37:03.500	What do you think history is gonna look back on this and learn?
01:37:03.399	01:37:05.699	How is this going to be viewed?
01:37:05.799	01:37:09.299	Do you think that the full narrative is going to get…
01:37:08.500	01:37:31.299	Because this is an extraordinary time… Because, in this extraordinary time, there are options available, like this podcast, where you can go on and you can say these things, and they'll be received by millions of people, and articles will be written, and different shows will take clips from this and discuss it, and it can change narratives…
01:37:31.899	01:37:47.399	Do you think there is any hope that something like this, which was such an event, where… I don't know what the full number of people worldwide who were administered this, do you know what the numbers are?
01:37:47.100	01:37:53.299	I don't know ???…[br]— But it's billions![br]— Hundred percent…[br]— Billions of people, yeah!
01:37:54.500	01:38:01.000	When we look back at this, in the future, is this a cautionary tale?
01:38:00.699	01:38:03.399	Is this something that you think
01:38:03.699	01:38:06.899	they would like to do again and again and again?
01:38:07.000	01:38:13.500	because the profits have been extraordinary, like, the profits from this…
01:38:12.899	01:38:30.199	This is probably the most profitable thing the pharmaceutical drug companies have ever been involved with, for they are doing, if you talk about the time duration…[br]— Hundred billion dollars [i]Pfizer[/i] have made from this vaccine, which in my view should never be ??? for a single human[br]— Not even old people?
01:38:30.299	01:38:35.199	Not even, great question![br]— Great question![br]— Yeah, great question…
01:38:35.799	01:38:47.100	So, I think there is a case to be made, Joe, at the very beginning, during the original strain, the Wuhan strain, when it was particularly terrible… that the old people over seventies, and the vulnerable
01:38:47.500	01:38:50.299	may have had more benefit than harm.
01:38:49.500	01:39:03.100	I think that there's a good case to be made there. Okay?[br]— So, there are these old vulnerable people, older people, plus obese people… What about people with immune systems that were compromised already?
01:39:02.299	01:39:06.399	Yes, so… The only problem with the immune system compromised already is that…
01:39:05.600	01:39:10.699	for the effectiveness of a vaccine, you already need to have a reasonably good functioning immune system.
01:39:10.000	01:39:18.699	So, for people who have compromised immune systems, it's a very grey area about how much benefit they get. But let's just say, that's just for argument's sake, say yes.
01:39:18.399	01:39:22.000	The benefits outweighed the harms in those groups.[br]— Okay…
01:39:22.199	01:39:31.500	I think that becomes irrelevant when you've got a serious adverse event rate which is so high which normally will… irrespective, even if the benefits outweigh the harms…
01:39:30.600	01:39:33.600	And also, what about the informed consent side?
01:39:32.899	01:40:01.299	So, let's say, for example, we calculated that actually your benefit from the vaccine and preventing being hospitalised with CoVID would say, one in 200, right? But then I said to you, Joe, your benefit is about one in 200, but the harm seemed to be, at least early on to the short term harm, to one in 800, at least. Now, we can make an individual choice, but my guess is, and I am in experience with patients, even with that information where still you can argue that the benefits outweigh the harms…
01:40:00.799	01:40:09.100	The harms are so significant in terms of numbers, that most of those people, Joe, would choose not to take the vaccine. Does that make sense?
01:40:08.199	01:40:09.899	It does make sense
01:40:09.000	01:40:10.100	yes.
01:40:09.199	01:40:30.600	And then, also, there's this false narrative that was repeated continuously, continuously during the beginning, which was this was going to stop the infection, this was going to stop you from getting others sick, you were gonna do this for other people, and this was gonna get us out of this… Everybody desperately wanted the pandemic to be over.
01:40:29.699	01:40:40.500	It was a psychological manipulation.[br]— And there was also the emergency use authorisation in America, where they were allowed to distribute this vaccine with…
01:40:41.199	01:41:03.000	no liability… They didn't have to worry at all about being sued for adverse side effects, and they essentially silenced any talk, of any sort of alternative treatment, because if there is a treatment that's offered, there's an effective treatment, then they no longer can justify the emergency use authorisation.
01:41:03.299	01:41:18.000	Absolutely. You know, but this thing, even the limited liability stuff, wasn't publicised. It wasn't in the mainstream line of discussion points in the CNN, saying, you know, just to let everybody know, if you get injured by the vaccine, Pfizer is not liable… Why was that not discussed?
01:41:18.799	01:41:29.100	The whole narrative that has been shaped by these corporate interests is very clear, and…[br]— Well, in the news I'm sure you've seen the corporation videos they brought to you, the Pfizer videos…
01:41:28.600	01:41:35.299	We see Anderson Cooper brought to by Pfizer and everyone brought to by Pfizer… [br]— Yeah, yeah
01:41:34.699	01:41:37.100	That's… There is your answer!
01:41:36.299	01:41:37.399	Yeah.
01:41:36.699	01:41:41.500	At least, you don't necessarily have that the same way in the UK.
01:41:40.799	01:41:50.600	You have more of a socialised form of medicine, and you don't have advertising for pharmaceutical drugs on television.br> No, we don't.
01:41:49.600	01:41:52.399	We don't. But I think it's more behind the scenes.
01:41:51.500	01:41:57.299	It's like influencers, regulators and stuff, so, in effect, it's still pretty bad.
01:41:56.600	01:42:12.199	You know, the clinical decision-making is more subtly driven by this commercial interest…[br]— Just with who controls grants? and who controls funding? You know, also being ostracised from the community, yeah, and you don't really have a voice.
01:42:11.299	01:42:46.500	I think we're living, I mean, these times are unprecedented, Joe. I've never seen anything like this and, you know, to come back to your original question about how people gonna look at this, I see this as an opportunity, you know, as Einstein said, you know, in every crisis lies an opportunity. I think this is a time when we are literally fighting for humanity, we're fighting to free the World from corporate tyranny. And I think the way we've got here in some ways was predictable, because of that unchecked power. And I think because everybody has been somehow affected by the vaccine, whether they took it or not…
01:42:45.600	01:43:03.199	If they took it, they may either suffer a side effect, or know someone who suffered a side effect, or later on become familiar with the fact that they were kind of conned or duped, in saying they were going to protect other people… Or, if they didn't take the vaccine, they were gaslighted, they couldn't travel, people lost their jobs
01:43:03.500	01:43:23.799	and it's affected everybody pretty much in the World. So, I think this truth, this expose if you like of this truth, will help people understand that actually, and this is what people like me are doing and people like yourself… is really to just highlight that this is a system failure…
01:43:24.399	01:43:25.799	You know, this is…
01:43:26.899	01:43:30.199	We've got here by stealth, we've got here
01:43:30.500	01:43:43.299	because a lot of people don't understand these system failures, that they would not find acceptable, for example, why does the FDA ([i]Food and Drug Administration[/i]) take 65% of its funding from the pharmaceutical industry?
01:43:42.799	01:44:27.299	Why does the regulator in our country — which, by the way, the British Medical Association's chair didn't know until I gave a lecture and was shocked when I told him that 86% of the funding of the MHRA ([i]Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency[/i]) in our country comes from the pharma… People would find this unacceptable, but that also means there are solutions. There are solutions moving forward where people can feel more confident in the information they're getting. Even a doctor is likely to be clean, or as clean as possible, and closer to the truth when it comes to knowing the absolute benefits and harms of medications. So, that ultimately means changing the logic we've got here because of unethical, unjust, unscientific laws if you like… And when I look and trace the roots of it all
01:44:28.100	01:44:40.600	this really started, the acceleration of this process started from maybe well-intentioned, I think, neoliberal economic policies adopted by Ronald Reagan in the eighties, and Margaret Thatcher
01:44:41.799	01:45:28.799	in the UK, 1992, I think it was George Bassinia who then allowed the FDA ([i]Food and Drug Administration[/i]) to take money from the drug industry. Before that, that was essentially through public funding. Academic institutions, most in the UK, now get most of their funding from pharma when it comes to medical research. Before, in the eighties, they didn't. So, I think, when people understand that, you know, John Ioannidis also wrote this great paper, a few years ago, called [i]How to survive the medical misinformation mess[/i], and he talks about the fact in the United States, and you spend almost four trillion, more than four trillion dollars on healthcare, you know, 18 per cent of your GDP ([i]Gross domestic product[/i])… He says that twenty to fifty per cent of healthcare activity in the United States is inappropriate, wasteful, and harms patients.
01:45:28.000	01:45:30.399	Thankfully it gives no benefit.
01:45:29.699	01:45:31.399	And he said
01:45:31.699	01:46:15.699	one of the reasons for, what drives this, is that the first thing is, most publish research, much if not most published research, is unreliable, not useful to policymakers, and not good for patients. But the second bit is most healthcare professionals, most doctors are not aware of this, they're not aware of these system failures, right? Don't make the assumption that your doctor knows about them, and then they lack the critical appraisal skills to understand the evidence and then translate it into a way that patients can understand. And this is part of conditioning. We're not conditioned in medical school to think in these ways about informed consent, about understanding the data properly, it's not a rocket, and it's not difficult, so there needs to be a shift, as well, culturally.
01:46:15.199	01:46:20.699	You know, people need to understand that good health in general doesn't come out of a medicine bottle.
01:46:19.899	01:46:24.899	You know what determines your health or social conditions right there?
01:46:24.600	01:46:35.299	The conditions in which we are born, we grow, we live, we age, we work, understanding the impact of severe psychological stress, and how that can shorten your life span.
01:46:34.399	01:46:35.500	Right?
01:46:34.600	01:47:00.000	So, for example, a very good paper published in [i]Nature[/i] 2012 by Elizabeth Blackbum, who was a Nobel prize winner, and Elissa S Epel, a psychologist in California was called [i]Too toxic to ignore[/i], and they talked about the impact of psychological stress on genes that control the ageing process and disease. And one of the things that was really startling to me, when I looked at it, is that if you are a mother of a disabled child
01:47:00.500	01:47:05.600	the chronic stress associated with that is the equivalent of ten years of ageing.
01:47:05.799	01:47:32.000	If you're a victim of severe psychological abuse as a child, or sexual abuse, that can on the extreme end knock off twenty years of your lifespan, because of the disease process… What happens to the genes, epigenetics, manifests itself later on. I think these things are important to discuss, Joe, as well, because it helps us also try and think about how we create the conditions in society for everybody, where they have an opportunity
01:47:32.600	01:47:38.799	to be the best version of themselves, and what I mean by that, is to have the optimisation of mental and physical health.
01:47:38.100	01:47:42.500	Now, that brings me to, you know, what is health?
01:47:41.699	01:47:49.299	I'm not a big fan of the World Health Organization of these days because I think they've been corrupted by these commercial entities as well, right?
01:47:48.399	01:47:57.699	You know, most of their funding now comes with strings attached too ??? to Margaret Chan, the former director general of the World Health Organization.
01:47:56.799	01:48:07.799	You know, the second biggest funder of the World Health Organization, you've talked about this before… Bill Gates! Right? He's heavily invested in pharmaceutical industry stocks… McDonald's and Coca-Cola…
01:48:08.100	01:48:17.399	So, the World Health Organization, unfortunately, is not independent. However, let's say something positive about them: they have this great definition of health…
01:48:17.699	01:48:21.000	a state of complete mental
01:48:21.500	01:48:41.399	physical and social well-being, not merely the absence of disease or infirmity. So, if we start from that place, of that definition, and understand it and also realise that you can't have optimal mental health without having optimal physical health, and you can't have optimal physical health without having optimal mental health, because it's interlinked.
01:48:40.600	01:48:50.600	I think, we then branch out, and we think about how can we create those conditions so that people have for example the right wages.
01:48:50.199	01:49:01.500	You know, if you're in a low-pay, high-demand, low-control job, the impact on your health is effectively a death sentence. You know, these are the kind of discussions we need to be having…
01:49:02.199	01:49:06.699	politically and in a medical establishment, and with the public as well.
01:49:06.699	01:49:09.100	One of the things you're doing now is,
01:49:09.399	01:49:17.000	You're helping people that may have been injured by the vaccine… and what is available to people?
01:49:17.100	01:49:19.000	It's a great question.
01:49:18.399	01:49:22.000	Honest answer is, it's a moving space, so…
01:49:23.299	01:49:55.799	My work has been traditionally looking at how we combat chronic disease through lifestyle. Many of the people who are vulnerable to vaccine injuries are the same people who are vulnerable to CoVID, right? So, people who have inner conditions or who are obese, for example, overweight… So, one of the things that I've been doing with vaccine injuries and patients myself is actually implementing these lifestyle changes, like eating real food, doing thirty minutes of moderate activity a day, let's really focus on your stress levels, and a lot of these people are getting better because of that. But there's a lot of uncertainty about whether there are any other drugs.
01:49:54.899	01:50:16.699	I know that you know, at the FLCCC conference ([i]Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care[/i]) which I'm attending in Dallas and speaking at… The moment there are doctors there that are producing protocols that seem to be working, observationally, whether it's vitamin infusions, the lifestyle, even the controversial ivermectin, apparently seems to be helping some patients as well, which is really interesting…[br]— What does it help?
01:50:15.899	01:50:20.399	Well, it has some mechanism, apparently, which seems
01:50:20.799	01:50:23.799	to alleviate the damage from the spike protein.
01:50:22.899	01:50:58.799	I mean, that's the theoretical benefit of ivermectin.[br]— Theoretical…[br]— Theoretical, but it's being used, and because it's extremely safe, it's one of the safest drugs we have, I think there's, you know, it's not unreasonable, and those people are resistant, you know… So, I think we need to think about that. But the problem, Joe, as well, is that because the establishment is ignoring what is now a pandemic of vaccinated people, we can't devote as many resources as we'd like to research and managing these people, because a lot of these people are poor, you know, these patients are being gaslighted, still by their doctors…[br]— Yeah[br]— and that's a big issue.
01:50:57.899	01:51:18.500	I mean, even last week, there was an interesting case that was reported on the BBC, where a young thirty-two-year-old fit and healthy psychologist in the NHS ([i]National Health Service[/i]) took the AstraZeneca vaccine. We used that initially in the UK, as well. And within ten days he died of a severe stroke…
01:51:19.100	01:51:38.000	And the death certificate, the wife fought for, I mean, kudos to her. She fought for him, and for justice for him, and the death certificate said he died of natural causes. So, it ultimately went to court, and the coroner confirmed that this was absolutely likely caused by the AstraZeneca vaccine, you know…
01:51:38.799	01:51:43.699	So, these sorts of discussions we need to keep, you know, we need to keep having them.
01:51:43.899	01:51:51.000	Why do you think at this point there's still such an incredible reluctance to blame anything on the vaccine?
01:51:51.899	01:52:18.399	Because people will…[br]— With any other medication, people on any other medication, it seems like… It wouldn't be so easy to dismiss. Like when people got strokes with the [i]Vioxx[/i], people weren't saying, oh, come on, you just had a regular stroke, the [i]Vioxx[/i] didn't have anything to do with it… But with this, you do see that narrative, like, you know, hey, he had a heart attack seven days after he was vaccinated.
01:52:18.000	01:52:20.100	Well, people have heart attacks…
01:52:19.699	01:52:31.699	There's no consideration for a novel treatment that has been administered to hundreds of millions of people in this country. No consideration to maybe it that had a factor.
01:52:30.899	01:52:58.799	In fact, they actively try to ignore that as a possible factor. And I have talked to so many people that have had either similar situations to yours, or worse, where they had an adverse effect from the vaccine, and these anecdotal stories of people and their doctor's reluctance to admit or to even consider that it had anything to do with that. It is quite shocking!
01:52:59.199	01:53:10.899	The indoctrination on vaccine safety, Joe, is so so deep, historically, and with this, that even educated people think they're being objective
01:53:11.899	01:53:21.799	I think what's made this worse is that many of these doctors and many people themselves, when they've had it, they brought it into the narrative
01:53:22.000	01:53:27.399	and we have to also have… We have to think empathetically and compassionately…
01:53:27.699	01:53:47.699	with them. In a sense, I think, we have to have that conversation and understand that changing one's mind, in general, is actually for many people quite an emotionally traumatic experience. But, really, if you think about it, and, you know, we are strong enough and mature enough to be able
01:53:49.299	01:53:56.100	to understand what's happened here, and to try and move forward constructively. But for most people
01:53:56.699	01:55:04.000	the kind of discussion we're having now about all of these system failures and the corruption and people being harmed, and, you know, this vaccine that almost certainly, I think quite likely, these drug companies knew already about the harms before they were rolled out, that's why they got immunity from getting sued if people got vaccinated because they knew… It's a lot to take in, Joe, it's much easier to bury your head in the sand and to ignore this wilful blindness. It's an easier route to take than to confront these truths… But we have to confront the facts, because if we don't, it's only gonna keep happening.[br]— But other people are doing the work for the ???. And that's where it gets weird to me when it comes to this. This is something that I've never seen before, but I have seen with the vaccine, is that there are people that, because of their own personal choices, or because of whatever positions they initially asserted… Initially pro-vaccine or, you know, trying to tell people to get it or trying to be influential… These people are so reluctant to change course.
01:55:03.100	01:55:06.299	I'm not talking about medical health professionals.
01:55:05.399	01:55:07.899	I'm talking about journalists.
01:55:07.100	01:55:09.899	I'm talking about people in the public area.
01:55:09.000	01:55:16.799	I'm talking about influencers and celebrities that have initially stated that you should go do this.
01:55:15.899	01:55:17.799	I'm doing this,
01:55:17.000	01:55:33.199	you should do this. Those people are still carrying water for the pharmaceutical industries to cover up their own either incorrect assumptions and assertions or… But for whatever reason they want to do it… They're doing the work for them.
01:55:32.299	01:55:40.199	Like when, you see, if someone talks about having some sort of a vaccine adverse side effect, they're attacked.
01:55:39.100	01:55:50.000	I've seen people get attacked. I've seen people talk about someone they know that got sick or even died, and they'll get attacked.
01:55:50.100	01:56:04.899	It's very strange, because it's become much more of a medical issue, and it turned into a tribal issue, and in this country, it's very separated in terms of ideological inclinations.
01:56:04.000	01:56:09.100	You have your Republicans and you have your Democrats, your right-wing people, and your left-wing people.
01:56:08.199	01:56:13.799	Right-wing people are more reluctant to take it. They're more reluctant to believe…
01:56:14.100	01:56:52.899	They were seeking alternative treatments. Some of them were ineffective, and then you had, unfortunately, a lot of those people who were unhealthy, to begin with, and then you had the left-wing people who were all in, they were getting [i]Pfizer[/i] tattoos, they were showing photos of them getting vaccinated, they were posting their little stickers “got vaccinated”, they had their little hypodermic needle emoji and their little bio. It's wild shit because it became a tribal identity signifier. It was a signal that you were sending out to other people that you were on the right side, you've done the right thing.[br]— Yes, I think
01:56:53.199	01:57:04.699	there's an element, for sure, in this, that those people who are indoctrinated believe that they have done a good thing in society, they believe they have done the right thing.
01:57:03.799	01:57:11.899	And I think they thought that when they did it initially. So, that's why they're reluctant to relinquish that and to say they got duped.
01:57:11.000	01:57:13.500	Yeah, but you know, it takes the…
01:57:13.899	01:57:16.899	School… I went to Mont Goma school.
01:57:16.199	01:57:18.199	You know, I think it shaped me.
01:57:17.299	01:57:20.299	I'm very proud of the school I went to Almato.
01:57:19.399	01:57:21.199	It was Latin.
01:57:20.500	01:57:22.299	???
01:57:22.100	01:57:32.600	??? To be wise, it takes courage to change one's mind and to admit that you may have been wrong, so it's not an easy thing for people to do.
01:57:31.600	01:57:33.600	It's the right thing to do.
01:57:32.699	01:57:38.000	It's about living virtuously. As doctors, we're also taught evidence changes.
01:57:37.100	01:57:45.100	We need to change the evidence. But not everybody feels comfortable doing that, Joe. And I think that there's… some of it is probably fear of getting attacked.
01:57:44.100	01:57:57.100	I mean, I know some celebrity figures that privately, you know, I won't name them, who are completely, you know, I agree with this team, keep going, we support you et cetera, thank you… And they sent me all these… But they won't come out and speak out. And I was like, you know,
01:57:57.399	01:58:22.199	even if half a dozen well-known celebrity figures, Joe, came out simultaneously and said we're very concerned, this vaccine is causing harm, please suspend it, calling an investigation. I think this issue would probably end overnight. It honestly doesn't take that many people of prominence to really speak out… And… I don't know if you've watched
01:58:23.199	01:58:43.100	the movie she said is around what happened with Harvey Weinstein [br]— No[br]— So, and this is corroborated, you know, obviously, movies can sometimes be fictional, but this is very accurate. And one of the things that come out in that film is that all these women who had suffered harm from Harvey Weinstein
01:58:43.500	01:59:09.600	when the journalists went to them, it was the [i]New York Times[/i] originally, they broke the story. They were all very very scared of speaking out on their own, like they would get attacked. And, you know, he was so powerful and all of that influence… But what the journalist did, is that they got several of these women, and they basically were honest with them, saying, listen, so and so is going to say as well, you're not going to be alone. And the line was when they jumped, they all jumped together…
01:59:11.100	01:59:36.000	Right? So, we haven't got… I think we all were getting there… We have to just keep speaking the truth and sort of letting go of the outcome because it's the right thing to do. But if there are people, out there, who have a voice of a platform, and I know some of them, by the way… I'm talking about some really big-name celebrities who messaged me. Like very very famous people who say, thank you, keep going. And I've said to them would do you speak out? And…
01:59:35.000	01:59:48.299	I've had that same experience, yeah. I've had it privately. I've had it through messages, I've had it through emails, in texts. Lots of it privately… A lot of people don't even want to write it down, they just want to tell you.
01:59:47.699	02:00:17.199	And a lot of them have stories… And the number of people that I know that have come up to me privately to tell me about their own vaccine injury, really, and about how they've been either ignored or dismissed by the physician, how they've sought other doctors out and the reluctance of admitting that this was somehow or another connected… They want to think of the vaccine as being an overall absolute positive, a miracle science.
02:00:16.600	02:00:24.899	This is what got us through this. Sure, there are always going to be some side effects because you're administering to a massive amount of people.
02:00:24.000	02:00:27.199	And that's the narrative they get from their doctor, yeah.
02:00:26.500	02:00:27.600	Yeah.
02:00:26.699	02:00:31.199	And we shouldn't underestimate the scale of what we're dealing with.
02:00:30.600	02:01:47.199	I recently went to South Africa on a bit of a speaking tour, trying to engage with politicians and speak to the media, and give lectures to doctors. And the person that invited me there, Joe, is a chap called Jay Naidoo. Now, Jay was a trade union leader, he was considered the chief orchestrator of the release of Nelson Mandela from prison, and he served in his first cabinet. And he contacted me, a few months ago, and I was a bit overwhelmed, because I was, like, he's a South African elder, he's one of those powerful voices in Africa. And he said listen, Aseem, for what you've been doing, you know, thank you. And I was like, wow, you know I support you, and what can I do to help, et cetera et cetera. And what he said to me, and he also said this recently on [i]GB News[/i], he said Aseem, what we are dealing with here, the scale of the problem, the battle we have, is far bigger than what we fought in terms of apartheid. And this is a guy, at the age of thirty-six, who thought he was going to be killed, who had people with AK-47s looking for him, because during that time it was pretty horrific what happened to ethnic minority dissidents in South Africa. People were put in prison, and then they were murdered in prison. I mean, that's what we're talking about here, that's how bad he said this is far bigger…
02:01:47.899	02:02:17.099	Wow! This is by numbers, right… the World… And it's also this industry that is so huge, there's so much money involved in this… And so many people, particularly after it's already been administered, they don't want to harm the industry. Like this is already done, the last thing we want to do is decrease profits even more… So, let's figure out a way to raise the profits to a similar level that they cheat over the last few years… And how do we do that?
02:02:16.199	02:02:17.199	
02:02:16.399	02:02:20.000	And here's an interesting thing that's come out recently.
02:02:19.099	02:02:23.599	In the United States the original vaccine is now no longer approved
02:02:24.099	02:02:26.699	Right?[br]— Yes.[br]— Then why is that?
02:02:26.300	02:02:27.899	I don't know.
02:02:27.899	02:02:33.099	They've got this bivalent, which is a newer type, but I think it's the same thing there, Joe.
02:02:32.300	02:02:34.599	I don't know what they're doing.
02:02:33.699	02:03:14.599	I don't fully understand it, to be perfectly honest with you. But I think, what's going to happen is… they are still going to keep using it in the winter. Like with the flu vaccine, they're just going to add it in… Here's the core vaccine for you, which is the same stuff. So, I don't think it's an acceptance that we've realized as a problem we're going to just slowly introduce something else… I think it's the same problem. I mean on that note, though, Switzerland and even Germany now are essentially stopping the use of these vaccines. And I think what we must be very aware of, Joe, is that we shouldn't let them slowly phase out this vaccine.
02:03:13.599	02:03:19.599	It may end up happening here as well as if nothing ever happened, and they move on to the next thing…
02:03:19.899	02:03:23.399	Because that's what they've done with other drugs in the past.
02:03:22.500	02:03:27.899	You know, I was involved in a case in the UK with a drug that was used heavily here as well.
02:03:27.000	02:04:10.099	It's called [i]Alteplase[/i], a “clot-busting” drug, and it's used for strokes. Emergency for strokes. And I got contacted by a whistleblower, many years ago, who then published a letter in [i]The Lancet[/i], who basically looked at the data on which the drug was approved, and said it was flawed. There was evidence of potential fraud. And eventually, this went up to the regulator, and got publicized in [i]The Lancet[/i]. I helped him get it on [i]BBC News[/i] and [i]Channel 4[/i] news. If it didn't get there, I don't think it would have got the attention it needed. And ultimately the regulator got involved, and I was fully aware of the investigation into this drug. I was getting informed by people there, that they didn't really know what to say or what to do.
02:04:09.500	02:04:24.300	They couldn't really answer the important questions he asked them about the regulatory approval, and data which was clearly obviously showing significant harm and hardly any benefits, in terms of causing brain bleeds. And probably several thousand people died unnecessarily because of it.
02:04:23.599	02:04:46.500	And what they did was… It was one of the quality markers in hospitals that the hospitals would be remunerated if they used this drug in a timely fashion… They just removed it, one day from the website, of this, being a quality marker of care… It was removed, and it just stopped being used, and then they moved on to something else.
02:04:46.399	02:05:02.099	It never got public that, actually, we shouldn't have ever approved of this in the first place, and the information that we used was potentially fraudulent or flawed. And, therefore, they just carry on…
02:05:01.199	02:05:09.899	So, we must be very careful, we must be aware, Joe, that they potentially could do this now. It's already kind of happened!
02:05:10.199	02:05:17.699	You didn't use this in the U.S. but in many European countries one of the vaccines that was used at the beginning for CoVID was AstraZeneca
02:05:18.199	02:05:49.699	By the summer of 2021, most European countries had suspended the AstraZeneca vaccine. They stopped using it. But no one really knew about it. They kind of heard there were a few cases of rare blood clots or whatever, right? Reporting these very very rare blood clots, and then suddenly they stopped using it… It wasn't well publicized. And then I found out, only a few months ago, because I focused on the mRNA Pfizer vaccine, I didn't look AstraZeneca. I got contacted by some people in India. It was being used, so it was suspended ??? in European countries
02:05:50.000	02:05:54.300	because of these quite significant common serious adverse events.
02:05:54.199	02:05:59.199	It was used, and continued to be used, even now, in India, under a different name.
02:05:58.300	02:06:01.300	It's the same vaccine. it's called [i]Covishield[/i].
02:06:02.000	02:07:00.300	When I saw that, I was shocked. So, I went to India, gave some lectures over there, engage with mainstream journalists over there, who know me and see me as a credible voice in lots of areas, whether it's heart disease or diet, or heart stents or whatever… And I said I need to get this into the mainstream media. So, I basically gave a lecture, and up until the summer of 2021, there was a paper published. Comment, but it was one of the ??? immunology journals. And it basically said, at that stage, the AstraZeneca vaccine was worse than Pfizer for cardiovascular effects. Worse than Pfizer. So, I got this into the mainstream, into the [i]Times of India[/i]. And what's really interesting about this, and it links into something else in South Africa — I didn't know, I went there just because I wanted to help people, I was giving lectures but I had people coming up to me after my lectures, like widows crying, saying… And a nurse, I remember, came to me and said my husband who was fitting well had this and he basically dropped dead of a heart attack two weeks later.
02:06:59.399	02:07:01.500	I know this is what it was.
02:07:00.599	02:07:02.800	Thank you for everything you're doing!
02:07:01.899	02:07:20.399	It got into the [i]Times of India[/i], and it got some publicity for the first time in that country. And I wasn't aware… Well, I didn't do it for this reason, I then met a very prominent lawyer in India, who is involved in a case where a young activist has accused
02:07:20.800	02:07:43.599	one of the richest men in India who is involved in the rollout of their CoVID vaccine. I wouldn't agree with what he said, ??? but he basically took social media. This young activist said that this guy committed mass murder… So, this man is suing for, like, literally millions of pounds this young guy who's like a nutrition scientist, he doesn't have much money…
02:07:44.599	02:08:22.199	on this thing that this is defamatory, and the vaccine is safe and effective, and the accusation from this young activist was that this guy should have known or knew, and why did he support these and made a lot of money out of the AstraZeneca vaccine… So, I meet this lawyer, and the case is ongoing, and they weren't really getting anywhere. Until he put in front of the judge an article in the [i]Times of India[/i] where me, the British cardiologist, said this is a big problem and this is suspended… And he said it completely turned the judge, you could see that he turned ??? and he was like…
02:08:22.599	02:08:30.500	The reason I'm saying this, Joe, is, even the judiciary, this is the battle we face. So many people have been indoctrinated, there were so many biases here.
02:08:31.099	02:09:09.599	One of the ways that we combat this — and I think your platform is probably one of the most important potentially in the World on this, let's not underestimate that — is disseminating this truth. Traditionally it's been through legacy media, that are failing the public at the moment, right? They are acting in ways that are anti-democratic they're ??? the truth, they are deliberately suppressing information… What we are trying to do here, if we want to revolutionize healthcare, we want patients in public to get a better deal, we want a better democracy, is we make this injustice visible… That's what Mahatma Gandhi said.
02:09:08.800	02:09:12.199	You know, how did he get the British colonial out of India?
02:09:11.899	02:09:15.699	You know, how did he expose everything they were doing was wrong?
02:09:15.599	02:09:22.300	Make the injustice visible. And traditionally, the most effective way to do that is through the mainstream media.
02:09:21.500	02:09:55.099	But the legacy media, I think, people are losing trust. Even smears and attacks have happened to me after I went on the BBC to talk about statins. And then, I don't know if you know about this, but it was a few months ago, I mentioned excess deaths could be because of the vaccine. It got a lot of views, like 25 million views on Twitter, but there was a backlash immediately, where [i]The Guardian[/i], a newspaper in which I've written 19 opinion editorials over the years, including 3 front-page commentaries for [i]The Observer[/i], ??? me and undermined my credibility. There was a quote from a cardiologist saying: “He doesn't have a career in cardiology, this is ridiculous.”
02:09:55.699	02:10:22.699	The comment section in [i]The Guardian[/i] initially, and even the Times, newspapers that do things similarly, were largely supportive of what I was doing. So, there's a disconnect here, and I think the legacy media are… They're losing out, I think, they're in big danger. And I think one of the things that you enjoy is, because you have these conversations, you're willing to hear different points of view, that's what people want, Joe. That's what people really want, and people, ultimately, they want access to the truth. And they want to do the right thing.
02:10:22.000	02:10:26.899	You know, they hate to see injustice. So, we keep making injustice visible and we will win this.
02:10:26.300	02:10:37.699	I don't know if you're aware of this, but there was… I believe, a Facebook post… Where I don't remember what organization put it up, but it might have been a news organization.
02:10:37.099	02:10:42.199	It was: “Do you know anyone that died from CoVID?”
02:10:41.899	02:10:45.199	Like: “What are your stories about people who died from CoVID?”
02:10:44.300	02:10:58.500	And then, underneath it, people started posting all their loved ones that died from the vaccine and all their loved ones that had debilitating injuries from the vaccine, and it was a massive post.
02:10:57.899	02:11:05.599	It was thousands and thousands and thousands of comments… Obviously unverified, anecdotal…
02:11:04.800	02:11:07.000	You don't know what I mean.
02:11:06.399	02:11:09.099	Could be all disinformation.
02:11:08.199	02:11:09.599	Who knows?
02:11:09.300	02:11:20.399	But the shock of seeing that printed, and this was early on, this was when people were still very much on the narrative that the vaccine was getting us out of this.
02:11:19.500	02:11:31.599	The vaccine was safe and effective, and only fools and conspiracy theorists were willing to not do it, to risk their lives, and not participate. And it was pretty stunning!
02:11:31.800	02:12:02.300	That feeling I get. That's the same I get from conversations with people, where they tell you about their uncle, their friend or this, they're that, their brother, their son, they tell you about these injuries, and then they tell you about the struggles of getting people to connect them to the vaccine. They talk about how they've tried to get into the VAERS report ([i]Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System[/i]) and the unsuccessful attempts to do that, even though the VAERS report is pretty extensive with vaccine injuries.
02:12:02.099	02:12:13.099	The whole thing seems like, there are a lot of people that don't want to talk about it, but have stories and feel very fucked over.
02:12:14.000	02:13:26.099	It's exactly the experience I've been having, you know. Wherever I go, I speak to — I'm more curious about what drives people and their health et cetera… On this vaccine issue, Joe, whether it's a cab driver or a shopkeeper, when I was in South Africa, when I was in India, over in the States, almost everybody has a story, Joe,! Everybody has a story to tell. That's important. Now, you're right, we can't always be definitive that it's the vaccine. But coming back to the basics of what we learn in medicine, eighty per cent of your diagnosis comes from the history, so listen to the patients, and most of the time they will give you the answer… Something like this that you just discussed was recently published in a journal called [i]BMC Infectious Diseases[/i], high impact journal, and it was a survey conducted, an interesting analysis of American people. The sample size wasn't massive, I think, it was about 3000, and the calculations that were done suggested, when extrapolated up, that there may well be up to one million serious adverse effects from the CoVID vaccine in the United States, in 2021 alone, and 278 thousand fatalities. Right? Just from this survey where people knew of somebody or maybe ??? who died.
02:13:26.300	02:13:57.500	That's very telling. It's important information, I think, to have a discussion about. Now, this paper, only a couple of weeks ago, on April 11, was retracted because the journal was put under pressure. Not because they had committed some fraud or whatever else. There was no real good reason given, you know, we are not something around “you can't draw causal inference from this paper,” which was in the paper anyway, I mean, the people wrote this, of course, you can't say it's causal, but it's still important.
02:13:56.800	02:14:12.500	This is the level that there could be. They said so, there was, it could be that high. We need to have these discussions. And also if there's such a disconnection between how patients in the public feel, and they are now not trusting or believing the medical establishment.
02:14:11.800	02:14:16.500	That's not good for medicine. It's not good for democracy, it's not good for government.
02:14:17.599	02:14:20.599	For societies to flourish
02:14:20.800	02:14:26.800	constructively and progressively, people need to be able to trust each other.
02:14:26.099	02:14:30.099	You can only trust each other if you believe people are telling the truth.
02:14:29.800	02:14:36.000	So, we are heading down a very dangerous path…
02:14:36.000	02:14:54.500	Until we can relieve the World from this corporatarianism, this is the battle we face, you know, the one of truth versus money, materialism and, dare I say, in some ways psychopathy and spiritualism, right? And we need to go back to understanding, what does it mean to be human?
02:14:56.800	02:15:09.699	What does it mean to be a good human? What does it mean to lead a good life? And that is underpinned by also basic values: honesty, integrity, empathy, compassion, courage… This is what we need to be teaching.
02:15:08.800	02:15:10.899	There's a cultural issue here.
02:15:10.000	02:15:22.899	I think there's also, that's what led us a little bit, and it's hindering us from making progress. Because these people, as, you know, even your friends and celebrities, why can't they just be brave enough to just come out and speak the truth?
02:15:22.000	02:15:27.500	Just as real consequences, and they can avoid those consequences by just not talking.
02:15:26.699	02:15:31.699	Yeah… They don't feel like they have that much of an ability to change things.
02:15:30.899	02:15:35.699	Yeah… I feel like this machine is massive and dangerous and scary…
02:15:36.599	02:15:56.899	I think we shouldn't underestimate the power of speaking the truth. I'm somebody that has, you know, in recent months — I know you've had him on your show a few times, and it makes sense to me what he says, Jordan Peterson, right? — so we have to accept it's not safe to speak the truth, but it's even less safe to not speak the truth… Because the problem isn't going to go away, it's only going to get worse.
02:15:56.199	02:16:20.800	It isn't even about being virtuous or courageous. For me, it's about being rational… So, we need to keep having these conversations and hopefully, with time, situation… People will… I think more and more people are speaking out, more doctors are speaking out. Certainly, when I started, you know, I was one of the lone voices, with people like Peter McCullough who's been brilliant on top of this for a long time. But more and more doctors, now, more and more people are speaking out.
02:16:19.800	02:16:24.599	I feel most for my profession, I'm more worried about them than anyone.
02:16:23.699	02:16:28.899	I mean, of course, my patients are being harmed, by the time the trust has been eroded.
02:16:28.800	02:16:31.899	You know, it's going to take… We have to accept it.
02:16:31.000	02:16:33.100	The trust has been eroded.
02:16:32.500	02:16:44.500	It's going to take time to regain that trust, but the longer the medical establishment ignores the fact that they are essentially slaves
02:16:45.000	02:16:46.100	
02:16:46.399	02:16:53.500	to corporate tyrannical and often psychopathic entities, so, as long as they continue to ignore that,
02:16:53.700	02:16:57.399	our patients are going to suffer more and more.
02:16:57.600	02:17:07.399	You touched briefly on one thing that's very disturbing, but one thing we should probably talk some more about… It's an increase in overall mortality.
02:17:08.200	02:17:14.500	The increase in overall mortality is pretty unprecedented. Correct?
02:17:13.700	02:17:14.899	Yes.
02:17:15.200	02:17:22.500	So, this has been going on as being in the news, or getting some attention certainly for the last several months
02:17:23.000	02:17:25.600	and when you look at excess deaths
02:17:25.799	02:17:42.700	a significant proportion of those, if not most of them, are usually cardiovascular heart attacks and strokes. Obviously my area of interest. The question is what's causing it. And with heart disease, of course, cardiovascular disease, it's a multifactorial condition.
02:17:43.000	02:17:44.399	
02:17:44.700	02:18:14.500	Some of it, for sure, and I actually predicted this, interestingly, before the vaccine came onto the scene, in my mind… I knew that because of lockdowns and the psychological stress associated with it, and people's diets getting worse, and being sedentary and stuff, I predicted that there probably would be, over time, an increase in heart attacks. Certainly more vulnerable people. And I think there is definitely a role to be played there, Joe, in this.[br]— Also drinking, much more people drank. During the pandemic, alcoholism increased.
02:18:13.799	02:18:18.200	Yeah. These things were absolute, you know… Mental health obviously got worse.
02:18:17.299	02:18:23.799	So, there's gonna be… I haven't looked at this, but I suspect some of these are going to be, people…
02:18:22.899	02:18:25.799	The suicides have gone up with that kind of thing.
02:18:24.799	02:18:27.700	I'm sure that's going to probably be a big contributing factor.
02:18:26.899	02:18:29.899	Lack of screening and medical attention.
02:18:29.200	02:18:30.299	Yeah…
02:18:29.799	02:18:37.799	A little bit of that, not so much. Because I remember I said that modern medicine itself only gives marginal benefits actually to most people.
02:18:36.899	02:18:45.700	I think the emergency ??? for example. People not getting timely treatment in emergencies. For sure, like people in cardiac arrest etc.
02:18:44.799	02:18:49.200	But then, what's driving the increase in cardiac arrest that we've seen, right?
02:18:48.200	02:18:50.799	That's a question…
02:18:51.600	02:19:01.700	So, what proportion of those excess deaths is because of the vaccine? And there isn't much data out there that's reliable
02:19:02.200	02:19:33.899	but Norman… Professor Norman Fenson is a professor of risk at Queen Mary university, emeritus professor of risk, a very well-published, very respected mathematician, statistician, professor of risk… He did a recent article online, and his estimates in the UK — and you can extrapolate this around the World if you like — in terms of the excess deaths that occurred since say 2021… He suggests that maybe half of those
02:19:34.299	02:19:36.799	are because of the CoVID vaccines.
02:19:36.500	02:19:40.600	Now, when we're talking about excess deaths, what are the numbers?
02:19:40.200	02:19:51.299	Well, in the UK, absolute numbers are about 120,000 excess deaths since 2021, and he's…[br]— What's the percentage over a normal year?
02:19:51.200	02:19:58.000	I can't tell you. I thought ???, Joe. I can't break down the percentage specifically for you.
02:19:58.200	02:20:17.899	I mean, separately in my paper, one thing I looked at was the increase in out-of-hospital cardiac arrests that happened in 2021, after the vaccine rollout, versus 2020. And that was in the region of, something like a 14 to 20 per cent increase. Which is, you know, quite significant…
02:20:19.100	02:20:27.500	And is it universal, or is it uniform in all the States that rolled out these vaccines, this increase
02:20:28.399	02:20:40.299	in excess deaths?[br]— Yeah. The problem is the data is not collected, and we have to rely on government figures. So, certainly, in the UK, it does seem to be pretty consistent.[br]— Is it proportional
02:20:39.600	02:20:44.500	to places where there was a very low number of vaccinated people?
02:20:44.299	02:20:51.899	Yes. So, if you look across countries, across the World, there is definitely a correlation
02:20:52.299	02:21:05.700	with highly vaccinated countries and excess deaths. The one caveat though, which is interesting, and I can explain that, is there hasn't been any significant increase in excess deaths in Sweden, and they're very highly vaccinated.
02:21:04.799	02:21:05.899	Now…
02:21:06.299	02:21:30.399	Although the excess deaths are, maybe, one of the lowest in the World, they're still probably higher than you would expect after a pandemic when a lot of vulnerable people would have died. And, therefore, your excess death rate should be in the negative. And they're not in the negative, so that means they're still higher than you would expect. And I've been to Sweden and given lectures and spoken to cardiologists, and they're seeing these vaccine injuries. So why is Sweden doing better?
02:21:29.899	02:21:37.700	As I said earlier, a lot of vulnerabilities to vaccine injuries are people who had poorer baseline health. The same people are vulnerable to CoVID.
02:21:37.700	02:21:54.500	A lot of the excess deaths are still also in the countries which had high obesity rates. So, looking at CoVID — and that does not underestimate, I'll forget about this — ninety per cent of the deaths globally from CoVID happened in countries where more than half the population were overweight or obese.
02:21:55.000	02:22:18.000	And when you understand the mechanism of harm of the vaccine, which is basically increasing inflammation in the body, systemically, for a number of months… If you've already got a baseline problem of a little bit of chronic inflammation, it's just going to make it worse. So, it makes sense, from a biological perspective, why people who were also vulnerable to CoVID are also more vulnerable to vaccine injuries.
02:22:17.200	02:22:20.799	And Sweden's baseline health is a lot healthier.
02:22:20.000	02:22:38.799	There are a lot of Scandinavian countries, they are generally healthier, they have lower social inequalities… Something very interesting is that the bigger the gap between the rich and the poor in countries, that's a big risk factor for ill health as well. Because there's something called status anxiety, Joe.
02:22:38.899	02:22:50.899	When you have a big gap between rich and poor, everybody is more… is comparing themselves to each other… and that causes stress, chronic stress. It's an element.
02:22:50.000	02:23:00.200	There's a lot of data, and interesting research on this. Whereas in the Scandinavian countries, they're much more equal societies socioeconomically, and that probably also makes them less stressed and healthier.
02:23:01.200	02:23:03.799	[br]— Mmmh… That makes sense, clearly.
02:23:03.399	02:23:09.100	Also dietary choices, health choices, and the stress of drug abuse.
02:23:08.899	02:23:12.399	Often it comes with impoverished people.
02:23:11.600	02:23:12.799	Yes.
02:23:12.299	02:23:14.700	Absolutely.
02:23:14.500	02:23:32.399	The whole thing is just so extraordinary. And it's so hard to gather up the information, and it really takes having a conversation with someone like yourself over hours, to really just lay out the landscape so that people can understand that.
02:23:31.899	02:23:33.000	Yeah.
02:23:32.100	02:23:50.600	I think that's also part of the problem with getting this narrative out there, that it requires someone to commit to listening to someone like yourself and talk for a long time to get a real understanding of what are the mechanisms that could be causing these problems,
02:23:51.299	02:23:57.700	what are the vulnerabilities that the system has that would allow this to take place in the first place?
02:23:57.200	02:24:00.000	It's all very complex.[br]— Yeah.
02:23:59.700	02:24:04.000	I mean, so, again, that goes to… Like, what are some of the solutions here?
02:24:03.200	02:24:18.100	So, there's a very interesting approach structure used in Thailand, called the [i]triangle that moves the mountain[/i], and the mountain is considered like a social problem that is thought to be very difficult to move or change.
02:24:17.500	02:24:21.399	So how can we simplify this complex problem?
02:24:21.000	02:24:28.100	So, we focus on the right things to move forward, rather than think… become apathetic or think, oh my god this is too big…
02:24:27.200	02:24:29.799	You know, where do we focus our attention?
02:24:29.200	02:24:48.799	So, the triangle that moves a mountain has three components. One is the information, clean, clear evidence disseminating that information, the truthful information, right? Then it's the social movement, empowering people who are educated to make noise and to educate each other about what's going on.
02:24:47.899	02:25:02.500	And then, the third one, maybe more challenging, is political involvement, because ultimately the politicians have the power over laws, over protecting the public in this instance from the excesses and manipulations of pharma, right?
02:25:02.000	02:25:09.399	So, that's how that mountain can be moved. And that's something I have almost
02:25:09.700	02:25:50.299	done intuitively over the years: learning from other activists. But, you know, if you take the issue of sugar, for example, Joe,… I was very prominent in highlighting the harms of excess sugar, doing my own investigation, getting it out through the mainstream media, but also having that conversation, getting into politicians and getting to parliament ultimately, you know… I was the first science director of this organization called [i]Action Sugar[/i]. It got lots of scientists together, broke the mainstream news, and got lots of media involved. It became a campaign with basically the front page of the [i]Daily Mail[/i] when we first launched our campaign, which for me was a big win with sugar as a new tobacco. That was it…
02:25:49.399	02:25:54.700	I thought people need to know, front page [i]Daily Mail[/i] 2014, boom! Right?
02:25:53.799	02:25:57.399	And then everything took off from there. Where, you know,
02:25:58.100	02:26:05.899	the sex tape for health at the time, Jeremy Hunt, I met him, and what happened, even though that was a relatively right-wing government? You wouldn't think this would happen.
02:26:05.000	02:26:33.600	It resulted, because of that media attention and the dissemination of that information that sugar was harmful and we've been manipulated by the food industry, it resulted in ??? introducing a tax on sugary drinks in the UK, which is a big win. And, again, why that's important is — we talked about Big Tobacco earlier — do you know what biggest healthcare breakthrough has happened in the last forty or fifty years in the Western world? Taxation of cigarettes!
02:26:33.799	02:26:44.100	Fifty per cent of the decline in smoking… Sorry, in heart disease deaths, it has happened because of smoking. But it only happened when there were regulations imposed.
02:26:44.799	02:26:52.899	So, in public health, we call about addressing the affordability, the availability
02:26:53.299	02:27:23.000	and the acceptability of cigarettes. So, public health education campaigns, affordability taxation of cigarettes, and availability of public smoking bans. But the impact of these public health interventions, Joe, was huge. So Helena, Montana, in 2002, introduced a public smoking ban, you couldn't smoke in public places. Within six months, 40 per cent decline in admissions with heart attacks, because passive smoking increases platelet activity and clottability of the blood.
02:27:22.100	02:27:26.000	So, suddenly you remove that from the environment…[br]— Passive smoking…[br]— Yes!
02:27:25.399	02:27:27.399	What do you mean by passive?
02:27:26.399	02:27:28.799	As then, you're non-smoking…
02:27:27.899	02:27:32.500	So, you're smoking, now, and I'm inhaling your fumes.
02:27:31.500	02:28:37.600	Oh! Second-hand smoking…[br]— “Second-hand smoking” you call it here. We call it “passive” in the UK. And that increases, within thirty minutes of that… Studies were done to show that the increase of platelet activity, in terms of your blood becomes more clottable just within thirty minutes of passive smoking. Do you see? Yes, you move out from the environment, and suddenly massive reduction. When the law was rescinded because of the tobacco lobby, within a few months the heart attack levels went back to what they were beforehand. It shows you the impact of it, and eventually, obviously we won that battle. The same thing happened in Scotland: 17 per cent decrease within one year of out-of-hospital cardiac arrests after the smoking ban. So, these are the important interventions like public health. Now, if we applied the same thing to food, we tax ultra-processed food, we make healthy food, real food more affordable, knowing the science of dietary changes on health, you could probably, within the space of a few years, probably in the right way, theoretically, halve the death rates from heart disease. So, you know, we need to think in these terms. And, coming back to what we said earlier about the sociocultural phenomenon of the perception amongst people about modern medicine being the saviour…
02:28:37.899	02:28:48.399	From 1850 to now, to 2014, right, in America, there's been an average increase in life expectancy of 40 years.
02:28:49.000	02:29:07.799	When they did surveys of public health students and asked them how much of those 40 years was because of modern medicine, the response was they thought 80 per cent of those 40 years was because of modern medicine and healthcare. So, 32 of those 40-year increases in life expectancy. So, the average age was 40 of death or whatever, 1850, and now it's what, 79?
02:29:07.799	02:29:13.500	Do you know what the real figure was from modern medicine? About 3 1/2 to 5 years…
02:29:13.299	02:29:45.299	Most of what increased life expectancy in the last 150 years whatever, has been through public health interventions: safe drinking, water, seat belts in cars, safer working environments, better sanitation, smoke-free buildings… In some ways, better nutrition, in some sense, because of all these nutrition deficiencies that killed people through defective immune systems… And that's a conversation we seem to start having again, you know… Most of what determines your health happens outside the doctor's consultation room!
02:29:44.799	02:29:58.799	And that is a sociocultural phenomenon we have to also address because that also would help policymakers know where they should be devoting their resources if they want to be improving health. But a lot of them are bought into… Even Bill Gates!
02:29:57.899	02:30:01.700	I suspect, Bill Gates, I know, you may have your own opinions on him.
02:30:00.899	02:30:07.100	I think a lot of his issues are one of ignorance and even the illusion of knowledge.
02:30:06.200	02:30:22.399	He's equated advances in technology through engineering or tech with medicine as well… And what I tell patients and ??? doctors usually: if something's more expensive with a new drug it's probably least likely to be effective for you.
02:30:22.600	02:30:23.700	
02:30:24.500	02:31:00.799	So, we have to have those conversations with doctors and with the public, that… modern medicine has a role, but there are massive limitations. And the way we are managing chronic disease, which is the big problem in American healthcare, your diabetes, your high blood pressure, heart disease, all that kind of stuff, cancers, is with pills that have very marginal effects of benefit, come with side effects, don't improve the quality of your life, and simultaneously, because of the illusion of benefit, distract policymakers and individuals from focusing on these more effective simple lifestyle changes…
02:31:01.100	02:31:18.100	And that's where we should be focusing our attention. So, what do we do? Well, we have that conversation, we disseminate the information… One of the things I try, through multiple media mechanisms, through lectures, through podcasts, through mainstream media, get information out there… And a few years ago
02:31:18.700	02:31:43.899	I was looking after co-producing a documentary film called [i]The Big Fat Fix[/i], and it covers a lot of stuff we discussed how we got it wrong about saturated fat… And part of that story, Joe, I co-produced it with a chap called Donal O’Neill, who was a former international athlete, who got very interested in the lifestyle stuff because his Dad has had a heart attack, who was a soccer player and he's like… why did he have a heart attack?
02:31:43.000	02:32:02.899	And he realized there was a low-fat diet high-carb ideal, that kind of stuff, and he made this movie called [i]Cereal Killers[/i]. So, we made this movie, and what we did was, we went back to the origins of where the Mediterranean diet came from, because a lot of the problems with obesity, now — and I know you've discussed this with lots of people — is because of our dietary guidelines: low-fat, high-carb, ultra-processed food et cetera,
02:32:02.200	02:32:12.600	lower cholesterol… That's what we should be focusing on. And it's driven this obesity epidemic. So, we went back to the original village where the Mediterranean diet originally came from, it's called Pioppi.
02:32:11.799	02:32:31.799	Not many people know this southern Italian village. We went there to meet those people, look at how they live, because they're obviously not a wealthy community, they're quite poor actually… Seaside village, the average life expectancy is over 90. They're not taking lots of pills like what's going on here, and their diet was devoid of ??? ultra-processed food.
02:32:32.000	02:32:41.600	Very strong sense of community. If you look at these “blue zones” around the World, where people live, you know, have a healthy life expectancy, not just living with quantity…
02:32:40.700	02:32:43.799	They're healthy, right? A long life and a healthy life.
02:32:43.500	02:32:50.899	You know the common denominator, Joe, other than the fact they didn't have altered processed food in all kinds, or they're active in their outdoors etc.
02:32:50.000	02:32:53.700	They weren't ??? in the gym, they were just out walking in the hills, right?
02:32:53.000	02:33:46.700	Well, they had a very strong sense of community. They looked at each other. And that plays into a greater understanding of the impact of stress on health. And that's something, again, which isn't being addressed properly, because it's now well established that if you have chronic stress it's equivalent as a risk factor for heart disease as being a type-2 diabetic or being a smoker, or a hyper pressure. But it's not being addressed, and I manage a lot of patients by addressing their stress and going to the root. Most of our severe stress coming with heart attacks hasn't been dealt with… And I don't want to digress too much… So, we made this documentary film just to get people to understand that most of what, you know, the lifestyle factors is what you need to do moving forward. And we crowdfunded it, because initially it went to the BBC, they wanted editorial control and started ??? things, and we said, you know what?
02:33:45.700	02:33:57.799	We don't want this to be influenced by any entity that isn't going to be open to telling the full truth about lifestyle, even if it means taking on and exposing all of the sugar industry manipulations…
02:33:59.299	02:34:01.600	And, you know, we used it to…
02:34:01.899	02:34:10.799	Luckily for us, the [i]New York Times[/i] covered it [i]Men's Health[/i] gave everybody positive views, and we premiered in the British parliament. And that had a really powerful impact.
02:34:10.100	02:34:40.299	I had members of parliament coming to me after it, congratulating me on it, and one of them — who wrote a book as well — called Tom Watson, former Deputy Leader of the Labour party… At the time it was the opposition… He was the Deputy Leader. This guy, he'll admit this, for most of his life, when you see him, is massively obese, like he was known as, like, probably looked as one most obese politician he will see… And about a year after he'd read the book and seen this documentary film, because it premiered in parliament, and MPs ([i]Members of Parliament[/i]) were talking about it, etc.
02:34:40.299	02:34:52.100	He calls me up — I didn't know him — he messaged me, in fact, on Twitter, and he said listen, I want to tell you something. He said, I've read your book and I've actually, I've struggled with obesity all my life, and I followed your low-carb Mediterranean diet, right?
02:34:51.500	02:35:09.299	He said I've lost a hundred pounds in a year, and I've sustained it. And I want to talk about it. And he, then, has been a poster boy, and he influenced other politicians… And what happened as a result of that, Joe, is that we then got the sugary drinks tax as well. So, I think all these things, you know…
02:35:10.000	02:35:14.500	Don't underestimate the power of your speech, who you're speaking to, and the power of the truth.
02:35:13.500	02:35:30.600	And now, we've now decided, because of all of this mess we're in, this bubble needs to burst off corporate tyranny. Movies and documentaries can be very powerful to… You know, in sixty minutes it really changes the way people think, if you convey information in the right way.
02:35:30.100	02:35:53.799	So, we're now about to announce it here, obviously, with you for the first time, because we've been discussing… We're doing a new documentary which we're going to get crowdfunded, because we want to be free of commercial influence… which really helps, expose all of these system failures of pharma, regulatory capture, but also give people tools as individuals about how they can improve their health, the questions they should ask their doctor.
02:35:53.399	02:35:56.600	You know… Do I really need this test or procedure?
02:35:55.899	02:35:57.899	What happens if I do nothing?
02:35:57.000	02:36:00.700	Are there any alternatives anything simple or safer options?
02:36:00.600	02:36:13.299	And it will educate doctors. And hopefully, within that sixty minutes, we can have a massive, massive impact… And I'm going to, you know, obviously we need to get it crowdfunded, to make it high quality et cetera. We probably need about half a million dollars.
02:36:13.700	02:36:32.299	And I shared with Jamie. Actually, we've done a little ninety-second promo, kind of trailer video, just to get people to understand what we're about to do. And the title is, you're ready for it, [i]First Do No Pharm[/i], P H A R M…
02:36:33.700	02:36:35.500	[Laugh] That's very catchy.
02:36:35.100	02:36:39.299	I don't have to…[br]— Wait, see this… From th crews of [i]Cereal Killers[/i]…
02:36:42.200	02:36:50.200	In 1986, Ronnie Reagan made it easier for American former companies to make more money.
02:36:49.899	02:36:58.700	and in 1992, George Bush allowed them to spend some of that to directly finance the FDA ([i]Food and Drug Administration[/i]).
02:36:59.100	02:37:08.799	By 1999, drug giant Merck had falsified their own research to usher a new arthritis drug onto the market.
02:37:09.100	02:37:28.299	[i]Vioxx[/i] would kill an estimated 55,000 Americans. But that was just for starters… And in the last two decades, [i]Big Pharma[/i] has been fined tens of billions of dollars, but the deception continues.
02:37:29.399	02:37:34.299	When they are free to deceive, who can you believe?
02:37:36.200	02:37:37.299	We welcome Dr Aseem Malhotra…
02:37:41.299	02:37:55.600	They paid fines which were minuscule in comparison to the profit that they made, and nobody got fired, and the system just continues to do the same thing. Nothing has changed to stop them from committing these crimes again.
02:37:54.899	02:38:03.600	Top investors should be held firstly accountable so that they would need to think of the risk of imprisonment when they consider performing… ???
02:38:11.399	02:38:13.000	Mmmh!
02:38:15.500	02:38:17.100	That was great!
02:38:17.299	02:38:27.000	One of the things that happened, when vaccine injuries first started being discussed, particularly myocarditis…
02:38:27.200	02:38:51.500	There was a lot of confusion, particularly I was confused because I was told by multiple sources, including very credible people, that there was a high risk, particularly with young men, of myocarditis because of the vaccine. Then all this data came out that said there's actually more myocarditis from CoVID than there is from the vaccine.
02:38:52.299	02:39:16.899	What's the real story there?[br]— The real story is that, during the first year of the pandemic, Joe, and in fact, Israel looked at this… A few million people… They published a paper, which again I referenced as well, which is the best available evidence… is there was no significant increase in myocarditis from the virus, compared to other viruses.[br]— So why did they say there was, and what was the data that they used?
02:39:17.500	02:39:39.299	Yeah… I think, well, there was an over-diagnosis of myocarditis. So, one of the papers that were published in [i]Nature[/i] — and I know this because I know some of the authors, and I know somebody close to one of the authors… I don't think they did this deliberately, I think they were fed into this perception that they needed to highlight the harms of CoVID, and it was affecting the heart… is that
02:39:39.899	02:39:45.299	they weren't strict with their criteria of what myocarditis is. So, for example…
02:39:46.299	02:39:51.600	One of the markers of the inflammation of the heart muscle is something called troponin.
02:39:51.000	02:39:58.200	Troponin also goes up when you have a heart attack. It's used to diagnose a heart attack, but you don't use a single marker on its own to make a diagnosis.
02:39:57.299	02:40:02.000	It's what's the history, what are other tests showing what is a likely diagnosis.
02:40:01.899	02:40:20.399	If you are — and this is something I've come across throughout my whole career — if you have any infection in the body or you are in the stress of having ???, it's quite common that your troponin, which is a marker of inflammation of the heart, which doesn't assign myocarditis, by the way, will go up.
02:40:20.899	02:40:39.500	What they did was… If you're in intensive care… In this study, the way that they over-diagnose, they basically just use people's troponin to make a diagnosis of myocarditis, rather than actually “Is this truly myocarditis?” So, there was a massive over-diagnosis of myocarditis that wasn't myocarditis, and that inflated the numbers.
02:40:38.899	02:40:52.000	When people have looked clinically at the criteria of what myocarditis is, with the use of MRI ([i]Magnetic resonance imaging[/i]) scans and echoes and all that kind of stuff, and the history… It doesn't show any significant increase compared to other viruses.
02:40:51.100	02:41:42.000	By the way, I have a personal story here. My brother… When I was eleven years old, I lost my older brother. He was thirteen, and he died because of viral myocarditis. So, I know how devastating this can be. I'm not undermining the fact that this can be really devastating. Within a week of having basically a stomach infection, he went into crashing heart failure and died in cardiac arrest. So, it's something I have an interest in, I know about and have managed many people with myocarditis. So, there isn't any significant increase… The risk is minor. When you look at the data on myocarditis after the vaccine, certainly in younger people under forty, one of the recent publications suggested it probably is even maybe 28 times more frequent. But let's give a caveat here, Joe,…
02:41:41.200	02:41:44.600	It can be, in a way, comparing apples and oranges.
02:41:43.799	02:42:00.700	So, the vaccine myocarditis in general, what's diagnosed when people are admitted to hospital, isn't the same as viral myocarditis which traditionally… About a third of those people who get it will die when they get viral myocarditis.
02:42:00.100	02:42:38.399	A third will have some impairment of heart muscle pump function, and a third will have, you know, some kind of breathlessness, not feel well, go to the hospital, and everything will normalize within a space of a few weeks, and they'll live a normal long happy life. With the viral… with the vaccine myocarditis stuff, it's a little bit more… What concerns me more is that a lot of people will get some mild initial issue with the vaccine, inflammation of the heart muscle, but probably through other mechanisms of the vaccine, later on, can suddenly have arrhythmias and suddenly drop dead. And I suspect many of these athletes unexpectedly dropping dead have got some subconical myocarditis…
02:42:38.899	02:42:44.899	Even if, let's just say for argument's sake, so… Even if CoVID
02:42:45.600	02:42:58.799	myocarditis is more common than other viral myocarditis, right? May well be true. Let us say it's true, for argument's sake. That doesn't mean that taking the vaccine is going to protect you. There's no data saying it's going to protect
02:42:59.200	02:43:06.000	you from CoVID myocarditis, and actually it may be additive, it may make things worse…
02:43:06.600	02:43:09.799	So, if you've had CoVID and you have natural immunity…
02:43:10.700	02:43:22.500	One bit of research revealed, if you have the vaccine after having natural immunity, certainly within the first three months you are almost three times more likely to get side effects.
02:43:23.000	02:43:26.000	So, two different discussions are going on here.
02:43:25.100	02:43:28.100	One is how common is CoVID myocarditis?
02:43:27.100	02:43:29.399	It is fine, let's establish that.
02:43:28.500	02:43:32.600	The question is, does the vaccine protect you from it…
02:43:32.299	02:43:45.200	or make things worse? And almost certainly, with all we know now when it comes to heart disease or the issue of myocarditis or heart attacks, the vaccine is… You know, the cure is worse than the disease
02:43:48.299	02:43:49.399	
02:43:50.600	02:43:54.299	Do you know how many people try to get me to get vaccinated after I got sick?
02:43:54.000	02:44:07.000	It was stunning. Smart people, people whom I knew very well, including doctors, including Sanjay Gupta… They were telling me that it would give me initial protection… And I remember being
02:44:07.899	02:44:24.600	so confused, because I had known at that point there were already studies showing that natural immunity… It was very disputed because it was against the narrative. But natural immunity was several times better at protecting you from additional infection
02:44:25.000	02:44:33.100	And my friend, who's a brilliant man, who is very much a vaccine proponent, said yeah, but you get more protection.
02:44:32.500	02:44:36.500	And I said don't ??? Man, I got over this in three days.
02:44:36.899	02:44:39.700	Like what… What are you saying?
02:44:38.799	02:44:57.399	I've been sick from the flu for longer than that. I'm very fortunate, and then I have access to good health care and medicine and I'm very healthy, and I work out every day, and I take a lot of vitamins, and I do a lot of other things for my health, sauna and cold plunge, all these different things.
02:44:56.399	02:44:58.100	I'm very healthy.
02:44:57.200	02:44:59.700	I work at it, all the time.
02:45:00.899	02:45:07.700	So, this thought that I'm going to take a chance on something that I didn't take in the first place because
02:45:08.100	02:45:11.700	the vaccine that I was supposed to… Euh, let me tell you my story.
02:45:11.899	02:45:20.200	The UFC ([i]Ultimate Fighting Championship[/i]) had allocated a certain number of doses of the [i]Johnson & Johnson[/i] vaccine for all of their employees.
02:45:21.000	02:45:30.399	We were operating during the pandemic, in the heat of the pandemic, and we would do these audience-less events, so there would be no audience.
02:45:29.399	02:45:55.000	It would just be the staff. Everybody would be tested, you would be tested before you got on your flight, and you'd be tested again when you got there. They had an amazing bubble, amazing CoVID bubble, and occasionally a crew member would test positive, shut everything down, or not a crew member rather but a corner member of, like one of the fighters' groups, that fighter would no longer be able to compete, even if they tested negative.
02:45:54.299	02:46:03.200	So, they were really rigorous about this… So, they said, hey, you know, the vaccine's out and we have a bunch of it.
02:46:02.600	02:46:04.600	Do you want to take it?
02:46:03.700	02:46:05.700	They didn't mandate it.
02:46:04.799	02:46:07.299	They just asked me. I said sure.
02:46:06.700	02:46:22.399	I said I'm coming in for the fights, and we would do these at the apex centre, which is a very small arena the ufc has constructed, where they do some of their smaller events at. So, I go there, I call this guy who's the head of the thing, and I say, hey,
02:46:22.600	02:46:25.899	I'm here, can I get the vaccine before the show?
02:46:25.399	02:46:28.799	And he said, yeah, let me get right back to you.
02:46:28.000	02:46:29.700	We'll set that up.
02:46:28.899	02:46:32.100	So, he calls me back, and says, okay there's an issue.
02:46:31.399	02:46:36.600	We have to do it at the clinic. Can you come back on Monday?
02:46:35.700	02:46:45.600	A. And I said I can't, busy, I have to go back. I go back to Texas. But there's another event coming up in the future.
02:46:44.700	02:46:46.500	I'll be back here again.
02:46:45.600	02:46:57.100	I'll just come a day earlier, and I'll just get the vaccine. During that period of my return, two people I knew got strokes, and they pulled the vaccine.
02:46:56.600	02:47:24.299	So, they pulled the [i]Johnson & Johnson[/i] vaccine, and then I went “Wow!” So, from all that I knew about [i]Vioxx[/i] — because I had a friend who had taken [i]Vioxx[/i] and gotten a stroke — and I knew about the court case, I hadn't had the conversation with John Abramson and yet, but I was very aware of the deception and very aware of how they hit the data and then they knew about it in advance they knew it was gonna cause these problems… So, I started getting nervous.
02:47:23.399	02:47:56.200	I started getting, and then I started talking to different physicians and doctors who would devise these immunity-boosting protocols, and this is how you prevent viral infections, and I heard of the force of zinc and IV, vitamins, and this… And I was like, I don't know, man, I don't know… I want to ride this out. So now, now I'm really concerned and confused… And then I had a few friends that had gotten it, and some friends had got it really bad, and then some friends had just had nothing.
02:47:55.600	02:48:08.799	I mean nothing! Like one of my friends, she got tested because she had to go somewhere for a wedding — I believe it was the Virgin Islands — and so, she had to get tested to fly…
02:48:09.399	02:48:11.500	And… Oh my god, you're positive!
02:48:11.399	02:48:13.399	What? I'm positive?
02:48:12.799	02:48:14.100	Like, yeah…
02:48:14.399	02:48:23.200	Your pcr has tested you positive for — and this is the early days of PCR — they did multiple cycles, and then they were doing… What were they doing? 40, originally?[br]— Mmmh…
02:48:24.799	02:48:38.100	And then she got tested again, she was positive, and she never had a single symptom. And then I started looking at how many asymptomatic people there were, and they were saying something that never like 60 per cent of people were asymptomatic, like what is this?
02:48:37.100	02:48:40.899	Is this gonna kill everybody, or is this nothing? Like, what is this?
02:48:40.100	02:48:45.200	And then someone else would get it and they'd get really sick and they'd be fucked up for a couple of weeks.
02:48:44.399	02:48:49.700	So, I was very… I was not committed one way or the other.
02:48:48.799	02:49:10.299	I was still on the fence about this, but as time went on, I just sensed the fuckery. I sensed the propaganda. It was just some so many people were trying to coerce you. Celebrities like Arnold Schwarzenegger saying fuck your freedom, take it, fuck your freedom, everybody was telling you to take it.
02:49:09.399	02:49:21.899	And I was like… Man, this seems like a cult, this seems like something's going on… But I didn't want to dismiss medicine. I didn't want to dismiss the whole thing. What disturbs the shit outta me is that after I got better,
02:49:22.500	02:49:30.100	CNN, MSNBC, all these mainstream news things are mocking me for taking horse medication.
02:49:30.000	02:49:50.399	They said, “He took horse medication, he took horse dewormer…” Like literally taking a drug that's on the World health organization's list of essential medicines, literally taking a drug that's been prescribed billions of times, taking a drug from… that was invented by the guy who won the Nobel prize for inventing that drug
02:49:50.600	02:50:01.700	That one has one of the best safety profiles of any known drug… But it's generic, and it's cheap, was really cheap… And I didn't just like that.
02:50:00.700	02:50:06.799	I listed a bunch of other things I took Z-pack, monoclonal antibodies
02:50:06.200	02:50:10.100	I had IV vitamin infusions multiple days in a row.
02:50:09.399	02:50:13.600	I got better quickly. Nobody cared that I got better quickly.
02:50:12.700	02:50:15.899	All they cared about was, I didn't get vaccinated.
02:50:15.000	02:50:17.700	What's the best way to shame him?
02:50:17.000	02:50:23.399	Let's point to this. One thing that he took, and mocked this person for taking this foolish medication.
02:50:22.700	02:50:53.600	They even changed the colour of my face on CNN. They put a video up of me saying that I had cancelled shows. Dave Chappelle and I had a big concert coming up that weekend, and I said we have to postpone it because I have CoVID… But in the videos, I feel fine, I had CoVID three days ago, I had one bad day, the second day, I felt pretty good today, I feel great, and all they wanted to talk about, constantly, every hour, was me taking horse dewormer! It was in [i]Rolling Stone[/i].
02:50:52.799	02:51:07.600	It was in all these things, horse dewormer… [i]Rolling Stone[/i] had an article, gunshot victims are waiting in line to get the hospital because so many people are overdosing from horse dewormer… Hundred per cent… printed in the [i]Rolling Stone[/i].
02:51:06.799	02:51:09.600	Not only that, but they used an image.
02:51:08.899	02:51:11.000	This is Oklahoma.
02:51:10.200	02:51:12.100	They used an image.
02:51:11.200	02:51:14.600	This is supposedly in the summer that this is happening.
02:51:13.799	02:51:19.200	They used an image of a bunch of people waiting in line, wearing winter coats
02:51:19.799	02:51:22.299	because that wasn't from that.
02:51:21.500	02:51:23.299	That was from that.
02:51:22.299	02:51:25.899	I believe they were waiting in line to get vaccinated for the flu.
02:51:25.299	02:51:30.500	There was another stock photograph they used, the people waiting in line at the hospital.
02:51:29.600	02:51:33.100	They had nothing to do with horse dewormer.
02:51:32.399	02:51:44.399	This is tweeted by Rachel Maddow, this was tweeted by many online prominent influencers, and journalists like: “Look at these fools taking this horse dewormer!”
02:51:44.799	02:52:18.799	And it was until I read Robert Kennedy's book [i]The Real Anthony Fauci[/i] that I got a sense that this is a playbook that they have used forever. They offer one solution, this one solution is patented, this one solution is controlled by these pharmaceutical companies, and it's very expensive, and they make a fuckload of money from it… Whereas anything that's off-label, anything generic is dismissed. They rigged the tests to make it look like they'll give you far more like what they did with hydroxychloroquine.
02:52:17.899	02:52:26.500	I mean, I don't even want to go into this, you can read it in the book, but my whole journey on this is like, first of all, how did I find myself in this?
02:52:25.600	02:52:26.799	Right?
02:52:25.899	02:52:45.399	I'm a comedian and a cage-fighting commentator. How am I having these discussions… How am I on CNN all the time? And all they're doing is mocking a medication that I took very deceptively… No, out not lying, not just deceptively, just out not lying saying that I took veterinary medicine.
02:52:45.399	02:53:07.600	It was so strange, so strange to be in the centre of that. And also to be someone who got over it very quickly, where there was no discussion. There was no like, hey, Joe Rogan got over this quickly, what is he doing differently than most people that had CoVID and had terrible outcomes? There was none of that. There was no real concern.
02:53:06.700	02:53:09.899	Okay, is he doing something that we could all do?
02:53:09.200	02:53:20.299	Maybe some people like Aaron Rogers, who is allergic to one of the key components of the mRNA vaccine… Literally, he is allergic to it.
02:53:19.500	02:53:21.100	He takes it.
02:53:20.200	02:53:22.299	It could be bad for him.
02:53:21.500	02:53:24.700	So, isn't there something those people can do?
02:53:23.899	02:53:25.899	There wasn't even that.
02:53:25.200	02:53:29.700	It was just mockery and shame, and it was also
02:53:30.700	02:53:56.899	very distorted understanding of the actual landscape. They thought they were CNN, and CNN is huge! CNN is the news. CNN is a gigantic corporation, they have a big building, a whole deal, a giant sign… They didn't understand that this podcast is ten times larger than them, and it was exposed during that whole thing, where they just made this terrible chess move. They just ran out in the middle with their king
02:53:57.799	02:54:01.399	and that's how I found myself in the middle of all this.
02:54:00.500	02:54:24.399	That's how I found myself having conversations with Peter McCullough and Robert Malone, and now you, and a lot of other people, John Abramson, a lot of other, Brett Weinstein, a lot of very intelligent people that weren't crazy… There weren't tinfoil hot conspiracy theorists or QAnon believers, they were just intelligent people that had looked at all the data, and it said I think we're being lied to…
02:54:26.299	02:54:29.100	How do you feel about it now, looking back?
02:54:28.299	02:54:34.200	I'm so glad I didn't take it![br]— But in terms of the backlash that you got, Joe,…[br]— It's great![br]— Yeah, it's great…
02:54:33.200	02:54:35.500	It exposed them.[br]— Absolutely.
02:54:34.700	02:54:38.100	Exposing CNN, everyone who did it is gone now.
02:54:37.500	02:54:39.799	???
02:54:39.600	02:54:49.500	??? Jean McCarthy turned down ???[br]— And she was dogmatically, even in an evangelical way, saying that you're not going to get infected if you get the vaccine.
02:54:48.600	02:54:55.100	I mean, has she accepted that she was wrong?[br]— She has buried her head in the sand… Well, she has never said a word about it.
02:54:54.200	02:54:56.399	You talk about the corporate playbook.
02:54:55.500	02:54:57.600	You know, you're absolutely right.
02:54:56.700	02:55:06.600	This is… and, yeah, there's a framework of how big corporations ??? their power, and part of that, obviously, is the political environment, and that's another issue, right?
02:55:05.700	02:55:10.700	Why do politicians take so much money from big corporations? Why are they allowed to do that?
02:55:09.700	02:55:20.000	All political parties certainly, both Democrats and the Republicans, take money from [i]Big Pharma[/i]. That's unacceptable. Capturing the preference shaping, capture of the media
02:55:20.500	02:55:28.000	You know, philanthropic organizations like [i]Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation[/i] capturing the knowledge environment… So, funding medical education, sponsoring
02:55:28.399	02:55:48.200	doctors, conferences… You've got the limited liability of the legal environment. Then you've got something called “opposition fragmentation.” So, that means essentially attacking and smearing those who are calling out their bullshit, who are questioning the narrative. And you are caught in that show, but I'm sure you know this…
02:55:48.600	02:55:59.200	Take it as a backend compliment, because the fact that the mainstream media went for you in that way, probably orchestrated by pharma, I have no doubt, behind the scenes, in some way directly or indirectly
02:55:59.500	02:56:03.899	meant that they were worried about what you were saying, and the people that were hearing it.
02:56:03.299	02:56:38.299	And I also, because I've been in the space of an activist for a long time, with the whole ??? stuff, you know… In some ways, people say to me, Aseem, how are you doing with all of this stuff coming out with a vaccine? I had colleagues saying to me you might lose your medical license, and I said, well, the truth is more important. But also, compared to what I went through with statins, Joe, I don't undermine it… This is a walk in the park… As soon as I got attacked in [i]The Guardian[/i] in the [i]Times[/i], I saw that as a sign of progress, you know, because Gandhi said first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win…
02:56:39.700	02:56:44.700	So, what you did was tremendous. And in fact, it's interesting…
02:56:45.299	02:56:53.799	It sounds like there was some… Your intuition, ultimately, is what led you to not have come by with, obviously, those people who had strokes.
02:56:52.899	02:57:04.299	So, there was something that made you a little bit reluctant to jump out… [br]— Not initially! Initially, I was like, oh, I was ready, I was… Do you remember the phone call? I was like, hey, give it to me.
02:57:03.500	02:57:04.899	I'm here.
02:57:04.200	02:57:07.200	Well, I thought of it like a flu shot.
02:57:06.200	02:57:08.500	I thought of it like everything else.
02:57:07.600	02:57:09.100	I thought it.
02:57:08.299	02:57:32.600	You know, I've always been very pro-vaccine, but people like…[br]— Me too, me too. But people like ??? well. I honestly think a lot of this is grounded in ignorance and the illusion of knowledge. So, what happened was, many doctors and the public were then sold on this new phenomenon called hybrid immunity: if you've had CoVID and you have the vaccine, you have extra immunity.
02:57:31.700	02:57:57.299	I think it was a way to get people vaccinated…[br]— Absolute bullshit, Joe, honestly, and that was published, I think, in [i]The Lancet[/i], and that makes me think about something else… You know, I think if we start from a position, and it may sound quite extreme, but this comes from somebody I call “the Stephen Hawking in medicine”, John Ioannidis… If we start from this position of “most published research findings are false”…
02:57:57.700	02:58:14.100	Right? And the greater the financial interests, the less likely the research findings are to be true… If we start from there, then we get to maybe have a better understanding, a more precise understanding of what we should consider reliable, and…
02:58:14.299	02:58:26.700	[i]The Lancet[/i]… The irony was this, this publication of hybrid mutants was in [i]The Lancet[/i]… Richard Horton is the editor of [i]The Lancet[/i], and for all intents and purposes I met him a few times, I think he's a good guy, he came to my talk in London…
02:58:26.899	02:58:40.200	He published a piece in 2015, just to highlight all the symptoms that we are suffering at the moment… The downstream effects of the psychopathic determinants of health, right?
02:58:39.500	02:58:43.600	He published a paper in 2015, where he had attended
02:58:44.600	02:59:07.700	a meeting organized by the [i]Welcome Trust[/i] in the UK, of some of the top scientists in the World. He said it was Chatham House Rules, he wasn't naming who these people were, but he did say they were very eminent medical scientists… And in this editorial — you can look at it online — he said, from this discussion, one of the lines was, possibly half of the published medical literature may simply be untrue…
02:59:08.399	02:59:17.600	And he concluded by saying science has taken a turn to what — this is the editor of [i]The Lancet[/i]! — science has taken a turn towards darkness…
02:59:17.799	02:59:28.399	But who's going to take the first step to clean up the system? By this stage, with the statin saga and other things that were going on,
02:59:29.000	02:59:54.799	I tried to lobby, I went to parliament, I spoke to people, I spoke to some very prominent politicians, I went to the European Parliament, I said the situation is so bad that we need an inquiry… Honest doctors can no longer practice honest medicine… And, coming back to what we said earlier, I think the whole CoVID vaccine saga, with all these ridiculous things like you're more likely to get side effects if you've got natural immunity, yet people were being told about hybrid immunity,
02:59:55.500	02:59:57.200	the fact that
02:59:57.899	03:00:01.399	there was coercion, that there were mandates, the fact that
03:00:01.600	03:00:07.299	they made so much money out of something that it's so poorly efficacious, yet has such big side effects.
03:00:06.399	03:00:08.500	I think this is our moment, Joe,…
03:00:07.799	03:00:10.100	Honestly, this is the moment.
03:00:10.399	03:00:19.200	We expose the whole system and then we rebuild…[br]— Well, that would not be possible if it wasn't for courageous people like you!
03:00:19.600	03:00:58.299	So, thank you, thank you for sticking your neck out, for all that you've done, for being so eloquent and so articulate about this, and being so knowledgeable… And your ability to recall and express this in clear terms… It's so needed, so powerful, and I really appreciate you very much.[br]— Thank you for being a warrior for the truth, because you're not afraid of having these conversations, and even continuing to have these conversations, even after all of that debacle with [i]Spotify[/i] and Robert Malone. And I remember watching it and just thinking, this is just unbelievable…
03:00:57.600	03:01:07.600	You know, the BBC had a commentator on, saying that Joe Rogan interviewed known anti-vaxxer, Robert Malone… And I thought, what?
03:01:07.200	03:01:22.500	… He had the vaccine, he was involved in the original technology of the development of…[br]— patents, and the creation of mRNA vaccine technology, and he was vaccinated, and he had a horrific side effect from the vaccine…
03:01:22.700	03:01:35.200	And that's what sort of radicalised him… Thank you very much, I really appreciate you! Please tell people about your social media, and your website, so they can find more…[br]— Sure, on Twitter
03:01:34.399	03:01:37.500	I'm Dr Aseem Malhotra, my website
03:01:36.700	03:01:41.600	is [u]https://doctoraseem.com,[/u] instagram [u]@lifestylemedicinedoctor[/u] and…
03:01:41.799	03:01:43.700	Yeah, that's about it.
03:01:42.700	03:01:55.000	And, you know, when people see the podcast, and they're interested of course in our documentary film, we're going to be interviewing the likes of John Abramson, Rita Redberg — she's an editor of [i]John Potter Medicine[/i] — Jay Bhattacharya…
03:01:55.000	03:02:09.000	Some really big names in American health care, very credible people… Really to do the most important and, I think, the best documentary ??? exposing all this commercial corruption, but also giving solutions…
03:02:09.000	03:02:16.200	Well, when it comes out, we'll be happy to come over…