World Renowned Cardiologist Dr. Aseem Malhotra Calls for Immediate Suspension of the COVID Shots

Dr. Aseem Malhotra joins the Aga Wilson show to tell his story. After his father sadly passed away, he saw a clear correlation between the shot and his father’s sudden death.

Dr. Aseem Malhotra has since been very vocal against the covid shots and the greed and corruption of Big Pharma which he believes is killing millions of people around the world. Aseem has previously been a big advocate for a healthy lifestyle, highlighting the harm caused by excess sugar consumption and its role in type 2 diabetes and obesity.

Text and interview by Aga Wilson, Aga Wilson Show | Video editing and transcription: T. Sassersson

[email-subscribers-form id=”3″]

Transcript

The grammar is somewhat corrected.

Aga Wilson: Today I have the pleasure to have Dr. Aseem Malhotra with me. Aseem is a world-renowned cardiologist. And I know you recently started speaking out about the risks of the COVID-19 vaccine.

I know that a lot of people are wondering, who is this guy? Where did he come from? And I think everyone wants to know, who is Dr. Asim?

Dr. Aseem Malhotra: I’m a consultant cardiologist. I qualified as a doctor in 2001. So I’ve been a practicing physician for over 21 years. I subspecialized in interventional cardiology, essentially putting stents in. This is diagnosing coronary artery disease with angiograms and then deciding on further management plans.

And then in the last sort of over the last ten years, gradually I’ve shifted a bit more to focus my attention on prevention. But for me, and this is something probably instilled into me, part of my character is always to act with integrity.

I’ve had this since I was probably a kid. It’s a nature versus nurture debate. But certainly, I was brought up with two parents who were just wonderful human beings, who taught me about the importance of emphasizing that your primary duty is to the community, but you have to act with honesty and integrity.

So that was something always in me. And then as a doctor, you know, I want to there’s two things, first, that I would probably share with you that explain a little bit more about who I am. So the first thing as a clinician, as a doctor, treating individual patients.

I wanted to be the best possible doctor that I can be. And to be the best possible doctor you can mean that you are focusing on the patient, improving their patient outcomes. And to do that, there are two sides of the same coin in terms of a successful patient outcome.

One is the clinical history, and I’ll emphasize what that means in a second. And the other one is empathy, because patients need to feel that they are understood and that their individual preferences and values use are prioritized in that discussion with patients.

Clinical History aga what many people probably don’t know is 80% of your diagnosis in medicine comes from history which means from the discussion. If you know your stuff and you’re able to communicate with patients effectively and ask the right questions, you can make what we call a differential diagnosis before you’ve even examined the patient, right?

So this is something very well documented, something we learn in medical school, that’s the most important thing for a doctor is to be able to have the knowledge that from the discussion with the patient, with their symptoms, for example, that you can make a pretty accurate diagnosis.

And then 5% of the diagnosis comes from examination, 5% from simple tests, 5% from maybe more expensive tests, and 5% you never get a diagnosis. And often that’s because there are certain symptoms that patients present with that will actually never cause them a problem.

In those situations, time is a very good diagnostic tool and people just get better automatically. Now, a lot of this can be psychosomatic and all that kind of stuff. So for me, the first and foremost sort of obligation is a duty to my patients by understanding those concepts and being the best doctor I can be.

And then on a broader scale, an ale that has taken me to try and understand the root cause of what’s really causing patients and members of the public health to deteriorate mentally and physically. And again, another really important truth, if you like, that people need to really come to terms with is that most.

Of the conditions that determine people’s individual health occur outside the consultation room. So these are what we call the wider determinants of health, or the social determinants of health. So this is conditions in which we are born, we grow, we live, we work, and we age.

So most of, actually, what has the biggest impact on our health agar is environmental. So for me, when I saw over a period of about ten years since I qualified in 2001, that patients were coming in and they just generally, intuitively, as a doctor, I could feel that they were in general, there was a trend towards them getting more sick, more medications, more chronic disease, more obesity.

I went on a journey to try and understand why that was. And for me, primarily, my focus was to save the NHS in the sense that I very much believe in a free healthcare system that universalizes the best health for everybody, and that’s what the principles on which the NHS were formed.

And for me, when I saw things were going down the wrong direction, intuitively, as a doctor, well over ten years ago, I thought, unless we tackle the root cause of the problem, our healthcare systems are going to collapse.

And, in fact, that’s where we are now. And that brings me to something that I’m a very big advocate for, and it’s called the Evidence-Based Medicine Triad. So this is a concept, an analytical framework, if you like, for teaching and practicing medicine in order to improve patient outcomes.

And how we do that is we use our clinical expertise. And that, again, a good doctor knows he has a very good, detailed knowledge of conditions and diagnosis and knows how to take a good history, um, best available evidence.

Okay? And this can apply to research on diagnosis using tests, medications, or, you know, and even operations. And then last but not least, taking into consideration patient preferences and values.

So once I’d realized actually there was a big problem with the best available evidence that we’re influencing clinical decision-making for doctors, but also health decisions in general in the population.

So around lifestyle, around food, you know, the impact of poor diet on health, which is, you know, awful now it’s catastrophic, actually. And just briefly on that, the Lancet Global Burden of Disease Reports estimates that poor diet globally is responsible for more physical is responsible for more disease and death than physical inactivity, smoking and alcohol combined.

So for me, once I focused as a campaign to try and tackle the obesity epidemic, but simultaneously it also realized that we had a big problem with an overmedicated population. And that sort of epiphany moment kind of came to me.

I suppose it was something that happened over time with lots of different examples where I would read something that would make sense to me, but ultimately agar. What this brings us on to is that when you get to the very root cause of the problem is that we have these very big, large, powerful multinational corporations.

Two examples that I focused on have been the food industry and farmer that essentially profit from misleading people. And misleading people also means buying the loyalty of scientists, capturing universities, institutions economically, which means ultimately people don’t get the full truth, and then that deviates away from them, getting the best opportunities to have optimal mental and physical health.

So for me, that’s really the broader public health activism, campaigning area that I got involved in and I’ve been involved in for many, many years. I know some people may think I’m new on the scene.

I’m not new at all. In fact, I’m probably certainly when it comes to pharmaceutical industry, I’ve probably been one of the most vocal, if not the most vocal doctor in the world in the last ten years, getting stuff into the mainstream around the manipulations and excesses of farmer.

And in fact, you know, and that was combined with really me being. A clinician advocate for a campaign that was started by the British Medical Journal in 2012 called Too Much Medicine. So and I’ve gone through lots of, you know, challenges and battles around over prescription of statin, cholesterol-lowering drugs, taking on the sugar industry.

I was the first doctor to kind of highlight and raise awareness about the harms of excess sugar in this country in medical journals and mainstream media. I ultimately end up bringing about influencing the Secretary for Health and the Government to bring in a sugary drinks tax.

And I was considered the lead campaigner behind that. But there are lots of battles along the way. And I think one of the messages that people need to understand is that in order to improve population health, science alone is not enough.

Opposition from vested interests needs to be overcome.

Aga Wilson: But moving forward now to the COVID pandemic, I know that in the beginning, you, of course, were advocating, or at least not aware of the risks of the COVID vaccine and what was happening. So your story on that.

Dr. Aseem Malhotra: Yeah, before. We go into that, actually aggressive before that, for a good one year, I actually was campaigning very hard from very early on in the pandemic to highlight the impact of lifestyle, improving people’s immune system.

So, again, I was probably the only doctor in the world that was able to break the mainstream. It wasn’t easy to break the mainstream on this. And I was on Sky News very early on in 2020 after when the first wave happened, and I said, Listen, we had this message over in the UK from our Prime Minister, which stayed at home, protect the NHS and save lives to try.

And they were advocating, of course, the Lockdown policy that they at that time thought was going to be very impactful in preventing and reducing the risk of covered morbidity and mortality. But I actually said, Hold on a minute.

One side. I actually researched very quickly and realized there was a big link between excess body fat and poor COVID outcomes. And I wrote articles and published in medical journals and managed to even get a front page in The Daily Telegraph, a huge article, which was, it’s time to have an honest conversation about our weight.

And that I wrote about the fact that our Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, likely became unwell and got hospitalized with COVID because he was very overweight. As an advisor to I was part of the London Mayor’s Health Food Board.

So I know from conversation, I hadn’t met Boris directly, but I’d spoken to somebody that knew him very well and was very concerned about his weight many years before, so I knew this was likely an issue.

And then I ended up actually being asked by Matt Hancock, the Secretary for Health, to advise them on what they should do. And I said, Listen, you need to introduce policy changes like you did with tobacco to curb the ultra-processed food consumption.

And we know as well, because of my previous work and research, that I knew this from my work and with my patients, that even within just four weeks ago of people changing their diet, they can improve what we call metabolic risk factors massively.

And these are risk factors that are also linked to heart disease and cancer and dementia, type two diabetes, high blood pressure that would very likely maximize their immune system or immune response and reduce the risk of death.

And I was so angry that this message wasn’t on a daily basis, getting out to people. So I spent a whole I mean, that was months of that during 2020, and then I ended up writing a book which was a bestseller, and it’s free to the front page of The Telegraph.

So that’s way before the vaccine issue came in. And then with the vaccine issue, I think first and foremost, and I still believe this to be the case, and I know that I’ve been I’m very open to listening to different views and for us to get into a little bit more detail on other traditional vaccines.

But, you know, the conventional wisdom, and I certainly think this is still true to a very large degree, is traditional vaccines, you know, are responsible for saving millions of lives, four to 5 million lives a year.

I’ve had many vaccines. There’s lots of scars on my left arm, right? And as a doctor, we’re in a different position to the general public. We have a, you know, remember my primary responsibilities, look after my patients.

That’s where I focus my attention. So when the vaccine was rolled out, you know, the evidence we had then, which we which we don’t really we didn’t really have, you know, the evidence we have now wasn’t the evidence we have then.

And, you know, I, like probably the 99 9.99% of doctors believed that there was not even possible. They didn’t even conceive of the possibility that a vaccine could do harm. Right? So I was a little bit unsure about the efficacy, but we had to wait and see.

But harm was never a part of the equation. And then I took partly because of my father, who was very fearful of me getting COVID and lost conversation with him. I would have waited a bit longer, but I had it very early on.

He’d lost, essentially his other family members over the past few years for other things and didn’t want to lose his last surviving son. So there’s probably a bit of an emotional reason why I had it so quickly.

I had two doses of Pfizer, and then I also a month later, was in a conversation with the film director, Grinder Chatter, who was receiving a lot of blogs, which I would say is completely fringe nonsense still, right?

Stuff like depopulation, I mean, absolute lunacy. And I want to address this head on. I mean, there’s absolutely this is ridiculous. I mean, it’s just fanciful to think that this was part of some sort of depopulation agenda.

I’ll come on to that later because there are other reasons to explain what happened that don’t involve that microchips in the vaccine. I mean, absolutely just crazy, crazy beliefs and thoughts. And she’s getting those blogs and I said, Listen, I’m sorry, this is not this doesn’t have any evidence base.

I think that traditional vaccines are the safest. And I think when we think about all the pharmacological interventions, I don’t know why people aren’t making a fuss and shouting and screaming about diabetes drugs and blood pressure pills and all that kind of stuff.

They seem to be very, very angry about. Vaccines in general, which doesn’t have any legitimacy in comparison to other drugs. And then I convinced her to have it. And then Good Morning Britain asked me to go on tackle vaccine hesitancy, and I didn’t point any fingers at anyone, actually.

I’m very open to people. If they don’t have the vaccine, that’s fine. You know, I’m a doctor in a different position. But I said there are rational and irrational concerns around the vaccine hesitancy.

The rational ones are actually looking at pharma, look at the fraud they’ve committed. I was on Good Morning Brian talking about anyone looks at that video. That was the only interview I did. And then obviously, things evolved very quickly.

My dad suffered sudden cardiac death initially. At the time I didn’t understand why post mortem findings didn’t make sense. And then a few months later, data start to emerge that suggest a mechanism.

So we didn’t have that information the first time. We had a real plausible mechanism after the rollout of the vaccine of what could be happening and could be causing damage to the heart. And then I campaigned very vociferously.

We had an NHS vaccine mandate that was introduced in this country. And immediately I went on all channels, BBC, Sky News and I was the most vocal doctor on the mainstream media saying we need to not have a mandate for NHS staff.

It needs to be overturned. This is unethical and unscientific. By that time, we knew it didn’t stop transmission and their data was quite clear then, so it had to be individual choice. And then I helped get that overturned.

I helped get that overturned. I spoke to the chair of the BMA who was in direct conversation with the Secretary for Health and I said, you need to tell him this information. I spent 2 hours speaking to him.

He said to me once I’d realized there were certain harms or the potential harms of the vaccine, he said to me, a seam, I speak to policymakers all the time. Nobody has critically appraised the evidence in the way you have, right?

And he was shocked. And he said, most of the doctors and policymakers are getting their information on the vaccine from the BBC. Which brings us on to the point of mainstream media and how much influence they have over people’s opinions.

And BBC is still one of the most trusted news platforms in the world. So I did everything I could, and very successfully. I had doctors and nurses contacting me. They were in tears. They’re very upset.

I said, Listen, hang in there. We’re going to overturn this. I knew we were going to overturn it. I just had that feeling and I just told them to stay in their job until the last minute. And then we got it overturned.

And there were other people, other campaigners did a lot of great work. Steve James over here, intensive care consultant, for example, Renee Hender Camp, who, you know, is a GP and also a media writer, brilliant lady.

There were quite a few other people that were involved in this campaign and we managed to get overturned and that was great. But then I decided I was going to critically appraise the evidence properly on the vaccines in the keeping with what we call shared decision-making.

So what are the benefits of the vaccine and what are the harms and ultimately agar? I concluded in that paper I wrote in the Journal of Insulin Resistance, that certainly during the omicron wave, it was very clear that there was very little benefit, if anything, from the COVID vaccine.

You have to vaccinate 7300 people, for example, to rent one COVID death, and the harms were constant and clear, based upon very high-quality observational data, pharmacovigilance data, mechanism of action, autopsy studies and randomized control trial reanalysis.

All of this data aggregators only come back in the last few months. We wouldn’t have been able to make the case to suspend the vaccine until this data was available because it was a lot of it was speculation and I get it.

People wanted it to be rushed and he wanted to wait in that. But my situation as a doctor was slightly different, of course, at the beginning. So I couldn’t really afford to wait because it was something that probably we thought we should do the right thing to protect our patients.

And people have talked about recently, and I want to address something which is quite interesting about this. It was never tested to stop transmission, but the original data, data still showed, whether you believe it or not, that there was a one in 119 chance it would prevent infection.

So you think about a vaccine that doesn’t do any harm. Let’s let’s make that assumption, because that was the assumption at the beginning, no harm at all if you are preventing infection in one in 119 people.

And this is before we knew the mutations were going to happen. It was going to get milder. There is a justification, I think there is a very good justification on a population level to max, max, you know, maximize or back vaccinate as many people as possible.

So you can, you know, vaccinate hundreds of millions of people to save thousands, tens of thousands of lives when there is no harm. You can make that case, right? You can make that case. We do that in public health all the time.

But clearly, we now know that was not true, and we know that it’s likely. Well, certainly at the beginning, when the vaccine was approved, we didn’t have that information. This is crucial for people to understand.

We didn’t have the information that now shows the vaccine was likely to cause serious, more likely to cause serious adverse effects than it was to get you hospitalized. You were to be hospitalized with COVID which means it was more harmful than beneficial.

You can argue apples and oranges, whatever, probably more harmful than beneficial for most people from the very beginning, which means it should never have been approved. So the question is, why was it approved?

And you look at the structural failures and the things I’ve campaigned on for years, which is there should be a dissociation of regulators from financial conflicts of interest, from the drug industry.

Most regulators, big regulators around the world, get most of their funding from pharma, for example. The raw data is kept hidden, commercially confidential, and only when these companies have been pushed over the years in other scandals where the raw data is released.

Something that may have started off as looking safe and effective is then found to be the complete opposite. So when we move forward agar with this, and of course, I know there are lots of people who are going to be listening to this, who have got their own hesitancy on other vaccines, and I understand that.

I understand why they have those hesitancies is that the only way to solve this problem for every drug is to address the root cause. And the root cause is we are dealing with unchecked, visible and invisible power from very, very powerful corporations, in this case, big pharma, who often behave as an entity like, fulfill criteria for psychopathic, right, you know, callous unconcerned for the feelings of others.

Conning, deceitfulness, lying for the purposes of profit, you know, inability to experience guilt. This is what a psychopath does and this is how these corporations work. Until we address and understand that everything we do moving forward is only going to continue to stay as it is or even get worse.

Aga Wilson: Yes, 100%. And I’m also wondering, so when did you come to the conclusion that your father actually died from the vaccine? It was several months later, actually, after his death. I’ve been involved in actually shifting the whole paradigm in the whole of cardiology around how heart disease develops and how to prevent and potentially reverse it.

Dr. Aseem Malhotra: So that’s been my area of research. That’s what I’ve been well known for, as well as all the other activism stuff. So I understand coronary artery disease better than anybody in many ways. And when his post-mortem came back and he had severe narrowings in his arteries, which didn’t make sense because I knew his lifestyle inside out.

We were very close. I knew what risk factors he had. We’d done some imaging studies on him a few years early on his heart, and everything was fine. He was super fit and healthy. There was no clear obvious reason for him to have such a rapid progression of cardiovascular disease.

And at the time, the only thing I could attribute it to, I thought it must be severe stress. But again, that didn’t stack up. He wasn’t that stressed out. So when different bits of data started to emerge, probably in October 2021, which suggested there was a mechanism of action with some inflammatory marker data, and a whistleblower contacted me from a prestigious British institution, also saying that they’d found something similar with imaging studies.

And then we also had national data saying the unexplained rise in heart attacks. There was more than enough data there to say, hold on, we need this investor being investigated. And then when I critically appraised the evidence and there was data from Israel that came up later showing that there was a 25% increase in heart attacks and cardiac arrest in people under 40 associated with the vaccine, a Pfizer vaccine, or mRNA vaccines not associated with COVID.

It then started to all paint the jigsaw, started to paint a picture, which was very, very ugly. And you see that’s how in evidence-based medicine you can’t just use one study. It’s really important, right?

So it’s multiple studies, plausible biological mechanisms of action, randomized control, trial data, observational data. And then the thing that was really amazing is this paper In Vaccine that was published only a few months ago, which was a reanalysis of the original Pfizer Medina trials.

Is that what we didn’t know? I didn’t know. I’m sure you didn’t know. I don’t think anybody knew. The World Health Organization created a list before the vaccine was even rolled out of potential serious adverse effects that could occur.

Potential wants a big list. And it’s shocking when you look at that list now, everything and anything that can go wrong with the heart is in that list. And it’s what we are seeing. And I use my clinical expertise, of course.

Remember, one of the components of the Evidence-Based Medicine trial is individual clinical experience. And it’s through my clinical experience as well that I’ve added into this, where I’ve treated vaccine-injured people who are having problems with unexplained atrial fibrillation, non-sustained ventricular tachycardia, heart failure, myocarditis, myopericarditis, rapid progression of coronary disease, needing stents, cardiac arrests, you name it, it’s all there.

I have managed those people who have been aware of those people. And it’s clear, agar, let’s put it this way. It’s as clear as we can ever possibly be in medical science to show a causal relationship between an intervention and harm.

And these harms are common, these harms are serious and without any shadow of a doubt, as I concluded in my paper, it needs to be completely suspended right now. There needs to be a full investigation and then moving forward, we need to make sure structural changes are introduced, policies are changed, laws are introduced that ultimately protect the public.

From these excesses and manipulations of these very big, powerful corporations who are only interested in making money, not looking after your health.

Aga Wilson: Yeah, absolutely, 100%. And I actually going back to when you say treatment of patients because of course I’m I’m working a lot with the vaccine injured and we’re at the early stages of trying to find solutions, health solutions for them.

And it’s been a pretty tricky situation because we’ve never been, of course, using these vaccines before, the mRNA especially. So from your experience in treating patients, how can we get what’s the solution?

Dr. Aseem Malhotra: It’s a great question. So obviously, in medicine, the first rule is do no harm, right? First do no harm. So is there anything that we can at least offer patients, advise them, empower them with that’s going to help improve their health?

And common sense at the moment suggests that, as we know, that appears certainly for many people, worst COVID outcomes were associated with excess body fat and obesity. Long covered one of my patients with long COVID who suffered very badly, actually has got significantly better from losing weight in terms of all those symptoms.

So I still focus on metabolic health, which means making sure are they eating properly, meditation, exercise, whatever they can do. And some of these vaccine-injured people are actually getting better because they’re just focusing on those things.

It’s not going to help everyone. But I think the first default is let’s focus on the lifestyle and get back to that. And hopefully with time aggregate as well. A lot of these vaccine injured people I’ve seen over time, their symptoms tend to get better as well, which hopefully suggests that a lot of the problems tend to be relatively acute in the first few weeks to months.

And then whatever inflammatory processes that are going on that are triggered by the spike protein or the lipid nanoparticles from the vaccine will get better with time. And I think that’s. You know, we can only hope.

But I think it raises another important point because there has been this willful blindness from the medical community and medical establishment about the existence of vaccine injuries. We can’t then develop, we can’t dedicate resources that people need within these healthcare systems to really research and do trials and see what can help these vaccine-injured people.

So it’s a difficult one. You know, for me, people need to walk before they can run. And what I’m trying to do with my advocacy is at least persuade and convince a lot of these people who are still willfully blind or bought into the pharmaceutical sponsor, pharmaceutical industry-sponsored narrative, you know, and the collusion of governments and medical establishment with them is to convince them that this is a problem, this is really first and foremost.

And then we can start getting to the next stage, which is making sure we do everything we can within the healthcare system so that we get enough money and resources into researching what to do to help these people.

Aga Wilson: Exactly. So, yes, and I know me and many people in the background are actually working on this right now to get the funding to actually do the proper research in order to find out what’s actually happening, because we don’t have those answers yet.

I mean, we’re testing a bunch of things, but I see it works for some people, absolutely doesn’t work for others. So we’re still in the complete don’t know phase yet about it. But I know we are rounding up soon for the part one.

We’re going to do another part. So this is just the first part with the theme Malhotra. Stay tuned. But I also, before we go, I just wanted to ask you where people can find you and learn more about your work.

Dr. Aseem Malhotra: Yeah, thanks. Aga. So I’m pretty active on social media, particularly on Twitter. I’m on Facebook. I have a Patreon account if people want to look that up as well, where I post stuff and on YouTube.

I think what people probably in Part two, I think maybe we can discuss some of the challenges and battles that I have had to go through in this last ten years around, you know, exposing these big corporations and all their manipulations.

And the way I would probably say or end it Aga before we go into Part Two, is in many ways, if you’re going to get involved in advocacy and really take it, you know, as furthest as you can by speaking the truth, you’ve got to let go the outcome and grow ”rhinoceros size”.

Because as soon as your work threatens an industry or an ideology, you will be attacked, sometimes relentlessly and viciously. And I’ve had lots of experiences of that which I will share with you in Part two.

But I think one of the analogies I give is that it’s almost like you have to really think, like in terms of like, what makes a great boxer. It’s almost like being a boxer. It’s not so much about how hard you can hit it’s about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward.

Text and interview by Aga Wilson, Aga Wilson Show

Related

• Dr. Aseem Malhotra: Twitter.com/DrAseemMalhotra
• The Guardian (2017): Finance trumps patients at every level – UK healthcare needs an inquiry – Aseem Malhotra
• I News (2020): Health experts are calling for a ‘Chilcot-style inquiry’ into excess prescription drug deaths
• Daily Mail (2016): How Big Pharma greed is killing tens of thousands around the world: Patients are over-medicated and often given profitable drugs with ’little proven benefits,’ leading doctors warn