[SUNDAY WATCH PARTY] Dr. Aseem Malhotra: From Vaccine Pusher to Vaccine Debunker—How I Changed My Mind About the COVID-19 Jab

Our ATL Sunday Watch Party is open to all! During the Watch Party this Sunday at 7:30pm ET, everyone can watch part one of our episode with Dr. Aseem Malhotra for FREE—even without a subscription. This link can be shared with family and friends. Original publication of this episode: Dec 10, 2022.

“Once I had spent time critically analyzing the data on the COVID-19 vaccines, it became very clear to me that the efficacy of this particular novel technology … was very, very poor, certainly in comparison to traditional vaccines. And the harms were unprecedented,” Aseem Malhotra is a well-known cardiologist who has been published extensively and is one of Britain’s most prominent doctors.

He supported the COVID-19 vaccines up until his sudden and tragic death in July 2021.

“We know now that the original trials—the gold standard randomized control trials—that led to the approval by the regulators of the vaccine in the first place revealed you were more likely to suffer a serious adverse event from the vaccine than you were to be hospitalized with COVID,” says Malhotra.

FULL TRANSCRIPT

Jan Jekielek:

It was a great pleasure having you as a guest on American Thought Leaders, Dr. Aseem.

Dr. Aseem Malhotra:

Jan, I’m glad you are here.

Mr. Jekielek:

Since our interview, it’s been several months since your groundbreaking paper about COVID-19 misinformation was published. Through our conversations, I have learned so much over these last months. You weren’t always a committed person to COVID-19 misinformation. Or maybe you were, but in an entirely different manner. Let me know about it.

Dr. Malhotra:

Jan. I think I can say that I go back to basics and be a good physician to see where my mistakes were with Covid. I am driven to help my patients, and that is why I strive to do my best in my career. However, it is crucial or essential that you use all available evidence and incorporate patient preferences and values to achieve this goal. 

This is called informed consent. You must be able communicate to patients the risks and benefits of what you are doing, regardless of whether that’s prescribing drugs or changing your lifestyle. These are my experiences and what I believe in.

This is ethically evidence-based medicine practice. It should be the default practice for doctors. But, because of system flaws, it’s not. This is something that we will discuss more in detail. When I was done critically reviewing the COVID-19 vaccination data, it became clear that the efficacy this new technology, the novel mRNA products, was not as good as traditional vaccines. The harms were unimaginable. 

My paper was able to show how I could break it down into terms people can understand, in terms benefit and harm. These conclusions made it clear that the law needed to be removed and suspended completely for all people, whether they were young or old, disabled, elderly, or not. An inquiry was then launched to find out exactly what happened, why it went wrong, and how to move forward. I elaborated further in my paper.

Mr. Jekielek:

Your work is highly cited in scientific literature. It’s the one thing that I learned. Your publications and writings have been widely used by people. You seem to have approached the COVID-19 vaccine approach from the start without any criticism. Because you went through a profound transformation, I’d like to explore that. Is it possible that you had an open mind at first, but you have gained this openness as you go along.

Dr. Malhotra:

For more information on the question: I was among the first to adopt the COVID-19 vaccine and the Pfizer vaccine. Because I worked at a vaccination center, I received two doses. About a month later I was invited to appear on Good Morning Britain in an attempt to combat vaccination hesitancy. But it was based upon the information I had at the time, which was this—traditional vaccines are some of the safest pharmacological interventions in the history of medicine. 

My arm has scars from the vaccinations that were given to me. Given the limited information available, I couldn’t imagine the potential for any harm. The evidence has changed and that is essential in medicine and something I have seen throughout my career. I am  somebody that will talk about it, going from being a big prescriber of statin drugs to then understanding the data better and realizing statins weren’t so great.

My opinion and view changed as the evidence presented new information. Do you think that if I were to go back in history, I would have done the exact same thing, given all the relevant information? It would. Yes, I would. I don’t regret taking the Pfizer vaccination and even sharing the information with others. This is very important. Of course there were those who hesitated at first. However, a lot of them were more reliant on their intuition than good evidence. 

“Okay, it’s new. We’re not quite sure, we’re low risk.” Due to my profession as a physician, my circumstances were a little different from others. I took the vaccine to protect my health. Only under what was clearly false belief at the time, was I going to protect my patients. This was where we were in the moment. As the details about the dangers of vaccines came out, things changed dramatically. My dad’s unexpected death was a personal incident.

Mr. Jekielek:

Let me know more.

Dr. Malhotra:

Yes. It was my father who called me on the 26th of July 2021 at 5:00 pm. I can recall it well. He said that he felt discomfort in his chest and had pain. My specialty is cardiologist. What he was describing, the history sounded typical of something that sounded like it’s likely to be coming from the heart—angina, a symptom representative of reduction of blood supply in one of the arteries of the heart or one or more of the arteries of the heart muscle. 

I requested that he call the ambulance. Although he wasn’t really in distress, I thought it was a normal sounding heart attack. However, it still needed to be investigated. The short version is that he called some doctors and called some neighbours. Because I am from London, I had to go in the shower. I travel 200 miles to meet him in Manchester so I board a train for the trip.

He suffered a heart attack at that point. After waiting for over 30 minutes, the ambulance did not arrive and my dad tragically passed away. This was shocking news for everyone who knew my dad. He was healthy and fit. He was 73 years old and had walked over 10,000 miles during lockdown. His cardiac history was known to me. His age makes him one of the most healthy men in his neighborhood. What happened next was bizarre. 

Two severe narrowings were found in the corona vessels after his post-mortem. Of the three main arteries, only two had narrowed severely. This was my first flashpoint. After reflection, I realized that my father was likely a victim to the mRNA vaccinations as a side effect. This was the reason he died. 

Even with post-mortem results, I did not know this at the time. Only a few months after the accident, data began to surface that showed clearly that mRNA vaccinations increased coronary inflammation. They accelerate one mechanism of harm but not all. One of the most common causes of this is acceleration of coronary heart disease. There may be some mild narrowing. Although it won’t cause any problems for 10-20 years, suddenly, you will have a serious problem and you may experience a heart attack within a year. We’re referring to that.

Mr. Jekielek:

Let me jump back. It was striking to me that Pfizer did not have any data about transmission reduction. It was simply a phrase that people repeated over and over. I’m not sure. 

You mentioned looking back at the data from the beginning and that the vaccine was something you considered to be a preventative measure against the spread of the disease. We’ve discovered that there wasn’t any data available on this. Is that how you got to this conclusion?

Dr. Malhotra:

It’s a great question. It’s a great question. Recently, this discussion was distorted by the fact that they did not test for transmission. It could have an indirect impact on transmission. You won’t be able to spread infection if it doesn’t prevent it. It was this mechanism that we most often believed was true. It was not effective in preventing infection, and it became a problem within just a few short months. 

It could also be due to one or both of these reasons. According to the original data, one out of 119 individuals in the trial’s rundown mass control was not infected. The actual infection risk was 1 in 119. That’s a far lower number than the original data suggests. Or it could have been false. It wasn’t even at 119.

Another explanation, perhaps even more plausible, is that the original vaccine was not designed to be a miracle cure, but to protect against an ancestral strain of virus. The original vaccine was administered to populations and people within months. We were dealing with an entirely new virus strain a few months later, but this was not going to provide any immunity from infection. 

Many possibilities exist. There are many possibilities. However, they were never told truthfully at that time and the information didn’t evolve over time. The perception that there is an extreme benefit and no evidence of harms can be attributed to you. This will prevent others from receiving it. It is your duty to safeguard others. 

Jan was probably aware that Pfizer was not going to prevent transmission of the drug, although evidence had been presented to FDA and MHRA UK. That’s how the lies were perpetuated. There was ample evidence that could have been used to prove this point long before the gradual elimination of mandates.

Mr. Jekielek:

A surprising thing that Dr. Joseph Ladapo has recently published is the fact that vaccine education is taught to medical students in medical school. They are a panacea. They are among the best. They are safe and effective. 

This drug, for some reason is treated differently than all others. It’s because they have a history that was enriched by the educational experiences of each of them. It was truly fascinating. It makes me wonder if that’s what you believe.

Dr. Malhotra:

Yes, absolutely. Yes. There is an indoctrination based on legitimate reasons that traditional vaccines can save up to four to five millions lives each year worldwide. Any vaccine with the label “vaccine” attached should not be question. Absolutely. 

However, this is not the case. It’s one of most inefficient pharmacological interventions ever made. The side effects are the worst, and it is also the most profitable and lucrative. It paints a very ugly picture when you combine all of these dots. This is a serious indictment on our entire healthcare system.

Mr. Jekielek:

Your thorough review of risk and benefit was a great help. This is something that we totally forgot to do, and which the entire medical system ignored at the start of the pandemic. It would be great if you could quickly explain it to me.

Dr. Malhotra:

Yes. The only evidence around the Covid vaccine is the fact that it prevents deaths from covid and hospitalizations. To see the benefits of vaccines in Covid prevention, I had access to real-world data from the UK. 

This information was not adjusted for confounding factors during the Delta wave. That means the information that I will be sharing with you may not accurately reflect reality. If you compare people over 80 who received the vaccine to those that did not, it is clear that the former were more likely to have poor outcomes from Covid.

If you do not adjust for these factors and look at the people who died during the Delta wave you would have to vaccine 230 over 80-years-old to avoid one death from coven. It’s only 520 people if you are between 70-80. You will need to start vaccinating thousands of people if you are under 70 to avoid one death from covids. How does this translate? 

A consultation is conducted in compliance with the principles and ethical evidence-based medicinal practice and informed consent. If you were in your 50s when you came to me, you can say: “Dr. Malhotra, tell me, I’m not sure about whether to take this drug or this vaccine.” It would be too black and white for me. 

You would agree with me. “Okay, the data tells us that the benefit for you taking it and preventing you dying from Covid is one in 2000.” You’d say, “What are the harms?” “Based upon the best quality evidence, Pfizer and Moderna’s own randomized control trial data, the risk of a serious adverse event from the vaccine, meaning disability or life-changing hospitalization, is at least one in 800.” Jan, this information was given to you in an effort to get you to agree to the vaccination.

Mr. Jekielek:

It is not, you know it.

Dr. Malhotra:

Absolutely, yes. Despite having this information, it was not made available to the general public. That’s what I attempted to do with the paper is to actually break it down for people—not saying the vaccines don’t work or the vaccines are great, but what is the actual benefit of the vaccine and what are the known harms based upon the best quality data? It’s not speculation. It was a simple decision for me. 

This is the conclusion: if Omicron is also considered, and the newer, more lethal Covid strain for over-eight-year-olds is introduced, then 7,300 people must be vaccinated in order to avoid one Covid death. Although the risks of Covid remain constant, they are less. This is clear and unequivocal. Jan would not be discussing this in normal circumstances. The vaccine would also have been available long ago.

We know that it should not have been approved. Because the initial trials, which were the gold-standard randomized control trials that lead to approval, showed that you had a higher chance of experiencing serious adverse events from vaccines than that you would be admitted to hospital with Covid. It’s extraordinary. 

What is the best way to explain all this? First, one must understand all the interests that influence the information doctors, patients and the general public get about their health. We will now look at what the situation is for the pharmaceutical industry. Their shareholders have legal rights to profit. Although they have no legal obligation to provide the best treatment for you, most people believe that this is the case. It is scandalous that regulatory agencies such as FDA fail to stop misconduct from industry.

It’s something I plan to return to shortly. Medical journals, doctors and academic institutions all conspire with the industry to gain financial profit. In the United States, the majority of top 10 drug company executives have been guilty of major fraud. They have also hidden data about the harms they caused and sold illegally marketed drugs. This amount amounts to at least $13-$14 billion. Let’s not forget about the other crimes. These companies still make more from marketing and selling these drugs than they made when they were fined. 

No one was fired and no one ended up in prison. Talk about damage that can lead to hundreds of thousands of people dying. Vioxx is an example of this. Merck Drugs launched a 1999 anti-inflammatory drug that they claimed was better than ibuprofen. The product was promoted as being easier on the stomach and therefore less likely cause stomach issues or ulcers.

The risk of having heart attacks doubled, which was later proven to be the cause of the deaths of about 60,000 Americans. However, it was not an error. Later, it was revealed that Merck’s chief scientist knew about this fact during litigation. This happened shortly after the drug had been rolled out via an email. “It’s a shame about the cardiovascular effect of thi